#also I use classical in the very 'what is' sense i.e. also literary | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thebellekeys · 4 years ago

Text

I Love Matthew Fairchild aka Incoherent Thoughts about Chain of Iron (2021) by Cassandra Clare

I made one of these rant-rave reviews for SJM's book so check it out if you want, no pressure tho lmao.

Aight so I finished Chain of Iron last night and OMG I HAVE TO YELL like I loved it sooo much like yooo, I have a lot to say. I know the book is new so... beware for spoilers plebs.

Also context: I been reading the Shadowhunter books since I was 12 and I'm 19 now *insert dead emoji face* so yeah, I'm just so happy rn with where the Chronicles have come and the fact that they’re still ongoing *insert uwu face*. I remember when in like 2014-2015 or something when Cassandra Clare teased that Will and Tessa's kids' generation was gonna get a trilogy set in Edwardian London, loosely based on Great Expectations, and holy hell? I think that was perhaps one of the best days of my life considering how much I adore The Infernal Devices (that trilogy really changed the way I see YA literature... don't ask cus I won't shut up about it) (also yes I read TMI and loved it too but there's a “generation gap” between TMI and the other Shadowhunter books stylistically so don't ask me about that either cus I also won't shut up).

Anyway, shoo from here if you want a critical essay on Chain of Iron. I'm not providing that, this is just me raving here for the fun.

Listen... I want the bulk of this to just be two main things: The Matthew Situation, and then all the literary and judeo-christian meta aspects of it.

BUT I ALSO NEED TO TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE SO FRICK LET'S JUST START WITH THE OBVIOUS SHIT LIKE THE PLOT AND WHATEVER

Okay, the plot and writing and shit, let's get that out of the way:

The WHOLE Jack-the-Ripper-esque ambiance was just sooooo good man wow like I did not expect the book to take this cold turn but it worked so well. There was such a contrast between Jamie and Cordelia's warm little house and then the cold winter and the stabbings and shit and it felt like a nice little callback to the actual Ripper phenomenon that preceded them and a nod to the Whitechapel Fiend story from Tales from the Shadowhunter Academy.

Bitch OFC that whole thing with Wayland was a set-up like nawww that was too easy to spot and I get why Cordelia feels like shit about it.

Dawg Lucie was just the Among Us imposter here in that my girl was just venting and sneaking around with dead people and I was like nooooo girl run, don't deal with Fade this is a set-up THINK ABOUT JULES LUCIE THAT'S LIKE YO GREAT-GRANDSON *sobs* but yeah anyway my girl has death powers she gonna kill some bitches next book.

You see that confrontation between Lilith and Belial? MASTERPIECE DIALOGUE like this was the point within which I was just like "yo is this the book of Genesis or a YA Fantasy novel" like when Lilith said "I may have been cast out but I did not fall" like??????????????????? I YELLED she did not have to END Belial like that. What a bad bitch.

More on Lilith and Belial... "You, who brought nations into darkness? Shall I finally be able to tell the infernal realms you have gone mad, lost even the image of the Creator." HAHAHHAHAHA SHE SAID "YO BELIAL GO GET SOME THERAPY AND GET OFF MY ASS" LIKE??????

Ughhhh yasss Clare has improved writing diverse characters in this book compared to in The Dark Artifices in my opinion... I'm not gonna expand on it cus ain't nobody got time for that but like, I enjoyed how she wove Persian poetry and tales into the story and the way in which she writes Cordelia and Alistair. They're not caricatures of Persian people but rather multi-faceted beings who also happen to be Persian and I appreciate that. Also, Alistair and Thomas and Anna and Ariadne were just so fun and interesting to read as coupbles but also as individuals. She really higlighted diversity in a very natural manner. All I need is a hijabi character and I’ll die a happy woman lmao.

The level of META man like the references to Classics and art (I swear, she might have compared Matthew to angels out of Caravaggio AND Rosetti AND Boticelli paintings and I Am Living For It) and just all the quotes from holy books and shit omg I love it here like you really feel catapulted into the time period, she draws reference to external art and philosophy so well and I feel like she upped the notch on it in this book (didn’t know that was possible but it was the prose is BEAUTIFUL, archaic, but not pretentiously so). No, like the characters live in their OWN worlds of literature and art and history in the way we are living in THEIRS. They quote Wilde and Milton while we'll quote Clare. It's awesome.

