#I think it might be common to Christians since you get the idea from medieval theory that the nonexistent perfect King would be | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

skamenglishsubs · 3 years ago

Text

Subtext and Culture, Young Royals, What's in a name?

I thought I was done, but I have material for one more post. I want to write more about how royal names work, because I've seen a lot of confusion and simple lack of knowledge in the tags, so think of this as more of an informative culture post than an analysis post of the show.

European royals and nobles have styles, names, titles, and houses. In addition, monarchs have regnal names.

A style is how you formally address someone, based on their rank and title. In Sweden, the only styles left are "majesty" and "royal higness", where kings and queens are addressed as "your majesty", and select members of the royal family are addressed as "your royal highness". In Swedish, these styles are often abbreviated as H.M. - Hans/Hennes Majestät and H.K.H. - Hans/Hennes Kungliga Höghet. In English, the abbreviations are HM and HRH.

In the show, you can see this when Simon meets the Queen, and shakily addresses her as "Your Majesty", or when Minou calls up August and says "Her Majesty the Queen has resolved your problems with the school fee".

In less formal, but still polite speech, you would use third person addressing when talking to or about the royals, and there are numerous examples of this in the show:

Anette to Erik: "How nice to see the crown prince again!"

Some aide to Wilhelm: "Could we get a shot of the prince shaking hands with the headmistress?"

Anette: "Wilhelm, sorry, the crown prince, how nice the memorial was!"

August: "The queen has asked me, personally, to take care of him."

Malin: "I just wanted to remind the crown prince that breakfast closes in five minutes."

Names for royals and nobles work just like the rest of us, but with one exception: Royals generally do not use last names, while lesser nobles do. They also tend to have several first names, and while they generally pick names for their children based on trends in society, they stay on the traditional conservative side, and they often pick names from their family history.

The show only tells us one first name for each member of the royal family: Kristina, Ludvig, Erik, and Wilhelm, so we have no idea what other names they might have.

In the real world, the name of the king of Sweden is Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus, the crown princess' name is Victoria Ingrid Alice Désirée, and her oldest daughter's name is Estelle Silvia Ewa Mary, just to give you some flavour of what it could look like.

Titles are what sets higher nobles apart from us mere commoners, and have their origin in the feudal system of medieval Europe, which was a hierarchical socio-economic-military system where the lord of a land could grant a portion of his land, a fief, to a vassal in exchange for fealty - loyalty, taxes, and military service. Doing so would create a title, it would make the vassal a noble of a lower rank than his lord, because you could only create titles lower than the one you possessed. So, in general, kings could create dukes or lower, dukes could create counts or lower, and counts could create barons. The fief of a duke is called a duchy, a count ruled over a county, and a baron over a barony, although there were more ranks and more titles than that, depending on region and language, but those are the main ones.

Every single squabble or conflict or battle or civil war or war fought in the middle ages was over the titles, because the titles legally conferred ownership of a piece of land, and with it the rights of taxation and the economic value of that land. Over time, kingdoms got more centralized and the hierarchical nature of the system broke down, while the titles became more hereditary, and ownership of the land became less important, which meant that minor nobles lost the power to create vassals and fiefs, while the power to create titles was reserved for the monarchs, and titles created in this era usually only granted people a title for an area or a castle or a manor house that they already owned.

Going into modern times, European countries curbed title creation, but generally kept protections for existing titles and allowing them to be inherited according to whatever inheritance rules applied to each title. But if a title holder dies without a legal heir, the title is lost forever, which means that most modern day noble families want to make sure their title, their history, their legacy can survive long into the future. Also note that one person can hold several titles, and each of those titles can be inherited individually and under different rules.

In Sweden, there are currently 46 comital families (greve/grevinna - count/countess), 131 baronial families (friherre/friherrinna - baron/baroness), and 484 untitled lower noble families. There are no independent ducal families, instead the monarch grants royal children a ceremonial duchy at birth, for one of the 25 historical provinces of Sweden. This means that every single member of the Swedish royal family is a prince or princess of Sweden, and also duke or duchess of some province.

Again, we have no idea what province Wilhelm is the duke of in the show, while for example in the real Sweden, Princess Estelle is the duchess of Östergötland, Prince Carl Philip is duke of Värmland, and Princess Leonore is duchess of Gotland.

A noble house is a noble family or clan that is associated with one or more hereditary titles. Noble houses were founded when someone was ennobled and granted a title, and a noble house can branch and wither and split and form new houses over the ages, and it can gain or lose status as its members gain or lose noble titles and ranks.

In medieval times, these family bonds were very strong, and many major conflicts were a result of different houses fighting over various titles, for example the Wars of the Roses was a 32 year long civil war over the throne of England between the House of York and the House of Lancaster.

A royal house is a noble house that holds a title of king or queen, and for members of the royal family, their house name is what they have instead of a normal last name. We don't know which royal house Wilhelm belongs to in the show, but the current royal house of Sweden is the House of Bernadotte, named after the French rando we imported that I wrote about in the last post. Other houses that have been the royal house of Sweden throughout history include the House of Holstein-Gottorp, the House of Oldenburg, and the House of Vasa.

Finally, a regnal name is a name that a reigning monarch chooses for themselves when they ascend the throne, and it consists of one or more of their first names, and a roman numeral ordinal if there have been previous kings or queens with that name. If you're the first of your name to rule over a kingdom, you can choose to call yourself "the first", or you can choose not to.

In the show, Kristina doesn't appear to have an ordinal, but in real life Sweden there was a Queen Kristina who reigned in the middle of the 1600's. (She was probably a lesbian, caused the death of French philosopher René Descartes, abdicated in favour of her cousin, and moved to Rome and converted to Catholicism. As you do.)

In the real world, the king of Sweden reigns under the name Carl XVI Gustaf, because he's the sixteenth (tenth, actually) Karl to have been king of Sweden, and he also picked his second name because he liked it, or because he wanted to stand out from the fifteen other Karls who preceded him. His regnal name is pronounced Carl den sextonde Gustaf - Carl the sixteenth Gustaf.

Putting all of this together, the styles, the names, the titles, and the houses, and we can finally get the full formal names of various royals. Here are examples from some European royal families to demonstrate what it can look like:

HRH Madeleine Thérèse Amelie Josephine, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, of house Bernadotte.

HH Felix Henrik Valdemar Christian, Prince of Denmark, Count of Monpezat, of house Glücksburg.

HRH Ingrid Alexandra, Princess of Norway, of house Glücksburg.

HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, of house Windsor.

HRH Catharina-Amalia Beatrix Carmen Victoria, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange, of house Orange-Nassau

HRH Emmanuel Léopold Guillaume François Marie, Prince of Belgium, of house Belgium.

HRH Infanta Sofía de Todos los Santos de Borbón y Ortiz, of house Bourbon.

These names are quite the mouthful, and the full names and styles are only used in very formal settings. Normally, these people are referred to with their highest title, and their chosen first names, i.e. Princess Madeleine, Prince Felix, Princess Ingrid Alexandra, Prince William, Princess Catharina-Amalia, Prince Emmanuel, and Infanta Sofía.

We only have the short name of Wilhelm, i.e. Prince Wilhelm, in the show. We don't have his full name, but if it follows form, he would be HRH Wilhelm <Name> <Name> <Name>, Prince of Sweden, Duke of <Province>, of house <House>.

Note that Wilhelm's father is not a king, he's a prince-consort, since Wilhelm's mother is the reigning monarch. The proper styles for his parents would be Her Majesty Queen Kristina (II?), and His Royal Highness Prince Ludvig.

The only other nobles in the show we have full names for is August and Felice, and August's full name would be August <Name?> Horn, Count (or Baron) of Årnäs. Felice's would be just Felice <Name?> Ehrencrona, because her parents are still alive and still hold whatever title they have.

Commoners marrying into a royal family is no longer forbidden or controversial, and all European royal families have had commoners marrying into them in the past few generations.

Based on precedence, if Wilhelm and Simon were to get back together and marry in the future, and if they get the consent of the Queen and the government, the following would happen:

Simon would be offered to be made a prince of Sweden, and with it gain the style of HRH.

Simon would be offered to be made a duke of some province.

If he accepts, he would lose his last name, and go from Simon Eriksson to HRH Simon, Prince of Sweden, Duke of <Province>, or simply Prince Simon.

If he declines, he would stay as Mr. Simon Eriksson.

When/If Wilhelm ascends the throne, he would chose a regnal name, and get an ordinal depending on the number of Wilhelms before him. If he's the first of his name, he would simply be King Wilhelm.

And if he and Simon are married when he ascends, Simon would not become king, he would become a prince-consort, and keep the title of prince.

#young royals #young royals subtext #young royals analysis

346 notes · View notes

spanishskulduggery · 3 years ago

Note

Do you know of any fossil words in Spanish, words that used to be common but fell out of use and are now only preserved in idioms? I tried looking on Google but all the results were English-only examples

I'll try and think of some others but here are the ones that come to mind; and I’m not sure all of these will be what you’re looking for.

si fuere menester = "in the event of" el menester used to be fairly common especially in the Medieval period, where it was another word for "need" or "necessity". Today you only see menester in si fuere menester which is an unusual construction as it is, since fuere is the future subjunctive - which is an obsolete tense - and so it literally means "should it be necessary". This expression only now shows up in contracts and legal contexts normally as "in the event of"

donde fueres haz lo que vieres = "when in Rome... (do as the Romans do)" Again, this is future subjunctive; literally "wherever you go, do what you see".. but in a more obtuse future subjunctive way "wherever you should happen to go, do whatever you may happen to see"

la urdimbre y trama = "warp and weft" The idea of this is related to "weaving", and though this phrase is rather antiquated or particular, it occasionally shows up as something like la urdimbre y trama de la sociedad or something where that's "the fabric of society". It's not the way you say that so much now [el tejido or la tela are more common], but urdir "to warp" was related to working a loom. You still do use tramar but it's not often that you see it related to weaving anymore... tramar is "to plot" or "to hatch a scheme", but you can see how "weaving" would go into "plotting"

so pena de = "under pain of" You don't often see so used in Spanish today, since it's a more direct link to Latin and Italian. And today la pena rarely means "pain" in the physical sense, it usually means "sorrow" or "anguish"... but again in legal cases, so pena de muerte is "under pain/penalty of death"

a diestra y siniestra = "all over the place" This expression literally means "to the right and left". The word diestro/a is still "right-handed" (also means "skillful" or "dexterous"), but siniestro/a used to mean "left-handed"... the idea that the left hand was more evil and "sinister", and "under-handed". In older contexts, siniestro/a means "left-handed", but in modern contexts you say zurdo/a for "left-handed"

al tuntún = "impromptu", "improvise", "on the fly", "by ear" This expression is derived from Latin, ad vultum tuum which is literally "to your face" in Latin. You never see tuntún anymore unless something is done al tuntún but it might be more regional; it just means you're making it up as you go

dormir como un ceporro = "to sleep like a log" Most people today say dormir como un tronco which is the same idea; el ceporro is a variation but it's extremely unusual to see it. Most people will use tronco if they have to

tuerto/a = one-eyed I'm actually not sure if people use tuerto/a still, since there are other ways to say "blind in one eye" or "one-eyed". In older Spanish, tuerto could show up as a "grievance", but in the expression en el reino de ciegos el tuerto es rey is still used sometimes, literally "in the kingdom of blind people, the one-eyed man is the king"

(el) haba = bean [technically haba is feminine] Not common to see el haba used much anymore except in certain contexts, and it's the root of la habichuela "bean". In Spain, sometimes haba is "idiot" so if you see el tonto del haba it's like "the biggest idiot that ever lived"

Vuestra Merced = "Your Lordship/Ladyship" This is the original form of it, but it eventually turned into usted "you" used for polite things. The title was Vuestra Merced and it was how you addressed someone without knowing their title, so it became very polite. In older Spanish you'd abbreviate it as Vd. which eventually became Ud. as the abbreviation for usted. Keep in mind that at a certain point in time, Spanish wrote the U sound as a V, and it followed more of the Latin pronunciation where the V had a softer U/W sound at times. Outside of Spain and works set in older time periods, you're unlikely to use vuestro/a - it even became informal plural "you all" in Spain - but you rarely ever see merced used. Chances are you're only going to see it was vuestra in front of it. But just know that vos has a very different meaning today than it did in the Middle Ages

meter/sembrar cizaña = "to sow discord" You're never going to see cizaña used in any other context unless you happen upon some botanical book. The literal translation is "darnel" which is sometimes called "false wheat"; basically la cizaña looks like trigo "wheat", and it grows close to wheat but it often has a fungus that's poisonous so you need to separate it. The idea behind it is that if you're deliberately planting cizaña you're actively trying to poison someone or make things worse

la celestina = "a go-between, a mediator" This word comes directly from La Celestina a novel written in Spain's Golden Age by Fernando de Rojas. In it there's a woman named Celestina who sets up meetings between women living in convents (who weren't always nuns) and men; acting as a go-between and chaperone for love affairs basically. The term was also la alcahueta but became celestina after the character in the book. Certain characters in literature are considered celestinas like the Nurse in Romeo and Juliet; basically the girl/woman can't risk her reputation so she has her maid or chaperone working to arrange things, and they're often the catalyst for things going wrong. In other contexts, celestina or una alcahueta is a "pimp" or "madame", or sometimes "a gossip"

pardo/a = brown, brownish-gray Today you’re only really going to see pardo/a used with animals. Specifically, el oso pardo is a “grizzly bear”, and pardo/a can be used with horses as “dun”. I don’t know if “grizzly bear” counts as an expression but anyway. In older Spanish pardo/a was another word for “brown” when it came to people too. Today, if you’re describing hair color as “brown/brunette” you’re using castaño which is literally “chestnut”, either castaño claro “light brown” or castaño oscuro “dark brown”. When it comes to things that are brown, the typical word is now marrón or sometimes you see it as color café which is “coffee-colored”

ser un caco = to be a thief Not commonly used as ladrón, ladrona “thief”, but un caco literally means “a Cacus”. Basically, Cacus was a mythological figure who stole some cattle and Hercules killed him. In some places people use un caco to mean “thief” as a euphemism

la Parca = the Grim Reaper Orginally, las Parcas were the Parcae in Roman (originally Greek) mythology. They were the sisters of fate who would measure someone’s life and eventually cut the thread. Today, it’s just one Parca and it’s typically a male figure, skeletal, with a scythe as the “Grim Reaper”, rather than it being a woman with scissors. That’s because during the Plague, people thought of Death as being a skeletal figure that held a scythe, the symbol for “reaping” wheat that was ripe.

manjar de los dioses = “nectar of the gods” / a delicacy el manjar is used in some places in certain contexts but it originally came from Italian as “food” or something “to eat”. Today, manjar is usually a “snack”, or in some cases it’s dulce de leche, but most of the Spanish-speaking world doesn’t use manjar so much. It is sometimes “delicacy”, but in older contexts it was code for “ambrosia”, the thing that the Greek gods couldn’t get enough of. The world manjar still feels very antiquated to me, but when it’s used it’s some kind of good food or eating a lot of food

valer un potosí = “to be worth a fortune” un potosí is pretty antiquated, but it came from the city Potosí in Bolivia which was famous for its silver mines that the conquistadores exploited. There are still some places that will use potosí as “something of great value”, though it’s not so common anymore unless you’re talking about the actual city.

moros y cristianos = “beans and rice” Usually it’s black beans and white rice, though this is literally “Moors and Christians”. You still use cristiano/a today but typically you only use moro/a in a historical sense

Also there’s the expression más sordo/a que una tapia where it means someone is really hard of hearing; literally “as deaf as a garden wall”, but I’ve never seen people use tapia ...only a muro or a cerca as “wall” or “fence”. The idea of tapiar is related to “mortar” and “masonry”

There are also some expressions related to metal and older words for it. For example, saturnino/a is an older word for “gloomy”, though it now refers to “lead-poisoning”. Saturn was linked to “moodiness” in alchemical society, and the symbol for Saturn was the older symbol for “lead”.

This is similar to how áureo/a is “gold” but also linked to the “sun” because the Sun and gold are linked.

Another is el azogue which is the older word for mercury so it’d be “quicksilver”. You may see azogarse in some texts where it means “to be fidgetty” and it’s related both to mercury-poisoning, and probably to the idea of Mercury/Hermes being the messenger god so always on the move.

There is also hidalgo/a which doesn’t have quite the same meaning it did originally. Today, hidalgo/a is sort of like “having noble blood”. It literally means “son of something/someone”, where originally in Spain hidalgos were the children of nobles - specifically, it tended to refer to the children of nobles who weren’t the firstborn male. Firstborn sons often got about 2/3 of the money and were expected to run the estates. The second or third or fourth children were usually on their own. It became a running joke that the firstborn became the lord, and the others would either join the army or the clergy. In Cervantes’s time, hidalgos could be among the poorest of society, even poorer than slaves in some cases. They were still “noble” in terms of blood though, and hidalgos couldn’t be tortured by the Inquisition because of it. So they were afforded certain rights, but usually tended to be poor or lower than you’d expect a noble to be. Today it just means “of nobility”, but in Cervantes’s time a hidalgo was the symbol of Spain under the Holy Roman Empire - wealthy and noble and glorious in theory, much poorer in reality.

I'd also add the phrases levar ancla "to raise anchor" or "anchors aweigh/away", where levar is rarely used today aside from nautical terms. Similarly, izar la bandera is "to hoist the flag"... not a lot of chances to use izar if it's not related to "flags" or la vela "a sail"

I also would say errar is less common today in Spanish. It's still used, but you normally say cometer un error "to make a mistake". Still, errar es humano, perdonar es divino "to err is human, to forgive divine". Also errar is weirdly irregular at times, it turns into yerro as present tense yo

And I’m also going to include when la manzana means a “city block”. Today manzana is not rare, it means “apple”. But manzana as a “city block” was originally mansana where it meant a “collection of manses/houses arranged in a block on a grid”. So there’s that. If you ever see manzana used for blocks in a city, it’s technically a separate word

Also depending on context el mar “sea” will be la mar with the feminine article. That’s usually more particular, usually meaning “open water” or deeper waters like alta mar “high seas”. The more poetic or open the water is, the more likely it is to be feminine, and so la mar isn’t quite so antiquated but it’s a little special

#Spanish #language #langblr #langauges

125 notes · View notes

margridarnauds · 7 months ago

Text

I'm in a very interesting place because...I do teach myth to undergrads. And one of the first things I'll do, when I'm discussing how a character "should" be to them, is show them a picture of the Artemis of Ephesus. And then ask them whether this fits any version of Artemis they had in their minds. Because what people don't understand about the Classical world, or about myth in general, is that...you CANNOT standardize these things. Even to things as simple as "moon goddess", "sun god", "smith god" -- because they often *can* be these things, but are often MORE at the same time. (And since I'm teaching them CELTIC mythology, that's another bag of worms as far as whether such a thing even exists and, if it does, whether it's worth ignoring the medieval context in order to excavate a pre-Christian meaning, or whether a myth NEEDS to be pre-Christian in order to be a myth.)

