#also I absolutely love the idea of vessels being called differently by both deities and those around them

[eificopper]

(Rough) Pantheon of Pokémon Deities in Twinkle

Kanto Major deity: Mew (creation) -Has many many vessels called “Mages” Minor deities: Articuno, Zapdos and Moltres (guardians of ice/wisdom, lightning/instinct and fire/valor, keepers of the environment)

Johto Major deities: Ho-oh (skies, rainbows, sun, fire, summer) Lugia (seas, storms, moon, water, winter) and Celebi (time, nature, spring and growth) -Ho-oh and Lugia have few vessels who are specially trained to be summoners or servitude of the deities, and receive titles of (grand) “priests” and “priestesses”. Some are still “commoners in hiding” though, no matter how much the Shinto dislikes and denies this. -Celebi has few vessels as well, they can see their patron’s Time Ripples and are very in-tune with nature and its protection, they’re also avid nurturers. -Gold and Silver generally represent Lugia and Ho-oh. Ubame forest and the Enju tower’s paths are sacred ground. -Celebrations include the Equinox and Solstice, the anniversary of the burned tower and the gathering for Celebi. Minor deities: Entei (ruler of fire and volcanoes), Raikou (ruler of lightning and thunder) and Suicune (ruler of north winds, auroras and purifier of waters)

Hoenn Major deities: Groudon and Kyogre (Maker of land and seas respectively, keepers of nature and environment) Rayquaza (Master of skies, wind, hope for the future and keeper of balance between other deities) Jirachi (wish granter) Latias and Latios (Eon Duo, the eyes of the gods, guardians of life flow) -Groudon, Kyogre and Rayquaza have few vessels and are often called “Agents”. When well-trained they can see the world’s energy Ley Lines and even borrow power from them. Rayquaza’s Agents also have the ability to see Dragon Trails. -The closest thing Jirachi has to vessels are flocks of Taillow and Swellow that have a subconscious innate bond with their awakening, a tradition passed on by generations until they’re needed every 1000 years.  -Latias and Latios have many many vessels called “Messengers” who constantly communicate and report with each other and to their patrons, effectively being a sort of communication network through all the regions. Once a year during the “Messenger’s Jamboree” the vast majority of them reunite in a big celebration where their patrons even participate. (though keeping their identities hidden) -The Cave of Origins and Mt Pyre are sacred ground, but the region is known for having lots of small shrines scattered in cities and towns for the different deities. Minor deities: None

Sinnoh Major deities: Arceus (Creator) Dialga and Palkia (Masters of time and space respectively, keepers of reality) Giratina (banished deity, Master of matter and distortion world) Uxie, Mesprit and Azelf (embodiments of knowledge, emotions and willpower respectively, Lake Guardians) -Arceus has no vessels himself for he is the ruler of the other legendaries. -Dialga and Palkia have few vessels and they’re almost never contacted, only in times of need do they arise. -Giratina followers and vessels are very fierce defending their beliefs and are amongst the most loyal despite being heavily criticized by society in general. -Uxie, Mesprit and Azelf are said to choose only one vessel at a time and bless them with their virtues, they’re often called the “Lake Heirs” Minor deities: Shaymin (gratitude, nature and growth) Cresselia and Darkrai (crescent moon/new moon, and dreams/nightmares respectively)

Unova Major deities: Reshiram and Zekrom (Deity of truth/beauty and ideals/strength respectively) Kyurem (keeper of balance) Victini (patron of victory and good luck) -Reshiram and Zekrom have only 2 or 3 vessels at a time who are referred to as “Hero of _____” They serve their corresponding patron and Black or White Kyurem respectively. Minor deities: Virizion, Terrakion, Cobalion, Keldeo (Swords of justice, protectors of nature and rabids)

Kalos Major deities: Xerneas, Yveltal (Mortality duo/Keepers of life and nature) Zygarde (Deity of order, balance and prosperity) -The Mortality duo often refere to their vessels as their “children” following the birth and death theme. They can also sense and see Fairy and Dark Auras in proximity. - Zygarde’s vessels are usually publicly known as they fill a more active role partaking in battles or disasters to help keep pace over Kalos. Generally they’re in places of power or are influential/capable people to lead and follow a cause. They’re seen as heroes and “popular” or “famous” beings but it’s also for these reasons they’re more easily exposed to danger. -celebrations include the Èpanouissement (Xerneas) Chute des Feuilles (Yveltal) and the Cultural week (Zygarde) Minor deities: None