This is an unusually structuralist take even from me but: I like the way the milieu social of the book, i.e., the high society Edwardian circles and their values, have a direct influence on the plot. James and Cordelia got married because society’s values essentially forced them to, not a demon. Cordelia abandons Jamie at the end of Iron because her shame as a woman in society and fear for her reputation made her, not a demon. Thomas and Alistair can't be together solely because of how Alistair tarnished the reputation of the Fairchilds and Lightwoods by using the horror of infidelity against them. Issues relating to marriage, gender roles, etc, stemming DIRECTLY from the time period rule the sequence of events to the same degree as the epic fantasy aspects (demons, Princes of Hell, the lore itself) do and I LOVE that dear God above.

OKAY THE GOOD SHIT LET US TALK ABOUT CHARACTERS AND SHIPS (N.B. but imma discuss Matthew and the Fairstairs situation separately below this portion):

Alistair's redemption arc: No, cus Alistair's redemption arc is honestly amazing. He really did change and it's not like his betterment as a person was linked to any one heroic deed but rather he simply decided he wanted to be better especially for his family and he decided to become a proper protective son, a caring brother, and an amiable friend. He fully owned up to his Malfoy tendencies and apologized without expecting forgiveness. He shows how he cares in the little ways and omg it's so sweet and tender. I really do want him to love himself now and be embraced by Matthew especially and the rest of the Thieves.

Dawg Lucie and Jesse are so funny to me like it's so hilarious how this girl fell in love with a whole ass ghost that no one else knows about like HHAHA. Are Lucie and Jesse my ult ship ever? Nah, but it's nothing to do with Clare, it's just that their relationship happened pretty quick and feels quite like something epicly romantic that Lucie herself would write. I just like slow burn and friends-to-lovers the most from Clare. To be honest part of me just wanted Lucie to not have a romantic arc all together but like, it's all good, I'm not complaining.

Okay Grace- like yooooooooooo I never hated her yunno. She has been abused and isolated all her life. It's not that she is a bad person, but rather that she does not know what being a person even entails. Can't even say she's a “doll” of a person cus she's never even been pampered like one by her family. I really started understanding her motivations since when they gave us her half-childhood with Jesse. I want better for her but cmon can she REALLY be saved???

GRACE X CHRISTOPHER *pretends to be shocked*... Okay, sometime in the middle of the Dark Artifices series some big brain put together a very thorough family tree of the families and like, it clearly showed that Grace and Christopher got married so like, lmfaooooo, I knew this was coming one way or another, but the journey to this ship is more important than the destination. Like in a way Christopher is such a cute baby lamb that it makes sense he'd end up being immune to her Grace-ness when he's just a cute little Einstein boiii. Like this is just so funny to me cus he's so oblivious to social conventions while she makes the milieu social her entire life so OFC it's gonna work. Like, this is such a worlds-colliding trope like just Give It To Me.

James and Grace - aw mannn Jamie just had me fricking wanting to hit a wall every two seconds cus like yooooooo every single time I think he and Cordelia are gonna stop being emotionally-constipated spouses, Jamie says some kinda shit like "omg me and Daisy are just friends uwu" like DO I NEED TO HIT YOU?????????? See I can't blame him for not slamming the door on Grace's face even tho he totes should- Jamie is so cerebral and kind that even if Grace wasn't using the enchantment on him, I think he would always be soft for her even if it isn't in a romantic way. There's just so much miscommunication cus like he said "Thank God" when she broke off the engagement with Charles and lowkey embraced her but it also wasn't his fault cus it wasn't even romantic BUT OFC IT LOOKED HORRIBLE TO CORDELIA like James literally never told the woman at least once that he loved her so OFC she thought she was back to square one with him dear God above what a mess. Not his fault, but she DID set down one rule for him: don’t cheat with Grace. And yeah even tho he hasn’t properly cheated, it must FEEL horrible to her cus she’s just been enduring the pain of their unrequeted love for so long :((

See imma just say it but if Cordelia thought that James didn't love Grace then she def would have confessed to him about her feelings right but like James, on the other hand, was delaying his own romantic confession cus he was BEING EMOTIONALLY CONSTIPATED and I can't even say the bracelet was solely to blame cus like my boi was just being so difficult omg I believe he should be lightly spanked by his three parents aka Will, Tessa and Jem *cries*.