I GET why people are attached to the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, especially since it really is the most high profile and widely discussed version of the myth -- it's the closest thing we have to a "canonical" version of it. And I get why people are protective of Demeter in particular, as a mother trying to protect her daughter. But I also look back on my own years as a villainfucker and wonder whether girls in Ancient Greece were REALLY that different than girls today -- some of them, likely, did associate marriage with being ripped away from their loving parents, bound to an older man they didn't know...some mothers absolutely felt a sense of mourning and dread at the prospect...and some teenage girls, in my opinion, absolutely also WANTED to be taken away by Hades.

"The most common pinax types are the ‘divine’ and ‘imitation’ scenes. In both cases, these range from unambiguous abductions where the maiden clearly struggles against her captor to images in which it appears the girl is complicit in her own kidnapping—sometimes even taking charge of the chariot herself. The range can be accounted for because, as James Redfield points out, “no doubt some brides felt more abducted than others”...But, unlike this dramatic scene, the majority of the pinakes show a middle ground, where the girl is neither totally cooperative nor being forcibly torn away from her family: she is a captive, but her abductor is soft and adoring."

We want to respect girls in Ancient Greece, and I think that's an honorable goal, but I think that we underestimate what teenage girls are capable of fantasizing of. What I can say, growing up, particularly in a conservative environment where girls were very much expected to get engaged or married between the ages of 17-20, was that for me, on a personal level, I REALLY DISLIKED a lot of the conventional heroes in the lit I read and the films I watched. I associated marriage with...settling. With conforming. Giving up your ambitions and your personality to be with a man who can never fully respect you. But villains...PURSUED the heroine, they DESIRED the heroine, they WANTED the heroine and, eventually, RESPECTED the heroine (or, if they didn't, at least they showed roughly the same level of disrespect as the hero, without the idea that she should simply tolerate it.) And I won't claim it's a 1:1 (especially since Hades is both antagonist AND socially acceptable domesticity), but I AM claiming that I believe that, to some girls in Ancient Greece, they might not have been different from teenage girls now in wanting an escape, in perhaps feeling smothered, in fantasizing about being a queen of an underworld kingdom. It reminds me of a much, much later quote from Nina Auerbach, in Our Vampires, Ourselves, which I always use when discussing villainfucking, about how vampires "rescued her from a destiny of girdles, spike heels, and approval." Why shouldn't girls in Ancient Greece have felt the same? In the same way that I can guarantee that some women were a little too interested in the story of Cetus and Andromeda...

This is the world of MYTH, and part of studying myth, or studying folklore, is exploring how people reinterpreted it, even in the time when these things were circulating. Myths carry a certain cultural dimension -- they have figures or symbols that are easily recognizable to people from the culture they originate in, but that isn't the same as them being static. How did women view stories about the selkies in Scotland and Ireland (for a folktale)? Do stories told by women have a different tint to stories told by men? How did people use supernatural figures to discuss queerness? How did people change the depictions of these figures in order to suit contemporary sensibilities or, perhaps, their own artistic preferences? These are more interesting questions, imo, than something as simple as "GOOD" or "BAD" -- a lot of my work, as a folklorist, involves me going through EVERY ATTESTED VERSION of a tale in order to see how it changes, because these things really do change a lot depending on who's telling this story. The idea of One True Version is anachronistic. Especially since I feel like women, even more than men, often are denied their status as complex literary figures-- we're, in general, much more keen to say that men are different in one text VS another, whereas, with women, we're more inclined to apply negative actions in one text to her depictions everywhere. (And then there's the question, in Classical things, as far as whether you can even APPLY those sorts of paradigms to divine figures.)

I don't like a lot of adaptations because I feel like they're simplistic or, simply, have really, really bad writing, written more to appeal to a Booktok trend than to seriously interrogate these stories from the perspective of a woman (though, again, I notice that queer retellings that center male characters often aren't subjected to the same scrutiny over quality), but I also think it's fascinating that this trend EXISTS and it might be more worthwhile to consider *why* as opposed to writing it off as Silly Women Don't Understand That He's A Bad Man.

It feels like this comes at least once every generation of teenage girl readers -- we've fought these battles over Christian Grey, Edward Cullen, Brandon Birmingham (Flame and the Flower), Barnabas Collins in the 1960s, women fawning over Bela Lugosi's Dracula in the 1930s...and then Frank Langella's Dracula in the 1970s, the first advent of the Gothic Romance in the 1700s -- hell, even Reylo, for a battle that I got particularly tired of fighting back in the day. At some point, we've got to stop clutching our pearls over girls liking these bad men and wanting to find romance with them and start questioning what societal factors cause them to do this.

I'm gonna choose violence today but. You don't get to put Madeline Miller on a pedestal and then simultaneously decry the current state of Hades/Persephone retellings.

#long post #I have. Many thoughts. As you can see.

338 notes · View notes

kaijudyke · 3 years ago

Text

hello my friends! as you may or may not be aware i have a healthy obsession with the ballad of tam lin, and today i would like to talk to you about the abundance of parallels between tam lin and star trek deep space nine s02e22 the wire! i will be summarizing the ballad for you so you do not need to be familiar with it! strap in for a long analysis and join me under the cut 💖

1. a summary of the ballad in broad strokes

(all excerpts in this section from child 39A)

tam lin is a scottish folktale about a young woman named janet who goes to the forest of carterhaugh, which is known to be guarded by a fairy called tam lin.

O I forbid you, maidens a', That wear gowd on your hair, To come or gae by Carterhaugh, For young Tam Lin is there.

(janet is aware of this, and goes anyway. one of my favorite running themes in the ballad is janet being incredibly headstrong and cocky.) she picks a few roses, he appears and tells her to stop, she stands up to him, and they end up sleeping together (and, ostensibly, falling in love). she returns home to her father's castle pregnant. her father and the other men at the castle are very concerned about her pregnancy, but she defies them and tells her father that this is her own responsibility and that she'd rather be with tam lin than any human nobleman:

If that I gae wi child, father, Mysel maun bear the blame, There's neer a laird about your ha, Shall get the bairn's name. If my love were an earthly knight, As he's an elfin grey, I wad na gie my ain true-love For nae lord that ye hae.

janet goes back to carterhaugh to pick abortifacient herbs and terminate the pregnancy, since she believes she and tam lin will never be able to be together. tam lin reappears and asks her to stop, and she asks him to tell her more about himself (in many versions she asks him if he's a christian), looking for any reason not to give up on him:

"Why pu's thou the rose, Janet, Amang the groves sae green, And a' to kill the bonny babe That we gat us between?" "O tell me, tell me, Tam Lin," she says, "For's sake that died on tree, If eer ye was in holy chapel, Or christendom did see?"

he tells her that he's human like her, but was taken by the fairy queen as a child. he also says that the fairies pay a tithe to hell every seven years, and he's worried this time they're going to sacrifice him. he tells her how to save him: she must be at miles cross at midnight on all hallow's eve, when the fairies ride by, and she must pull him down from his horse and hold on to him as the fairies change his shape several times.

"They'll turn me in your arms, lady, Into an esk and adder, But hold me fast, and fear me not, I am your bairn's father. "They'll turn me to a bear sae grim, And then a lion bold, But hold me fast, and fear me not, And ye shall love your child. "Again they'll turn me in your arms To a red het gand of airn, But hold me fast, and fear me not, I'll do you nae harm. "And last they'll turn me in your arms Into the burning gleed, Then throw me into well water, O throw me in with speed. "And then I'll be your ain true-love, I'll turn a naked knight, Then cover me wi your green mantle, And hide me out o sight."

(the exact details of the transformations vary between versions, but some of the most common shapes he has to go through are adder, newt, lion, hot coal, and burning iron. if you're interested in the variations, i highly recommend this page!) once the transformations are done, he instructs her to wrap him in her green cloak, after which the fairies won't have a claim to him anymore. janet follows his instructions and successfully saves him, much to the dismay of the fairy queen.

2. janet, julian, and their relationships

whichever version of tam lin you are reading, janet is a character with a ton of agency. she has no qualms about encroaching on tam lin's territory (in fact she tells him in no uncertain terms that the forest is hers), and there is some indication that she might have gone to carterhaugh specifically because she wanted to sleep with tam lin; she's said to be wearing a green dress, and since the color green was associated with the fae, wearing green to a fairy wood is pretty clearly inviting their attention. (in medieval literature, green was also sometimes associated with love and sex.)

it's not hard to draw a parallel between janet's decision to pursue tam lin despite the danger he represents and julian's immediate fascination with garak in past prologue even though (or rather because) he suspects him to be a spy. also of note is that janet and tam lin's relationship begins with an argument, where her willingness to challenge him seems to be what draws him to her. one of my favorite retellings, by james p. spence, emphasizes this:

‘I'm here tae guard these woods, tae see that naebodie nor nothing disturbs their peace.’ ‘An was it ma father that gave ye such a job?’ ‘Naw it wasnae.’ ‘Weel, there ye are then. It should be you that's asking ma permission tae set foot in these woods, because it is ma father that owns them.’ Then the young man's face rose up intae a smile that seemed many a long year since it was last there. (scottish borders folk tales, james p. spence, p. 114-115)

i'm sure i don't need to tell you that this is reminiscent not only of garak and julian's fondness for debate but of the way cardassians show romantic interest. more than that, though, i think there's something to be said for the way these relationships are treated by other people in the characters' lives. janet's father and his knights are troubled by her pregnancy, and they clearly think she should be with a normal, respectable man, preferably one of said knights, given that she feels the need to remark "There's neer a knight about your ha / Shall hae the bairnie's name." (child 39I) in the wire, when julian tells jadzia he wishes garak would trust him, she replies "why should he? it's not like the two of you are really friends." julian's friends do not understand why he spends so much time with garak—a cardassian, a spy, an outcast, someone who can't be trusted.

in both cases it's easy enough to see where they're coming from; being pregnant out of wedlock with a fairy's child is certainly not an ideal situation for a young noblewoman to find herself in, and it's remarkably foolish for a starfleet officer to have regular lunch dates with someone he believes to be an enemy spy. but janet and julian are both stubborn, and more interested in what's adventurous and exciting than what's good for them. (remember that, like janet knowingly going to pick roses in a forest guarded by fairies, julian wanted the position on ds9 because he wanted to try his hand at "frontier medicine"; misguided as he may have been, his thirst for adventure is the reason he's even on the station to begin with.)

3. fairyland, the obsidian order, and enabran tain

in the ballad, tam lin is abducted by the fairy queen when he's a child. she takes him to a magical realm where he feels no pain and is far removed from human worries.

And we that live in faeryland, No sickness know, nor pain, I quit my body when I will, And take to it again. (j. holm, verse 32)

garak has been enabran tain's protégé since he was very young. as an operative of the obsidian order, he's been trained to be cool under pressure, to play his cards close to his chest, and to avoid sentimentality and attachment. the plot of the episode hinges entirely on a device implanted in his brain that keeps him from feeling pain. to save his life, julian has to remove the implant, metaphorically rescuing him from fairyland and the influence of the queen who stole him away from the human world. the fairy queen is very possessive of tam lin and very disdainful of his feelings for janet; in many versions of the ballad, after janet successfully rescues him, the fairy queen remarks that if she'd known this would happen, she would have plucked out his eyes and replaced them with wood, or taken his heart and replaced it with stone.

"But had I kend, Tam Lin," said she, "What now this night I see, I wad hae taen out thy twa grey een, And put in twa een o tree." (child 39A, verse 42) 'Had I but kend, Thomas,' she says, 'Before I came frae hame, I had taen out that heart o flesh, Put in a heart o stane.' (child 39B, verse 41)

much like tain tried and failed to mold garak into the perfect emotionless spy, the fairy queen very literally wants to remove tam lin's ability to feel love, because his emotions make him harder for her to control, and in the end are what lead him to escape her clutches entirely. garak and tam lin are both saved by the same thing: their transgressive love for their rescuer, and the fierce, unconditional love they receive in return.

4. hold me fast and fear me not

the central event of the tam lin ballad, of course, is the transformation scene. i'm sure it's what makes the ballad stick in people's minds; it certainly is for me. there's something so deeply romantic about the phrase "hold me fast and fear me not," and about the idea of loving someone so much that you'll hold on to them even as they turn into a beast in your arms. the wire doesn't have as literal a transformation scene as tam lin, but i would argue that it certainly has one.

after julian removes garak's implant (which we can equate to pulling tam lin down from his horse), garak goes through withdrawal. he becomes, by turns, depressed, and angry, and spiteful, and violent. throughout the episode, we see him try to drive julian away. he refuses his help; he insults him; he tells him contradictory stories about his past, all designed to shock him; when none of this succeeds at discouraging him, he physically lashes out.

julian, however, doesn't budge. he isn't fooled by the shapes garak contorts himself into. he takes every change in stride, never wavering in his determination to save him. every person garak claims to be, julian accepts. like janet defying the fairy queen for love of tam lin, he goes as far as to enter cardassian territory and seek out enabran tain in order to save garak's life. when he believes he's about to die, garak tells julian he needs to know that someone forgives him; "i forgive you," julian says, "for whatever it is you did." whatever kind of beast garak is—whatever kind of beast tain has turned him into—julian will not let go of his hand. he will hold him fast.

He grew into her arms two Like iron in hot fire; She held him fast, let him not go, He was her heart's desire. (child 39D, verse 31)

the basic structure of these stories is the same: the main character finds out that the person they love is in immediate danger due to something they went through when they were younger, which fundamentally changed them as a person and is also keeping the two from being together. unwilling to lose their love, they brave the wrath of a powerful villain who's controlled this person's life for a long time. there are undeterred by the frightening changes the person goes through. in the end, they are victorious, and their beloved is free.

5. my dear doctor, they're all true

a closing statement: tam lin is a folktale. like any folktale, there are many, many versions of it, often contradicting each other. there is no definitive version of tam lin (though child 39A may be the most famous). you're free to read every available version of the story, finding meaning not only in the most commonly reoccurring themes, but also in which parts of the text speak to you. like garak's contradictory stories about his life, while it's hard to say whether any one element is true, every element tells you something—about the story, or about the person who tells it. my view of these story parallels is heavily influenced by my own personal interpretation of, and feelings about, the ballad. as it should be.

#star trek #deep space nine #ds9 #star trek deep space nine #star trek ds9 #garashir #julian bashir #elim garak #talk tag #trek talk tag #i feel like i sound very pretentious in this but fuck it i am pretentious

67 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 4 years ago

Note

What weapons were used during the Crusades? I remember something vaguely about bows/crossbows being important but nothing else. Thank you :D

Nonnie, if you are (as I suspect) asking this for Very Important Fic Research Purposes, let me just say: you, my good gentleman/lady/nonbinary pal/mineral/vegetable, are Extremely Valid, and I salute you utterly. Let us just quietly assume that is in fact what you are doing. Buckle up, because yes. You have to consider individual and collective weaponry, differences in Christian vs. Muslim armies, tactics, and their development over the crusades. Never fear, I am here to make it entertaining (ish) for you. Let’s start with the individual warriors.

How To Arm Your Crusader: Nicky Edition

First! Nicky is from Genoa, which was most notably involved in the First and Third Crusades. I mention this because if you’re deciding to place him among a contingent of his fellow countrymen, it’s useful to know where you can most easily do that and where it would be most realistic to have them fighting. It will also make a difference for what he’s armed with. You are correct about crossbows being one of the major weapons of the crusades; indeed they were so effective in medieval warfare generally that the church tried to ban them, at the Third Lateran Council in 1179, from being used on fellow Christians. (Muslims were still fair game.) Longbow archers were used occasionally (though it wasn’t until the 13th century, mostly after the end of the crusades, that they became a major battlefield force), but Nicky would definitely be a crossbowman or at least know how to use one, because we have multiple mentions of Genoese crossbowmen in the sources. (Me in the shower this morning: YOU IDIOT OF COURSE HE’S A CROSSBOWMAN! YOU SEE HIM WITH A LONG RIFLE AND EVERYTHING!). Notably, Richard the Lionheart fought the Battle of Jaffa (1192) with 54 Genoese crossbowmen, about 100 knights, and 2 horses. It is up to you if you decide to use this fact or not, ahem.

Crossbows are easier to learn how to use than longbows, but require strength to wind the mechanism and launch the bolt. There is also a more powerful version called the arbalest, which had a frame made of metal instead of wood. These also had a longer range, so they were in fact a bit like the assault rifles of their day. Unlike a rifle, however, you have to have enough time to fire the weapon (which takes a while) and therefore it’s not as useful if the enemy is right on top of you. They’re most helpful in attacking an enemy in a more stationary position (such as, say atop a tower or a wall) and where you can have enough space to reload without being overrun.

We see that Nicky has a broadsword, which would also be a fairly standard weapon for a crusader. Most boys started their training at the age of 7, and the value in achieving the rank of knighthood would rise steadily over the course of the crusades, complementing the development of the ethos of chivalry. At the time of the Norman Conquest (1066), we could still have “free” or “unfree” knights, and it was a mark of military service rather than a distinct social rank. But with the popularity of chivalric literature in the 12th century, the ideas and prestige associated with knighthood skyrocketed. I know I’ve written some posts about this somewhere, which I’m too lazy to go find right now, but you can possibly find them in my medieval history tag. In essence, chivalry means martial prowess. It has a more romanticized aspect, of course, but it’s mostly about kicking ass, though it does prescribe certain codes of conduct for combatants (on both sides) and for noble-born women, as well as a strong religious aspect. If you do want more info on this and how to avoid the stereotypes of a chivalric knight, let me know and I’ll go dig up my old stuff.

There’s also a big difference between fighting on foot (infantry) and fighting on horseback (cavalry). All the footsoldiers were a lower or more common rank, and if you had a horse, you were almost certainly a knight or a professional soldier. Footsoldiers usually were pike (spear)men, since even if you only have long spears and a shield wall, you can throw together a pretty awesome defense. (At the Battle of Hastings, English fyrdmen with just pikes and shields almost defeated multiple Norman heavy cavalry charges.) Plus, a spear doesn’t take too much special training: just poke the sharp end into the other guy, as Jon Snow might say. Hence it was easier for non-professional soldiers or citizen conscripts to use it rather than the more specialized skills for knights.

The best warhorses were known as destriers. They were specially trained to kick, bite, and raise as much hell as their masters in battle; they were expensive and prized. A fast, strong horse often also used for war or for fast travel is a courser. A horse for non-battle or basic transport situations would be a palfrey or a rouncey (though lower-status men-at-arms could also ride one in battle). We can decide whether or not Nicky has one of these.