Alola Major deities: Tapu Koko, Tapu Lele, Tapu Bulu and Tapu Fini (Island guardians) Solgaleo and Lunala (sun/sunlight/day and moon/moonlight/night, protectors of the realms) -The Tapu Guardians’ vessels are just one per guardian and island, and are always the Kahuna of said island, when chosen for their position they are immediately given the legendarie’s blessing unlike all other deities who chose their vessels much earlier in their lives. -Solgaleo’s and Lunala’s vessels serve both deities equally and thus are often just referred to as “Celestial vessels” rather than pertaining to a specific deity, they can also sense “Ultra holes” Minor deities: Necrozma (Absense of light, void, abyss) Ultra Necrozma* (Light/energy) Zeraora (thunder, Lightning and Courage)

//////////

Average amount of vessels per deity +Messengers (100) Mages (50) Children of Mortality (20-25) Celestial Vessels (20-25) Giratina (20) Priests/Priestess (12-15) Agents (10) Celebi (10) Victini (10) Dialga/Palkia (4-6) Heroes of Truth/Ideals (4-6) Kyurem (5) Island Kahunas (4) -Lake Heirs (3)

[jewlwpet]

Actors and Spectators, Part 2: Eternally Metaphorical

I recently posted an excerpt from Shuji Terayama, leader of the theatre troupe where Seazer first worked, on the relationship between the actors and audience in terms of the self/other, suggesting that it gave some insight into the Utena’s theatre-related metaphors.

Here’s some more where he proposes that actors, too, are being used as pawns to enforce the narratives of society, having little to no control over the scenarios they are made to enact.

Earlier, he’d brought up the interesting point that marginalized people are often pushed towards “performing” or “entertaining” professions, so there’s the implication that in many cases, they are being coerced into enforcing their own oppression, which of course is a major theme in Utena.

He actually did go to a lot of effort to avoid this in his own troupe, as can be seen with his... flexible scripts, and that’s something I find really intriguing, but my main purpose here is to provide insight into the characters in Utena that are referred to symbolically as “actors”... since Utena was so heavily influenced by this kind of theatre, this is part of the context of those metaphors.

I think also that Akio’s statement that “You are either an actor or a spectator” is closely connected with the binary of Special/Chosen and Not, so you could apply this to more characters than are directly spoken of in these terms.

He does tie this all into the Self/Other analogy at the end.

Macbeth comes to a fictional Scottish castle that is actually a castle of horrible repression. In the real world, all the characters would have to discard language and become mute in order for Shakespeare's words to be distributed among them. The actors would "move according to given circumstances" and "speak the given dialogue." There would be no other way for them to live, other than to reproduce the world of the script. Macbeth may say, "Now I must enter, strike a pose, and cry," but in reality "he is made to strike a pose or cry." The true voice of the actor playing Macbeth never surfaces. In all previous drama, actors were seen merely as "slaves to the dialogue," as magical, talking wax dolls.

A Study of Capitalism and Acting

Manfred Hubricht... sometimes calls actors "emotion whores." They are forbidden their own words, but they try to speak as many of the author's as possible. They tend to be overly emotional; often, everything around them becomes soaked with the emotions that spill forth, as though they were vessels overflowing with words. Actors want to be loved by millions of people; so to earn applause, they sell fake tears and laughter for a cheap price. Therefore, they are both "emotion whores" and "applause whores." Actors sacrifice everyday reality for the satisfaction of imaginary reality. They tend to forget that, although they may have escaped being politicized, they are still chained like prisoners.

There is a wall onstage. The character inside becomes annoyed. The character is irritated, as is the actor playing him. There is a door in the wall. Although the actor's hand is a mere 20 centimeters from the doorknob--a distance that can never be shortened--this fact is an "absurdity." The actor shouts the line from the script, "Let me out of here!" But if we read the last page of the script, we see there is no stage direction for him to open the door and exit. He "will not be saved."