Cordelia is such a MOM like she's so mature and stable and her self-preservation instinct? OFF THE CHARTS I love this woman like James definitely treated her well as a hubby but like I JUST WANTED HER TO HAVE CLOSURE ABOUT SOMETHING and boy oh boy she did get that closure she got it good but not from the person she expected in the LEAST *hehe* *pelican screeching*... like Lucie was being sus with the whole ghost business and James was being just, quite a case, dealing with Grace and Belial right and I don't blame them at all for their secrecy and shit but her FATHER DIED and her friends were hiding a lot from her so in a way she turned to Alistair for help but he could only do so much cus of his own pain (she couldn't even talk to her mom cus she's pregnant and she doesn't wanna stress her right) and then there was this emotional block between her and Jamie, Lucie was often absent and conspiring with the dead... the last person remaining was HIM (imma discuss this soon), but yeah my heart just went OUT to her cus she's tryna save herself and her family and she just doesn't know what to do. That's why I love the way her mom told her to stop holding herself back for others and live her own life. Like Cordelia grew on me so much cus in Gold she undoubtedly was a strange Elizabeth Bennet-wallflower hybrid and I... do not usually get attached to wallflowers but in Iron I feel like I finally understood that she was just tryna be unproblematic and self-preserving all along and nottt put her family and friends in a tough situation.... she reminds me of my mom personality-wise so yeah I’m totally rooting for her now that her *situation* in the past seems clearer.

Anna, Thomas and Matthew are such a SQUAD lmfaooooo like united in their gayness they'd be so unstoppable.

Will and Tessa are the most in-love of all the in-loves in this story and I respect that so much.

I lost a year to my life every time the romance between James and Cordelia got cockblocked. Like they were MARRIED and I thought they were gonna at least sleep next to each other at least once BUT NO James couldn't take a hint omg I'm actually gonna eat my fist and sob (but in retrospect, I think this serves a bigger purpose in terms of the narrative structure i.e. the interruption of all the spicy James and Cordelia action serves a bigger purpose which I think brings me to my next section, *exhale*)

Welcome to the Matthew Fairchild Enthusiast Club (this section is me talking out loud; it makes no sense):

bitch.

LISTEN TO ME LISTEN WELL I LOVE THIS BOY SO MUCH IMMA SCREAM I REALLY AM GONNA SCREAM MY FIST IS LITERALLY IN MY MOUTH *BACKFLIPS OFF THE ROOF WITH LANA DEL REY PLAYING*

Okay like where to BEGIN I think the Shadowhunter boy who I'm most attracted to is Julian while the one I love the most is Will but I think I see myself in Matthew the most. Like ever since that first story where the Thieves all met at the Academy then got expelled, I think that I just KNEW Matthew was destined to be epic. Plus the whole Wilde obsession? I’m no libertine myself but I just love his chaos and passion for life.

NO CUS HE'S SO WITTY AND SWEET AND EPIC AND YET SO SECRETIVE AND DEAR GOD ABOVE AHHHHH WILL HE SURPASS JULIAN FOR ME??? Ion even know but this is just sodjsgdwsdygyegydgef

Hear me out but I said after finishing Gold last March that I wanted this book to be Matthew's healing arc right so halfway into the book when I realized that we weren't getting all that good healing arcing I was confused just cus I thought it seemed natural to address all of his alcohol issues and sadness by now. LITTLE DID I KNOW CASSIE WAS SETTING UP A WHOLE OTHER ARC WITH HIM THAT I WOULD HAVE NEVER GUESSED WTH.

At first I thought Matthew didn't have feelings for anyone at all, and if he DID develop feelings unexpectedly, I fricking thought that maybe he's catching feelings for James, if anyone??? I mean, I did have some suspicions about Matthew from the get-go: like he's so secretive and as readers we think we know everything there is to know about him since we were all privy to the truth potion incident in his short story right BUT NO I GOT PLAYED AND I DESERVE IT SO BADDDDDD.

Listen I hadn't shipped him and Cordelia simply because I never thought it in the realm of possibility but it MAKES SENSE as a ship... think about it: he never says what he feels, he flirts with her like he does with EVERYONE, he is kind to her in the way he is with EVERYONE. Really, Matthew is shippable with everyone, doesn’t matter if they’re taken cus that’s just what his Matthewnes allows for ya feel. There is such a beautiful irony that CORDELIA herself did not see this coming. Even the little teasers and hints in Gold have only NOW started making sense to me likejhss. I just felt like the hints in book 1 did not indicate to me that Matthew really harbored real romantic feelings for Daisy. I thought he was upset that James and Cordelia were being fakes, not a developing CRUSH on the woman fgs.

Not to mention that you usually sense a ship building when the emotional connection or sexual tension between the characters is made clearer but to me their FRIENDSHIP grew right but it didn’t feel like Cordelia was thought that she liked him or he liked her so that means me and Cordelia are clowns *together* 😤

Okay I was lowkey having SUSPICIONS but I immediately shut them down right... like firstly when he took her to the White Horse in his car and she went OFF and OFF and off about how she felt free for the first time? I thought Cassie was just tryna develop Cordelia's self-liberation arc through Matthew there. Heck, I didn't even think ANYTHING of it when Matthew confession to Cordelia about the "truth potion" incident at all cus I was like they're FRIENDS??? BUT now it's adding up now...

