#MERLIN IS A FUNDAMENTALLY GREAT CONCEPT

[wardensantoineandevka]

with Merlin being asked "what would be your reaction, should you, in the course of the voyage, make observations or achieve learnings which fundamentally invalidate or subvert your preconceived concepts of the cosmos?" and "do you foresee any difficulty in the crew's decision-making ability in the absence of a more conventional captain?"

it would be in fact so funny and great if it ends up that Merlin is like, "so I had a whole crisis earlier about the fact nothing about the cosmos works the way I thought it did and all of my research is completely invalidated, but I think I'm getting over it! I'm fine! It's all going to be fine. I was just theoretical, after all, and I can write new papers with all the new work we're doing, and all the new data we've collected, and all the new stuff I'm directly observing. It's fine—sincerely! I definitely learned something valuable about being okay with being wrong sometimes and how to bear that with grace and humility."

then the situation is immediately like, "How about we test that with something a little less theoretical and a little more consequential? Hope you took those lessons about living with being wrong to heart because you're making executive decisions now, Mr. De Facto Captain. "

[specialinterestsgalore]

Magic and Homosexuality in Merlin

As with pretty much any essay I post on here, this was mostly a minimally edited stream of consciousness. Because the show title is the same name as the main character, I tried to italicize when referring to the show and leave the text normal when referring to Merlin the character.

Merlin aired on the BBC from September 2008 through December 2012. Merlin is a retelling of the story of King Arthur, naturally focusing on Merlin, though it is certainly not in line with the typical legends of King Arthur and Merlin. In the traditional tellings, Merlin is a powerful sorcerer with almost complete knowledge of the past, present, and future (sometimes said to experience time backward), he is often the son of a demon or the devil himself, and is an ally or even court magician during the reign of Uther, Arthur’s father. In this depiction, Merlin is a young man, the same age as Arthur, born with a natural affinity for magic in a kingdom that has outlawed its use. He is sent to live with his uncle, the court physician, and becomes Prince Arthur’s servant. The concept of being forced to live with those who believe that a natural and unchangeable aspect of oneself is reprehensible or in a community that has effectively or literally outlawed this aspect is likely familiar to many members of the LGBT community. Both of the main magical characters, Merlin and Morgana, are forced to live among those who hate them for a fundamental aspect of themselves and often watch those they love insult, abuse, and even kill others like them. For LGBT people in our world and those with magic in Merlin the negative consequences of ‘coming out’ can range from social exclusion, loss of support from friends and family, homelessness, arrest, and even death. 

Merlin is thrilled to meet his uncle Gaius and learn that while he chose to stop practicing magic to remain working in the palace, Gaius had much magical experience and knowledge. Merlin is lucky enough to find his own small community in Gaius and Kilgharrah, the Great Dragon, who help guide him. His mother, Hunith, is rarely seen but she has known about Merlin’s magic for his entire life and has always supported him. Though he has chances to leave the palace and live amongst other magic users, Merlin chooses to stay due to the relationships he forged. His experiences are very reminiscent of my own growing up. I often compartmentalized my relationships with friends and family from what I knew their opinions on same-sex attraction were. One of my closest friends in high school had a ‘Take Back the Rainbow’ keychain, a movement for removing the rainbow’s association with the LGBT community, and although seeing it was an upsetting reminder that no matter how close we were I would never be able to share moments like my wedding with him we remained friends until we moved for university. Similarly, it is impossible for Merlin to share a key part of himself with any of his friends and family but he chooses to stay and deepen these relationships. 

The other main magical character in Merlin is Morgana. In this depiction, Morgana is the orphaned child of one of King Uther’s friends and allies and has been raised as Uther’s ward for most of her life. We later learn that Morgana is Uther’s biological child from an affair with her mother. Morgana was also born with magic but it presented itself much later than Merlin’s and initially, it is extremely distressing and confusing to her. If Merlin represents those who realize they are same-sex attracted at an early age and are given the support needed to become comfortable with themselves, Morgana represents those who only begin to realize their attraction in adolescence and have no support or resources to help them fully understand what is happening within them. Morgana begins to have prophetic dreams and nightmares and Gaius, being the court physician and having extensive magical knowledge, is aware that she is displaying magical abilities but neglects to use this knowledge to comfort or guide her. Though he has good intentions, Uther executes any magic users found in Camelot and would likely have little sympathy for his daughter. Gaius believes that ensuring that even Morgana does not understand her abilities will protect her from his wrath. While it likely does protect Morgana for a time, it also leads to her feeling that she has no support within the palace and feeling intense anger at those she used to consider family. An African proverb says “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth” and Morgana is a textbook example of this. Though Gaius and Merlin attempt to support Morgana, they do so without directly letting her know how much they understand about what she is going through; Morgana can not feel their support and instead seeks out warmth from Camelot’s enemies. Her closest ally is her half-sister Morgose, a high priestess of the Old Religion, who has a (understandably) strong vendetta against Camelot and King Uther. This leads to Morgana being manipulated in some ways, though the love between the sisters is still obvious. In my opinion, this echoes how LGBT children who are not accepted by their communities are often led toward unhealthy and self-destructive coping mechanisms. LGBT youth, particularly those who are homeless or in foster care, have high rates of substance abuse and are more likely to engage in sex work or prostitution. They, like Morgana, are not given resources to help them cope with the lack of support they received in their childhood and the resulting trauma in healthy ways. This leads Morgana on a quest to destroy Camelot and those she feels have wronged her, destroying herself in the process. 

While Merlin never acknowledges the similarities between the plight of magic users and those in the LGBT community or the homoerotic tension built up between Merlin and Arthur and Morgana and Guinevere, among other characters, for many fans it is a powerful allegory. 

[words-writ-in-starlight]

Please tell me all about your complaints with BBC Merlin, bc I too have Many Complaints (ft. Miscommunication and Secrets Are Good For Drama to a Maximum of One Season and Certainly Not Five; Morgana is a Terrified and Oppressed Woman Who Is Made Evil for Being Terrified and Oppressed and Does Not Deserve It, Much Like All Mages; and Everyone Has A Serious Case of Forgetting Their Character Growth when The Plot Requires.

*deep breath*

Honestly I think my ultimate complaint about Merlin is that it suffers from an absolutely crippling case of narrative cowardice, which is a concept you might recall from my Inevitable Tirade About SPN.  Basically: if you open your show with a large portion of it predicated on a conceit that has to be drastically altered in order to accomplish the ultimate goal of the plot (in the case of Merlin, switching from uther’s Camelot to Arthur’s Camelot), you can’t be a shit about it and you have to actually goddamn do it.  CHANGE YOUR PARADIGM, YOU LIMP NOODLES.

No, I’m dead serious, all their problems basically boil down to a critical inability to change the paradigm.  Let’s do an experiment to prove it.

Merlin’s magic, obviously.

Two things here.

First, Merlin hiding his magic.  At the beginning, Merlin can’t tell anyone about his magic on pain of death, because Uther.  This implicitly sets up the eventual transition into Arthur’s Camelot as a shift into a ‘safe’ Camelot for magic users in general and Merlin in particular, because we all know a little bit about Arthuriana and we know that Merlin becomes Arthur’s trusted adviser, magic and all.  So in order to accomplish that transition, what ‘should’ happen (by ‘should’ I mean, ‘the thing that makes intuitive sense to someone waiting for the plot to advance’) is that Merlin’s presence and involvement in Arthur’s life gradually makes Arthur more comfortable with magic, until finally a crisis forces a reveal in which Merlin comes clean and puts Arthur in the position of deciding once and for all where he stands.  Plot and precedent in every other Arthurian legend requires that Arthur decides, at the very least, that Merlin is not evil and that consequently magic can be used for good.  This would by virtue of necessity put Arthur and Merlin against Uther, and moreover mean that it would be the two of them scheming together in order to save the kingdom every couple weeks, which would be an excellent way to develop their relationship and progress toward Arthur’s Camelot.  Instead, by trying to uphold the ‘secrecy’ conceit, the plot is forced to relapse to Square One every couple of episodes, and therefore when Arthur’s Camelot does come ‘round, it’s not safe for Merlin to come clean, Merlin still doesn’t really trust Arthur, Arthur’s playing checkers on a board where the other side is playing chess, and We The People feel pretty fucking cheated.

Second, Merlin’s magic in general.  FRIENDS.  COMRADES.  IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO SET SOMEONE UP AS THE MOST POWERFUL MAGE IN HISTORY, I WANT TO SEE THEM BE THE MOST POWERFUL MAGE IN HISTORY.  Honestly by about season 3 there’s no point to Merlin being worried about coming clean, because we’re told repeatedly that he’s powerful enough to not worry about being burned at the stake or whatever.  According to what we’re told, Merlin should have the raw power to walk into Uther’s courtroom and announce “Hello, all, I am a warlock and I dare you to mess with me” and then go back to his business.  But since we never see him actually carry that out–y’all he fucking killed Nimueh with lightning, why didn’t we see that again?–Merlin’s power level is mostly an Informed Attribute, which leaves the viewer frustrated and confused by a lot of the tension the show sets up regarding threats to Merlin’s life.  We see Merlin demonstrate multiple times that it would be almost impossible to execute him by traditional methods, and yet we’re still supposed to agree that it’s too dangerous.  Like.  Listen, my friends.  Here is a pro tip.  It’s actually not a narrative-ending problem to have a ludicrously OP character (which is what Merlin would be if the writers were consistent with his abilities), but you have to acknowledge that they develop a whole different set of obstacles than someone who isn’t ludicrously OP.  It just takes some creative thinking.

Morgana!

Morgana is horribly mistreated by the narrative and I’m not gonna question you there, but moreover, a lot of the problems with her magic plotline are, again, about a fear of changing the paradigm.  So, like, okay, let’s all agree that it would make infinitely more narrative sense for Morgana to go to Arthur, her foster brother and trusted friend, in distress and tell him that she thinks she can do magic, which Arthur would tell his servant Merlin.  The two of them recommend that Morgana keep it under wraps, and maybe that’s how Arthur starts to come around on the magic thing, rather than Merlin’s influence.  Sure, super chill.  Instead of just doing an about-face on the whole loyalty thing because…what…she’s not the heir?  (It’s been A Minute since I put myself through this show.)  Instead of that whole mess, maybe Morgana comes to Merlin when Uther is wounded and begs him to help her find a way to heal him, because surely, surely, if his beloved ward (and daughter) uses magic for something so pure and innocently good as healing the king, it can’t be evil.  When that inevitably backfires, Uther banishes Morgana from Camelot, and Arthur tells her to go because it’s safer.  Morgana, betrayed by Uther and perceiving herself to be abandoned by Arthur and Merlin, turns on Camelot in a rage and allies with her sister Morgause.  This plotline gives Morgana more agency, avoids the rather unsavory “madness leads to murder” overtones, minimizes the predatory vibe of Morgause’s plotline, and actually contributes to developing Merlin and Arthur as leaders and characters alike.

The problem, of course, is that this plotline hinges on Arthur’s character not being a static piece of shit that would honestly fracture under even the most minimal paradigm shift.  So instead, Morgana draws the short straw for a sudden face-heel turn so that there can be a motivation to enforce Arthur’s hatred of magic and Merlin’s fear of telling the truth, and then she disappears for half a season only to show up again crazy and homicidal, which…honestly there’s not a lot of emotional punch there.  At no point in time did I sympathize with Morgana because, update, I do not believe that fratricide and patricide are legitimate responses to her situation in the show.  But since they presented it as a problem that should have been sympathetic, I was mostly just angry rather than disinterested.