Armor! The Christian crusaders wore steel (chainmail) which was a major advantage in close-quarters combat. This is not the plate armor you may be thinking of, since full-body armor didn’t get used until around the 14th century at the earliest and came into full vogue in the 15th/16th century (by which cannons had often made it obsolete and dangerous). Chainmail is no joke: it weighs at least thirty pounds and boys had to wear it from childhood to know how to stand up in it, let alone move. (I.e. all those movies where anyone just slaps it on and is fine are liars.) You would wear several layers: first an undertunic, then a padded leather gambeson, the steel hauberk itself (often thigh-length), and then a cloth tabard on top, which displays your badge or flag or your cross, if you’re a crusader (though these were far from ubiquitous and sometimes color-coded by country). That way people can also tell which side you belong to. You wear a helmet on your head (obviously), vambraces and gloves on your arms, and greaves on your legs, over heavy leather boots. Now imagine all that coming at you with a spear on a charging warhorse.

.... what I’m saying is, medieval knights could kick your ASS.

You can also use daggers, hatchets, and other small arms (morningstars are cool, but alas, were never really used in the field). A knight sometimes carried a special blade known as a misericorde, which had the gruesome but necessary purpose of finishing off a wounded enemy (or friend) who hadn’t died immediately from their injury but wasn’t going to survive it either. Welp.

And with that:

How To Arm Your Muslim Warrior: Joe Edition

So we’ve got Nicky sorted: what about his More Than Boyfriend mortal enemy? Well, for the most part, it will look something like the above. Christian crusaders of the period would have called Muslims “Saracens,” which was the name for them, along with less flattering things (heathens, infidels, etc) but when in doubt, if writing from a crusader POV, you can just use Saracens. Actual Muslims obviously never use this word to refer to themselves. They did not have crossbows, but rather shorter and more mobile bows that were designed to be used from horseback. Arabian horses were smaller in stature than European destriers, but faster and more maneuverable, and had a legendary reputation for speed and temperament. Muslim forces would also sometimes ride to the battlefield and then dismount to fight.

We see that Joe has a sword with a shorter and wider/slightly curved blade in comparison to Nicky’s long, straight broadsword. In my fic, I call this a saif, which is just the Arabic word for sword and is how Muslims of the period would have referred to it (the word “scimitar” is from an Italian name for it and wasn’t used until at least the 16th century). It can mostly refer to any Islamic sword in this style, though there are different names for regional variations. If you want to give him a really cool and culturally significant weapon (especially since I headcanon him as a Fatimid Shia Muslim from Egypt), you could give him the zulfiqar, which was a double-pointed sword used by Ali ibn Abi Talib, a cousin of Prophet Muhammad and one of the main figures in Shia Islam. It is often represented on flags and in battlefield invocations. The actual zulfiqars that exist are more often dated from the 16th/17th century with the Ottomans or from 19th-century Persia, rather than from the crusades, but hey, you can always say that Joe had something to do with that. Sidenote, research the differences in the various Muslim dynasties of the crusader period, as they’re definitely not one size fits all (especially in re: the prominence of Sunni sultans in the later crusades, and how Joe might have thought about that).

As noted, the Muslims didn’t wear steel armor, which was a disadvantage to them in close-quarters combat with crusaders. Their armor was made of boiled leather and lamellar scales, designed to be light and good for long-distance riding rather than a heavy battle. They would also have helmets (in various shapes and styles), gloves, etc. An archer would have a quiver and have to think about using, reclaiming, or mending arrows after a battle (the Never Ending Quiver in every movie ever: ALSO WRONG).

I will confess that I don’t know as much about Islamic warrior ethoi comparable to chivalry as I should. However, the crusades were taking place against the backdrop of the Islamic Golden Age, in which the culture, sophistication, and scholarly study in the Islamic world was at its height, and there are plenty of artists, poets, mathematicans, and philosophers that Joe would be familiar with, that would guide his actions in the way that chivalry might for a knight. Such as, for example, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) from Samarkand, or the Banu Musa brothers of Baghdad. There would also obviously be the Qur’an and the ahaditha (sayings of Prophet Muhammad) and other religious texts and traditions. Obviously if you’re going to use any of these, be respectful, do your research, and present it in a positive way.

And then of course there is the:

Big-Ass Cool Weapons of Major Boom

So what else do we have on a large scale, aside from the individual warriors? For a start, we have (on the crusader side) siege engines, such as mangonels, trebuchets, towers, etc. These are not comparable to the Return of the King-esque “break off a chunk of the city with every hit,” but they were pretty damn effective; during the Third Crusade, one stone from a trebuchet was reputed to have killed twelve people in the market in Acre. Richard the Lionheart also hauled along a lot of high-quality stone from Sicily to make better missiles than the soft crumbly sandstone of the Holy Land. There’s a reference to a “cat,” which seems to have been a tower containing multiple compartments for crossbowmen, which could be pushed up against city walls. There are also battering rams and other blunt-force weapons, since sieges were a main part of every crusade. (In fact, commanders tried to avoid open battles as much as they could, though there were also usually at least one on each crusade.) Defensive strategy included digging deep ditches around walls, to prevent your opponent’s siege engines from getting too close, or just throwing stuff down at them as they tried to climb with scaling ladders. With this, we also have....

Greek fire! It’s semi-similar to wildfire from Game of Thrones, even if not quite as effective, but still a pretty cool weapon. The Muslims used it first; it didn’t enter Christian warfare until Geoffrey Plantagenet introduced it in 1151 (his grandson, Richard the Lionheart, also got to be rather fond of it). It was a long-burning liquid explosive that could burn even on water and couldn’t be put out by regular means; it was very feared and very effective. So if you were under siege and had some of that stuff to pour down on the defenders, it would be useful (along with boiling pitch, oil, or other more ordinary substances). Your enemy might plan for that or try to defend against it by using hides soaked in water or some other kind of shield.

Anyway, I’m sure there is more I could say here, but this is already MORE than long enough. I hope it is helpful to start with. And inspirational. Ahem.

#joe x nicky #medieval history #medieval warfare #long post #anonymous #ask #the old guard meta

336 notes · View notes

fuckyeahisawthat · 4 years ago

Text

some jerusalem/al-quds visual references

If, for some reason, you find yourself needing some visuals for imagining what Jerusalem (al-Quds for Arabic speakers) and the surrounding area might have looked like in the 11th century...well, I can’t take you back to the 11th century but I can take you back to July/August 2010 when I was last there. All photos in this post were taken by me.

[image: a wide shot of Jerusalem’s Old City, taken from the roof of my hostel, showing tightly clustered buildings mostly built out of white/gray/tan stone, with the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in the background]

You have to mentally remove the satellite dishes, the water towers, and about 5 historical layers of architecture from this photo, but at least you have a very general visual to get you started.

What we today call the Old City would have just been...the city. The walls that are there today are a few rounds of destruction newer than the 1099 walls but you can look at pictures to get the general idea. (I really thought I had a good picture of Damascus Gate, one of the present-day main entrances to the Old City, but I couldn’t find it. You can use a Google for that one.)

Jerusalem is a very old city and it’s sometimes described as the most conquered city on Earth, although that kind of thing is a bit hard to determine. Point is, it has been ruled and influenced by a lot of different cultures and has been a multi-faith city for longer than the Abrahamic religions have been around. (Muslims, despite being the majority of the population in 1099, would have still been the new kids on the block, having been a presence in the city for a mere 450 years at that point.)

As you can see, a lot of the city is built out of the limestone that comes from the surrounding hills, which can be bright white, gray, beige/tan/yellow (sometimes looking gold in the afternoon light) or occasionally pink. It’s a hilly city, and a lot of streets turn into long, shallow sets of steps (sometimes with accompanying cart-ramps) at various points.

[image: a city street in Jerusalem’s Old City, near the entrance to an indoor market. Gray/tan stone buildings with shops on the ground floor enclose the space.]

[image: a city street in the Christian quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. A stone arch connects buildings on either side of a cobbled street.]

It’s a city with a lot of enclosed spaces, overhanging buttresses and narrow, twisty streets. This wouldn’t have been an unfamiliar city design to someone from the medieval Mediterranean, but it does make it a very confusing place to navigate if you’re not familiar with it. Under normal conditions it is a very charming place to wander around and get lost in! I think it would be a terrifying place to fight a battle/survive an invasion in, though.

[image: double doors opening onto a short passageway with a sunny interior courtyard beyond it. It’s hard to see in this photo but the courtyard connects multiple homes.]

The defenders (and anyone who knew the city well) would have some definite advantages, particularly the fact that interior courtyards connecting multiple houses are common. If you know what you’re doing, there are parts of the city where you can scurry through these courtyards and back alleys for blocks at a time without ever coming out on the main street. As with any urban battle, familiarity with the city gives a major advantage to defenders and civilians trying to hide or flee. Historically, invaders tend to compensate for this relative disadvantage on their side with...lots of violence.

[image: a vista overlooking terraced olive groves in the hills of the present-day West Bank, somewhere outside Jerusalem.]

Jerusalem is on a plateau in the Judean Mountains, which separate the coastal plain of the eastern Mediterranean from the Jordan Valley and the desert climate to the east. The hills have a semi-arid climate with hot, dry summers (although not quite as hot as the coast due to elevation) and mild, rainy winters, in which it occasionally gets cold enough to snow. (Snow, while very charming, is a fucking nightmare in a hilly stone city, but that’s not particularly relevant to this post.) While not as fertile an area as the coastal plain, there would still have been farms, orchards, vineyards and grazing lands for sheep and goats all around Jerusalem, along with tons of small farming villages scattered throughout the hills. Bethlehem, about 6 miles from Jerusalem, is one of these villages, but there are lots and lots of less famous ones too. Many people who lived and worked in Jerusalem would probably have had relatives/extended family who lived in these villages.

Jerusalem at the time of the First Crusade is...not a tiny city; the population is somewhere in the tens of thousands. But while it’s obviously a place of religious significance for Christians, Muslims and Jews, it’s not considered particularly strategically or militarily important to conquering the region. It’s a decent-sized provincial town of some regional economic importance and religious symbolism.

While obviously a LOT has changed since the 11th century (I am constantly looking up “was X there then?”) we can still draw a few basic visual references and like, a general vibe, from what the area looks like today. I’ve been flipping through these photos a lot while writing stuff set in Jerusalem, so maybe they’ll be helpful to you!

#the old guard #tog #jerusalem #writing #reference #long post

113 notes · View notes

irene-sadler · 4 years ago

Text

Sir Reynard and the Red Knight

notes: 1. here's a (relatively) short n' interesting discussion of the history of the St. Bartholomew Day Fair in London, which was held roughly annually from sometime in the 12th century to sometime in the 19th century. I casually yanked some ideas (ull find this thing about rabbits casually mentioned with no explanation in the source) from events that took place at this specific festival to apply to my much much smaller Winter Solstice Fair held in Rivia.

translating any irl medieval holiday/fair/feast into a fantasy setting is a lil tricky b/c 95 percent of what happens and what makes them so interesting (to me anyway) is tied up in and totally inseperable from medieval Christian religious expression. however, when a lot of my source material was written (usually several hundred years ago bc public domain ebooks) there were still some weird obviously pre-Christian traditions in common use in parts of England. more on this next chapter b/c some of them are fuckin bizarre and so ofc I ganked them.

----

The next day dawned cold, but the blue cast to the sky promised clear weather. The Queen had long since collected a list of names from a page, and sat scribbling figures and notes in the margins as she considered the best way to arrange forty contestants into equitable matches. Isbel proved unsurprisingly unhelpful; the Baroness, however, offered advice on the matter in a slightly imperious tone:

“There’s no way to match these names up, by perceived skill, and if you try there will be hurt feelings. Random selection won’t answer, either; my suggestion is to choose from whoever is standing around when we arrive and let them sort themselves out as best they can after.”

Meve shuffled the papers a moment, admitted to herself that she had no better ideas, and nodded grudgingly.

“Yes, you’re probably right. First come, first served it is, then. Here, look after these,” she said, handing the papers over to the older woman, “I have to go; the Mayor will be wanting something from me within the hour and I’ve other matters to attend to, first.”

She left the Baroness and Isbel eyeing each other suspiciously over their breakfasts and strode rapidly away to the stables. Reynard’s horse, dozing alone in his stall, greeted her with polite disinterest; she spotted a light flickering from inside a little storage room nearby, where she found his owner carefully examining his armor under Pug and Gaspar’s vacant stares. Reynard smiled tightly at her, Gaspar glowered from under his unkempt hair, and Pug sketched a lazy gesture resembling a salute.

“Anything to report?” she asked them all, in a slightly falsely cheerful tone. Reynard glanced at Gaspar, who eyed Pug, who squinted up at the Queen through her single eye.

“Well, someone came in after midnight rung, but we put an end t’ his fucking skulking, quick,” she explained, then pointed at a few dark spots on the dirt floor. “And you can see the blood right there.”

“So you can,” Meve said, not at all displeased. “Don’t suppose you managed to get a look at the culprit?”

Pug shook her head, then, considering a moment, noted, “A tall bastard, whoever. Gaspar got ‘im right in th’ ankle from the shadows.”

“Tall, with a limp,” the Queen considered.

Gaspar hesitated, and brushed his hand against his own pox-scarred face, glancing at Pug.

“Might’ve had a beard, also,” she translated. “Hard t’ say anything else.”

“Better than nothing at all to go on. Where’s Gascon?”

Reynard shook his head. Gaspar glanced at Pug again; she chewed her right thumbnail and shrugged idly.

“Don’t know,” she said, cooly studying the dried blood on the floor; a breathless page then hustled in, bowed to all present - Pug croaked a laugh at him - and announced that the Mayor requested the Queen’s presence, urgently.

“What, already?” she asked. “All right; tell him I’ll be along shortly. You two can go as well,” she added, to the brigands, “Thank you for your assistance, and tell the Duke to report to me the moment you next see him.”

“As for you,” she added quickly to Reynard, as soon as the room cleared out, “In case I don’t see you later - “

He put his helm down wordlessly, stepped across the few feet between them, and kissed her; she took her time pulling away, despite the city government’s looming crisis, and said, “Good luck, not that you need it; I look forward to your victory.”

“Yes, thank you,” he said, somewhat embarrassed, “I’ll do my best.”

An hour later, the event was already underway. The brilliant sun pulled a faint fog from the frozen ground, and flashed on the armor of the first two contestants as they met with a resounding crash.

“Coll, and Bohault,” Giselle reported; they had put her in charge of keeping track of the course of the jousts, and she accordingly drew a bold check in red ink beside Bohault. The Queen nodded her congratulations to the man, who returned her notice with an answering, professional jerk of his head. The next contestants were familiar, as well, and the third set strangers, not unexpectedly; twenty rounds had to be got through, and some of the names on the list had a distinctly foreign flavor. One such man, called Devyn, provided the judges’ first opportunity to deliberate, as he and John Kimborne knocked each other down in the same moment.

“Sir Kimborne’s a proper knight, which ought to count for something,” Meve said, “And that sweep with the lance on his opponent’s part was, I believe, not quite legal, which is no doubt why he was unseated.”

“It’s hardly Devyn’s fault that he’s from Novigrad, which doubtless is why he didn’t know not to do that,” Giselle said, smiling encouragingly at the young man. “Also, I think he is well, you know, handsome, for a foreigner.”

“Yes, I’m sure you do,” the Baroness said, rolling her eyes. By unspoken consent, she reigned as their chief; accordingly, when she pointed impatiently at the knight, her decision was accepted without further comment and the contest carried on. They made good time under her able command, assisted by the timely appearance of mulled wine and sandwiches at midmorning. The names and men rolled by, ticked off in red; they made it past the unpronounceably named Sicg Sicgurdssen, a group of brothers whose names all began with with same letters, Ethan, who put the third and final of the brothers down and received a brilliant smile from Giselle in reward, and as, the Baroness and Queen grew bored and were chatting idly about the relative merits of different styles of tilting helms, Sir Holt, who won his match easily. The Queen eyed him darkly and then abruptly lost interest in side conversation as Reynard appeared, defeated a man named Hall in a few passes, and departed again. The Baroness accepted the sudden silence with faint amusement.

“Nolda,” Giselle read, next, “And Sir Eres. That’s the knight, there. Who is Nolda?”

Meve cracked a surprised, but pleased, smile, pointed across the field, where a lanky woman in well-used armor stood apart from the other contestants and said, pleased, “That is Nolda; she was an Aedirnian defector, fought for us in Angren. I hadn’t known she was still here in Rivia; I thought she’d have gone back home.” The Baroness squinted at the woman, with a thoughtful air. Sir Eres scowled at his opponent, glanced hopefully toward the judges, found no leniency in their stony stares, shut his visor and rode to his place. The match lasted all of ten seconds: Nolda held her lance left-handed, at an odd diagonal angle, and then at the last moment straightened it, smacked her opponent’s spear aside with a sweep of her shield, and knocked him away. The Baroness hummed thoughtfully under her breath.

“Unusual tactic, but not, I as far as I know, illegal,” Meve commented. Giselle shrugged and crossed out Sir Eres’ name, as the knight picked himself up and stalked angrily toward the judges.

“It may not answer a second time, but it certainly took him by surprise,” the Baroness said, agreeably, and added, to the clearly disgruntled man, “What’s the problem?”

The problem was that Sir Eres was a sore loser, Giselle supposed; Meve privately suspected it had as much to do with Nolda herself than it did with his defeat at her hands, but if he was hoping for sympathy he found none. The Baroness turned him away with a few blunt phrases and the contest continued.

By noon, they had only three names left. Giselle read them off in a doubtful voice: Brossard, Gaheris, Saban. They sent a page to find out where the absentees had got to, and took a break. Giselle hurried off into the crowd with a promise to return in due time, and Meve and the Baroness settled into a debate of the various methods of arranging the second round and soon arrived at a prospective bracket. The page returned, indicated a short, bearded warrior on a sturdy horse, said, “The dwarf, there, is Saban; as for the Duke, nobody seems to know where he might be found, and the squire Gaheris is injured and can’t fight.”

“I suppose, under the circumstances, that we could simply advance Saban to the second round,” the Queen remarked, frowning at the news of Gascon’s absence, as Giselle came running, slightly flustered. “You’re late,” she added, to the younger woman. Giselle flushed and looked apologetic.

“Someone had let a bunch of rabbits out into the street, and a crowd of boys was chasing ‘em,” she explained, and then, spotting something on the field, abandoned the tale and gasped, “Look!”

Meve turned and smiled as she was finally proved right: a man in black armor, mounted on a black horse, sat at the farther end of the barriers. He slowly pointed his lance at Saban, who turned to stare at the judges, baffled. Meve shrugged at him, which he seemed to take for permission; he pulled his helmet on briskly and kicked his horse toward the appointed starting position without delay.

Saban rode well, but it was obvious that he was an amateur; the black knight unseated him in their first pass without apparent effort. He stood, collected his lost helmet from the ground, picked a clod of dirt out of the visor, and shrugged pragmatically. Meve squinted at the departing black knight’s back, and said, “Well, that was - quite interesting. On to the next round, I suppose. Who is it, Giselle?”