See when they were at the inn place and he was telling her that she doesn't in the least seem like a 100 year-old married woman? I was like hmmmm he's so sweet but why did Cassie phrase it like that like??? When Cordelia later reiterated that she thought Matthew's flirting was “meaningless”?? I was like hmmm kinda SUS tho. And then when he and James had their fight over the way Jamie kissed Grace like again I thought he was just like? ion know? mad at James for it but I didn't think he was in LOVE with Cordelia??? So I immediately put aside my slight suspicions. The probability that he had a crush on James at that point seemed more likely to me.

BUT THEN it started hitting me that every time Matthew drank, even before he explained his issue with the truth potion, that Cordelia would note it, she would worry about him, she would think of her father which seemed so poetic to me, history repeating itself and all that but this time you can FIX it??? Yeah, but again I didn't think the L WORD would be involved man???

Now imma sound like a delulu shipper here but it just makes sense they would develop feelings logically- reason being that it definitely is possible based on the way Cassie set up the story, like there's a combination of little “friend things” that can turn this into a proper ship: Matthew rescues Cordelia in the ballroom when Grace captures James' attention in Gold. Cordelia sees her father in Matthew all the time but knows now she has a chance to be there for him in the way she couldn't have been there for Elias (classic “history repeats itself” trope, she doesn't want Matthew drinking in Paris like dhshghdfhdhch). Cordelia tastes freedom for the first time when driving with Matthew. Matthew caught James and Cordelia making out in the room and was pissed but not even HE properly knew why then??? Umm, when she thinks James is forreal cheating with Grace on her she subconsciously goes to Matthew??? I also found it funny just how every intimate marital moment between her and James got interrupted somehow. Like, it's as if the narrative is just a living force REFUSING to let James and Cordelia as a ship be consecrated. Heck, every time Matthew is scantily clothed Cordelia notes it. LITTLE CRUMBS I TELL YOU LITTLE CRUMBS.

I tell you when Cordelia showed up to Matthew's flat I thought they were gonna f*ck as friends but I got SOMETHING EVEN BETTER SOMEHOW

THEY ARE GOING TO PARIS LA BELLE EPOQUE PARIS THE PARIS OF DREAMS AND ART LIKE??? FRICKKKKK I DID NOT SEE THIS COMING AT ALLLL MAN? I deadass thought the story would be restrained to the UK but like it MAKES SENSE the trope subversion MAKES SENSE.

“In Paris, with you, I will not need to forget.” SHITTRGEGGGDG

BUT CORDELIA LOVES JAMES TOO LIKE I CAN'T DENY THAT... where are we GOING with this like Matthew wouldn't lie about his feelings and yet Cassie wouldn't give us Matthew and Cordelia crumbs to only end it in the next book immediately for her to just ditch him for James. I mean she was clearly holding back on fleshing out James and Cordelia as a ship for this but to WHAT END??? Daisy feels wild and free with Matthew and she feels warm at home warm with James. I can’t advocate for the sinking of ANY ship here.

Imma say what we're all thinking: Is she gonna give us a Will x Jem x Tessa type situation where Cordelia gets both of them cus I'm not strong enough for this but I also think it'd be really funny if James gets a surprise bi awakening in the next books and then we get POLY even tho this would never happen, it’s actually impossible, because of the whole parabatai thing.

Listen I ship Cordelia and Matthew much more than Cordelia and James, not that I dislike James in any way tho. It's just: Matthew is so unrestrained and she's so composed. They seem like an unlikely pair so it makes sense that they hit harder for me. James and Cordelia have such similar personalities but I ALSO don't ship James with Grace at all so like?? Poly would be... ideal... but it can’t happen especially cus they are fricking parabatai... a Will-Jem-Tessa situation seems more likely but mannnn ion know what to expect. I just want FAIRSTAIRS to have their moment in Paris. I mean James and Matthew clearly don't abhor each other for this.