Merlin and Arthur’s friendship!

Honestly this should be pretty blindingly obvious, but Merlin and Arthur…I actually don’t super care for their relationship, because there are so few occasions when Arthur counterbalances his constant insults and judgement with the kind of do-or-die loyalty Merlin shows him.  And like on the one hand it’s clearly meant to be largely in good humor, but there are plenty of times when it’s Clearly Not.  But the worst part is that I can’t even hold it against Arthur because Merlin is not telling him the truth, which in turn I can’t hold against Merlin because Arthur is pretty much a narrow-minded magic-hating prick, which never changes because Merlin isn’t telling him the truth, because Arthur has never given him reason to think he’d stand by Merlin against Uther, and so on down the line.

And you expect me to believe that relationship develops into something strong enough to build a kingdom on?  To build a legend on?  I think the hell not.  In order to develop that relationship into something that feels as last-gasp-devoted as the show tells you it should, someone’s paradigm has to shift and it basically has to be Arthur because See Above and, again, the showmakers are fucking cowards.

Arthur’s personality AS A WHOLE

Once again: I am existentially exhausted by the whole Arthur Is A Dick thing.  And I don’t blame Merlin for starting it, but it’s definitely a peak concentration of the whole phenomenon, and I fucking hate it.  I eventually stuck it out and watched three seasons and change and I did genuinely enjoy a lot of things, but I attempted the first episode three times and had to stop because I was so fucking aggravated with Arthur’s character.  And basically, in order for him to move firmly out of Spoiled Rich Prick With Issues into Competent Merciful Leader With Tragic Backstory That Panned Out Well In The End, he needs to acknowledge in-narrative that he’s been, A, contributing to the persecution of magic users and that’s something he’ll never truly be clean of, and, B, he’s been not only mocking but actively penalizing Merlin for what Arthur does not realize is saving the country.  Basically, it would require Arthur to grow up, not just in his status as king but in and of himself as an individual, in his relationships as well as in his throne, become more than a war hero with more courage than is healthy.  It would require Arthur to spit out an apology that sounded like an apology, and start trusting Merlin’s word as an adviser rather than a conveniently intelligent servant.

And like.  That paradigm shift would probably have made the showrunners shit their pants on the spot.

If you, like me, couldn’t move past these issues but still want(ed) to enjoy the characters and universe, I have a solution for you!  Here is the most magnificent series rewrite I have ever seen in my life, and as far as I am concerned the One True Merlin Canon.  The link is to the Season 3 rewrite, which is where it goes hard AU and solves a lot of problems. 

In conclusion: fuck this noise, everyone go watch Legend of the Sword instead, @Guy Ritchie please make at least one sequel.

[oswinsdolma]

Yes, it's 2021, but I'm still not over the dark irony of Kilgharrah's final words, so I am going to analyse it, even though precisely nobody asked.

Firstly, Kilgharrah tells Merlin after his admission of failure that "all that [he has] dreamt of has come to pass". Now, obviously there is the irony of the fact that Arthur is dead, something that Merlin has been trying to prevent for the whole five seasons, yet the battle was victorious, people have seen magic as a force for good and Merlin can now be open about his gifts with his friends. However, there is an even deeper irony here that is rarely addressed, and this lies in the word "all". The problem is, that while Emrys is the entity that strives for magical inclusion and the one that fufils the prophecy. Destiny is not conscious: it doesn't understand life or death beyond the shallow ties of balance and mathematics. Yet Emrys may be a concept, and concepts need someone- or something- to take root in, and that someone happened to be Merlin.

Fundamentally, Merlin is not a bad person, but regardless of his power, his empathy, his loyalty, he is still unequivocally human. He has flaws, he has guilt, and no matter how dedicated he is to his destiny, there will always be other variables that come into play, and there is therefore no doubt that Merlin would have had other thoughts, no matter how insignificant, that lay opposed to his destiny.

Take when Freya died: Merlin was heartbroken, and in those seconds of emotion before reason took a hold once again, he may have wished, just for a moment, that Arthur and Freya's fates were reversed. And even after that, he would have hoped that one day, Arthur and Freya could live in a world where the other's existence is not a violation onto the other. And what place exists where harmony must ensue outside of the dead?

Then moving on to Balinor's death and Merlin's anguish in its aftermath: yes, he gained his powers as a dragonlord, but at the expense of a father he should have had a right to know. In that light, there is the inevitability of resentment for his gifts. Merlin would never have wanted the powers he attained had he known the price for them. And yet again, those tiny thoughts would have crept in: the wish that things could go differently, the wish that the business of dragons was not his to oversee, even at the time when his gifts were needed most. So the sick twist there is that when Merlin needed Kilgharrah, the only person who ever truly understood him despite their differences, left him alone, that wish came true.

There are hundreds of instances where Merlin's humanity prevented the prophecy from taking a favourable turn, and that, I think is what makes Merlin less a drama than a tragedy: there's the hope for a better ending combined with the constant prescence of an ending you don't want to believe. There's the fall at the ending and the warped sense of catharsis that comes with knowing that the end did come, even if it wasn't what you expected.

Following that, there is a pause in the conversation, as both characters take a second to mourn in silence, the absence of what united them showing them no longer as allies, but as friends.

Then: "no man, no matter how great, can know his destiny." This isn't so much something for Merlin to understand, but more something for the audience to hear: it's an echo of the first words we hear, and therefore a reminder that it is Kilgharrah who tells the story. Now this is an interesting narrative device in itself: why have him narrate rather than Arthur? Why Kilgharrah over Merlin or Gwen or Morgana? Take a second to imagine what it would have been like for the story to start with their voices, even if the words were the same. Especially when we know their endings, it gives the story a different tone and alludes to each of their fates in a different way. Though here is that terrible truth that the narrative comes back to every time if you analyse it far enough: each of the core four has a story, yet because of the way they were used, it will never be their story to tell. But Kilgharrah... He was just as important as the rest of them, but while the others were pawns, he was sat watching the game with a reluctant but omniescent eye, and that's what make that line hit so hard for us (aside from the fact that it is a taunting echo of the hope we had at the start). The story, while timeless, is dead, and we are all helpless spectators, hoping against hope that we are wrong about how it ends.

Furthermore, there is the fact that it is a repeat of the first words we hear when we still hold a little hope. It is that reiteration of the fact that the story will be told and retold, rewritten and loved but doomed to end in tragedy. It's an indication of the timelessness of certain tales and the permenence of endings no matter how much we want them to change, and it hits the mark every time.

Then, if it wasn't sad enough already, there is the final utterence of the phrase "once and future king". Kilgharrah says these words in hope, trusting Merlin to take it as a promise, but retrospectively there is the darkness of that line that Merlin probably knew all along, even if he didn't let himself believe it. In saying "once" rather than "now" right from the get-go, there was that quiet acknowledgement of an ending, even if it was followed by a beginning: it is yet another reminder to Merlin that he should have known, and that bittersweet reassurance that wherever he may have done, it would always have ended in disaster. Even if they both made all the right choices, the gods would have found another way to turn it down.

Okay, next let's look at "when Albion's need is greatest, Arthur will rise again". This, in all.effect, is a reiteration of the last phrase, made clearer for an audience who may need or desire reinforcement here so I'm not going to go too deep. But the thing is, Merlin already knows, at least in his heart, that it is Arthur's destiny to rise again and be the greatest king Albion has ever known. So when Kilgharrah says this, it is not a warning or a piece of advice, for perhaps the first time, it is a kindness. Merlin has been wrecked by his actions and those of all the others caught in the imperfect web spun and left to decay by the idea of Albion. It is a gentle reminder not to forget the reason for all that they have lost, and an olive branch of freedom for one who was so long enslaved.

And there again is that irony and cruel truth that while Merlin is the crucible in which that dream will be forged and has a certain autonomy over its nature, he is not a part of that dream himself, and maybe he never will be. Not unless someone lets him in, and all the people who would ever have done so are a breath too close to death for it to really count.

(I said I wasn't going to go too deep but I got carried away)(this is why my lit teacher is fed up with me)

And finally, the last line Kilgharrah says to us, perhaps the most powerful of them all: "the story that we have been a part of will live long in the minds of men". To analyse the words in this individually would be a rare insult to its complexity, but as a phrase, it evokes such an emotive response that it alone finally cements that finality in our minds. It's the cyclical acknowledgement of the audience's role in the narrative, simultaneously retracting and strengthening our suspension of belief. The one word I have used more than any other in this essay is "story" and this is why: the people who hear a tale such as this become just as important as the characters, because we are united by hope for the final chord but dreading it, because that means that the song will finally be over. Is it better for the embers to glow with tragedy or be extinguished by a deeper catharsis?

In summary, it is obvious to the naked eye that the Great Dragon's last words are loaded with meaning far beyond their initial appearance, and when you dive deeper, the web of connotations is so vast that this essay has barely scratched the surface. But the informal and perhaps most accurate theme that wa can draw from this is that none of us are over this show, no matter what we claim, because that ending really flippin' hurt, okay!?

[inhonoredglory]

The following commentary was written by @tenyai​, concept and storyboard artist for Hisirdoux Casperan on Wizards: Tales of Arcadia, in response to my meta on the closing scene of Wizards 107.Killahead Part 1 (link here):

Great analysis! You’re right on point!! I had the pleasure of boarding this scene and I’m so glad you picked up on a lot of the symbolism here. You’ll also notice Douxie, despite being told there is nothing that can be done, tells Jim that they will find a way to reverse his ailment.

It’s a huge part of who he is that even in this moment where he as to abide by Merlin’s orders he is still fighting for what he believes in, the need to fight relentlessly to save a life. He makes a promise he has full intention to keep, but it’s the very opposite of what Merlin would have done.

Other fun things to notice in this scene is the staging. You’ll notice Douxie is backed by the turning gears and green light of the Heart of Avalon. I staged him there because the chaotic spinning of the gears alluded to his chaotic turmoil emotionally and internally. And the green light symbolizes Merlin. Together the gears and the lighting are Merlin’s words and his way pressing down on Douxie’s soldiers and his conscience.

As contrast, Claire is backed by the square, rigid lines of the castle wall. She is rigid and is desperately pulling him towards what she believes is stability or something that can guarantee his survival. You’ll also notice directionality here. Left symbolizes staying in the past and going right means returning to the present. You’ll notice Claire pulls Jim leftward, and Douxie pulls him right.

But one key moment is the hand clasp (also the profile shot) where you are neither looking left (where Claire pulled him towards the past) nor are you looking right (at the Heart of Avalon). You look center, and this center symbolizes Douxie fighting for a third option. It is neither left (disruption of time, altered life by staying in the past) and it is neither right (returning to the present/certain doom). He is promising that he will help them find a way to save Jim, and to trust him.

That’s why that dialogue is specifically staged over those shots, and the hand clasp at that angle. In the boards, I actually had his bracer hand up, so you saw the blue light of his magic which was also symbolic of Douxie finding a third option, but they just had his right hand in the final (shucks!!! My symbolism!!).