It was Bohault and the unfortunate Ethan, who stood no chance against the veteran; he received another, slightly less congratulatory smile from Giselle, who then drew a second mark beside the soldier’s name.

“So,” Meve said to the Baroness, conversationally, watching the next combat with a fine appearance of attention, “Care to make a prediction on the winner, yet?”

“Of this match? Sir Brewes,” the older woman replied promptly; the knight in question was unseated by his opponent a half minute later. Meve smiled smugly at the winner.

“Nolda seems to be doing well for herself, doesn’t she? - but I meant overall, in general.”

“Ah. Well, Sir Odo, Sir Kimborne, perhaps Sir Holt if should he get lucky with his matchups -”

“What about that black knight?”

“Oh, him? Well, it’s hard to say, for sure.”

The conversation paused again as Count Odo made his second appearance, against Sicg, the knight from Skellige. The Count won his second match far more quickly than he had his first. Meve, knowing from long experience that he had been studying the competition for most of the last round, to prepare himself, was unsurprised.

“Although,” the Baroness continued thoughtfully, as he rode away, “I have seen a black knight fight at a recent tourney, I can’t say as it’s the same one who’s here today. Armor can be changed, but this one doesn’t seem to have the same style, at all. However, he does seem familiar, but they all do after near thirty-five years of watching them in tournaments. Almost all, at least.”

Meve was growing used to the older woman’s subtle hints, and therefore was sure she’d caught a significant note in her comments. She thought back to the tournament, suddenly recalled the Baroness’s parting behavior with a frown, and re-evaluated her previous assumption: perhaps, after all, there was no confusion about herself and Gascon, and - she realized with mild annoyance - the Baroness had figured out the true reason for her absences, one way or another, but said nothing about it at the time. The same gleam of a secret joke was in the other woman’s eye when she looked away from the field, where Sir Holt was riding away from yet another victory. Meve stared at her, momentarily at a loss. The Baroness smiled slightly and looked back to the lists.

“So,” the Queen asked, deciding it was best to not to inquire further, “Who do you think it could be, this time?”

“I’m not sure; I’ll need more time to consider the matter,” the Baroness said, as the black knight returned, last of the pack again, and lined up against Sir Orlac, who had been lingering about as if waiting for him.

“They’ve fought before,” Meve said, remembering suddenly. “Sir Orlac received an unexpected cold bath, as I recall.”

Sir Orlac took his second defeat and stood up, swearing loudly at the black knight’s back.

“At least he didn’t get wet, this time,” she added.

“What a fall,” Giselle said, “Do you think he’s hurt?”

The knight was limping slightly, but Meve shrugged dismissively and said, “Oh, no. He’ll be fine. Anyway, who do we have left?”

Giselle held up the list; the Queen glanced at the six names remaining, nodded, and signaled to the herald.

“This is going well,” she reflected, after watching Nolda defeat Bohault, to acclaim from the growing audience. “Perhaps I should do it again, next year, but with fewer participants, so it doesn’t take all day.”

“Hm,” the Baroness said noncommittally, and then, during the next fight, “I do believe I like Sir Kimborne’s chances to win out; what do you think, young lady?”

Giselle considered.

“Well, the black knight’s very mysterious; it would be interesting if he won, like a ballad.”

Nobody bothered to ask Meve for her opinion, but she took no notice, as she was closely watching the knight in question and Sir Holt ride onto the field. The black knight sat dead still on the nearer side, but the red knight passed him and approached the judges, scowling. The Baroness addressed him, in a tone that rivaled Meve’s for arrogance:

“What’s th’ issue, sir?”

“I don’t want to fight this - this fellow,” he said, sulkily. “It ain’t proper.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, for one, he might not even be a knight; it could be anyone under all that armor - any man at all, or a woman, even, for that matter.”

“Heard this sort o’ thing before, a hundred time,” Giselle said quietly to Meve, “He’s chicken.”

“I heard that,” the knight growled. Giselle blinked innocently at him.

“Well, your other option is Sir Kimborne,” the Baroness said, growing slightly annoyed. Sir Holt opened his mouth, then closed it with an uneasy frown, obviously unsatisfied by the alternative offer.

“Didn’t this same knight defeat you, a month or two ago? I would think you’d want to avenge your loss,” the Queen noted, idly. He scowled at the reminder, clearly inclined to argue further. The Baroness turned a hostile glare on him; he thought better of it and rode away, muttering, to take his place by the barricade.

“What an ass,” Meve said.

The knights completed a pass, to no avail on either side.

“Didn’t your man Odo duel him, lately?” the Baroness said. “Can’t say I blame him, now, though I thought his behavior uncharacteristically impulsive at the time. Watch and see if the red knight don’t overcommit on this next run.”

He did, badly; instead of his usual hesitation, he drove in a rush. Meve suspected he had lost his temper. The black knight took the attack on his shield and turned it away.

“Yes, well, next time I’ll leave you to deal with him instead,” Meve remarked. “It seems to be more effective.”

Sir Holt took his third run far more cautiously; his usual hesitation returned, and Meve glanced downward to hide a malicious smile as the black knight took advantage, aimed true, and knocked his opponent down hard.

“I have five sons,” the Baroness replied, flatly. “Th’ egos of these fool knights can’t compare.”

Gaheris limped heavily onto the field and collected Sir Holt; Meve looked from him to the black knight, who appeared to be watching the squire closely, a slight frown crossing her face. Giselle, meanwhile, made a bold red mark through the loser’s name and said, “It’s Sir Odo and Sir Kimborne, now.”

It was a fight that the Baroness watched approvingly, making comments to Giselle, as Meve was, again, distinctly uninterested in conversation. The Count finally wore his opponent down from sheer weariness after half a dozen passes, drawing a pleased smile from the Queen. They then broke off for ten minutes, reckoning it was only fair to let their last three knights have a rest before the end. The judges spent the time in conference, deciding how to arrange their semi-finals; the no-shows had ruined their early arrangements, leaving them with an odd number of contestants. The Baroness eventually ruled that Sir Odo, being the senior knight, should be given a free round, and Nolda and the stranger would go against each other, as a result. Meve squinted at her.

“Have you really not figured the black knight out, yet?”

“Oh,” she said, mysteriously, “I think that by the time we’re done, we’ll know who he is, one way or another.”

The black knight, however, did not appear when summoned along with the other two, leaving Nolda sitting alone at the barricades. Reynard, after a while, offered to go against her, on the chance that the third contestant would turn up very late to fight the last match; Nolda agreed, somewhat reluctantly. The Baroness overruled them, claiming that there was no knowing whether their third party would actually appear. The contestants therefore settled in to wait, Reynard with a distant frown and Nolda looking moderately suspicious of the sudden delay. The crowd chattered in the background, bored and uncertain of the future prospects for its entertainment.

“How long are we going to wait?” Giselle asked, five minutes later; the black knight had failed to show.

“Damn him,” Meve snarled quietly, “I planned this blasted event to flush him out, and he still somehow slipped away through my fingers. What now?”

Giselle stared at her; the Baroness sighed and said, “Well, th’ only thing we can do is declare the match forfeit; Nolda will just have to fight Sir Odo, gods help her.”

The contestants were summoned and the plan explained to them. Nolda did not seem overly relieved at being spared the black knight, probably due to being confronted with the Count as a result. He himself appeared mildly perturbed by the unusual situation, glanced at Meve’s tense smile, and said nothing.

“I don’t know as it’s necessary that the Count should go against me now,” Nolda said doubtfully, “To tell the truth, I’m only here because Captain Bohault - he’s my husband - said could do better than me at this game, which I’ve proved he can’t.”

“That you have,” the Queen said, mildly amused despite herself, “But the contest has to be won by someone. If you’re intending to spare Sir Reynard a fall on account of his age, I assure you there’s no need.”

Nolda, who appeared to be roughly the same age as the knight, frowned, apparently unsure whether the Queen was joking. Sir Reynard’s expression turned mildly pained, but he did not roll his eyes at her.

“I have no objections,” he said, stiffly. Nolda shrugged and said, “Well, I’m game, then.”

“Good,” the Baroness said, “We’ll start in twenty minutes.”

The combatants rode down to opposite sides of the field, where Reynard sat on his horse, exchanging a few words with his squire. Nolda stood at her horse’s head, deep in conversation with Bohault; the occasional audible phrase and the cavalryman’s complicated hand gestures suggested a strategy session was underway. Meve struggled to appear neutral, if she couldn’t manage anything else, despite her continued irritation at the black knight’s disappearance. The effort became supremely more difficult as, from behind and under the stands, a familiar voice whispered, “Meve! I mean, Your Majesty! I need t’ talk to you.”

She turned, slowly, forced a casual tone, and said, “Ah, Duke Brossard. I’m glad you’ve decided to join us at last.”

#witcher #thronebreaker #fanfic #action #comedy #romance

5 notes · View notes

dokidokivisual · 4 years ago

Text

Gochiusa BLOOM episode 7 impressions

Previously: 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

In real world Halloween might have been a month ago, but in the world of Is The Order a Rabbit it’s exactly the season for all things spooky. And maybe things become a little too supernatural for a slice of life show. In the last episode we’ve seen how BLOOM symbolizes the growth of the characters. And as we enter the second half of the season, another meaning is revealed...

But first let’s visit Ama Usa An, where horror-loving Chiya is decorating the traditional Japanese teahouse for Halloween. Since Halloween is decidedly not a traditional Japanese holiday, it looks kinda surreal, but Chiya’s grandmother is more worried about souls of the dead coming back to life, especially that of Chino’s grandfather (see season 2 episode 9 for more of their backstory). Of course the soul of Chino’s grandfather isn’t actually dead, but is inhabiting the body of a rabbit. It’s not clear how exactly this happened and Cocoa might have been involved.

Speaking of Cocoa, we see her practicing with the magic set she bought in the first episode of the season. She tries to make something appear in her hand, but nothing happens. Clearly you can’t just learn to summon matter into existence in Gochiusa world, or can you? Anyway the shot focuses on a candy laying on a table before the opening sequence cuts in. This must be the object Cocoa has tried to summon and it’s also clearly a foreshadowing for something.

Meanwhile, Maya and Megu are trick-or-treating in matching werewolf(?) outfits hoping to score some free candy. Interestingly the tradition of giving out candy on Halloween has descended from a medieval practice of sharing so-called “soul cakes” which represented the souls of the dead.

Meanwhile the staff of Rabbit House are dressed as vampires. The theme of vampires fighting werewolves brings up to mind the Twilight series although I’m sure the idea came up many times throughout history. If you look closer, you’ll notice that Cocoa, Rize and Megu have fake fangs (I think Maya’s is natural), although they’re not consistently drawn between scenes, even though in the manga they’re drawn correctly. Maybe they’ll fix this in BD. The only one whose fang is not shown is Chino, and ironically she is the one who actually bites somebody.

Also the flashback of Chino “roaring” at the mirror reminded me of the scene from Celestial Method where Noel (also voiced by Minase Inori) roars at a dinosaur standee. To be fair it sounds completely different but I just can’t help but compare them.

Also while I was browsing through my copy of volume 6 I found a cute illustration card that seems to be relevant to this episode, but includes Mocha and Cocoa as the wolves and Chino as the vampire (here’s a highres version).

I think I bought this particular volume in Japan on the day it was released. Good times...

Next MaMe go to Fleur de Lapin and are greeted by Sharo dressed as Little Red Riding Hood (bunny version). This costume appeared earlier in an illustration for the rabbit chapter from the previous episode.

This is also a rare scene where other employees of Fleur de Lapin can be seen, as usually Sharo is shown working there alone. Even in the manga, Sharo is the only employee shown in this scene. In the end it turns out that Sharo is a wolf in disguise and craving for some meat. Which is weird because Sharo hasn’t been shown eating or cooking any meat before.

Anyway, next stop is Ama Usa An, which is called the Witch’s Mansion now. Chiya mentions the beginning of the Sabbath, and the manga chapter’s title 今宵は甘兎サバト also mentions the Sabbath. This might be confusing because in Judaism and Christianity the Sabbath is the day of rest and happens weekly (on Saturday or Sunday). However since we’re talking about witches, this actually references the Wiccan concept of sabbat, or one of eight festivals in the Wiccan calendar. In particular, Samhain, one of the four Greater Sabbats pretty much coincides with Halloween and celebrates the beginning of winter.

Chiya does this thing where the protagonist’s hand hurts only to awaken their dark powers, I’m not really sure where this trope comes from but I’ve seen it referenced in anime before and it’s a common chuunibyo stereotype. In this case, Chiya did really just hurt her hand. There’s also some sort of runic circle drawn on her bandages, but if you look closer it says shiratama anmitsu matcha parfait in hiragana.

Maya and Megu agree to help Chiya, and become her “familiars”. Even though familiars are better known as a video game mechanic today (which is what the “level up” scene references), witches were associated with familiar spirits since medieval times. A familiar often took form of a small animal, such as a cat. Unfortunately MaMe don’t even know which animal they are, so clearly they didn’t take their backstory as seriously as Chiya did. Their ears and tails look canine to me, so I can see Megu being a fox spirit, but Maya being a cat is less believable. Also during their confrontation Megu confirms that Maya’s fang is her yaeba (snaggle tooth).

As a revenge for the trick MaMe pulled on her, Chiya gives them a selection of pumpkin tarts, one of which is laced with wasabi (which she calls ”Russian roulette”). This seems like a common thing for her, since she did the same with botamochi in season 2 episode 6, and with green tea in season 2 episode 7 (except she used aojiru instead of wasabi). However this time, it was Chiya’s grandmother who put wasabi in two of the tarts, unbeknownst to Chiya. By the way in the manga it wasn’t shown that Chiya got one of the wasabi tarts.

Chiya goes shopping for some pumpkins, but is helped by Rize, and later Sharo gives her anti-pain medications, reminding her of how Chiya tended for her when she was sick in season 1 episode 12. It’s not mentioned in the anime, but Rize also had a “motivation” for helping Chiya, as she hurt her leg before (see season 2 episode 2). Chiya invites Rize and Sharo to dinner and brings up the wasabi-laced pumpkin tarts. According to Chiya the probability of getting wasabi is 1/3. Initially there were 7 tarts, of which 2 had wasabi. Megu, Maya and Chiya eat one each, with Chiya’s having wasabi in it. That leaves 4 tarts with 1 wasabi, so either Chiya’s calculation is incorrect, or somebody ate one more tart.

Apparently last day was just a warm up to Halloween (All Hallow’s Eve’s Eve?), so next day Megu and Maya come to Chiya again and try to summon something. A larger and slightly different version of the runic circle previously seen on Chiya’s hand starts glowing and we see that the 3 white rabbits correspond to three people holding hands. There’s also Anko corresponding to the black rabbit in the middle. By the way, in the manga the sign on Chiya’s hand was just a hexagram, and the summoning ritual didn’t have any visible symbols.

Anyway, they want to summon a messenger from demon world/hell, and coincidentally Cocoa and Chino come in (dressed as vampires) and try to attack (cuddle) them. Chiya, Maya and Megu form New Chimame-tai which works because Chiya and Chino have the same first syllable. However Chi is written with kanji instead of katakana in this version (because Chiya’s name 千夜 is one of the few given names among Gochiusa characters that’s always written with kanji). This defeats Chino, and Chiya consoling Chino like a big sister defeats Cocoa as well.

Ok let’s move on to part B, which is the really important part of the episode. The streets of the town are filled with people dressed in various costumes. Cocoa’s classmates can be seen among the crowd, and Aoyama and Rin are enjoying a boat ride on River Sanzu.

Our main character have also prepared some new costumes for the occasion. First we see Chino, dressing up as Phantom Thief Lapin, while Rize is going as a police officer. Soon Chiya and Sharo join them, who somehow independently of each other also went with a Lapin costume. At least Sharo had a good excuse. For Chiya, Lapin’s gloves obscure the bandage on her hand, so maybe that’s why she chose this costume. But what about Cocoa?

Well, she kinda got lost and we find her at the location that you will recognize if you read my episode 5 review. Cocoa says it looks a little different than usual, almost like a different world (isekai). Well, there’s a lot of evidence to support this hypothesis. First, in a scene that parallels episode 1, Cocoa finds a lost child and tries to calm her down with a magic trick. However you might notice that the child’s head is literally a pumpkin with a moving mouth.

And her mother is also a pumpkinhead. Cocoa doesn’t encounter any other people during this segment, even though you’d think a spot that overlooks the town like this would be quite popular. Well, she does encounter one more person, a mysterious masked magician with an angora rabbit on her head. She also wears a G-clef pendant indicating some sort of music connection.

Now, since y’all had already watched the episode, it wouldn’t be a spoiler to say that this is the ghost of Chino’s mother, Saki. The rabbit on her head is the ghost of the original Tippy before its body was taken over by Chino’s grandfather. The original Tippy was a female rabbit, by the way, a fact established early on in the series. In Sing for You OVA (for which I wrote a not-very-detailed review by the way) it’s established that Saki was a singer and even had a record released.

Anyway, as a ghost, Saki doesn’t speak (although she still can giggle and such) and doesn’t physically interact with Cocoa (only indirectly, by casting candies at Cocoa). Nevertheless she does teach Cocoa how to do the candy trick correctly.

Meanwhile, the rest of the group tries to call Cocoa’s phone but she doesn’t answer. This is another evidence for isekai theory. Cocoa is just out of range, you see. Rize and Sharo swap their costumes (the most unrealistic part of the episode) and Sharo starts “policing” the Lapins on how the real Lapin would talk. Chiya has a bright idea to shout out for Cocoa and call her big sister. However Cocoa would obviously only react if Chino calls her that, so Rize encourages Chino to say it louder (referencing her training for the choir in Sing for You).

Cocoa and Saki hear Chino, and Saki looks at her daughter from the terrace. Chino also looks up... but doesn’t see anything. She does get a hunch that there’s something up there though, so the group finds Cocoa eventually. Meanwhile Saki feels like her time is up and makes for a quick exit, literally disappearing.

This is where Cocoa returns to the “real world”, as the current Tippy calls out for her. Why was Tippy with Cocoa anyway in the first place? Cocoa looks around and there are in fact lots of people there as expected.

Cocoa thinks that Tippy speaking is an evidence of a ghost, despite her interacting with a real ghost just a few moments before. The 3 Lapins arrive and start arguing who is the real Lapin. Chino says that it’s the one who gets away with everything in the end, implying she will take the whole Cocoa for herself. However Sharo arrests Cocoa for making everyone worry.

On the way back, Chiya recalls the legend which was also mentioned by her grandmother at the beginning of the episode about the spirits of the ancestors coming back for this one day and then returning to heavens. Chino looks up to the sky, while Tippy gives her a solace in the fact that he was once again turned away, implying that he expected to return to heaven with the other spirits.

Tippy also seemed to know what Cocoa was talking about in an earlier scene where Cocoa said she forgot to give thanks to somebody. Just what’s up with Tippy and why is he not allowed to enter Heaven is a big mystery here.