The whole thing is a conspiracy formulated on the author's desk, in the quiet of his study. ... The fact that a character is inside or outside the "wall" is not altered by political events or audience reaction. The character who is inside crying, "Let me out!" knows that he will never escape--not tonight or tomorrow night or closing night.

He is like a traitor with a Roman mode of thinking: "Even though I know what will happen tomorrow, I will live nonchalantly today." But if the author is alive, with a single stroke of the pen he can push him outside the wall. His escape is represented by a single stage direction reading, "Man kicks door and exits." The author has absolute power, and the staff and cast faithfully reproduce his desires. Previously, "acting" was structured as a kind of caste system, with dozens of theatre people scurrying east and west in order to serve the imagination of the king in his study. The actors were given words, like peasants who are given grain, like slaves who lived someone else's fantasy. For a long time, I've questioned the role of actors as stand-ins, or actors as puppets for the principle of empathy. It's a bad sign that the first questions we ask are "What is the actor to the audience?" and "What is the actor to the author?" We must start by first asking, "What is the actor to himself?"

Two years ago, at Tokyo University's Komaba Festival, I presented the following lecture on "The Actor."

Me: I'd like to focus on the fact that in the modern period, actors have been used almost as though they were currency. This situation primarily results from the division of labor and exchange. As Marx pointed out, "The division of labour implies from  the outset the division of the prerequisites of labour, tools and materials, and thus the partitioning of accumulated capital among different owners. The social division of labor liberated us in terms of time, but it also hindered us from grasping a comprehensive understanding of the world.

Then I quoted two or three examples: how we let the dressmaker make our clothes or the cobbler make our shoes, how labor that can be a medium of exchange tends toward expansion, how these forces aided both the development of society as a commercial enterprise and multilateral exchanges between humans. Adam Smith said such divisions of labor resulted not by chance, but by conscious, rational use of language. I added that he said the motive is "self-interest" rather than "human nature." Of course, this... does not rule out the possibility that "human nature" and "self-interest" might not be in conflict.

Me: We must acknowledge that the diversity of human talent is the result, not the cause, of the division of labor (exchange). Since dogs and monkeys are incapable of exchange, they cannot unite their diverse attributes nor can they pursue the common good of society. For humans, exchange and the division of labor are continuously expanding; they are outward manifestations of value and labor-time. Money emerged as the medium of exchange, and the definition of money is not unlike the definition of the actor.

I quoted some of Marx's ideas on money from his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, including the part that states: "Money, since it has the property of purchasing everything, of appropriating objects to itself, is therefore the object par excellence. The universal character of this property corresponds to the omnipotence of money, which is regarded as an omnipotent essence... money is the pander between need and object, between human life and the means of subsistence. But that which mediates my life, mediates also the existence of other men for me. It is for me the other person..." The meaning of the entire quotation remains the same simply by replacing the word "money" with another word.

"The actor, since he has the property of transforming himself into anything, of appropriating objects to himself, is therefore the object par excellence. The universal character of this property corresponds to the omnipotence of the actor, which is regarded as an omnipotent essence... the actor is the pander between need and object, between human life and the means of subsistence. But that which mediates my life, mediates also the existence of other men for me. It is for me the other person..."

[Note: In his notes for how Heretics should be performed, Terayama quoted the same passage replacing the word money with “the script.” I just think that’s interesting.]

Me: ... In the real world, money can buy an occupation or define individuality, but money can't buy a king's title or a girl's love. However, by becoming an actor, you can play "the king" or become "the girl's fiance."

... Marx said that Shakespeare spoke most eloquently of the essential quality of money. That is natural, for Shakespeare always so both "an exchange of things for things" and "an exchange of humans for humans."

Shakespeare attributes to money two qualities:

It is the visible deity, the transformation of all human and natural qualities into their opposite, the universal confusion and inversion of things; it brings incompatibles into fraternity.

It is... the universal pander between men and nations.

This concept is essentially similar to Shakespeare's theory of actors. If the foundation of the actor's art generally results from a desire to reverse individuality, "a desire to metamorphose" or "to become something else" or to "change places in the world," then the would-be actor will transform himself into his own opposite, with his two personalities in conflict. However, we long ago abandoned the notion that human beings are valuable commodities of "exchange."