If you also look closely at the composition you’ll also notice Claire and Jim are separated by the Bg elements, wall vs sky. And when Jim turns to tell Claire the news... You guessed it, he’s backed by the green rotating gears representative of Merlin. He is breaking to her the messed up reality that Merlin forewarned him of. 

Anywhere you see those gears and the green, it’s the weight of this decision pressing on the characters. And you already remarked on the end of the scene where Douxie takes accountability for his action. The staging there follows everything I just described as well, as does the lighting!!

Anyway, fun little tidbits for you! That was a super fun scene to craft, a lot of visual language and symbolism in there, all reinforcing and emphasizing the emotional state of the characters and their struggles :)

––––––––––

Teny, having the person behind the story telling me exactly the kind of symbolism she intended in a scene is just... absolute gold. I love symbolism and parallelism and how narrative, characterization, and meaning are all supported by every tool in the visual narrative box. And as a fan-turning-pro, I’m still learning a LOT and commentary like this helps me see just how much care and thought went into this show, and validates the gut reaction all us fans have had about how narratively masterful Wizards (and the TOA universe) really is.

Like the directional symbolism! That blew my mind! Cuz in the end, we have Douxie leading them rightward (to the future), through Merlin’s green light, but guided fundamentally by his own staff’s blue and thus his own conscience. Also I wonder if the stable arcs behind Doux in that last GIF are a mirror to the unstable ones of Merlin’s Heart of Avalon––a way of pointing out that although Douxie is following the pattern set by Merlin’s shifting moral compass, he’s still holding to Claire’s stability. Using Merlin’s magic, but with his more constant, noble morality. (And going off that, these arcs mirror each other by cascading upward in opposite directions––Merlin’s arcs rising to the right and to the future, and Doux’s rising to the left and to the past, or Claire’s moral standard.)

Also the fact that Merlin’s Avalon arcs rotate downward in such a way that they cut through/push down on Douxie’s head, with an especially high-contrast panel––Unlike when he’s making the promise, in which the Heart of Avalon fades just a tad into the background and doesn’t rotate down on him so much as around him. In framing Douxie against the Heart, the shots move from a Medium Full Shot to a Medium Closeup and finally to a Closeup when he makes the promise––making him slowly larger against Merlin’s Heart of Avalon, his own morality against Merlin’s philosophy. Exquisite combination of prop design, lighting, shots, and narrative symbolism.

And the lighting you mentioned!! Jim’s is red, Merlin’s green, Douxie's blue. Claire’s is purple, but here it’s also the natural, human light of the doorway she’s trying to draw Jim towards. And like you said, Jim choosing Merlin’s path puts him in the backdrop of the Heart of Avalon, bringing Claire into that moral space too. Now this sweet Jlaire moment is heightened by tension just knowing this symbolism!!!

I always loved the interplay of Merlin’s green magic with Douxie’s hair, and knowing your intentional purpose in clashing them makes me all the more excited for scenes like the one before Charlemagne destroys the staff, because the green in Doux’s hair is almost as strong as the blue––showing how much he doesn’t want to let go of Merlin, and how much his staff and his presence is overwhelming his own sense of self and confidence.

Thank you, Teny, for sharing your incredible thought process behind this pivotal scene and letting us know the kind of visual narrative techniques you’ve used to bring out the drama and poignancy of everyone involved. Your love for these characters and this show is truly inspiring. I’ve just started my animation degree at San Jose State University and interactions like yours inspires me to know that the kind of professional I want to be is out there making art, being a storyteller, nerding out, and being awesome. Thanks again!

all gifs are mine

[theonceandfutureking6481]

BBC's Merlin Season 1 Episode 5: Lancelot Analysis

It's Lancelot's first episode which is tremendously exciting. I remember the first time I watched this show (last year- I really make it sound like it was much longer than it is), I wasn't particularly attached to him but on my second rewatch I loved him, I loved his and Merlin's friendship and I loved his sheer nobility and decency. Lancelot is of course typically one of the most central characters in telling's of the Arthurian legend, so of course his appearance is exciting. Also excitingly an episode where I talk about someone other than Arthur! Yeah, if you can't tell Arthur's my favourite character. I'm not sure how clear my point is throughout all of this, its hard to articulate but I hope I've done it justice.

"Sir Lancelot, the bravest and the most noble of them all"

This is a quote from much later in the show but it explains something very fundamental about Lancelot's character. Lancelot is supposed to be the chivalric ideal, in most versions of the story he is portrayed as such, as the only knight who really comes close to fulfilling it. Lancelot's fault that puts the dent in him being the true epitome of the noble chivalric knight is his love for Guinevere, and its actually his son Galahad (who doesn't exist in Merlin) who achieves this ideal. However, the point remains that Lancelot is almost there, his character is typically about a person who almost achieves this ideal of chivalry, and they run with this in Merlin, out of all the knights he is the most knightly, the most committed, the one most devoted to its ideals.

Lancelot talks like our idea of a knight, its kind of hard to explain but the way he talks is straight out of chivalric romances, out of films about knights. You notice it because everyone in this show talks in quite a contemporary way, its an Arthurian legend for people of today and the characters talk like it, but Lancelot just doesn't, he talks like a knight from a fairytale. It's just a small detail, but it really plays into the perception of Lancelot as the epitome of chivalric honour.

I'd argue that he represents a knighthood Arthur believes in, before he even realises it himself, a kind of honour that's about devotion to one another and helping others and fighting injustice. Arthur and Lancelot do get on extremely well, despite the fact that Lancelot, in Arthur's own words, doesn't sound or look like a knight. His passionate defense of him to his father, as well as the fact that Arthur releases him from prison without his father's approval is because Arthur respects him and admires him and probably because he sees him as a friend. King Arthur's court is often the ideal representation of chivalry, stories like these about chivalrous knights were very important to aristocratic culture in medieval times, and Arthur's court was at the center of it. The thing is that there is a code of honour and chivalry before Arthur in Merlin, the knights of Camelot already exist, and they are often honourable. But Arthur's task will be to reset the idea of chivalry and honour on new grounds, in new ways and Lancelot in many ways exemplifies this ideal

There is a huge emphasis in Lancelot's character in serving with honour:

"It's not my freedom I seek. I only wish to serve with honour."-Lancelot

"He laid down his life for me. He served with honour."- Arthur

"He meant no harm I am sure of it... he only wished to serve."- Arthur

I'm not exactly sure how to define honour, its kind of an abstract concept but I do know what it means, its acting with integrity and respect and honesty. It's a concept central to the Chivalric code, that knights should behave with honour, so its inclusion here further cements the idea of Lancelot's character as representing the ideal of chivalric knighthood. Also the concept of servanthood comes up again, Merlin emphasises (through Merlin most of all) the honour in being a servant, you don't need to be great or noble or a great leader, the world needs people who are willing to serve and that is just as noble as leading.

Chivalry as a concept is inherently bound up in the concept of nobility. The etymology itself is from the French word for knight/horseman, of which only nobles could be. However, one of the points of Merlin through many of its characters is upsetting this class divide so prevalent in Arthurian stories, not just in also including the stories of those who aren't noble but in setting up a code of honour that applies to everybody. Lancelot epitomises this, he is the knight who most represents the ideal of chivalry to Arthur, he's also not a nobleman. Just like making Gwen and Merlin servants, making the most noble knight not a noble sets up this shift, highlighting the capability of everyone to the kind of goodness and nobility that Camelot's ideal will represent. Because fundamentally what's the point of an ideal if it only applies to some people, ideals should inspire everyone to be better, they should make everyone's lives better not just a small subset of people.

As Gwen says that in Arthur's knights "we need ordinary people like you and me."

Arthur and Uther

Importantly Arthur realises the injustice of laws in his father's kingdom and you see the contrast between him and Uther.

"The code bends for no man."

"Then the code is wrong."

Uther is stubborn, we know that, he's unwilling to admit the fault in his rules, in his ideas even when the evidence is right in front of him and that is a fundamental fault, you can see it in his treatment of those who use magic. Arthur by contrast is someone whose views haven't been set, partly because he is still young, but also because he is a better person than Uther in the ways that matter. He's not going to purposefully blind himself to the truth. For Uther he is also one with a worldview of absolutes, all magic users are bad, laws are laws there is no room for argument or nuance, and I'm sure Uther would see accepting argument or nuance as a weakness.

It is also important that in recognising that the code should bend, Arthur recognises the essential flaw in Uther's construction of society and chivalry. The idea that knights should all be noble, Uther literally says that it is the fact that all knights are noble that binds them together, and this is emphasised by the fact that Uther created the first code of Camelot (also the fact that its the first code- makes this seemingly small law much more important). This is a premise Arthur does not agree with it, this episode proves what it really means to be a knight in Lancelot, its a willingness to do your duty and act with honour and self-sacrifice. It is not confined to class, and thus plays into merlin's wider subversion of chivalry as only being for knights, its a code of honour and behaviour that all people can aspire to, and the ability to live and die for noble causes should not be the sole preserve of knights. The Arthurian ideal is so premised on nobility, for the rest of the kingdom, yes they have a just king and presumably they are protected and safe but they are kept from the dignity of being allowed to be noble, being allowed to be considered a part of the nobility and goodness of the Arthurian ideal. It's significant that the first figure to represent this isn't noble.

Other Stuff

"I owe Lancelot my life and I am paying for that in the only way I can."- Merlin--> This is the worldview of knights and debts of honour in its own way as well

Gwen and Lancelot are just awww, like so sweet

"Merlin would do anything for anyone."- Gwen--> True and I love that about Merlin, even as he becomes more jaded as the seasons go on this doesn't change that much—>he's wonderfully decent

"You're the only thing I care about in this world."- Gaius to Merlin--> That was just sweet and kind of sad He's encouraging Merlin to put himself in danger and Merlin reacts with anger because its like does anyone care what happens to him—> but the point is Merlin can help Arthur and no one else can so he has to do it because its his job and its his job because he's the only one who can do it--> Duty is doing what you have to do, doing the right thing even when you don't want to

"It's my duty knight or not."---> Similar to Merlin—> Lancelot believes in being a knight so whether or not he actually is one he has a duty to act like one—> he is a swordsman he is skilled and (theoretically- if they weren't creatures of magic) could defeat a Griffin so he has to do it—> because he can and its his duty to his worldview And Gwen's response- "You really believe that don't you. I don't think I've ever met anyone like you."

"You've already proven that to us"- Arthur "But I must prove it to myself."- Lancelot--> Isn't there just something very noble in that- In the desire to prove your ability to yourself above all others- to hold yourself to a high standard not just to expect things to come Will parallel Arthur in later seasons as he tries to prove his right to be king to himself--> It's funny the scene when Arthur pulls the sword in the stone (much later) is the moment when he proves his right to be king in every version of the story- but usually its proof to others- In Merlin it was trying to prove to himself

"Till next time then, Sir Lancelot."- Merlin- wonderful way to end the episode on an acknowledgement of Lancelot's role in the wider story- he is a legendary figure

[asktheheirofslytherin]

I thought 'prescheduled volding' was an euphemism for sex until I realized it was your queue tag lmaoo

anyway, onto my question: any tips for studying, Tom? you obviously know something about it, since you got great marks on your OWLs and NEWTs :))

I admit, for me, it depends upon the subject in question. Some subjects are fascinating in their own right - I can study these for hours and be unaware time has even passed. Other subjects are more tedious. 