Cocoa also notices Chino being distressed and shows her the magic trick with the candy. It turns out Chino remembers this trick from her childhood, and we get to see a full flashback with Chino’s mother even getting a few speaking lines (delivered by none other but Nana Mizuki). Since the candy was probably a part of the magic set, it’s no coincidence that it has the exact same wrapper in the flashback. The color of the candy matches with Chino’s clothes at the time but you can also think of it as a combination of Saki’s white and Chino’s blue.

By the way, in the manga Cocoa conjures up two candies, and they have a plain wrapping so there wasn’t One Specific Candy like in the anime. Also in the flashback, Chino is carried by her grandfather. His face is not shown, but Takahiro is seen in the background (with Rize’s dad) so by exclusion it had to be him. And in the current scene Chino is the one carrying Tippy like this.

The episode ends with Cocoa asking Chino to tell her more about her mother, while a star is seen rising in the sky, presumably symbolizing Saki’s spirit.

Let’s go back to Cocoa meeting Saki scene one more time. Like I explained, it’s heavily implied that Cocoa isn’t really in the same world as the other characters when she meets Saki’s ghost. Of course Gochiusa had supernatural elements from the start, such as a certain talking rabbit who happens to be Chino’s grandfather. But now we have a ghost of Chino’s mother and Cocoa is the only one who can see her, but Chino can’t? Just what the heck is going on here?

But wait, there is a rational explanation for all of this! Cocoa had a hallucination triggered by all the Halloween celebrations. She imagines helping a lost child just like Chino did before (and told Cocoa about it later) and then imagines the ghost of Saki teaching her magic, because subconsciously she wants to be like Saki. She had seen Saki before on a photograph, but haven’t heard her speak, which is why the ghost can’t talk to her. Hearing Chino call her onee-chan brings Cocoa back to her senses. But how did Cocoa learn the trick if it was just her imagination? Well, consider the fact that she was practicing this exact trick at the beginning of the episode. By the time she shows it to Chino, she has already practiced it a lot of times, but maybe she only realized the crucial part (feint) during the hallucination. Either way, the blue striped candy wasn’t given to Cocoa by Saki, she had it from the start, as part of the magic set! The candies that Saki uses to show the trick to Cocoa all disappear when Cocoa returns to reality.

Saki appears one more time in the bar time scene with Takahiro, who is listening to her record Silver Spoon from Sing for You OVA and then calls her by name. I think this is the only time the name “Saki” is mentioned in the show itself, and it’s not mentioned in the manga at all (unless maybe in some recent chapters which I haven’t read yet). The first time it was revealed was during April Fool’s day Clockwork Rabbit event, as a solution to a “puzzle”. Her name is written in katakana as サキ, however one of possible readings of the word “saki” is 咲き which means “bloom”. Now consider how the last few seconds of the opening animation it cuts from a blooming field of dandelions to Saki:

The dandelions connection to Saki was previously seen in season 2 episode 1 and Sing for You. Saki’s character design doesn’t really say “blooming of dandelions” to me, but consider that a dandelion turns into this:

Now that’s more like it! Although it reminds me of Tippy as well. Anyway, that was a very mysterious episode of Gochiusa BLOOM and let’s see what happens next! Only 5 episodes remain...

#gochiusa #gochuumon wa usagi desu ka?#is the order a rabbit?#review

11 notes · View notes

margridarnauds · 5 years ago

Note

I have an Irish ask! How did the regional kings hierarchy work - was there a high king irl? How did you rule, and what over, and how did you get to be high king, if so? (From - a descendant of the Kings of Desmond, but very confused about what's shit, and what's legit, in Irish History?

Kingship in an Irish context is an endlessly complicated topic, and it seems like for every question we get, someone’s written or plans to write a dissertation on it. You accidentally tripped over a landmine when asking me this one. Which is DEFINITELY not your fault, I don’t resent you for it, it just means you are getting a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGG answer.

But. Anyway. Kingship. I will preface anything I say with the acknowledgment that I am a mythological literature person, not necessarily a law/contracts/history person. Also that, tragically, there are a LOT of law tracts that remain untranslated. (And a lot of things. In general.)

So, this is…complicated, since a LOT of the work in the legal tradition revolves around the notion of kingship (seriously, my closest friend in the department is a legal scholar and we have had some long bitchfests about how much attention is paid to kingship VS the common people, simply because…..guess who was paying for these manuscripts to be made? Yep, it ain’t Farmer Cormac. The single most important thing you can ever remember about these texts is that they were made by and for an elite audience); you have a lot of kings in a fairly condensed space, and it gets to the point of whether we should even really properly translate rí as “king” or whether a more generic term like “leader” is actually more accurate, though it IS cognate with Latin “Rex” and Gaulish “Rix.” (Aka “Vercingetorix”, “Cunorix”, “Asterix”…all the most important “Rix”s of the ancient world.) So. Kings. Definitely kings. But not really in any way we would generally consider “kings” to be. Fergus Kelly estimated that there could be as many as 150 KINGS throughout Ireland between the 5th-12th centuries (17), which….on a relatively small island that holds only about 5 million people in the present….**150**.

Traditionally, the idea of a singular high king of Ireland was….okay, so you have a LOT of guys who claim to be “King of Ireland,” but there’s a question of how real that power actually was, how much power they ACTUALLY wielded, and how stable they actually were. And, on one hand “King of Tara” is generally taken to be synonymous with “king of Ireland”, (hence the Uí Néill’s LONG claim to power), but there are a lot of issues with that one, and it’s something that’s a matter of debate, not the least because it seems like the Uí Néill…..might have influenced the literature ever so slightly as a way of bolstering their own claims (Jaski, Early Irish Kingship and Succession, 215). Basically, no evidence that the kings of Munster paid tribute to the kings of Tara before the 9th century, making the claim that the King of Tara = King of ALL Ireland doubtful.

And….well, I’ll let Bart Jaski explain the title of ardrí (high king), since he’s the man with the big book on it: “To keep up with [the political developments of Brían Boru’s victory at the Battle of Clontarf], the annalists of the tenth century introduce the title ‘high-king’ (ardri) as a title of recognition or flattery to denote a powerful king who achieved a remarkable domination over others. In later historiography, the old kingship of Tara came to be regarded as the ‘high-kingship’ of Ireland, which is both an anachronism and an inaccurate estimation of what the kingship of Tara meant, both in pre-historic times as in the documentary period. The title of rex Hiberniae given to the kings of Tara Domnall of Cenél Conaill and his grandson Loingsech does not lend support to the existence of a ‘high kingship’. as they were apparently subjectively awarded by partisan annalists and others.”

Fergus Kelly was more to the point, “The king of Ireland (rí Érenn), who figures so prominently in the sagas, is rarely mentioned in the law-texts. Though the idea of a kingship of the whole isalnd had already gained currency by the 7th century, no Irish king ever managed to make it a reality, and most law-texts do not even provide for such a possibility” (18).

Charles-Edwards disputed this conclusion in Early Christian Ireland (okay, technically, he disputed Binchy’s conclusions, but this line of thinking), discussing some further references to a single king of Ireland binding the other kings of Ireland to him, as Conchobar was said to have done with the men of Ulster, as well as the legal term tríath, with a line from an 8th century law text being “He is a burdensome tríath who penetrates Ireland of peoples from sea to sea” (519). Liam Bhreatnach suggested in his article ‘Ardrí as an old compound,” as the name suggests, that the term itself, while little used, is old. I can’t get ahold of it at present, but I’m going to presume he did make a solid case, given that Carey, Jaski, and Charles-Edwards all cite him, and they are all careful, respectable scholars. What John Carey would point out in “From David to Labraid” is that actually, several of those early references were in fact to the Christian as opposed to an earthly deity. AKA “The ULTIMATE high king, the highest of kings” (pg. 21-23). Something suggested by Carey in that same article is that the Church MIGHT have promoted the idea of high kingship as a way of appealing to kings who would be interested in it in exchange for their support of Christianity; a quid pro quo.

Basically, the question of the extent of the high king’s power, both in a Christian and pre-Christian context, is HIGHLY controversial and something I reckon will never fully be satisfactorily resolved, not the least because it also has the misfortune of featuring two favorite, perennial topics of many Celticists: Etymological arguments and kingship. What I think we CAN gather from the debate is that it was very far from a SOLID title, more a matter of individual monarchs as opposed to stable dynasties. Medieval Ireland did not have a Versailles and a Louis XIV, there was not a singular sun king who decided their fates.

Now, in general, kingship was not necessarily held with the same iron grip that you would see with, say, the Plantagenets in England. Primogeniture was not necessarily a thing here. You did have to be a nobleman to be king (Sorry, Farmer Cormac, you’re out, get back to your field, peasant), and you had to be descended from a king in either the first or the second degree to be king, but you did NOT have to be the firstborn son. If you have seven kids and the youngest is the only one who is qualified to lead….yep, Junior takes the lot. So, that’s the first thing. There’s a section of Mac Firbis’ Great Book of Genealogies (which is a LATE text, but includes basically a scrapbook of older material) that references that exact scenario. Youngest can take it, eldest can take it, eldest PROBABLY has a higher shot of it because…older, more time to be groomed for the kingship, more time to gather people loyal to him, etc. But. Like. All of the kids have a shot, and depending on where they’re fostered off to, their foster families will very likely support them if they want to make a bid for the kingship. (Irish dynastic politics were VERY turbulent.)

A king is elected to the tribe through the popular acclamation of their major clients/family members; their power, while it is something that is expected to some extent, is not a GIVEN to the same extent. (Jaski 212). Which. Is where the role of tánaiste comes in, which is a late development, but it irons things out so it’s like “Okay, when the old fuck dies, this dude is king.” In a literary context, this is also why Bres’ kingship is kind of doomed from the beginning. Because it’s the WOMEN of the Tuatha dé who support his kingship, not the men.

And, of course, even if Junior does take the throne, that does NOT mean that his brother’s kids are out of the running when Junior dies (or, more to the point, they might try to speed things along and arrange for a “hunting accident” to happen.) Because of the three generation requirement to maintain noble status, there was quite a bit of infighting (Jaski 197), as different offshoots of a given high king will want the throne in order to maintain their noble rank. Knives Out: The Medieval Ireland edition.

One story that deals with this is Echtra mac nEchdach Mugmedóin (Adventures of the Sons of Eochaid Mugmedóin), which discusses how the future Niall of the Nine Hostages, born the son of a Saxon slave and the king of Ireland, hated by his stepmother, and the youngest of the lot of the sons ends up taking the kingship anyway. (Answer: He’s down to sleep with an old hag. Who is also the sovereignty of Ireland. And is like “Okay, that was some good D, here’s how you get the kingship now.”) Now, this is primarily a literary as opposed to a historical story, but…..well….that’s where a lot of our stuff for this. Does come from. For better or worse. And I’m not just saying that because I’m currently procrastinating on working on an edition of that very text.

So, on the question of “How to rule.” The main relationship was between an overking-client king. So, let’s say that I am an underking in….IDK. Munster. What can I say? I like Munster. I’m not even a pronvincial king, but I’ve got my tuath, I’m chilling out, I’ve got my cattle, I’ve got some Nemed-class people with me, I’ve got a bit of land, and a couple of those people we don’t really talk about because they’re not important (Aka “Commoners, slaves, etc.” The people who do the work that the more privileged classes CANNOT do, like chop wood.)

Now, let’s say that you’re a provincial king, King of Munster. Your father’s just died, you’ve become king, or, alternatively, you’ve beaten the shit out of the other candidates, and you roll up to my people. Now, I could probably fight, but like. That’s a way to. Die. And maybe I do want the protection that comes from a Lord-Client relationship, since, hey, that DOES mean that you’re responsible for me. And if the King of Connacht rolls up and is like “Hey, I want to attack you and steal your cattle” you can roll up and be like “Hey, want to die?” Also, if one of your OTHER subjects kills a man in my tuath, you are expected to mediate, with me taking a hostage from your court until everything’s resolved, and you and I both getting a part of the resulting settlement (Kelly 23). And, of course, I’ll support you as well. It’s a mutual client relationship, just….an inherently uneven one. Most of the powerful subject kings, who were free but still subject to an overking were related to that king by a shared kinship, but there was a double edged sword: I support you, and then your brother Eochaid comes to the throne, I’m up Shit River with no paddle (Jaski 206). If I’m particularly useful/powerful to you, you might even foster one of your kids with me, so I can support him politically later down the line. (And also strengthen the relationship between our two peoples; that kid is going to be more mine than yours by the time that his fosterage is over, he will call you athair and me datai; one is a more formal term meaning “father,” [cognate with Latin pater and English father] one is more like “dad” and is cognate with the Welsh dat. Which seems to be related to….yep, the English diminutive dad.) Peter Parkes rather magnificently talks about this system as: “Clientage dressed in a false plumage of kinship: Cuckold consanguinity.” (”When Milk Was Thicker Than Water?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 6.3, pg. 606)

So, what would happen there? Well, the system of overking-client king was held together much in the same way as the relationship between individuals would be, ie through hostages. The giving of hostages is something that was EMBEDDED in the legal system. So, you and I would proceed to haggle over who I have to hand over. Now, I don’t want you to take someone too important, you will want to take the most important person you can. I’ll try to get you to take my third cousin twice removed who I might see once every few years, Conall, you’ll try to get one of my kids. And, let’s be real, since you have the most power in this situation, you’ll probably fucking win. “He who has the sword makes the rules”- NOT an official medieval Irish legal statement, but it might as well be. Now, it should be emphasized that hostages were HIGHLY respected and treated well, there was no particular stigma against someone who was a hostage at some point, and you do have accounts of hostages eating at the king’s table, in a position that denotes a degree of intimacy and companionship. And a couple who are brutally executed or maimed when their kings broke the terms of the agreement, but, hey, only a 2% murder rate or so; very good for the times. It could be that the king’s son had a role when it came to making sure the hostages were cared for. But there’s not been all that much work done on it and a lot of this is being remembered second hand from a PhD student in our department who did a STELLAR lecture on the topic; if and when he decides to formally publish it, I’ll probably make a big deal over it. Because….this shit is IMPORTANT.

This is also why it’s Niall of the Nine Hostages. Because that’s how many peoples he extracted hostages from, that is a sign of his power as a king. You could NOT be king of Ireland without hostages. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Like, how are you going to be sure that your supporters are going to stick with you? And even if they do, where’s the signs of your authority? Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

So, a king of Ireland’s reign would be held together by a similar system, whether it’s provincial or the famous ardri. A high king would take hostages from their client kings as a way of showing off their power and authority, and they would probably show them off when making a circuit of their territory. Your ancestor would definitely have had a group of hostages taken from the athech-thúatha, or client peoples. The Triads put it slightly more succinctly: “[220] Three things that constitute a king: a contract with other kings, the feast of Tara, abundance during his reign.”

Now, again, this is an idealized literary context, but we’ve discussed the first one, the contractural nature. The feis Temro, or the Feast of Tara, was something that a High King of Ireland HAD to do as a way of securing his reign, and in the early days at least it seemed to involve some sort of marriage/sexual ritual with a representative of the goddess of sovereignty, a living embodiment of the land, and it would involve imbibing some sort of drink offered to him by her as well. (This is why Eochaid Airem HAS to marry Étain, because he needs a queen to have his feis Temro and become a king. This is also why Niall of the Nine Hostages secured his reign via sleeping with aforementioned hag.)

And there were a number of different taboos and responsibilities tied to said kingship. For example, in The Tidings of Conchobar Mac Nessa, it is said that “Now Conchobar himself used to give them the (the feast of) Samaim because of the assembly of the great host. It was needful to provide for the great multitude, because everyone of the Ulstermen who would not come to Emain in Samain lost his senses, and on the morrow his barrow and his grave and his tombstone were placed.” The Adventures of Nera also features Medb and Aillil throwing a feast on the day of Samain for the entirety of the province. Baile in Scáil features Conn rising every day so that he can go onto the ramparts of Tara with his druids and poets to defend it from the possibility of otherworldly attack. Another obligation was “the Prince’s truth,” the idea that the king, when giving out judgements, should be able to INTUIT the true answer. Giving a false judgement = ruin for the land, everything goes to shit, the harvests fails, cattle die, aliens invade (okay….maybe not, but like. it would be cool if they did), the king of Leinster steals your wife, etc. until the bad king is replaced. (It has been SUGGESTED that that might be the reason for some of the bog bodies. Possibly.) He also HAD to go out with a retinue when he was out hunting, a king who didn’t lost his honor price, same as if he’d used an instrument of MANUAL LABOR (the horror, the shock) (Kelly 19). For what it’s worth, I do know of at least one case in….I believe the 16th century where a woman claimed that the king was the father of her child, there was no one who could dispute it since he was alone, he took a shine to the child anyway, and BOOM heir. Which further shows one of the social dangers of a king on his own.

More specific ones to each province are laid out in the Book of Rights, which Myles Dillon did an edition of in “Taboos of the Kings of Ireland”. An example (chosen at random) includes, “The five prohibitions of the king of Munster: to hold a court before celebrating the feast of Loch Lern from one Monday to the next; to spend a wet autumn night before winter in Letrecha, to camp for nine days on the Suir, to hold a meeting at the boundary near Gabruan ; to hear the groans of the women of Mag Feimin in their oppression. And his five prescriptions : to despoil Cruachain at the call of the cuckoo; to burn the Laigin to the north of Gabair; to chant the Passion in Lent at Cashel; to travel over Sliab Cua with a company of fifty after pacifying the south of Ireland; to go with a dark grey army on Tuesday across Mag nAlbe.”

Either way, in Ye Olde Days, there was definitely an element of protecting the people of the region from the possibility of supernatural attack. That would obviously die down a little with the coming of Christianity, I don’t know whether a king in the 15th century, for example, would be expected to keep to it that rigorously, I lean towards “no” personally since this is generally talked about as an outdated custom, but it remained a popular trope in medieval literature. Dillon himself points out that, given that many of the taboos mentioned in here were only recorded in the 14th century, they were likely considered to be an odd, antiquarian quirk. That being said…..it’s ALL tied into the kingship, the idea of the king being tied to a certain series of obligations, the mutual relationship between king and people.

Now, if a king failed in his duties and taboos, he could be ousted. Like “you fucked up, buster, get packing.” Some examples of kings who lost their sovereignty include Bres mac Elatha (my BOY, my SON, my ANGEL, my…..little piece of shit), who was satirized by a bard (this is why people REALLY tend to underline the power of bards, because like. This was an ACKNOWLEDGED power of theirs. They were held in a heady mix of respect and fear for this one), Fergus mac Roiche (didn’t lose it because of incompetence per se, but did hand it over to Conchobar, and the men of Ulster, inexplicably, liked Conchobar more, which….their mistake but.), and Congal Cáech (whose bid for king of Tara was, according to legend at least, ruined by an unfortunate bee sting. In his eye. Whether he was actually king of Tara is something that seems to be slightly disputed.) People often will ask me, when I mention how much I love Bres, why I love him so much, and I feel like the answer to that….there are a hundred answers, depending on my mood, and this is NOT a Bres post, but the one most relevant to the overall topic at hand is that he really experienced the full kingship experience: The rise, the fall, the absolute tumultuous political reality of a 9th century king, albeit a fictionalized one.