The illusion that the actor's physical body has unlimited possibilities is born when the actor's metamorphosis is confined to his external body.

That is to say, the determining factor is the belief that the physical body itself can shorten the distance between the desire "to become" and the object of desire.

Me: However, the actor is composed not only of his general social nature, but also of an alienated independence, a chaotic inner life. It is not easy to become a human stand-in, a pander for value exchange. When an actor plays a character, the confusion of role reversal deprives him of his own personality, making him nothing more than the simple reproduction of another. But putting on a crown does not make you a king--playing a role does not automatically cause an exchange of value, nor does the self cease to be the self. The question is, how can one hold onto the self while playing the king? We must find a way to insure that value is enhanced rather than exchanged.

The Performer as Magician

I have come to think of my "acting technique” as a pathway for actors, so that they can stop being the raw materials (straw dolls and human-shaped objects) that are used for casting spells, and can instead become the magicians by developing a relationship with the participants.

No longer will the actors recite "given dialogue" or represent "given gestures." Rather, they must cultivate the magical ability to create a tornado by imagination alone.

Actors will neither "be seen" nor "be exhibited," but like a tornado, they will stir things up and suck them in.

... Actors must have the power to discover a unique language. They must transcend all that has gone before, they must reject everything previously given, including "the stage," "the dialogue," "the Stanislavski method's total concentration on a role," "Brecht's concept that 'drama can re-create the world," "the border between fiction and reality"--all these "givens" must be transcended. ...

Prelude to Actor Training

I think that the actor's role is to be a "medium of contact." Like Frazer, I define the contact [of contagion] as follows: "...things which have once been in contact continue ever afterwards to act on each other."

The laws of contagion are directly analogous to the laws of the actor's communication. Therefore, I want to create a metonymic relationship between "dramatic action" and "the plague" that can be transmitted by infected actors. ...

Importing a dead rat from the outside into "an apparently simple, quiet town" is equivlent to an actor portraying a fictional role. Effective acting depends entirely on the adhesive power of contact, on the creative power of relationships. Pure technique--the ability to re-create facts, to copy or reproduce action, the power of a performer to imitate and demonstrate his insanity--by itself is nothing but an exhibition onstage. It is no better than an ecologically correct exhibition of those human beings called actors. (Of course, there is fun in "doing" this. We enjoy observing monkeys or tigers, just as we like to watch the emotional life of the actor-family of the human species in its natural habitat or ecological setting, exhibited in the cage called Shakespeare or Strindberg, as a way of alleviating boredom. In this situation, acting remains inside its cage, isolated from the everyday reality that is outside the cage.)

Dramaturgy means "making relationships." Dramatic encounters reject class consciousness and create mutually cooperative relationships, thereby organizing chance into collective consciousness.

As Sartre's protagonist says, "Hell is other people."

Even aspects of reality that seem to cut us apart from others prove that we are connected. Take the little articles in the corner of the newspaper... All these things cannot be "other people's problems." At the same time, we cannot accept everything as our own problem. Finding a way to define those circumstances that divide the self from others is what small men call politics. We create a category called "other people's problems" to "set ourselves apart." By keeping our distance, we safeguard our individual territory.

In "an apparently simple, quiet town"... the mere phrase "hell is other people's affairs" is transformed into an actuality. People become indifferent, which means they reject contact and ignore chance encounters. The clear-cut division between fiction and reality offers relative peace. The family watching TV is promised safety in exchange for watching what is guaranteed to be a fictional murder.

One day, from the outside, a dead rat is imported into this everyday reality. This is the beginning of everything. Through the power of imagination, through the chance "encounter" that is the fiction embodied in the rat, this world of fixed, inevitable forms is restored and reorgaized. A single dead rat awakens the whole town, demanding that they bid farewell to "other people's problems."

Drama is chaos. That is why actors can remove the division between the self and others, and mediate indiscriminate contact. I told the members of my drama company:

"Yes. If hell is other people's affairs, then drama is a pilgrimage of other people's hells. You must create a spectacle of fictional 'encounters' in real life, of encounters where truth and lies mingle, where self and others criss-cross. That is the pilgrimage of hells that I ask you to take."