Sometimes - especially now - I prefer to study alone, as I can find others distracting. I find discipline to be essential, so I study something I find uninteresting for half an hour before I move on to what genuinely interests me.

I have noticed that many of my peers would merely highlight or underline sections of text - and this can be helpful, but you must take care to not merely underline everything. Place a star, or another symbol, beside key points. And take notes in the text. This engagement helps you retain things longer. Even a simple “I am not sure here,” or a “but what about xyz?” can help. And then, you may start to notice patterns in your thinking - are your questions being answered in the following paragraphs? Excellent - you are an insightful reader. Are there certain concepts you continue to react to with confusion? Excellent - you know what to follow up on and research. Notes provide a pathway mere underlining does not. Oftentimes, now, I find myself providing a running commentary in the margins.  

If you do study with others, as many people do, take care to surround yourself with friends who are like minded, and will actually help you study. Good companionship can indeed make things go by much faster - ah, I do fondly recall the many nights in the library or the common room with my schoolmates, the scratch of parchment on paper, the flipping of pages, the odd thunk as Yaxley hit Avery on the head with a charms textbook.

Essays are a topic worth mentioning. As a prefect, I had many younger students whining to me all the time about how they cannot craft an essay of just a few inches. And as a prefect, I was duty bound to assist them. I will tell you what I told them, I suppose. When assigned essays, you must identify the following three points: what I am trying to say, why I must say it, and how I will back it up. 

Any essay can be broken down into these three questions. I find many people struggle with the “why” - they know the topic or argument, and they know they need to use their textbooks and research as evidence, but they get lost in the weeds of why the damn thing is important in the first place. 

A common first year essay is the use of fresh vs dried herbs in potions. If I have one more first year come to me about that bloody herb essay- ahem. They know they need to cover the uses for both. That is the what. They know they must go to the library and look up the differences between the two, in terms of effects on potions. That is the how. They never seem to think about the why. They seem to simply copy the dry definitions for the original texts, coming quite close to plagiarism or a list in paragraph form. Nothing they show me ever sounds engaging. I must ask them, time and time again; why are they even writing about this? Well, for a grade, of course, but also to put theory into context. Who is this for? You need to compare the two, give examples of their use, and why, and how things could go very wrong if you used dried nettles instead of fresh, for example. Pick a potion, explain what it is supposed to do, and then talk about the reasons why using the other type of herb fails to preform. For the love of Merlin, be creative. 

Note I never addressed mechanics. This is because grammar, spelling, vocabulary - that can all be fixed with time as one advances in academics. The more one reads and writes, the better one gets at those things quite naturally - barring certain barriers such as dyslexia, but with proper study habits, an understanding tutor, and a spell-check quill (NOT from Weasley’s wizard wheezes, mind you, a proper one) the same logic still applies. (Or you could quite possibly pay a keen-eyed, entrepreneurial fourth year in chocolate frogs to proofread your papers. Slytherin house is full of these opportunities, and I do not judge.) Content, however, is fundamental, and must be consciously worked on from the beginning.

I do hope this helps. 

-Tom Riddle (a.k.a. Lord Voldemort)

[terramythos]

TerraMythos 2021 Reading Challenge - Book 8 of 26

Title: Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds & Shape Our Futures (2020)

Author: Merlin Sheldrake

Genre/Tags: Nonfiction, Creative Nonfiction, Science, Biology, Mycology, Botany, Anthropology, History, (I’m probably missing some), First-Person, Illustrated

Rating: 9/10

Date Began: 3/03/2021

Date Finished: 3/11/2021

Fungi are some of life's most essential, yet least understood organisms. In Entangled Life, PhD Merlin Sheldrake discusses the mysterious and largely unexplored world of fungi. 

How do truffles lure creatures to them? How do vast mycelial networks communicate and make "decisions"? How can some fungal species permanently alter the mind? How do fungi make life on Earth possible? How can fungi potentially replace our furniture and architecture? Entangled Life is an accessible primer to what we know about fungi, its effects on human life, and its potential role averting climatic and ecological disaster.  

Fungi are everywhere but they are easy to miss. They are inside you and around you. They sustain you and all that you depend on. As you read these words, fungi are changing the way that life happens, as they have done for more than a billion years. They are eating rock, making soil, digesting pollutants, nourishing and killing plants, surviving in space, inducing visions, producing food, making medicines, manipulating animal behavior, and influencing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Fungi provide a key to understanding the planet on which we live, and the ways that we think, feel, and behave. Yet they live their lives largely hidden from view, and over ninety percent of their species remain undocumented. The more we learn about fungi, the less makes sense without them. 

Full review and content warnings under the cut.

Content warnings for the book: Recreational drug use, mention of animal neglect, mild sexual content. 

I've always been fascinated by--and a little terrified of-- fungi. They're essential to life on Earth, yet often seem strange and alien. I didn't get the chance to study them much in college, so I wanted to read a nonfiction work about them that wasn't necessarily just a textbook. Entangled Life caught my eye (or maybe lured me in?), and I'm glad it did.

Entangled Life is probably the best nonfiction book I've read in years. While it's definitely a scientific work (with a vast catalogue of citations to prove it), it's very approachable to a layman. Basic scientific knowledge is helpful going in, but Sheldrake makes sure to explain even simple concepts as they apply to various subjects in the text. While I wouldn't call this book a light read, it's certainly easier to grasp than a standard textbook or academic research paper. I was also pleased to see he cites and defers to a multitude of female scientists, which was refreshing after reading Bill Bryson's otherwise great A Short History of Nearly Everything. Is "including women" a low bar? Yes, but it's not one people consistently meet, so props.

What's interesting about Entangled Life is it's neither strictly scientific nor strictly about mycology, the study of fungi. It DOES go into our basic knowledge of fungi and recent discoveries and studies. But Sheldrake also adopts a holistic approach, acknowledging various disciplines and how they all relate to fungi as we know them. Sometimes this means botany, like how plants and fungi interact via symbiosis. Sometimes this means anthropology, and how fungi have shaped human culture and history. Sheldrake even talks about the notable contributions of amateur enthusiasts and how they have shaped our understanding of fungi. A big component of the work is speculation; philosophical tangents on what fungi mean to us, what certain discoveries could mean for the future, and so on.

There's definitely a creative component to the work as well, something that really tickled the former English major in me. I labelled this book Creative Nonfiction because Sheldrake often goes into his personal experiences with fungi; these sections read like a memoir. There's some illustrations originally drawn with inkcap ink, which is a nice, thematically appropriate touch. I also loved the section of gorgeous color photography and illustrations inserted into the middle; I felt this added some much needed visual context.

Also, my guy managed to use a Lord of the Rings quote to analyze mycelial networks, which I have to assume was a dare/personal challenge, but... damn dude. (AND an Ursula K Le Guin quote? Bro?)

If I have a criticism it's that sometimes Sheldrake's biases show a little. Probably the most noteworthy is the section on LSD and magic mushrooms. Sheldrake seems downright giddy about the positive effects of these mind altering drugs. And said positives are certainly interesting, like experiments that indicate a long term recovery from anxiety and depression as a result of ingestion. I also found the human history element of this chapter interesting; indigenous cultural uses, anthropological evidence, and modern usage and legal issues. But it's a little disingenuous to imply there are zero negative effects to drugs that can fundamentally change one's long-term personality after a single trip. Regardless of Sheldrake's own positive experiences.

Interestingly, Sheldrake DOES discuss how biases affect all scientific disciplines. He talks about how we naturally gravitate toward metaphor in order to contextualize nonhuman phenomena. For example, we might view symbiosis from a capitalist or socialist perspective, despite neither have anything to do with biological function. However, he doesn't delve into his own biases at all. But this is a nitpick. Biases are difficult to overcome even in a strictly academic work, which this isn't. For what it's worth, I think Sheldrake does a good job with this everywhere else. 

Overall, Entangled Life was a treat to read. I rarely venture out of speculative fiction but I found this whole book approachable and fascinating. I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know previously, so I'd consider this a good introduction for an amateur mycologist. I hope Sheldrake plans to publish similar works in the future.  

[fuckyeaharthuriana]

What did you think of Merlin BBC ending?

WELL.... This is going to be long, I am so sorry.

I have conflicted feelings about Merlin BBC in general. I do think it was an original and fun concept and I really enjoyed the way it re-imagined some elements, from Arthur being a re-known prince, to Merlin being just a young guy like him, magic being hidden, Gwen going from being a servant in the castle to a queen. I remember that the first two seasons tended to set some elements that might have been a bit far away from general arthurian common knowledge but that seemed quite enjoyable.

The whole show seemed to be based on “magic needs to be secret”, but “Merlin has magic” and his magic is going to be the stepping stone to make Arthur into a good king. The show literally said that Arthur is DESTINED to be a good king.

And then nothing ever happens.

Merlin BBC took the coward way. Instead of introducing development and change, they simply did the same old same old, probably too scared to change the dynamic they had. Here are some examples:

Magic. The show starts with magic being illegal and seen as bad. The show ends with magic still being illegal and seen as bad. There is no character development in Arthur. This is the whole premise. From a normal storytelling point of view we would expect the relationship between Arthur and Merlin to be fundamental to change the way Arthur sees magic, not to mention that Uther’s death should have been part of this process. Instead, nah.

Arthur and Merlin are supposed to be friends but their relationship never seems to reach that stage. I know I am going to make a lot of people mad (probably?) with this, but I don’t think the relationship between Arthur and Merlin ever changed from season 2. Instead of building up, it just gets stuck into comedy moments, and the same old gags and mini dramatic moments. 

Arthur is destined to be a great king but he literally do NOTHING. When Uther dies, the show has to introduce the random Agravaine to give him the role of Uther because they are clearly not ready to develop Arthur’s character. This ends up in some villanous behaviour (from Arthur’s part) that is never addressed because the show works like this: “If the narrative TELLS you that an act is good,�� the act is good” (ex. Merlin threatening to kill some random druid children. It is seen as fun! Or Arthur murdering an unharmed man/king is seen as smart but reckless, when instead it is clearly awful and dumb). When Agravaine is out of the picture... we get a 5 years time jump. We don’t see any changes in Arthur’s kingdom. Magic is still illegal, for example. Nothing is shown to tell us that Arthur is a great king, and then he LITERALLY DIES. Like... immediately? What did he do? How was he a great king? I am so confused

[esperanzagalaxy]

what do you think of Botticelli's version of Virgil? :o

   DA I'M SO SORRY THIS ASK IS. 10 MONTHS OLD. IT WAS SENT BY THE TIME I WAS SUPER NOT ON TUMBLR SO I'M. I APOLOGIZE. AUGH    but onto your question, cause it is such a fun one, are you mayhaps referring to this gentleman? if so hold on tight because this got a little long and i'm neglecting my day job and i am Unhinged. you've unleashed the art history beast

so! you meant him, right? cause we get a lot of straight up Funny dantes throughout art history but virgilios tend to follow a stricter line of design, in my opinion, much more on divine comedy depictions than on regular ol' Life Of Vergil paintings, but fact remains, i'm willing to bet the default image of virgilio you have comes from either that classic mosaic depiction of him with the muses, or the marble busts with the real good hair and lips. that is what i, at least, have seen 98% of classical and contemporary artists go for. cause, like. that was him. possibly. that’s as much confirmation as we can get.