Bibliography:

Carey, John, ‘From David to Labraid: Sacral Kingship and the Emergence of Monotheism in Israel and Ireland’, Approaches to Religion and Mythology in Celtic Studies

Charles-Edwards, T.M., Early Christian Ireland, Cambridge University Press

Dillon, Myles, “Taboos of the Kings of Ireland,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History,Literature, Vol. 54

Jaski, Early Irish Kingship and Succession, Four Courts Press

Kelly, Fergus, A Guide To Early Irish Law, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

Mac Cana, Proinsias, Celtic Mythology, Littlehampton Book Services

Parkes, Peter, ”When Milk Was Thicker Than Water?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 6.3

#celtic studies #irish mythology #celtic mythology #Anonymous

40 notes · View notes

finelythreadedsky · 5 years ago

Note

Why is there no Jewish narnia? (As you mentioned in your last post) I have some suspicions, but would love to read your thoughts!

This is a long answer but I wrote a 20 page paper on this so:

It’s essentially because fantasy (mostly high fantasy) as it has developed through the last century is an inherently Christian genre. Works of specifically Jewish speculative fiction tend to be sci-fi, alternate history, or historical fantasy NOT in the vaguely medieval setting common in fantasy. There are Jewish works of fantasy (Maggie Anton’s Rav Hisda’s Daughter, Helene Wecker’s The Golem and the Jinni) and high fantasy (The Princess Bride, Shira Glassman’s Mangoverse), but there is not a fantasy world that is Jewish in the same way that Narnia is Christian (Shira Glassman comes closest, but Jewish theology is not interwoven into her work the same way Christian theology is in Narnia or Middle Earth).

read more for analysis of fantasy’s theological inclusivity, relationship to the past, and tension between nostalgia and modernity!

Modern fantasy as a genre has been largely shaped by Tolkien and Lewis, deeply religious men whose works are infused with their Christianity (arguably also by GRR Martin, who is a former Catholic, but it’s too soon to tell). Fantasy also derives its origins from A Pilgrim’s Progress, a seventeenth century Christian allegory that was incredibly influential for subsequent literature, particularly the idea of a fantasy quest that also prompts a character’s moral/spiritual growth. The quest narrative is inherently Christian in its origins, and its effect of a character’s moral/spiritual development and coming of age is also fairly Christian.

Usually actual Christianity isn’t present in vaguely historical fantasy worlds, but fantasy worlds’ religion/spirituality often vaguely resembles (what the author believed about) Western European pre-Christian pagan practices. Middle Earth in particular very heavily parallels Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. We end up with a world poised on the edge of Christianity, that could easily incorporate a Christ-figure. Essentially because Tolkien and Lewis were really into the myths and cultures of pre-Christian Europe, their own stories reflected an interest in integrating those myths and cultures into their own worldview as legitimate, though incomplete, predecessors to Christianity. Their fantasy pagans are primitive precursors to Christianity, getting a glimpse of divine truth but not yet achieving fulfillment through Jesus. A corresponding ‘pre-Jewish’ fantasy world wouldn’t work or make sense, not only because Judaism pre-dates or is contemporary with most of the mythologies and cultures that interested Tolkien, Lewis, and other writers: Jews don’t have the same theological imperative to reconcile pagan mythologies with their worldview, because that imperative comes out of an understanding of one’s own religion as the only source of truth. Historically Christianity has been very concerned with whether people who were not christian because they lived before Jesus (or before Christianity reached the area they were living in) could still be righteous/saved, but Judaism holds that people who are not Jewish are just fine as they are and so has no need to insist on the partial divine inspiration of non/pre-Jewish peoples as Tolkien and Lewis do for non/pre-Christian peoples.

Likewise there isn’t really a Jewish need to create moral/theological allegories, which is the basis of modern fantasy, from A Pilgrim’s Progress to that bit we all hate with Susan being no longer a queen of Narnia, because Judaism is not concerned with spreading and teaching its values in the same way that Christianity is. Fantasy tends to come out of a Christian perspective on a cosmic battle between good and evil that is also a battle over the individual soul of the protagonist. Will God or the devil, good or evil triumph over Middle Earth or Narnia? Will moral purity and a sense of what is truly valuable defeat the appeal of the present at hand for Dorothy Gale and Bilbo Baggins? The duality of good and evil and pitting them against each other in a battle for an individual soul is a Christian thing. The idea that the fate of the entire world can rest on a single soul? Also a Christian thing.

Tolkien/Lewis style fantasy is infused with an inherently Christian relationship to the past (i.e., return to a prior golden age). Fairly obviously, Jews have a more complicated relationship with medieval and pre-modern Europe, which is the groundwork of a lot of fantasy. The sort of pastoral nostalgia on which fantasy is built doesn’t really work for Jews, who tend not to be so eager to imagine themselves in the past in that way. Hence the preponderance of Jewish sci-fi, which imagines a better future from authors who see the present as better than the past and hope for a future even better than the present. The ability to romanticize the past is a privilege, and it is not one Jews have historically had very often. And fantasy, aside from looking to the historical past for its setting, often takes place in a world that is aware that it has lost its golden age and is attempting to restore it. Middle Earth and Narnia have seen better days but have ‘fallen’ from that temporal Eden through corruption, requiring characters who can vanquish the evil and restore the glorious golden age. Implicit in this is a very Christian perspective of the biblical fall from paradise as an unequivocally bad thing that humans should seek to reverse, as well as the implications of a second coming of Jesus in the restoration of a golden age. Fantasy rests on the assumptions that the past is an authority and something to be restored, historically as well as in-universe, and that the modern age is inferior to its predecessors. Neither of those assumptions work with the experiences of Jews. It’s a Christian idea of the circularity and cyclicality of time and history, where I think a linear perspective is more appropriate to Judaism. And the cyclicality prevents any progress toward modernity— the Narnia books cover two and a half millennia, but the world is stagnant in the Middle Ages the entire time. Jews have a vested interest in progress and modernity that has no place in such fantasy.

(A side note that neo-pagan/anti-Christian fantasy literature from the 60s, 70s, and early 80s is a really interesting contrast to the absence of Jewish fantasy worlds. More than a few authors turned to the same pre-Christian traditions as Tolkien and lewis, but depicted them as wholly un-Christian and explicitly in conflict with Christianity or proto-Christian traditions.)

In doing my research for this I came across A Canticle for Leibowitz, which has the premise that the world is destroyed in a nuclear war but you know what survives and flourishes? The Catholic Church. It consists of three parts, separated by 600 years each, centering monks in the order of St. Leibowitz, an engineer at the end of the world who committed himself to preserving knowledge as it was being destroyed. Question that never got answered: WHY did this 20th century Jewish guy convert to Catholicism and become a priest???? Anyway, the book is Very Catholic. It plays into the Christian cyclicality of history BIG time, which means it hits an interesting place between sci-fi and historical fiction/fantasy, since its 26th century resembles the early middle ages, its 32nd century looks like the Renaissance, its 36th century seems like what someone might have projected for the 22nd century, and all throughout the characters think of the 20th century like we have approached classical antiquity for the past 1500 years. Unfortunately, I did not enjoy it, though there were a few cool bits that dealt with the wandering Jew motif. Not surprisingly, if the premise of your book is that it’s about post-apocalyptic monks, I’m not really into it.

#the princess bride is jewish fiction FIGHT ME #mine #ameliapondthechristmasqueen #also i LOVE the jewish response of non-medieval vaguely historical fantasy!#ask

40 notes · View notes

raeynbowboi · 6 years ago

Text

Top 10 Disney Villains

10. King Candy Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Although he’s newer to the villain roster, King Candy was a well-written villain who served as a perfect blend of humorous and genuinely threatening. He also tied very nicely into the themes of the film, which makes him stand out in my memory as a good villain, because I take more than just personality and actions into account when judging characters, but also role in the narrative, and how they support the themes and ideas of the story. King Candy is the perfect villain for a story like this, which is why I consider him good enough to be on this list, even if as a villain himself, he might not be the most memorable among the Disney canon.

9. Gaston Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Perhaps the Disney villain we’re most likely to meet in real life, Gaston is the perfect example of toxic masculinity on full display. He’s a great anthithesis to the Beast, though I never saw him all that handsome, which sort of detracts just a little bit from the story. But in a story about how looks don’t matter, but actions do, he’s a great foil to the love interest. He’s a selfish hateful man who is handed everything he wants, and when he doesn’t get his way, he strongarms people until they meet his demands. Yet, despite his personality, he retains a legion of followers who are more-so admirers than actual friends. He never once considers anyone to be his equal or of sufficient worth unless it was helpful in his own endeavors. And anyone who has ever had a friend who basically used them and then ditched them at the soonest convenience can probably recognize that kind of so-called “friend” in Gaston. He’s a great villain to dissect as an analysis of our current culture, but I don’t want to write a five page essay on Gaston for a top 10 list.

8. Yzma Emperor’s New Groove (2000)

Inarguably Disney’s best comedic villain (not counting her henchman Kronk), Yzma is a brilliantly funny character whose exaggurated appearance and over-the-top personality blend well with the fast-paced slapstick comedy that fills the movie. Yet, despite being a funny villainess, she avoids a major pitfall of many comedic villains by also being legitimately threatening and dangerous to our heroes. That, combined with the excellent writing in the movie makes Yzma so memorable and likable.

7. Mother Gothel Tangled (2010)

Although her actual villainous actions in the movie are surprsingly few and far between, I genuinely love Mother Gothel as a villainess. Her motivations are well-established, and she’s the sole reason the story has any plot at all. Comparisons have been made to the living conditions of both Quasimodo and Rapunzel, and I would genuinely agree that Mother Gothel is akin to a diet version of Frollo without all the genocide and religious superiority. She has to be more discreet and pretend to be kind in order to keep her little flower content to remain obedient locked away from the outside world. It makes total sense the way she treats Rapunzel, and her entire character, personality, and role all fit together to enhance the narrative of the story.

6. Long John Silver Treasure Planet (2002)

Arguably one of the most human villains from Disney, Silver is a beautiful complexity as he juggles the duality of being a father-figure to the impressionable young Jim, while also betraying Jim’s trust. Since Jim’s father left when he was a child, Jim closes himself off from people and seems adrift in the world. Silver, who has no need to trick the boy for his mutiny to succeed, still takes the time to take Jim under his wing, nurture the boy’s abilities, and form a bond. Heck, with how relatively apathetic Jim was, he could have manipulated Jim into hating being on the ship, and thus have him be happy when the mutiny sets him free. But instead, he chose to teach the boy and boost his confidence. In the end, Silver is a compelling Anti-Villain where it’s hard to really define him as a good or wicked person. That is honestly more interesting than just being a straight deceitful villain.

5. Bill Sykes Oliver & Company (1988)

Perhaps the most surprising choice on my list, Sykes was a villain from Oliver & Company, a retelling of Oliver Twist with stray dogs and a kitten. However, despite Disney’s family friendly brand, Sykes is a surprisingly menacing character. A loan shark and a cut-throat business man, he spends most of the movie threatening to kill Fagin which is far darker than Disney tends to get. While many Disney villains want to kill people, those desires were driven by personal grievances with that person or people. With Sykes, it’s cold, ruthless business. He doesn’t care about Fagin’s life. All he cares about is getting his money, and Fagin’s life just happens to be the collateral. It’s the purest form of cold-blooded murder, and that’s not a common thing among Disney villains.

4. Ursula The Little Mermaid (1989)

There’s a good reason Ursula is one of the flagship villains of this franchise. She has a strong personality, is a great antagonist, and directly plays off the protagonist’s weaknesses to win. Second only to Scar, and possibly Jafar, Ursula is the classic hand-drawn animated Disney villain to get closest to winning. The fact that she’s based on a drag queen is kind of perfect, since the fairytale was written by Hans Christian Andersen to express his love for Edvard Collin discreetly. He intended to give it to Edvard as a wedding gift, but Edvard and his wife purposefully “forgot” to tell him when the wedding was out of fear that he’d make a scene or announce his love for Edvard in front of everyone. Thus, the mermaid’s taboo love of someone she shouldn’t who comes from an entirely different way of living is a direct parallel to Hans’ feelings for the young Gentleman, and the mermaid being unable to speak and suffering greatly to be near her love is a clear metaphor for Hans’ own feelings of torture. So the inclusion of a drag queen in a movie adaptation of a covert metaphorical gay romantic tragedy is just deliciously fitting.

3. The Horned King The Black Cauldron (1984)

Sykes got a place on this list for being genuinely intimidating, but this villain is living nightmare fuel. One of the best things a genuinely threatening villain can do is successfully scare you, and this villain scared the living daylights out of me as a child. In fact, he was the only Disney villain to truly and completely scare me as a child. The rest of the villains were pretty much just bad characters, but the Horned King was far more terrifying than anything else I’d seen as a kid. Though his movie bombed and the story itself was a bit lacking, the Horned King was a genuinely horrifying presence, and to this day, I can’t think Disney Villains without this guy clawing his way into my mind. Maybe as a villain himself, he’s a bit flat, but he’s a horrific undead murderous monster trying to snuff out all life. He doesn’t need to be that complex for what he is, and that works with the type of villain that he was created to be.

2. Claude Frollo The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1996)

If Sykes made it to number 5 for the cold-blooded attempt at murder on one person, Frollo strolls into 2nd place for his cold-blooded successful mass racial/ethnic genocide of multiple people over a long reign of tyranny. Although we don’t see his treats on-screen, he very verbally implies that he has been executing people one by one for at least twenty years as he crushes ants. We even see him barricade a family with children inside of their house and then proceed to burn it down. This man is not messing around, and I love it. When it coems to dark, twisted, and messed up villains, Frollo takes the cake. He is hands down one of the greatest and most horrible villains out there. And the fact that he does this all in the name of God is a hauntingly dark reminder of the true cruelty of the medieval Christian church. Frollo was written in the original book to be a deliberate critique of the Catholic church, and I for one am grateful that Disney decided to be faithful to Frollo’s horrible nature when adapting to film.

1. Maleficent Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Finally, we reach the leader of the Disney Villains. How could I not put her at the top of this list? She literally fights with all the powers of Hell. But what I like most about her is what you can piece together from the narrative. Out of all the fairies, only Fauna thinks that Maleficent could be reasoned with, and she feels sad at the idea that Maleficent may not even grasp the concept of happiness, or what it feels like to be loved. This opens Maleficent up to being a product of abuse, abandonment, and bitterness. Her hatred for the world and her actions of spite and envy come into a new light with the idea that it’s kindled from neglect and exclusion from others. It offers the question of what would happen if someone did try to just talk to her, and offers a possibly sympathetic reading of her character. But, the true crux of what Maleficent stands for is that she’s evil, and she takes great pleasure in her evil ways. She cursed a baby because she wasn’t invited to a party. When it comes to pure, unfiltered evil, Maleficent has that in spades. So, Maleficent is a perfect character no matter which type you prefer as a villain: the tormented outcast lashing out, or the heartless monster lighting the world on fire for fun. No matter what kind of villain you prefer, there’s a way of reading her narrative to satisfy you.

327 notes · View notes

verystupidrpgideas · 6 years ago

Text

Why Warlock is the Objectively Best Class - A Critique on Every Class in Dungeons and Dragons

I will be listing the reasons why every class is bad, what strong points it has, and why it is inferior to the Warlock class.

Barbarian - The barbarian is a relatively simple class, and basically “Hit it until it dies”. There’s definitely some room for creative choices, but the class itself is rather bland unless you find magic items or you spec in a weird way.

Bard - The bard, along with the warlock, is one of the two classes that will destroy campaigns singlehandely at least once in your life. While the bard typically goes for the route of “talk your way out of everything”, the Warlock’s route is “criminal your way out of everything” which has many more options. You can kill the guy, frame him, rob him, etc. when in a sticky situation, while the bard is limited by his ability to talk.

Cleric - Clerics serve gods rather than making deals with gods. Tell me, who gets the better end of that deal? The god that gives a few of his powers in exchange for downright servitude, or the god that offers powers in exchange for a simple contract telling the user to carry out the god’s will? Plus, when you think cleric, you think healing, whereas when you think warlock, you think badass evil wizard. ‘Nuff said.

Druid - Treehugging know-it-alls can’t even hold a torch to the awe-inspiring power of the warlock. If you go a natural route as a druid with vines and trees, you’re weak to fire, one of the most common things in the DnD universe (what with wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks running amok). If you choose to be a furry instead, you have versatility, but there’s a reason tigers and such aren’t commonly seen today. Anyone with moderate combat training (which is almost as common as fire) and a good set of armor / weapons (common among adventurers) can beat up nearly any animal that a druid of similar level shapeshifts into.

Fighter - The fighter is probably the most versatile class, with archetypes ranging from the sellsword to the spellsword. You can have a nimble, speedy fighter, or you can have a goliath fighter donned in a huge set of armor that just yeets any foes. You know what other class is versatile? The warlock. Yeah, you can beat me up, but what if I just open this portal and summon M̸̀͝Y̷̨͠͝͡ ̸̸̕P̸̧̧̢͢Ą͘Ţ͟R͠͞O̷͟Ń͘ ҉̧̡̨͠Ǵ̶̛͜O̸̢̢͟D̀̀͢͜͠ ̷̛Y̢͞͡͞O̶̵͢͠G͟͡'̶̵̨S̢͠͏͜O̸̢̧T̨̧͡H̀͢ƠT̶̢̨̛͡H̷͏̨ and just vaporize you instantly? You might ask “what about a warlock that isn’t that powerful?” Well, in that case, they can just cast Eldritch Blast every three seconds while running away because fighters need close range. If you’re fighting a fighter that uses ranged weapons, or a speedier fighter, just use your highest level spell slots and they’ll fall like twigs. The dexterity required to run circles around an opponent or fire a bow comes with an inverse correlation with protection.