now, botticelli, good ol' botticelli. my man sandrito. his virgilio is A Treat. now: take into account that when i mention the classical depictions we are most likely to have in mind, those pieces are possibly from the xix century. y'know, doré, wicar, ingres, and so on. That is our handsome prettyboy virgilio. 

botticelli was painting his own divine comedy over 300 years before them, but only over a century after the completion of the poem and dante's own death. i won't lie to you, i sincerely don't know When the famed mosaic and busts were found or if botticelli had access to them -but i'm willing to bet he didn't. that said, our boy sandro simply did not have the long history of depictions that the artists that came way after him did have -he was among the first to make his own dante, virgilio & co! (and this is without even talking about his version of the kingdoms. Man)

 might sound like i'm going around in circles but it's to tell you this: in botticelli's time, the Tendencies with which virgilio was later depicted hadn't been established yet. the favored canon was another one, and when you have no idea How this important person looked like, you do what's always been done in european art: make them an ideal according to what an ideal is in your own time!

 and what was the ideal in botticelli's time? in the comedy virgilio is meant to be, among many things, the figure of the Wise Guide. for a european man in the mid to late 1400s, What was a wise guide? it had to be a man, he had to be white, he had to be Older, experienced, he had to Look exprienced and wise, so he'd be Aged and Bearded, but he still had to look respectable and regal -this virgilio is basically a socrates, or a plato! isn't that a delight? it falls into line with a representation i think botticelli Did actually know of, which was giovanni di paolo's, a contemporary of his! 

  yep that’s him in red and dante in blue! (wonder where else have we seen a dante dressed in blue... ;)) ). the fact that vergilius turned out to be a fucking Snack came after, and since us artists have always been going hearteyes after our subjects and muses, artists started to latch onto those younger portraits of the vergster and ended up on the other side of the spectrum -which is, ignoring the fact that he was way older than he's normally depicted as when he reads the aeneid to augustus and octavia, which is a Whole 'Nother Topic (i only know one other old vergil and i don’t like it. wack). back to botticelli’s!   now, do you wanna know the REAL awesome thing about botticelli's virgilio? get ready because this is beautiful. botticelli didn't make him into just Any kind of wise guide. botticelli's virgilio is the magician. the magician is a FASCINATING medieval archetype that found its zenith in Merlin. and what's our and their default image of the magician? old bearded dude! but let's talk about two wild things about the magician: first is that he and magic in general were ever present in the Collective mind of the people in the xv century. people would see this virgil and Would see the magician in him! it wasn't just any old dude, part of the public might not have known who virgilio was or why he was important, but This dude in the image? i'd trust him! good for the guy in red! remember that though art is famed for its elitism it's also developed for CENTURIES the capacity to teach and explain only through images. magician virgilio was Accessible. JUST LIKE THE DIVINE COMEDY BC OF HOW AND WHY IT WAS WRITTEN!!!!!    ahem. and second, the magician is a figure that carries incredible dynamics and meanings with it. the magician is not an evil figure, unlike, i believe, witches and wizards (i think the word is wizard. bear in mind that i'm translating from spanish terms and some are tricky). it's more of a mash between druids, alchemists, but all through a very academia lens. the magician is a Keeper of Knowledge, and that makes him Powerful. this means that a great part if not all of his power depends on the keeping of the Secret. i'm sure you can see & imagine how keeping knowledge Away from people has just... been A Thing for centuries and centuries, esp in cultures built on inequality. so the thing is that if the magician has this power, for them to be able to share it or Entrust it to another, is a big fucking deal. and that's the thing: the magician can have Initiates. the initiate is the inexpert person that a magician takes under his wing and effectively Opens Up The World to them. they share knowledge otherwise forbidden, they're let into the Secret that brings them into contact with what all these self entitled white dudes from the middle ages believed make them Greater than the rest. as such, the magician is fundamentally the one who has skills that others do not, he is someone with the capacity to Change the world around him, he is a Transformative force, he can Accelerate and Cause things. where the alchemist tries to understand and imitate nature, the magician is believed to be one capable of Controlling it. it's worth remembering that an immediate distinction between white and black magic is made, one seeking good and the other bad, hence the differentiation between magician and wizard/witch, where the first of the latter two is usually considered something more Rural than academic, and the latter is just straight out evil because misogyny and racism. i'm sure you can see how, in a profoundly catholic place and era, white magic was also easily linked to miracle making, despite how shifty some bits sound. in short, the magician is a very respected figure in which numerous traditions and wisdom converge.     now! does any of this ring a bell? try applying all these magician traits to virgilio, who was a poet now turned babysitter, being seen through the eyes of a man in the late 1400s. what is a poet if not someone who sees Beyond what ''regular people'' see? what is a respected Epic poet if not something of a prophet? what is a guide if not someone who Knows about what surrounds him, does not fear it, and has the capacity to Explain it to his charge? does the one who guide you through hell and back not Transform you in any way? isn't the relationship between an expert and an initiate who teaches you about the world around you and beyond it not only the next best thing to your love for your god, but also a direct reflection of what it means to be a poet who chose to follow on another greater name's footsteps? virgilio is part of the transformative force that drives dante to change. he is a figure of utter control and rationality. where latter artists would dress him as a roman, either in whites or colors of glory or suffering/passion (gold and red), botticelli dressed his in purples and blues, the (very expensive) colors of royalty & heaven, the world beyond, and trust me when i say that using ultramarine blue on a pagan poet is a big fucking deal, because that hue was Reserved for the virgin mary. goes to show you the respect sandro had for his virgilio, as well as a clear belief in dante's own vision that virgilio pretty much deserved the recognition of any other cool christian if it wasn't for the Rules. and do you wanna know what other figure worthy or respect for his wisdom was dressed in ultramarine blue. THAT'S RIGHT. MERLIN!!!!!!!!    (wipes off sweat) so to summarize, what I think of botticelli's virgilio, is 3/10 on apperance because come on man where the fuck is my hot virgilio? good clothes though but sandro was in the textile industry so he should know; and 10/10 on concept for being a beautiful, EXCELLENT convergence & display of beliefs and traditions that, to my knowledge, no other artists really tried to show with such force in latter interpretations of the comedy. sandrito if you're out there

  apologies for any mistakes! it’s been a while since i’ve had to be Exact about my art history musings but i can’t go into full investigation mode right now. hopefully there’s no blatant misinformation jdsfaasd 

 thank you for asking and i hope you’ve been as safe and healthy as can be!  

[verecunda]

The ancient history tag

Tagged by @pythionice. Thankee, dear! :) This has been sitting half-done in my drafts for ages - sorry! x__x

1. The Stone Age: One of the first books you ever remember reading.

The first one that springs to mind is this huge book of nursery rhymes. I can’t remember the exact title or who collected them, but each one had really fantastic illustrations. Every page was so bright and colourful. And now I think about it, Bobby Shaftoe looked suspiciously Nelson-like. ;)

2. Ancient Greece: Your favourite myth inspired book.

Right now, I’m gonna have to say Sword at Sunset by Rosemary Sutcliff. She does such a masterful job of paring away the later medieval trappings of the Arthur legend and setting him in the immediately post-Roman period. Despite going for a gritty, realistic take, without Merlin and the fantasy elements, she imbues the story with so much raw folkloric symbolism that it still feels like great myth all by itself. (Admittedly, a lot of this symbolism is drawn from older theories ie. Margaret Murray, which are largely discredited today, but in terms of the cosmology of the fictional universe, it’s so expertly woven in and coherent, and resonates so wonderfully through the story, that it works.)

3. Roman Empire: A book that features an impressive Empire or a Kingdom.

I'm not long after finishing Cinder by Marissa Meyer (a rec from my sister @fandom-butterfly). It’s a sci-fi retelling of Cinderella, set in the futuristic Eastern Commonwealth, a conglomerate of former Asian nations ruled by an emperor based at New Beijing. There’s also a kingdom on the moon, ruled by mysterious beings (evolved humans? I’m not quite sure yet) who have the power to manipulate human minds.

I enjoyed it a lot. The characters are cute, there’s some good banter, the anime influence is very present (the author’s notes at the end indicate that Meyer is/was in the Sailor Moon fandom, and it shows!), and the fairytale elements are woven in nicely to the sci-fi setting. There’s a good amount of intrigue too, which I imagine is only going to get thicker, since this book is the first in a series.

There’s also a major subplot about a deadly global pandemic, which... yeah. 

4. The Middle Ages: A book that is an absolute bummer (positive or negative).

I had to wrack my brains a bit for an answer to this, because I don’t generally read books that look set to be a bummer. Tragic, yes. Devastating, absolutely, but I’m not a fan of books that just make you go :| What’s the point of that?

That said, coming back to Rosemary Sutcliff, I’m going to say The Shining Company. You know what the end is going to be, but even when it comes, I felt the book lacked Sutcliff’s usual poignancy - that theme of hope and healing despite great loss and pain, of the lantern being carried forward into the dark, that usually makes her books so emotional. I think, too, the fact that I never got hugely attached to any of the characters meant that the final twist wasn’t as devastating as it should have been. So it was pretty much just a bummer.

(As you can probably tell, this is my least favourite Sutcliff novel.)

5. Renaissance: A book that you have learned a lot from OR a book that made you think a lot.

This is a strangely hard one to answer! I read and mine through lots of history books for research purposes, so I’m always learning some new fact or anecdote or other. But books that have rocked me to the core and made me re-evaluate fundamental truths... um... nothing recent springs to mind. (Which probably tells you everything you need to know about the sort of literature I consume, but... ehhhh.)

So - a history book rec it is! The Victorian House, by Judith Flanders. It’s a lovely big doorstopper absolutely crammed full of fascinating stuff. She takes you round a typical Victorian terraced house room by room, and by doing so explores how Victorian daily life, upstairs and downstairs, was acted out in these rooms. It’s a brilliant book, eminently readable, full of fascinating information about how domestic life was theorised and compartmentalised in the Victorian mind. It’s great stuff.

6. The Enlightenment: A book about knowledge, science, discovery, or exploration.

Admittedly it’s been a while since I delved into this particular corner of the Age of Sail, but as I recall, Richard Hough’s biography of James Cook was really good for this, setting his life and voyages in the context of the scientific history - advances in geographical and astronomical knowledge, development of accurate measures of timekeeping, cartography, navigation, etc., etc. (which in turn spirals out into the history of trade- and empire-building, etc.) Just... yeah, there was a lot going on in that book.

7. The Industrial Revolution: A book featuring an invention or a concept that you would love to have in your own life.

Gosh, I don’t know! I hardly read any sci-fi, so I can’t think of any books featuring technology or anything that I really wish existed in my own life.

8. World War I. and II.: Your favourite historical fiction book featuring either of the world wars.

I love Carrie’s War - I reread it last year and it was just as great as I remembered! - but even though I don’t think it technically counts as historical fiction, the WW book that has had the most enduring effect on me is definitely All Quiet on the Western Front. There are so many scenes and passages that I remember so clearly (often more clearly than I’d like).

9. Present day: A book you think everybody should read in present day.

I really don’t know what this means. I don’t think there’s such a thing as one book that everybody should read. Apart from like, Shakespeare. Everyone should try Shakespeare at some point. On your own, out of school. 

Not sure how many people I’m meant to tag, but here goes: @themalhambird, @drusilla-951, @vicivefallen, @bryndeavour, @ciceros-ghost, @seaglassandeelgrass.

[edalyahfate]

My take on Merlin

Ok, I'll talk about my favorite bastard mage, Merlin.

There is something that bothers me I've been seeing around about Merlin. People say he can't experience feelings, because the fool told so canonically after all, but first, why the hell would you trust his says (see below why I resort to that “argument”) ? And secondly, he's still a half human. One of the very fundamental of being a human being are Feelings. It is the way humans communicate with others and with themselves, and also what leads us to grow (/aka adapt as a species). Therefore, I am pretty sure this bastard experiment feelings, he may still suck greatly at it and probably have a fucking hard time to tell if it is his own feelings, but I am pretty sure he does. 

The biggest proof of that? His cowardice. Cowardice implies the straight avoidance of a situation, but avoidance is in itself a defense mechanism born from fear. So, an emotion, a feeling. Because why flee if you are not feared of anything? You won’t. Else than death, but how does our instincts tell something is dangerous? Fear. So then, what would he fear? In his case I doubt most of cases was due by fear of death, even if it might still be the cases at some extent. So what else Merlin seems to specifically avoid, and thus fear? My guess: Pain, or more broadly, the experience of negative emotions. My proof: when he flees the inevitable moment when the King of knights who he raised would die. His life was far from being threatened there, and he still ran away from this fight. He couldn’t save her because it was necessary on an objective/impersonal standpoint he could easily understand, however he was still bound to that Fate himself. The inevitable lost of that person. And tell me what else than the very lost of someone you bonded with brings deep pain for any human being? There sure are other things, but this is one of the ultimate pain human are bound to suffer. Also, that famous door that could only allow the sinless to pass, which he happened to fail to pass for reasons he couldn’t understand. It meant he committed a sin. So, what sin? He abandoned Arturia, he fled, all to not suffer. It was incredibly selfish of him. Cowardice is by far a sin in itself, and he is by far one of the most coward. I could also argue as far as his sin also go to being dishonest, as he is deceiving his own self and therefore others to think he truly is heartless.

You wanted to flee Mage? Then stay isolated far away of anyone that you could get attached to... There, there, you will be bounded to your sins; cowardice and dishonesty. Stay in a tower, isolated, and think it will suffice yourself. 

The fact he broke away from the tower to finally help Chaldea is, to be fairly honest, a very symbolic act from him. In fact, it means he is trying to atone for his sins, as he demonstrates courage and somehow admits to himself he kinda want to get involved again. The courage to risk what he fears the most, to get involved, maybe attached even, to lose those individuals and suffer. Though, I would argue it is not completely conscious of him yet and that he is probably still lying to himself as he still rambles abusively about him being heartless. And insisting you are something or someone is extremely fucking fishy. Because if you really are what and who you say you are, your actions will align. But then, if they don’t align... The truth will show. So, “better recall that “fact” to everyone, ha ha :’D”.

Also, to precise, the fact he fears negative emotions therefore makes him suppress his emotions. But it will swallow up every emotions, not only negative ones. As positives are brought by the experience of the negatives, and the negatives by the experience of the positive ones. They define each other. This is why he becomes so detached and believe he can’t experience his own emotions. 

Y’all can say I went to deep about this character, but tbh i wouldn’t be surprised to be right about this as the Fate franchise is sometimes that deep about their characters. But usually, they leave us some cues and let us assemble those pieces ourselves.

Also, more of a theory without much proof yet, but I believe he could learn to become empathetic if he would really challenge his fear. After all, emotional intelligence and abilities like empathy ask a great deal of energy and even practice to be learned, but are anything but purely innate. Since he is half human, he therefore assuredly inherited this capacity as it is one of our most fundamental and define trait. Moreover, I even know a bunch of real people that are as bad as that fictional character to process their own emotions and to understand other through an empathetic perspective. I would assume Merlin can experience empathy, but that would ask him twice as effort as a normal human and I am sure it would exhaust him (I mean, it is already pretty exhausting for normal human, so he would get rekt). 

Mmmh... Another funny hypothesis might be his incubus nature cause him to eat away his own feelings... That would be a funny concept.

...

Ok, no actually an awful one. He would bring the concept of eating one's own emotions a whole new level though. Anyway lol.

So yeah, that’s my take about the Mage of Flowers. I hope it brought some reflections for you all. I am sure as hell curious to know what you think about this.

[avallcnis]

TAGGED BY:  @godowned (thank u...) TAGGING: this thing is so long but fun to do, so steal it if you want!

►   GENERAL.

HEIGHT:  5′8″ (178 cm)   WEIGHT:  149 lbs (68 kg)  — merlin’s really quite heavily built for his height. whilst he’s not excessively muscular he’s capable of easily wielding excalibur, an arming sword which isn’t light. he’s built as someone who carries and uses such a weapon would need to be, which is to say he’s a solid little bastard. ETHNICITY:  european, ‘welsh’. OCCUPATION:  absolute fucking goblin acting as a heroic spirit, specifically the grandcaster. GENDER:  prefers he/him. ROMANTIC AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION:  makes absolutely no identification in this field. isn’t interested in labels.  MBTI:  entp - the visionary. the entp personality type is the ultimate devil’s advocate, thriving on the process of shredding arguments and beliefs and letting the ribbons drift in the wind for all to see. unlike their more determined judging (j) counterparts, entps don’t do this because they are trying to achieve some deeper purpose or strategic goal, but for the simple reason that it’s fun. no one loves the process of mental sparring more than entps, as it gives them a chance to exercise their effortlessly quick wit, broad accumulated knowledge base, and capacity for connecting disparate ideas to prove their points.

►   SPECIFICS.

FAVOURITE FOOD:  any strong positive emotions. FAVOURITE DRINK:  generally just water or fruit juices, but does enjoy wine. FAVOURITE HOBBY:  he doesn’t specifically have one, though he does enjoy reading to which end he reads vast amounts. he doesn’t stick to one particular genre and will read genuinely awful books to incredibly good ones. FAVOURITE SCENT:  light floral scents or musky ones. FAVOURITE PERSON:  arturia.

►   TEN FACTS.

his hair is absolutely awful to wash and takes forever. as well as being long it’s ridiculously thick, meaning to wash it properly he’s going to be there well over an hour. 

he’s strictly vegetarian, both due to being a shapeshifter and the fact he doesn’t need to eat so isn’t going to kill something/have something killed to satisfy whatever desire to taste something pleasant he may be having in a given moment. merlin has vastly different views on animals, humanising them to incredible degrees.

if you catch his eyes with a light in the dark they’ll do that silly glowy thing cats’ do due to having tapetum lucidum, which is either a hilarious party trick or absolutely terrifying depending on if you’re aware of this fact/expecting it. 

merlin doesn’t look to the past and as a result doesn’t often ‘regret’ things, however when it comes to arturia he does so on a deep level. whilst he cannot and will not regret the fact she died (humans die and, sadly, that was the point in her life where she had to die), he regrets vastly the way in which he raised her and the lessons he taught her. at the time he didn’t see the damage he was doing, but in retrospect he does and he loathes himself for it.

merlin likes avalon, but ultimately prefers the realm in which humans reside for all he does not view himself as a creature which should be in said realm. he stays/returns to avalon out of a misguided sense of duty. the reality of it is that perhaps he sees himself as belonging to neither place, though finds himself tied to each in different ways. avalon is where he feels he must be, but the realm of humans is where he wishes to be.

whilst he likes avalon he does not like his tower. it is symbolic to a great many things he would prefer to forget, and as such is not somewhere he has any real desire to be. his continuing to return to it is a continuation of self inflicted punishment.

his primary defence against other people is to just shapeshift them into a harmless creature and leave. he’s not someone overly interested in conflict, and will do weird shit to try and avoid engaging where possible.

he doesn’t withhold information to be nasty/fuck with people as a rule, usually it is because telling people things too early can have negative effects which may end in less than ideal results. he tells people things when it is important that they know, and whilst his withholding of information is no doubt frustrating his reason for doing it is a good one. at least in his own mind.

he doesn’t actually like himself. he falls in a weird place of being confident (he knows he’s attractive, he knows he’s powerful) but simultaneously just not liking himself.

he isn’t a heroic spirit. he’s alive. he’s a living breathing person. he hasn’t been summoned and cannot be summoned. the version of himself in chaldea is either him entirely in full physical form, or it is a self manifested aspect of himself similar in substance to a heroic spirit.

►   FIVE THINGS HE LIKES.

BOOKS  —  as mentioned he loves to read. if you leave him alone you can guarantee you’ll come back and his nose will be in a book, be it one from avalon or one from the realm in which humans reside. he loves all books.

HUMANS  —  in general he loves humans as a whole, be them good or bad he still loves them. merlin does not need to like an individual person to objectively love what they are as a person, taking a fairly altruistic view of them. his purpose, were he to define it, is to love humans.

ANIMALS  —  merlin can shapeshift and understand animals in some sort of loose way. he tends to view animals on the same level as worth as people, often times preferring their company over humans’ due to their more uncomplicated natures in certain aspects. his views in this regard extend to the fantastical creatures of avalon to the ‘real’ ones of the regular world.

SO-BAD-THEY’RE-GOOD FILMS  —  merlin is more picky about films than books, but there’s certain genres which he will happily watch. this is one such thing, especially when it comes to the super cheesy vintage ones which don’t take themselves too seriously.

CONTACT  —  he’s tactile. he wants to touch and be touched in kind, even outside of a sexual setting. he will touch people regardless of setting unless they raise and overly pointed fuss about it making them uncomfortable, at which point he will generally endeavour to curb it. his contact isn’t always an overt thing, sometimes being brushing arms whilst walking, hands catching if he passes something, or sitting closer than another might deem necessary.

►   FIVE THINGS HE DISLIKES.

OVERT CRUELTY  —  as an individual who is likely defined by his love (which is probably ironic given what he says about himself) excessive cruelty between people or from people to creatures disturbs him deeply. Whilst he is used to it-- has experienced it-- he is not desensitised to it.

MODERN MAGES  — whilst he may like certain individuals as a generalised rule it’s not a practice he likes. he finds it terribly backwards, focusing on the wrong things whilst simultaneously inspiring people to do awful things in the pursuit of the root. it’s so far from merlin’s own personal values that he struggles to comprehend it, finding it foolish at absolute best. again, there are some he likes(?) as people but the concept as a whole is barbaric to him.

NEGATIVE EMOTIONS  — they’re more satisfying for him to consume and provide far more to him nutritionally, but he doesn’t like eating them and won’t if he’s given any other option. if he feeds on excessive negative emotions it will cause drops in his own moods, even if not severe ones. positive emotions are comparatively akin to junk-food; they taste great, but they’re ideally not what he should be feeding on.

PEOPLE TRYING TO GET CLOSE —  merlin tries to keep everyone at arm’s distance, meaning that when people take it upon themselves to try and get past this it makes him uncomfortable. merlin doesn’t want to run the risk of getting attached, meaning he doesn’t want people close enough for him to get attached to. in line with this people who’re excessively soft will do him a hard stress, since it’s hard not to be fond of people like that.

GRANDCASTER  —  the title is not one he wants, not one he asked for, and not even one he deserves since he is not a servant. if anything gilgamesh should be grandcaster. the title is just another thing to separate him from humanity, another thing making him more inhuman. keep in mind solomon was the one to hold this title first, and it was only in abandoning the title that he became ‘human’.