Monk - As if a warlock could ever lose to a monk. Monk is the dumbest D&D class, hands down. Like, seriously. You hear of evil bards looking to seduce everything in sight, druids corrupted by the demonic taint of the land they’re in, fighters that simply wish to earn a quick buck with your death, clerics and paladins tainted and corrupted by evil magic, bloodthirsty barbarians, crazy wizards and sorcerers, evil thieving rogues, and warlocks that wish to take over the world. But when’s the last time you’ve heard of a monk villain? That’s right, never. Let’s look at other media franchises with monk classes. Diablo 3 has monks, but they’re painfully terrible, using their fists at first level (and later levels in some builds). Compare that to the necromancer, who summons bones from the ground at first level, or the wizard, who shoots missiles of arcane. Want another example? Warcraft. The three “specs” (for those who don’t play Warcraft, this is basically the three unique playstyles of the class) are Brewmaster, a tank that uses beer to take hits, Windwalker, a class that uses the air sometimes I guess but mainly uses their fists, and the Mistweaver, which uses soothing mists to heal their friends. Yeah, even in a game like Warcraft, that makes no sense. You’re telling me that by drinking beer, I can survive hits from raid bosses like Ragnaros, ruler of the Plane of Fire? Yeah, chug down a few beers and jump into a volcano, tell me how that goes. The other specs aren’t much better. Windwalker uses fists and legs, rarely using weapons at all. I highly doubt that even as trained as you are that you’ll be able to kill someone as fast as a guy with a gun (such as the Hunter). Mistweaver makes about as much sense as Brewmaster. Are you telling me that if I spray someone with Febreze it’ll cure their wounds? “Ah, yeah, found how to cure my patient’s bronchitis. Let me just spritz their lungs a few times”. The warlock may use magic and stuff, but at least it makes sense with the rules of the DnD universe. The monks are the laughingstocks of all the base DnD races, and that’s for good reason. Screw monk.

Paladin - Paladins are like fighter clerics. They worship gods, but have the same problems as clerics (with weaker spells) and don’t have the versatility of fighters. Honestly, paladins are kinda dumb, almost as dumb as monks. Seriously, who even designed that dumb class? It was in the game since THIRD EDITION. Meanwhile, the Warlock got into the game in 4e. Are you kidding? Wizards of the Coast, this baffles me. You can’t seriously believe that some shirtless guy with fists and discount Jesus deserves inclusion over a class who gets their power through a demonic pact. Honestly, if Monk is still in 6e whenever that comes out, I’m going to be very upset. The class has no redeeming features, yet despite having two chances to cut the dumb idiot out, the monk continues to stay in the game.

Ranger - The ranger was one of the five core classes in AD&D 1e, along with the fighter, thief, magic-user and... oh fuck this.

Rogue - Turns out, the Monk was in the game since first edition and my 3e source was wrong. This is the dumbest thing ever. The sorcerer wasn’t in the game yet, the barbarian wasn’t in the game yet, Druid was still a subclass of Cleric, there were only around seven races, and there wasn’t a warlock yet. Hell, in Dragon Magazine 53 a D&D fan named Philip Meyers argued that the Monk was the weakest class;

“Of all the character classes in the AD&D™ game, the class of monks is the most difficult to qualify for. A monk must have exceptional strength, wisdom, and dexterity, and — if he or she wishes to survive for very long — constitution. The odds of rolling up such a character, even using the various “cheating methods” listed in the Dungeon Masters Guide, are not favorable. Given this, one would expect a monk to be a powerful character indeed. At first glance this would appear to be true. The Grand Master of Flowers can reasonably claim to be the most powerful fighter around, able to inflict 128 points of damage in a single round. This superiority, however, is more theoretical than real. In actual practice, the monk is the weakest of the character classes, not the strongest.“ - Dragon Magazine #53

This is downright insulting. They gave the monk overpowered abilties (128 damage in a round!!!!) and still the class was absolutely terrible, just like it is now. When’s the last time you heard of a monk that bards told tales about? Of the five DnD 1e classes, which of the five is not one of the four main archetypes in popular culture?

Sorcerer - Hell, why would the monks even have the abilities they had? Clerics make sense, they have faith healings which originate in the real world. Bards are a stretch, but the idea of a song inspiring someone isn’t anything new. But fucking MONKS lived in monasteries in medieval England, and that’s what they’re most known for. What would a realistic monk have the ability to do in D&D? The ability to copy things from a book quickly? Oh, wait, the Printing Press kinda fixed the need to do that. Good party trick, I suppose. The ability to form a self sufficient house with multiple members? Alright, but you’ll need a lot of money, a lot of other people, and slaves. Did I mention monks were slaveowners? And they pretend to be a good force of light or whatever.

Wizard - Wizards learn with books, warlocks don’t need to learn, they have patrons. Guess what other class reads a lot? Monks. Except they don’t get the cool benefits of Wizards, they just get “closer to god” or whatever. Unfortunately for you, MONKS, the D&D world isn’t your monotheistic fantasy world of Jesus. There’s multiple gods, and they’ll kick your god’s ass in a fight.

(Sidenote about that last paragraph, I’m making fun of monks in the D&D world, not real Christians, and I don’t intend to be hating anyone for their religious views)

So I hope all of you liked my writeup! Sorry it took so long, it was hard trying to find objective reasons for a lot of these (and I had to rewrite the Druid class a lot of the time to avoid calling them “vegan pieces of shit” which is a lot harder than it sounds). Anyway, choose Warlock the next time you make a new character.

#dnd #dungeons and dragons #5e #warlock #monk

271 notes · View notes

loretranscripts · 5 years ago

Text

Lore Episode 32: Tampered (Transcript) - 18th April, 2016

tw: none

Disclaimer: This transcript is entirely non-profit and fan-made. All credit for this content goes to Aaron Mahnke, creator of Lore podcast. It is by a fan, for fans, and meant to make the content of the podcast more accessible to all. Also, there may be mistakes, despite rigorous re-reading on my part. Feel free to point them out, but please be nice!

I grew up watching a television show called MacGyver. If you’ve never had that chance to watch this icon of the 80s, do yourself a favour and give it a try. Sure, the clothes are outdated and the hair… oh my gosh, the hair. But aside from all the bits that didn’t age well, MacMullet and his trusty pocket knife managed to capture my imagination forever. Part of it was the adventure, part of it was the character of the man himself – I mean, the guy was essentially a spy who hated guns, played hockey and lived on a houseboat. But hovering above all those elements was the true core of the show. This man could make anything if his life depended on it. As humans, we have this innate drive inside ourselves to make things. This is how we managed to create things like the wheel, or stone tools and weapons. Our tendency towards technology pulled our ancient ancestors out of the Stone Age and into a more civilised world. Maybe for some of us, MacGyver represented what we wanted to achieve: complete mastery of our own world. But life is rarely that simple, and however hard we try to get our minds and hands around this world we want to rule, some things just slip through the cracks. Accidents happen. Ideas and concepts still allude our limited minds. We’re human, after all, not gods. So, when things go wrong, when our plans fall apart or our expectations fail to be met, we have this sense of pride that often refuses to admit defeat. So, we blame others, and when that doesn’t work, we look elsewhere for answers, and no realm holds more explanation for the unexplainable than folklore. 400 years ago, when women refused to follow the rules of society, they were labelled a witch. When Irish children failed to thrive it was because, of course, because they were a changeling. We’re good at excuses. So, when our ancestors found something broken or out of place, there was a very simple explanation – someone, or something, had tampered with it. I’m Aaron Mahnke, and this is Lore.

The idea of meddlesome creatures isn’t new to us. All around the world, we can find centuries-old folklore that speaks of creatures with a habit of getting in the way and making life difficult for humans. It’s an idea that seems to transcend borders and background, language and time. Some would say that it’s far too coincidental for all these stories of mischief-causing creatures to emerge in places separated by thousands of miles and vast oceans. The púca of Ireland and the ebu gogo of Indonesia are great examples of this – legends that seem to have no reason for their eerie similarities. Both legends speak of small, humanoid creatures that steal food and children, both recommend not making them angry, and both describe their creatures as intrusive pranksters. To many, the evidence is just too indisputable to ignore. Others would say it’s not coincidence at all, merely a product of human nature. We want to believe there’s something out there causing the problems we experience every day. So, of course, nearly every culture in the world has invented a scapegoat. This scapegoat would have to be small to avoid discovery, and they need respect because we’re afraid of what they can do. To a cultural anthropologist, it’s nothing more than logical evolution. Many European folktales include this universal archetype in the form of nature spirits, and much of it can be traced back to the idea of the daemon.

It’s an old word and concept, coming to us from the Greeks. In essence, a daemon is an otherworldly spirit that causes trouble. The root word, daomai, literally means to cut or divide. In many ways, it’s an ancient version of an excuse. If your horse was spooked while you were out for a ride, you’d probably blame it on a daemon. Ancient Minoans believed in them, and in the day of the Greek poet Homer, people would blame their illnesses on them. The daemon, in many ways, was fate. If it happened to you, there was a reason, and it was probably one of these little things that caused it. But over time, the daemon took on more and more names. Arab folklore has the djinn, Romans spoke of a personal companion known as the genius, in Japan, they tell tales of the kami, and Germanic cultures mention fylgja. The stories and names might be unique to each culture, but the core of them all is the same. There’s something interfering with humanity, and we don’t like it.

For the majority of the English-speaking world, the most common creature of this type in folklore, hands down, is the goblin. It’s not an ancient word, most likely originating from the middle ages, but it’s the one that’s front and centre in most of our minds, and from the start it’s been a creature associated with bad behaviour. A legend from the 10th century tells of how the first Catholic bishop of Évreux in France faced a daemon known to the locals there as Gobelinus. Why that name, though, is hard to trace. The best theory goes something like this: there’s a Greek myth about a creature named kobalos, who loved to trick and frighten people. That story influenced other cultures across Europe prior to Christianity’s spread, creating the notion of the kobold in ancient Germany. That word was most likely to root of the word goblin. Kobold, gobold, gobolin – you can practically hear it evolve. The root word of kobold is kobe, which literally means “beneath the earth”, or “cavity in a rock”. We get the English word “cove” from the same root, and so naturally kobolds and their English counterparts, the goblins, are said to live in caves underground, and if that reminds you of dwarves from fantasy literature, you’re closer than you think. The physical appearance of goblins in folklore vary greatly, but the common description is that they are dwarf-like creatures. They cause trouble, are known to steal, and they have tendency to break things and make life difficult. Because of this, people in Europe would put carvings of goblins in their homes to ward off the real thing. In fact, here’s something really crazy. Medieval door-knockers were often carved to resemble the faces of daemons or goblins, and it’s most likely purely coincidental, but in Welsh folklore, goblins are called coblyn, or more commonly, knockers. My point is this: for thousands of years, people have suspected that all of their misfortune could be blamed on small, meddlesome creatures. They feared them, told stories about them, and tried their best to protect their homes from them. But for all that time, they seemed like nothing more than story. In the early 20th century, though, people started to report actual sightings, and not just anyone. These sightings were documented by trained, respected military heroes. Pilots.

When the Wright brothers took their first controlled flight in December of 1903, it seemed like a revelation. It’s hard to imagine it today, but there was a time when flight wasn’t assumed as a method of travel. So, when Wilbur spent three full seconds in the air that day, he and his brother, Orville, did something else: they changed the way we think about our world. And however long it took humans to create and perfect the art of controllable, mechanical flight, once the cat was out of the bag, it bolted into the future without ever looking back. Within just nine years, someone had managed to mount a machine gun onto one of these primitive aeroplanes. Because of that, when the First World War broke out just two years later, military combat had a new element. Of course, guns weren’t the only weapon a plane could utilise, though. The very first aeroplane brought down in combat was an Austrian plane, which was literally rammed by a Russian pilot. Both pilots died after the wreckage plummeted to the ground below. It wasn’t the most efficient method of air combat, but it was a start. Clearly, we’ve spent the many decades since getting very, very good at it. Unfortunately, though, there have been more reasons for combat disasters than machine gun bullets and suicidal pilots, and one of the most unique and mysterious of those causes first appeared in British newspapers. In an article from the early 1900s, it was said that, and I quote, “the newly constituted royal air force in 1918 appears to have detected the existence of a hoard of mysterious and malicious sprites, whose sole purpose in life was to bring about as many as possible of the inexplicable mishaps which, in those days as now, trouble an airman’s life.” The description didn’t feature a name, but that was soon to follow. Some experts think that we can find roots of it in the old English word gremian, which means “to vex” or “to annoy”. It fits the behaviour of the creatures to the letter, and because of that they have been known from the beginning as gremlins.

Now, before we move forward, it might be helpful to take care of your memories of the 1984 classic film by the same name. I grew up in the 80s, and Gremlins was a fantastic bit of eye candy for my young, horror-loving mind, but the truth of the legend has little resemblance to the version that you and I witnessed on the big screen. The gremlins of folklore, at least the stories that came out of the early 20th century that is, describe the ancient stereotypical daemon, but with a twist. Yes, they were said to be small, ranging anywhere from six inches to three feet in height, and yes, they could appear and disappear at will, causing mischief and trouble wherever they went. But in addition, these modern versions of the legendary goblin seem to possess a supernatural grasp of human technology. In 1923, a British pilot was flying over open water when his engine stalled. He miraculously survived the crash into the sea and was rescued shortly after that. When he was safely aboard the rescue vessel, the pilot was quick to explain what had happened. Tiny creatures, he claimed, had appeared on the plane. Whether they appeared out of nowhere or smuggled themselves aboard prior to take-off, the pilot wasn’t sure. However they got there, he said that they proceeded to tamper with the plane’s engine and flight controls, and without power or control, he was left to drop helplessly into the sea.

These reports were infrequent in the 1920s, but as the world moved into the Second World War and the number of planes in the sky began to grow exponentially, more and more stories seemed to follow – small, troublesome creatures who had an almost supernatural ability to hold on to moving aircraft, and while they were there, to do damage and to cause accidents. In some cases, they were even cited inside planes, among the crew and cargo. Stories, as we’ve seen so many times before, have a tendency to spread like disease. Oftentimes, that’s because of fear, but sometimes it’s because of truth, and the trouble is in figuring out where to draw that line, and that line kept moving as the sightings were reported outside the British ranks. Pilots on the German side also reported seeing creatures during flights, as did some in India, Malta and the Middle East. Some might chalk these stories up to hallucinations, or a bit of pre-flight drinking. There are certainly a lot of stories of World War Two pilots climbing into the cockpit after a night of romancing the bottle – and who can blame them? In many cases, these pilots were going to their death, with a 20% chance of never coming back from a mission alive. But there are far too many reports to blame it all on drunkenness or delirium. Something unusual was happening to planes all throughout the Second World War, and with folklore as a lens, some of the reports are downright eerie. In 2014, a 92-year-old World War Two veteran from Jonesborough, Arkansas came forward to tell a story he had kept to himself for seven decades. He’d been a B-17 pilot during the war, one of the legendary flying fortresses that helped allied air forces carry out successful missions over Nazi territory, and it was on one of those missions that this man experienced something that, until recently, he had kept to himself. The pilot, who chose to identify himself with the initials L.W., spoke of how he was a 22-year-old flight commander on the B-17, when something very unusual happened on a combat mission in 1944. He described how, as he brought the aircraft to a higher altitude, the plane began to make strange noises. That wasn’t completely unusual, as the B-17 is an absolutely enormous plane and sometimes turbulence can rattle the structure, but he checked his instrument panel out of habit. According to his story, the instruments seemed broken and confused.

Looking for an answer to the mystery, he glanced out the right-side window, and then froze. There, outside the glass of the cockpit window, was the face of a small creature. The pilot described it as about three feet tall with red eyes and sharp teeth. The ears, he said, were almost owl-like, and its skin was grey and hairless. He looked back toward the front and noticed a second creature, this one moving along the nose of the aircraft. He said it was dancing and hammering away at the metal body of the plane. He immediately assumed he was hallucinating. I can picture him rubbing his eyes and blinking repeatedly like some old Loony Toons film. But according to him, he was as sharp and alert as ever. Whatever it was that he witnessed outside the body of the plane, he said that he managed to shake them off with a bit of “fancy flying”, and that’s his term, not mine. But while the creatures themselves might have vanished, the memory of them would haunt him for the rest of his life. He told only one person afterwards, a gunner on another B-17, but rather than laugh at him his friend acknowledged that he, too, had seen similar creatures on a flight just the day before.

Years prior, in the summer of 1939, an earlier encounter was reported, this time in the Pacific. According to the account, a transport plane took off from the airbase in San Diego in the middle of the afternoon and headed toward Hawaii. Onboard were 13 marines, some of whom were crew of the plane and others were passengers – it was a transport, after all. About halfway through the flight, whilst still over the vast expanse of the blue Pacific, the transport issued a distress signal. After that, the signal stopped, as did all other forms of communication. It was as if the plane had simply gone silent and then vanished, which made it all the more surprising when it reappeared later, outside the San Diego airfield and prepared for landing. But the landing didn’t seem right. The plane came in too fast, it bounced on the runway in rough, haphazard ways, and then finally came to a dramatic emergency stop. Crew on the runway immediately understood why, too – the exterior of the aircraft was extensively damaged, some said it looked like bombs had ripped apart the metal skin of the transport. It was a miracle, they said, that the thing even landed at all. When no one exited the plane to greet them, they opened it up themselves and stepped inside, only to be met with a scene of horror and chaos.

Inside, they discovered the bodies of 12 of the 13 passengers and crew. Each seemed to have died from the same types of wounds, large, vicious cuts and injuries that almost seemed to have originated from a wild animal. Added to that, the interior of the transport smelled horribly of sulphur and the acrid odour of blood. To complicate matters, empty shell casings were found scattered about the interior of the cockpit. The pistols responsible, belonging to the pilot and co-pilot, were found on the floor near their feet, completely spent. 12 men were found, but there was a thirteenth. The co-pilot had managed to stay conscious despite his extensive injuries, just long enough to land the transport at the base. He was alive but unresponsive when they found him, and quickly removed him for emergency medical care. Sadly, the man died a short while later. He never had the chance to report what happened.

Stories of the gremlins have stuck around in the decades since, but they live mostly in the past. Today they are mentioned more like a personified Murphy’s Law, muttered as a humorous superstition by modern pilots. I get the feeling that the persistence of the folklore is due more to its place as a cultural habit than anything else. We can ponder why, I suppose. Why would sightings stop after World War II? Some think it’s because of advancements in aeroplane technology: stronger structures, faster flight speeds, and higher altitudes. The assumption is that, sure, gremlins could hold on to our planes, but maybe we’ve gotten so fast that even that’s become impossible for them. The other answer could just be that the world has left those childhood tales of little creatures behind. We’ve moved beyond belief now. We’ve outgrown it. We know a lot more than we used to, after all, and to our thoroughly modern minds these stories of gremlins sound like just so much fantasy. Whatever reason you subscribe to, it’s important to remember that many people have believed with all their being that gremlins are real, factual creatures, people we would respect and believe.

In 1927, a pilot was over the Atlantic in a plane that, by today’s standards, would be considered primitive. He was alone, and he had been in the air for a very long time but was startled to discover that there were creatures in the cockpit with him. He described them as small, vaporous beings with a strange, otherworldly appearance. The pilot claimed that these creatures spoke to him and kept him alert in a moment when he was overly tired and passed the edge of exhaustion. They helped with the navigation for his journey and even adjusted some of his equipment. This was a rare account of gremlins who were benevolent rather than meddlesome or hostile. Even still, this pilot was so worried about what the public might think of his experience that he kept the details to himself for over 25 years. In 1953, this pilot included the experience in a memoir of his flight. It was a historic journey, after all, and recording it properly required honesty and transparency. The book, you see, was called The Spirit of St. Louis, and the man was more than just a pilot. He was a military officer, an explore, an inventor, and on top of all of that he was also a national hero because of his successful flight from New York to Paris – the first man to do so, in fact. This man, of course, was Charles Lindbergh.