►   WORDS / PHRASES THAT ANNOY HIM.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE  —  revenge isn’t something merlin condones, isn’t something he cares for, and is something he abhors. throughout much of his time with people merlin has been treated badly, has been met with with cruelty despite doing nothing to merit it. it would be easy for merlin to be cruel, easy for him to lash out and hurt people as he has been, but he doesn’t and this is an integral part of his narrative as a character. merlin chooses love over hate, and against someone which would chose hate and revenge he finds himself at an impasse. 

►   PERSONALITY TYPES HE PREFERS.

KIND / BRAVE / NOBLE PERSONALITIES  —  if someone is a fundamentally good person than merlin will like them and, where possible, will offer them as much aid as might be appropriate in whatever the circumstances are. he will by default surround himself with people like this, finding them easiest for him to be around. even so though he will attempt to maintain his distance, so it may not be obvious that this is where he finds comfort if one does

►   PERSONALITY TYPES HE AVOIDS.

CRUEL / EXCESSIVELY ARROGANT / SELF-CENTRED PERSONALITIES  —  essentially ‘tyrants’ in a genuine sense. they’re personalities that can make him fairly uncomfortable, though given his exposure to them from a young age he’s all equipped at handling and deflecting them. the values of people like this are far removed from merlin’s own, making him entirely incompatible with people like this for all he can and will endure their presence without much fuss.

[jiskblr]

The Domains of the Fey

The folklore of the world (and indeed, from what we can tell, from the worlds) has a great deal to say about dealing with the creatures of Faerie. Make no deals, accept no gifts, make no promises, eat nothing, do not give your name, stay away from natural circles of mushrooms and trees, do not venture out at night on the spring or fall witch’s nights, do not ask a stranger’s business in the woods, and so on, and so on. Much of it is contradictory, and the only point on which it universally agrees is this: the fey are dangerous.

There are, however, some widespread misconceptions, many built into the language we use to speak about them. For example: courts. Popular myth has it that Faerie is divided into multiple courts (some say it is composed of only a specific few, others that they are innumerable), each condensed around a powerful figure who rules it by their whim, with all others subject to them and generally bound by oaths and magic not to rebel. This is wrong in almost every detail.

What we call a ‘court’ is only sometimes structured like a mortal kingdom’s castle and inhabitants. Because of the relation of the structure of the mutable fey realm to our stories and beliefs, it is a common format, but comprises only about six in ten of such groupings. The true structure is that of a multi-faceted by singular entity, of which the most central characters have the lion’s share of attention and power but which is fundamentally one soul in many bodies.  To illustrate, let us take examples which were well-documented by the scholar-knight Percival Crystalshield, consider the two he named the Court of Camlet Lost and the Court of the Beanstalk.

“Camlet Lost” is structured like the popular conception of a court. It has a king, Artrar, and a queen, Gwenvair. They have a group of mighty knights, each with their own story which they would be happy to regale you with, of which the foremost is Lajeano du Lac, foster-son of the timeless sorceress who gifted Artrar with his legendary sword and shepherded him to the kingship he holds.

Anyone familiar with the stories of Artrar, his court Camlet, and its Diamond Knights would here tell you that the fey in the place of Artrar is the character which holds the most power, as his rise, deeds, and fall are the center of the tales.

They would be wrong.

In the Court of Camlet Lost, the central character is in fact two characters; Gwenvair and Lajeano. This court is centered on the story of their forbidden romance and how it led to the fall of Camlet. In its strange, timeless and circular way, this story is always playing out yet never progresses. It starts at the wedding of Artrar and Gwenvair, seems to rush through the succeeding years - leaving everyone involved, even if mortal and unentangled with the court’s soul, with complete memories of the intervening events but no inclination to think about them except as pertains to the forbidden romance and Artrar’s ignorance of it - and never passes beyond the revolt of Morden and destruction of the castle.

There are several other Courts of Camlet, with entirely different fey residents. There is one which focuses on Lajeano du Lac and his mighty deeds while skipping over all aspects of his relationship with the queen that fall short of the chivalrous ideal, several which dwell on different aspects of King Atrar’s life, one for Sir Tristram and Isolde, at least one for the Merlin, &c., &c. But Camlet Lost cares foremost about the forbidden, doomed romance, not the other tales, and as much as the other knights would love to regale you with their deeds, circumstance will ever conspire to make that a brief interlude at most, and when they leave to “go questing”, you are unlikely to find that they exist unless they are carefully watched the entire way.

Not all courts are this focused. The Court of the Beanstalk is from the folktale of Jack, the magic seeds, the giant, and the things he took there. As most readers familiar with the tale would guess, Jack is the central figure of this court. He lives in a mansion which looks slightly castle-like but has only himself, his ‘mother’, some servants, and the treasures he took from the giant’s palace. The fallen beanstalk and the giant sit, unrotting, not far away, and the villagers marvel at it - and never cease to, no matter how long the court remains; it has always been felled not two years before the present day, and by all appearance will always remain having been felled not two years ago, no matter how many elapse as we would count them. This is an unusually concentrated court; where most courts have seven or eight parts in ten of the soul concentrated in the central character, perhaps nine if split between two, Sir Percival calculated that roughly nineteen parts in twenty of the court’s soul are devoted to Jack, with the remainder almost entirely in his mother, the golden goose, and the living harp. Between the remainder of the villagers there is only one part in one hundred. To a great extent, the court is Jack, and if that fey were to decide to attempt to travel, the rest would wither behind him (and, most likely, it would transform to a traveling court of another folktale, perhaps Jack Frost, Jack O’The Lantern, or another everyman tale such as Ivan the Fool and his Flying Ship.

In one respect, all the stories are true: Faerie is extremely dangerous. Only those possessed of a strong Spark and practiced at self-reflection and detecting mental distortions can interact with them with any reasonable degree of confidence that they will depart with their self intact. Traveling through the areas between courts is less certainly dangerous, but besides traveling parties of bored fey which may bring them to you, paths are not guaranteed to lead the same place today as they did yesterday or will tomorrow. It is for this reason that, despite predictable gateways being in place between Faerie and each of the known shell-worlds, it is not used as a pathway for trade or migration. 

(OOC note: I am heavily indebted to Keith Baker’s Thelanis plane as a model of how this works)

[just-merlin]

Something Cheaper in CNFT Land

Everything around is crashing. Crypto, stocks, supply chains, the economy. One thing that has been resistant to the crash however has been NFT’s. If anything, art pieces have been leveraged as a hedge against inflation. A lot of the OG projects in the Cardano space have skyrocketed in price. Of course, this may also be a reflection of inflation as one ADA is now about half the price it used to be. Original CNFTs like Yummi Verse, Chilled Kongs, Space Budz, Clay Nation have taken off and joined an elite club. I remember when they were 70 ADA and less.  In the last article I wrote about Clumsy Ghosts which has also taken off, but no surprise there, it has a solid road map and team behind it. The NFT landscape is beginning to form and picking out projects that can be successful is a bit easier. As with anything in life strong fundamentals usually determines the way.

In this episode however, making no prior commitments with any project I will discuss two of the cheaper projects at the moment in terms of price that I believe have a solid idea and a team that’s building behind it. I lied, I just remembered I said I’d cover the first one in the previous episode.

Phoenix Arena

Featuring on the front page of jpg.store, the best marketplace for Cardano NFTs IMO, with a floor of 28 ADA is none other than Phoenix Arena.

“Phoenix Arena is a play-to-earn NFT game utilizing the Cardano blockchain. Players can purchase NFTs that provide utility as both PFPs as well as in-game assets. Step forth into the world of the interstellar Cao Wari empire, build up your character, rise up the ranks by battling in the arena, and get rewarded for your efforts with our native Wari token.”

With about 4.9k twitter followers and 1.8k discord members Phoenix Arena has A LOT going on. The price may be this low right now because the game is not out yet, but the concept has definitely been thought out well. We are looking at Q3/Q4 for a finished version of the game, but even now they have a great website up, one of the better I’ve seen in the Cardano space with reward and staking options, although the staking doesn’t seem fully complete yet. Check out pheonixarena.io for all the different things going on.  The mods/creators are still active in announcements, so it seems like they haven’t rugged yet. They seem to be dropping various characters and have officially formed a gaming company, but we are still awaiting Tokenomics and a 2D game. Team is doxxed with their own Twitch channel, which is a big plus. Overall, this seems like a great project. Of course, in the future there will probably be hundreds of gaming projects like this, but this will be one of the dozen of OGs. We’re all about OG projects in Merlin world. As an OG project who knows where the momentum and the development can take you. You definitely gain experience and knowledge the newcomers might not have.

Hash Guardians

The second project Ill look at is also creating a 2d game. I like these little characters they’ve created. Hash Guardians:  “The HashGuardians universe is a 2D gaming metaverse, with passive income and play to earn features!”

They have quite a few more followers than Pheonix Arena with over 6k followers on Twitter and a little over 3k members on discord. Website: HashGuardians.io. Looks like the game should be coming soon this year. There is a trailer here: https://youtu.be/WfRgxHTgEUM . You can also claim 100 in game tokens, Hash coins, monthly. Website looks legit. Team seems pretty good. You’d like to see a game developer on the team seeing as a 2D game is behind the project but there looks to have been a lot of work that has gone into the project with lots of updates in announcements. There is a full stack developer on the team as well as a CTO who might be a game developer. Doesn’t specify but if he is, the team starts to look really solid.  Overall, with a floor of 30 ADA, this may be a steal.

So, if you’re looking for some cheap NFT entry ways into some solid looking gaming projects look no further than these two projects. Hopefully well see them moon.

Until Next Time,

JustMerlin Over and Out

[theonceandfutureking6481]

BBC's Merlin Season 1 Episode 2: Valiant Analysis

*Spoilers for the whole show!!!!*

I'm always nervous watching this episode, although it is very good it's never been one of my favourites, mainly because it stresses me out. I was also worried here that there wouldn't be that much to analyse in what often seems to me one of the many filler episodes in this series, however, watching with analysis in mind proved me wrong. So once again I must apologise for the lengthiness of this post, and hope that I manage to make it more articulate than it now appears in my notes!

Arthur's character

Something I noticed when watching this episode is how significantly this episode focuses on Arthur's character. Last episode we were introduced to a character who seemed like a bit of a bully but who clearly had hidden depths, this episode proved that. That is the fundamental message of this episode that Arthur is an incredibly decent and often noble person, despite his many faults.

This episode reveals the many differences between Arthur and Uthur, between their worldviews, and you see how Arthur is trapped between the two and there's not really that much he can do about it. Uther's love is in many ways conditional and this episode reveals that. As we get to know Arthur and Uther's relationship throughout the show I don't think anything could stop Uther from loving Arthur, but his expressing of that love and respect is very conditional and in the mind of Arthur that's really the same thing. Uther says to Arthur, "I trust you will make me proud" just before the tournament starts, and the subtext is very clear, Arthur has to win.

Throughout the show Arthur is constantly caught between Uther and what he wants to do, he wants Uther to be proud of him but he also disagrees with him on many things. This is a major feature of Arthur's character arc that doesn't really end until "The Death Song of Uther Pendragon" in season 5, when Arthur tells the ghost of his father point blank that its his turn to rule. It is a horrible situation Arthur is in, in order to maintain the love and respect of the one person who's opinion he cares most about Arthur has to sacrifice what he believes in, no child should ever be put in that position.

The conception of honour and courage that Arthur has grown up with is also revealed here, when Valiant says to Uther that "to lose is to be disgraced," and Uther agrees. Interestingly Arthur and Merlin are the only people who don't like Valiant, revealing perhaps how they differ to Uther and his kingdom in their worldviews, and what brings Merlin and Arthur together is their vision of the world. This is core to Uther's view of the world, he can't lose which means he can't be merciful, he can't accommodate, he'll never sacrifice his pride for his kingdom, and he'll never admit when he's wrong. The Great Purge started because Uther was unable to admit that he had made a mistake, that he had made the wrong choice, so he blamed an entire people for what was fundamentally his mistake. Arthur isn't like this, what is most loveable about Arthur, what makes the viewers realise truly what a good king he is, is his ability to admit his mistakes, he understands that losing isn't disgrace. I think the episode that best represents this is "His Father's Son" from season 4, in this episode Arthur says a line which fundamentally reveals what he believes about losing, "It is not victory I seek, it is peace." Arthur does not have to win, he just needs to be able to protect his kingdom and do his duty. He is not seeking victory (personal glory/pride) but peace (protection and safety for his people). This episode though, sets up Arthur caught between world views, caught in a conception of honour that he's not sure he agrees with. The moment within this episode that most reveals this is the final scene when Arthur tells Morgana that Uther will never apologise and then immediately goes and apologises to Merlin for firing him. Ignoring the fact that Uther just generally doesn't apologise, I'm certain the idea of apologising to a servant wouldn't even enter his mind, but Arthur does it because he made a mistake and he recognises that.

On a similar note the dichotomy between Arthur and Uther is also revealed in their respect for servants. Gaius and Uther both emphasise the fact that a servants word is worth less than a nobles, fundamental to this idea is a conception of nobility as somehow being worth more than servants, the idea that some people are worth more than others. Arthur, however, trusts Merlin, he trusts him because Arthur doesn't think that any one is is fundamentally worth less or less trustworthy. But he's trapped, when Merlin can't bring any proof aside from his word then there is nothing Arthur can do because the world is unfair and there is no argument he can make that would persuade Uther. That whole scene is very sad, he is entirely trapped, if he stands by Merlin he will lose the respect of his father and even the respect of the kingdom. There is nothing he can do, but he should be able to do something, and if Uther's kingdom was fairer he wouldn't be so powerless in this situation.

This episode is also when you see something very noble about Arthur, there is personal pride and desire for the respect of his father at the heart of his decision to fight but there is also the consideration that in order to be a good king he needs the respect of the kingdom, but also he can't sacrifice his principles for his safety, he is willing to die because if he makes the choice that means he lives he is failing his kingdom. He is always willing to do his duty, whatever the cost and there is something very noble about that, and it bodes well for his kingship.

Arthur: "I can't withdraw. The people expect their prince to fight. How can I lead men into battle if they think I'm a coward?"

Merlin: "If you fight, you die."

Arthur: "Then I die."

Merlin: "How can you go out there and fight like that."

Arthur: "Because I have to. It's my duty."

One of the best things about Merlin and Arthur is their willingness to die for the people they care about and the people of Camelot. I read and watch a lot of things with characters that risk their lives for others, but very often these characters don't seem to care if they live or die. They'd risk their lives for fun just as easily, or they risk their lives in the moment without having the chance really to think about what they're doing. Arthur and Merlin, really and truly don't want to die, and they are always making choices where death seems to be the only end, and they realise that and to some extent accept that, but they make them anyway because its the right thing to do, and its their duty.

Merlin and Arthur

Their relationship develops in this episode into almost a friendship. Merlin and Arthur chat casually in this episode, Merlin criticises Valiant in front of Arthur ( a noble mind you) and Arthur just smiles. They don't know each other that well yet, but there are definitely the beginnings of a friendship and a level of mutual respect. Arthur ruins every nice thing he says to Merlin by saying something very prattish immediately afterwards but hey that's what he's like and what their relationship as a whole is like (Merlin does it to), and it doesn't really change, but Arthur says them to begin with and that's important. Merlin also actually starts to like being Arthur's servant here, he's not saving Arthur because its his destiny but because he doesn't want him to die, because he likes him (not that much yet but they have just met).

Also one of the best lines ever about Merlin and Arthur is in this episode, when Kilgharrah says to Merlin that "the half cannot truly hate that which makes it whole." The eternal question with this show is what exactly that means, it's not just Arthur needs you to survive, to help him build Camelot, he needs Merlin to be himself, and Merlin needs Arthur to be himself. They need each other on a very fundamental level. My argument would be that they are at their best when they are with each other, they bring out the best parts of each other and they help each other to be better people. This plays to some extent into traditional Arthurian myth in which Merlin is Arthur's teacher, on a very fundamental level Merlin made the person Arthur became (he both helped Uther have a child by Igraine and then taught and raised that child). In this show though it is more mutual. Perhaps it is part of the wider message of the show regarding friendships and relationships, the idea that caring for others and helping each other is always the right decision to make, that you need people and friends to be happy and succeed in life. What makes Arthur good is that he is full of love for his friends and for his people, and his motivations (as are Merlin's, and Gwen's and any number of others) are always grounded in their love for others. The focus on relationships thus plays into the shows wider conversation about love and hate, and the differing worldviews of Arthur & Merlin and Uther & Morgana. Relationships are important, and fundamental to being a good person in this show, and the most important relationship in the show is Merlin and Arthur's.

Some thought's on destiny

This may be a funny place to put this, this episode doesn't really focus on destiny any more than any other episode (I mean episode 1 certainly focuses on it more), but if you haven't been able to tell already this is kind of just me writing down all the thoughts I had while watching, and I thought about this.

The idea of destiny is a key theme in Merlin, and its never 100% clear the relationship of destiny to the choices that people make. A slight ambiguity when dealing with destiny is, I think, always good, because it leaves it up to the audience to decide.

I do think the use of destiny here is playing into it being a traditional feature of many versions of Arthurian legend, the idea of destiny, fate and (perhaps especially) the will of God in determining the future was very present in the middle ages (when Arthurian legend took shape) so naturally it is present in many versions of the story. Arthur's eventual demise in almost all versions of the story is attributed to a predetermined fate, but it is also fundamentally a result of his own choices.

La Morte D'Arthur by Thomas Malory is the source of most central tenets of the legend as we see them today (quick note I haven't actually read it, I just vaguely know the plot from versions of the story that drew heavily from it- TH White's The Once and Future King series for one). Arthur's death is attributed to some extent to divine punishment for his ethical transgressions. In most versions of this story it is having a child by his sister, he doesn't know that she's his sister until later, but he is nonetheless held responsible and the child that is born is Mordred. Mordred who we all know is destined to kill Arthur. This is predetermined but its source is in Arthur's own actions, and later in the story Arthur is offered an alternative fate it all comes down to his own choices, and in the end, although initially trying to make peace, he chooses to fight Mordred (I am oversimplifying this but this is the gist) and he dies.

This is a quote from the article in which I got a lot of this information

"Arthur's dream has been read as disclosing to him the fate that Fortune has ordained for him; but it does not have to be read in this way. Rather, Fortune might be seen as dispensing to Arthur the punishment that, according to Merlin much earlier in the Morte, God has decreed is to be inflicted on Arthur because of the transgression that he has committed. Fortune, in other words, might be thought to be delivering to Arthur the fate that his own actions have determined, not a fate that she has determined herself."- Marilyn Corrie

I'm getting a lot of this analysis from an article by Marilyn Corrie (See bibliography), as having not read La Morte D'Arthur, I was interested in how fate and destiny was dealt with in the primary source for most Arthurian writers. It is important to note that many read La Morte as Arthur's fate being entirely predetermined with no weight given to Arthur's actions in determining it. This is an issue that depends on the critic and the view they take.

But how this relates to Merlin is a different question. The emphasis on God's punishment and mercy does not exist in Merlin at all, fate and destiny within this show do not include the idea of divine retribution (excepting perhaps the episode about the Disir- who offer the chance to change his fate). However, the point about the fate being determined by choices still exists, this is honestly more a conversation for analysing season 5, but Merlin and Arthur's choices as surely bring about his fate as they try to avoid it. They're treatment of Mordred (although Arthur treats him well- but all the stuff with Kara was in many ways a mistake- albeit understandable)) brings about his betrayal, it was still Mordred's choice and they should not be held entirely accountable for it but nonetheless their choices (and Mordred's) bring about what happens. Arthur's fate may be inevitable, but its not predetermined, it is determined by the choices he makes, but the problem is that every single choice the characters make that lead to the ending are entirely in character and that's what makes the end inevitable, it is possible but unlikely they would've acted differently. Its like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Another feature of destiny is the audiences own position in all versions of Arthurian legend. Fundamentally we are all assumed to know the story. The King Arthur story is a huge part of the cultural memory of the UK, France and Europe generally and hence any country in the world significantly influenced by them (a huge number due to their empires) or heavily populated by emigrants from there has it as part of its cultural memory as well. We know how the story ends, we know that Arthur is destined to be the greatest king because for us it has already happened, we've already heard the story. Destiny, then, is not just the determinism of these characters lives by an outside force but a reflection of their position in relation to audience, as a story that has already been told, a story that everyone knows the ending. It is destined because it has already happened, we just want to see the choices and decisions that led to that point, how everything comes about. Another quote from Marilyn Corrie:

"But it is important, I think, not to confuse the predetermined trajectory of the story that Malory is relating in his work with the stance that the text takes on the causes of the events that bring that story to a close. Given that the destruction of Arthur and his knights was an essential coordinate of the Arthurian legend, its presence in Malory's work was indeed predetermined."

If I manage to keep up this analysis up to season 5 I will certainly touch more on this,

Interesting/fun stuff

Morgana has her first nightmare in this episode (which aside from being exciting on a narrative level) means she (like Merlin and Arthur) realises that he is going to die. The cinematography of her walking to the window and seeing Arthur practice with a sword outside and then switch to a shot of Merlin desperately trying to turn the statue into a dog is beautiful- it is so tragic, these 3 people who know Arthur is going to die but can do absolutely nothing about it

This episode actually builds up the tragedy of Arthur's seemingly inevitable death here very well, the music that plays in the lead up to the bout is mournful and seems like an omen of death

Also Morgana helping Arthur with his armour is very tragic, and you see that despite how much they argue they really do love each other (typical siblings)

When Merlin asks Gwen why people keep thinking its his job to solve it and she says "because it is, isn't it?" Maybe its not actually Merlin's job but he has a duty to try because he's the only one who knows about the danger and although Gwen doesn't realise it he's the only one with the power to stop it

This plays overall into Merlin's questions about destiny, and it is in some ways a realisation of why he's the one who has to fulfill it, because he's the only one who can and the world will be better for it

The montage of Merlin dressing Arthur (2nd time) is hilarious, it's just like the show going 'look! Merlin has achieved a career milestone he has learnt how to dress Arthur in his armour!'

Bibliography:

Corrie, M. "God may well fordo desteny": Dealing with Fate, Destiny, and Fortune in Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur and Other Late Medieval Writing," Studies in Philology 110 (2013): 690-713. Accessed on July 12, 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24392057?seq=19#metadata_info_tab_contents