[Closing Statements]

#lore podcast #podcast transcripts #aaron mahnke #gremlins #gremlin #cryptozoology #transcripts #32

5 notes · View notes

lokismercedes · 6 years ago

Text

A History Lesson and a Date

A Loki x reader one-shot based on the Valentines Day prompts from loki-the-fox:

44: “Yeah nothing says ‘I love you’ more than bouquet that’ll die in two days time.”

46: “My mom gave a rose because she felt sorry for me”

Author: Lokismercedes

Summary: After you and your husband split, your uncle Tony Stark moves you and your 16 year old twin daughters into the compound. A certain raven haired god takes a keen interest in you three and in turn you give him a history lesson about Valentine’s Day.

You had gotten pregnant in high school when you were 16. Even though it was incredibly hard you still managed to finish school and graduate. Your uncle Tony was disappointed to say the least, but he always supported every decision you ever made. Telling him that you wanted to keep the baby (Even after you found out it was twins) was no different. Your mom had kicked you out when you told her, and immediately uncle Tony demanded you move in with him. When you were 20 you met your husband. After a whirlwind of a romance that lasted 6 months he proposed and you said yes, a month later you two were married in a small ceremony that only a few friends and family members attended. Now eleven years later, here you were, living with Uncle Tony again after being kicked out. He truly was a God send and the only family member that didn’t shun you for getting pregnant at sixteen. Today not only marked your humiliation after finding ‘the love of your life’ cheating on you with someone who was ten years younger than you but it also happened to be Valentine’s Day. Now you were never one to really care about this holiday, but you desperately longed for the simplicity your life used to be. You missed living in Tennessee so much, the way everyone in your small town always smiled and waved at each other, and always made small talk whether they knew you or not. That was your favorite part of living in the south: The Southern Hospitality! Living in New York was VASTLY different.

On top of moving to New York with the twins you had recently started going back to school to get your Registered Nursing License. While you were desperately trying to cram a study session in this morning you noticed the girls weren’t in their room, cursing you texted them asking where they were. They both told you they were with the Asguardians in the common room kitchen eating breakfast. You blew out a sigh of relief knowing they were already eating breakfast, and knowing that Happy - Uncle Tony’s assistant - was going to drive them to school so you could worry about studying for your nursing boards. You grabbed your books and notes and grabbed the girls backpacks (They conveniently forgot in your living room of the suit you lived in) and started reading over your notes walking to the elevator to meet up with the girls.

Your boards were coming up in a couple of weeks and you knew the material easily enough, what was worrying you was the fact you also had to do a clinical exam on top of the written exam. You knew there was some things that you really needed to brush up on but the girls were way to wirey and wiggley to use them, you know you could always ask Uncle Tony or Aunt Pepper, but you feel like you have already imposed on them enough, and didn’t want to ask them unless absolutely necessary. As you stepped out of the elevator and into the kitchen of the common room you immediately heard Thors’ booming laugh, and the girls came running at you.

“Thank god we don’t have to run back upstairs to grab them.” Savanna sighed in relief.

“Is Happy here yet?” You ask them.

“Not yet, but we panicked when we couldn’t find our bags.” Dakota piped up. “Oh mom, there’s a bouquet of roses in the kitchen that has your name on the card.” She said as an afterthought.

“WHAT?!” You nearly shouted. “Please tell me they are from you two?” You say.Both girls shook their heads

“Nope, looks like you might have a secret admirer.” Savanna smirked.

“God I hope not.” You mumbled walking into the kitchen. “Morning Odinsonbros” You gave the gods in greeting.

“And what a glorious morning it is Lady Y/N.” Thor said pulling you into a hug a lung popping hug. Loki nodded in your direction and flashed you a dazzling smile.

“Girls, why didn’t you wake me up, instead of the boys?” You asked.

“Well, mom, we really didn’t want to bother you with today being Valentine’s Day and all.” Savanna spoke up. You rolled your eyes and gave them both a hug and a kiss.

“Beside, Lady Y/N, we were up anyway.” Thor smiled at you. Loki grumbled something into his breakfast indicating Thor was lying, but trying to be polite.

“Guys, I’m fine, makes me feel like you like the boys more than me, you know today really doesn’t mean much to me, never has.” You responded.

“Mom, read the card, I wanna know who sent you flowers.” Savanna urged handing you the card.

“I really don’t.” You grumbled taking the card, worried they may have come from your Soon-to-be-ex-husband. The look of worry must have been on your face because Thor asked what was wrong.

“Nothing really, hoping to hell its not from my ex.” You shrugged.

“Well if they are, can we burn them?” Dakota asked hopeful

“ABSOLUTELY! That’s the best idea I’ve heard this morning!” You beamed at the girls, earning a chuckle from Loki. You placed your notes that you were studying down on the counter and sat next to Loki. You could see him trying to read the card over your shoulder and you smirked.

“Jealous?” You nudged him with your shoulder.

“Hm hardly, just merely curious as to who’s attention you hold” Loki waved his hand nonchalantly.

“HE SPEAKS!” You winked at him, and you swore he blushed a little.You looked down at the card and read it:

Y/N,

Honey, I heard about what happened between you and H/N, and I’m terribly sorry. Here’s a little something to, hopefully, brighten your day a little. Call me when you’re free.

-XOXO Mom

You rolled your eyes, handed the card to Loki so he could read it, grabbed the roses and threw them in the trash can. All four of the people in the kitchen gave you a quizzical look.

“Why did you throw them out? I think its an endearing gesture.” Loki asked

“Too little, too late” You told him.

“Who are they from, mom?” One of the girls asked.

“Nobody important.” You shrugged. Right then Happy walked in to take the girls to school. You noticed Thor give Loki’s shoulder a squeeze and he too made an excuse to leave.

“Now why would you say your mother isn’t important?” Loki moved to take his plate to the sink, then casually leaned againsed the counter and folded his arms across his chest.

“Long story short, she kicked me out when I got pregnant at sixteen, then her and all of her side of the family disowned me.” You shrugged.

“Maybe shes trying to mend her relationship with you. Possibly for the sake of your daughters.” He pondered.

“Hm nice try Mischief, but my mom gave me a rose because she felt sorry for me, since the separation.” You tried to sound indifferent. “She really wasn’t a hands on mother to be honest, we have always had a rocky relationship.” You really wanted this conversation to end. This was actually a very touchy subject to you and you know Loki’s just trying to make you feel better.

“Or, she really does love you, and is trying to finally reach out.” He walked over to you, and you noticed he was picking at his hands

“Riiight, Nothing says ‘I love you’ like a bouquet that will die in two days time.” You quipped back smirking.

“Always the optimistic I see. Stark did tell me a little bit about this midguardian holiday. Can’t say I’m a fan of lovesick couples groping each other in public, whispering childish sentiments, and spending ridiculous amounts of money on stuff thats obviously just going to get tossed in the bin at the end of the day.” He gestured towards where you threw the roses out.

“Actually it only turned romantic around 1375, when the medieval English poet, Geoffrey Chaucer, wrote a poem called “Parliament of Foules.” where he linked the dreaded V-Day with Love. It used to be a pagan celebration called Lupercalia. Celebrated at the ides of February, it was a fertility festival dedicated to Faunus, the Roman God of Agriculture. Around A.D. 270 the christian church decided to place St. Valentine’s feast to Christianize the pagan belief.” You told him matter- of- factly. Loki stared at you in shock. “What? I like history and being catholic I specifically like the history of different saints.” You smirked at Loki’s absolutely stunned look.

“What else do you know about this holiday?” He asked genuinely sitting back down motioning for you to join him. “Please enlighten me more about this tediously mundane holiday.”

You sat next to him and faced him. “Um, well, lets see, nobody really knows who St. Valentine really was, there could actually be up words to 15 different people. The one that Roman Catholics seem to really focus on was a Roman Priest in the third century.” Loki was just staring at you while you talked occasionally smirking at the passion for which you spoke. “Technically in my opinion, were celebrating a temple priest that was arrested, beaten, sentenced to death, and eventually beheaded on the 14th of February.”

“What exactly was his crime?” Loki wondered

“He was helping couples wed, you see, when emperor Claudius the second made marriage illegal because he wanted unwed men for his army.” You smiled at the look of disgust on Loki’s face.

“Barbaric!” He exclaimed

“It really is, he was only canonized in 1988, by pope John Paul the second.” You were becoming more and more aware of the way Loki was staring at you, almost like he could see into your soul.

“Lady Y/N, I would love to hear more about this, lets say, over some dinner and maybe wine?” He asked almost shyly, picking at his hands again. You furrowed your brows in confusion.

“Like a date? Loki are you asking me out?” You were sure you heard wrong.

“I suppose I am.” He looked up to finally meet your eyes, he had so much riding on you saying yes. It all clicked into place now, the constant figiting, Thor squeezing his shoulder earlier, he’s always been so good with the twins, that’s why the girls never woke you up this morning! He’s been planning this and they have been helping him! Your heart was racing.

“Tell you what, Mischief, if you convince your brother to check in every now and then with the twins, maybe stay overnight with them, not only will I have dinner with you, but you can help me play nurse-” You started but was interrupted by your Uncle Tony walking in right at that moment and spitting his coffee out. Both you and Loki burst out laughing.

End

#loki-the-fox #riversdayoflove #loki x reader #twin daughters #valentinesday #thor odinson #tony stark #two ocs #Lokismercedes

73 notes · View notes

tisthenightofthewitch · 6 years ago

Text

Tobias Forge from Ghost in an interview (translated - badly - from German)

The rock / metal band Ghost is currently on a European tour and invites in the course on 17 February for an audience in the Swiss Life Hall to Hannover ( tickets ) - presented by Count Your Bruises Magazine. Frontman Tobias Forge, aka Cardinal Copia, took the time to start an interview with us and revealed that fans in Germany are going to have a ghost show that has never happened before and that we're aiming for a new Ghost in 2020 Album may be happy.

Hello Tobias, how are you? Thank you for your time!

Tobias : I'm fine, thank you, how are you? Thank you for the interview!

Everything is fine here too, thank you! How is the tour so far? You are in Amsterdam today, right?

Tobias : Exactly. So far we played a show, a very good start and I'm really happy!

Super. So, let's get started: Your identity was revealed two years ago, when founding members of Ghost opened a lawsuit against you. Do you see any differences between the time behind the mask and now and what has changed this revelation for you as a person and maybe even for the whole band?

Tobias: It is difficult to say what exactly the result of this revelation was. I have been recognized many, many years before. Because the people who were interested in the band were able to locate my identity online seven years ago, if they really wanted to. So for me it's hard to say if - if someone recognizes me on the street and addresses me - it's because that person saw me on French television or learned who I am six years ago. And have things changed? Every year things change. Ghost itself is getting bigger and bigger, we are doing bigger and bigger things and it's going on steadily. So sometimes it's not easy to tell if it's up to these things or because people, for example, heard "Dance Macabre" on the radio and just learned my identity online, just as they would have done three years ago. So there is no direct "before and after".

Understand. And why did you choose to perform as an anonymous band at the beginning?

Tobias: Because I wanted Ghost to be more of a kind of art form. I did not see Ghost as a band that plays metal festivals or metal bands, I thought of cabaret or some sort of theater play. It was a great idea in my head. But in reality that did not work that way. At the time, I did not think we could be commercially successful. I thought we might succeed in some ways, but on a different level. That we become an art band. I still believe that we are an artistic band, but today we are simply a commercial rock band. This is something very different than what I had in mind. That's why anonymity to my original plan would have worked very well. Anonymity does not fit the concept of a successful,

So, in the end, did you consciously decide that Ghost should be a bigger and more commercially successful band?

Tobias : Of course. Without question, I always wanted to be a professional musician who can live from his music. And I was not that before Ghost. When I realized that Ghost is more popular than I ever considered and I realized that my life's dream can come true - of course! Who would not do that?

That's true. Of course, it's always great to earn your money with your passion.

Tobias : Exactly. That sums it up. It is just as easy. Everything just went better than I thought. I did not expect it to work that way.

And how did you come to create the characters Papa Emeritus and now Cardinal Copia? What do these figures mean to you?

Tobias: It's important to keep in mind that I'm from the black metal scene. So everything I associate with occultism, upturned crosses, skulls and so on is very, very common. For me, a demonic pope was not a totally original idea because it is simply anchored in the DNA of satanic rock'n'roll. For example, take a look at the album cover for "Terrible Certainty" by Kreator. There you will find a demonic pope. So it was quite normal for me. The band is made up of nameless and defenseless monks, so what's the most logical character you can put over them? Maybe a priest? Or a cardinal? Oh no, a pope! That will look cool! And to have a pope who puts on his face like a skull is historically very close to satanic rock music and heavy metal - this is Corpse Paint. And Corpse Paint is mostly a skull. I'm a big fan of the Misfits and the Italian horror rock band Death SS. The Skull Paint comes from Paul Chain (Frontman of the band Death SS - Note d. Red. ). That's what I tried to imitate. Indiana Jones "Temple Of Doom" guards also wore cool skull paints. The cardinal was finally an extension of that. I knew there would be a daddy Emeritus I, a daddy Emeritus II and a daddy Emeritus III. And then I came up with the idea: what if there is a leadership character who is not yet a pope? Well, what would he be? He would be a cardinal. He would therefore start as a cardinal and hopefully grow so far that he can later be appointed Pope. Here you can see the transition.

And how would you describe your personal relationship to religion or to Catholicism?

Tobias : My personal relationship with Catholicism is not very close. I grew up in a Protestant country. The church in my old hometown was an old Catholic church and I went into it. I have always enjoyed being there, because it is old, big, imposing and had everything that an old "horror church" must contain. She is taller than anything around her. The church has always been a very inspiring place for me. That's the one, more aesthetic and inspirational thing. On the other hand, I have experienced with Christians that they have two faces. They often pretend to represent kindness and kindness, but many of them are pretty lousy. That's why I'm often very suspicious of religious people.

Speaking of mistrust: In an interview you said that the medieval mentality has returned through social media. What do you personally think of Facebook, Instagram and Co. and how do you see social media from the perspective of your band, which can reach their fans and gain new listeners?

Tobias: As a professional musician, I just like it. I definitely have to thank social media for my career. We grew up thanks to MySpace. I think without MySpace we would not have done that at the time. In 2010, what we did was not very popular. It would have been difficult to get these effects without the internet. This "overnight sensation" would not have happened. I think that if we had appeared at another time on the scene, we would still have somehow been successful, but it would never have been the way it has gone. We will never know how it could have been. I definitely owe my career to the internet and social media. As an artist, I am very thankful. But still: I think as a parent and human that social media has many sites that are not necessarily good for people. Many people - especially young people - feel bad about something that they should not feel bad about, thanks to social media. Because they get hold of what they do not have and what they can not be. And I think that's not good.

You're right.

Tobias: I think it's good to be inspired. It's good to get inspiration from an ad, for example, for what it was in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's when there was a limited amount of advertising. For example, if you said, "If you use this soap, you will look like this," everyone knew it was fake. Nowadays, however, more and more advertising appears that does not look like a fake. Here is advertised a lifestyle that they believe everyone can have. But they are not saying that they are influencers who get paid and get a lot of things for free, just to tell people that. So you do not live the same life as you do, but convey that you can live such a lifestyle without doing anything, and that's a bad thing. I think, that many people believe that if you win the lottery you can spend your life doing nothing, and that is not a quality of life. Most people only feel good when they have something purposeful to do. You have a goal for yourself and for others, and that's the reason why you feel better. But social media usually promotes the view that you can quickly achieve very much with little time, you earn five million and then your life is perfect. I do not think that's a good thing because it implies many people are failing. You do not fail. You will not fail if you do not have five million in the account. Then you are not a failure. I think that's the bad thing about social media. You are constantly confronted with what you can be, but that is not achievable. And that makes people sad - that's definitely the bad side of it.

That's right. Starting next week, you will be visiting Germany for a few shows. What's behind the tour name "A Pale Tour Named Death" and what can we expect from the shows?

Tobias: The name comes from "A Pale Horse Named Death", a biblical term. This means that death sets off on a bright horse. Since our album is about dying, death, and the idea of immortality, and about being able to appreciate that you're still alive, the title makes sense. And what can we expect? From a German point of view, you can expect a show that we have not been able to do in Germany so far. All the years we toured in Germany, we have in one way or another always rather moderate shows in terms of production, etc., because we were limited because we have played at festivals, for example, had fewer opportunities and of it were held to deliver a big show. Now we finally come to Germany to present a big show. An Arena show, something we always wanted to do.

The location in Hannover is also pretty cool and quite big. When you stand on stage and look into the crowd - What kind of people do you see there and what goes through your mind?

Tobias: I see many different people. That's one of the cool things about the band's great success. When we started back then, everything was very metal oriented and we attracted younger metal fans in the first place. When we started touring and playing our own shows, I was always pleased to see that the Metal community was there - both old and new - so the 60 year old or even 70 year old fan was up there to 15-year-olds. There are always a lot of girls on our shows, indie girls, indie guys ... it's just a big mix of different people. I think it's great. I am also very pleased that the demographics are balanced - I think there are usually 40% girls or women present, which is also a very good thing for the crowd. This makes everything a little more fun. If you go to a Manowar Show, 95% of men are present. Often it is then too hard. The atmosphere just gets better when there are many women. I appreciate very much. We have a lot of kids on the shows, but on the other hand, people my own age or older, because we remind them of KISS, Alice Cooper or others. I think it's a win-win situation to address a wide audience. That's exactly what I see when I look into the audience. Every time I am surprised that this balanced mix is there. because we remind them of KISS, Alice Cooper or others. I think it's a win-win situation to address a wide audience. That's exactly what I see when I look into the audience. Every time I am surprised that this balanced mix is there. because we remind them of KISS, Alice Cooper or others. I think it's a win-win situation to address a wide audience. That's exactly what I see when I look into the audience. Every time I am surprised that this balanced mix is there.

Let's come to my last question: What does the future of Ghost look like?

Tobias : Currently very booked. We play shows throughout the year, until Christmas. This will last until 2020. We do not know exactly what 2020 will look like, but I already know that there will be some shorter tours and we will record a new album in the first half. There will be a new album in about eight months from then.

So are you already working on new songs?

Tobias : Yes, I do!

Great, I'm curious. Also on the show in Hannover next week.

Tobias : That's what I'm looking forward to, it'll be cool. This will definitely be something you have not seen in Germany by Ghost yet.

Sounds great. Thank you very much for your time and the interview. I hope you have a great tour!

Tobias : Thank you very much and have a nice day!

#Tobias Forge #Tobias Interview #The Band Ghost #Ghost Band #Cardinal Copia

61 notes · View notes