Take everything I say with several grains of salt, take everything I say with the whole Dead Sea actually, cus I damn well know that Matthew is so flirty and whatnot that I’d have shipped him with anyone in their little circle but now that she set him up with Cordelia it all feels so right?? I have wanted this man in a good relationship since he walked onto the page in Nothing But Shadows so-

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I can't believe Cassia duped me like this omg, Matthew is gonna have his healing arc in Paris with Cordelia by his side like- THIS IS ALL I HAVE WANTED AND SO MUCH MORE. Question to yall btw: are you all as surpised at Fairstairs as me or did yall see it coming all along like smart people? Am I a lone clown? 🥺

BRUH okay criticisms of CC?:

Lmfao a part of me feels like I GOTTA say something bad about CC or the book but honestly I have no objective complaints about it as of now. Am I saying that it’s the PEAK of Young Adult literature and Urban Fantasy? I mean, I make no such claims tbh. I’m not here to be critical when I read as a hobby and when CC’s writing makes me happy regardless of how flawed some people see it.

Okay what next?

So like I’m excited for the adult high fantasy she’s releasing in the fall and whatever other works she might be releasing outside of Chain of Gold within the Chronicles.

As for TLH itself? Man I’m just VIBING like I suspect I will reread Chain of Iron soon and maybe one of the anthologies just because I am happy that this series actually happened after me waiting like 6 years for it when it was just a concept: a Dickensian retelling filled with poetry and culture and history and the conventions I so loved in TID at age 12. This is all I been wanting tbh. I’m just enjoying watching this series come to fruition for it to inspire and transform me in some way. I feel like in a way my coming-of-age aligns with that of these specific characters yet I ALSO feel like I raised Jamie since infancy. Wack.

MATTHEW AND CORDELIA IN FRANCE LA BELLE EPOQUE TO BE EXACT IMMA CRY I DID NOT SEE THIS COMING AND AHHHHHH. ALSO WILL AND JAMIE GOING TO CORNWALL TO GET LUCIE AND MAYBE BOND I LOVE WILL. HE WAS ONE OF MY DILF AWAKENINGS AT AGE 12 AND NOW HE’S HERE AGAIN IMMA CRY. I WANNA SEE MATTHEW GET HAPPY. AHHH.

Ending with a fun quote: “In the wise words of someone or other, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Maurice.” 😉

38 notes · View notes

lurking-latinist · 4 years ago

Text

ok so I haven’t been doing this very long, but in the time I have been writing fic I’ve noticed that the popularity of each of my fics has almost nothing to do with how happy I was with it or how much the people that liked it liked it (i.e. what the mood in the comments was, from people who chose to leave comments, on a scale of “hey this is kind of fun!” to “omg omg OP you BLEW MY MIND how are you SO BRILLIANT”), both of which could be metrics for how good it is.

Instead, based on my small sample on ao3, popularity is almost precisely a function of two things, and I’m curious how they’ve played out for others:

1. length. Longer fics get more attention (and especially comments--which makes sense; there’s just more to say); exact drabbles also tend to get slightly more attention than ficlets that are on the same scale but are not a round number of words. On the other hand, someone who writes ten drabbles and someone who writes a 1000-word short story have done comparable amounts of work, but the drabble writer is likely to get more separate audience interactions because their work is spread out and broken up.

2. popularity of the fandom/sub-fandom. I’ve only written for Doctor Who, but that’s a fandom with a lot of sub-fandoms within it. For example, a Three & Jo ficlet that I dashed off purely as the vehicle for a joke has gotten more kudos than a Six & Mel story that I put quite a bit of work into, and this makes perfect sense because there are more people out there who are going to be looking for Third Doctor stories in the first place. (I bet the 7 kudos on the Six & Mel fic represents a pretty significant fraction of the Six & Mel fandom, though.) Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that people writing for contemporary Who consistently get kudos on a scale that only the most monumental of Classic Who fics ever reach (and I mean literally orders of magnitude). And that’s because that’s what people are searching for right now.

I’m not saying this to moan about people neglecting my genius, but actually to make kind of the opposite point, in the hopes that it might be encouraging to someone. In the world of fanfic, you’re writing for a really specifically circumscribed audience--sometimes literally just two or three people, who (a) are familiar with the fandom or fandoms you’re writing for, (b) like the tropes/genres/topics you’re using, and (c) are currently active in online fandom and reading fic. That really, really does narrow your audience.

And that means that--while it can feel kind of disappointing to work hard on something and then get only a few kudos and one or maybe two encouraging comments (from people you know...)--those numbers don’t reflect the standard of your work in any clear way. It’s helpful instead to focus on the quality, not the quantity, of audience reactions. Treasure those excited comments! (And, yes, that does mean that leaving comments is really, really helpful for your favorite authors, especially in small fandoms, rare pairings, platonic stories for characters that are usually shipped or vice versa, etc.).

It’s a little depressing if I picture myself shouting my fic in a huge auditorium and getting applause from three friends in the audience. But that’s not really a good metaphor for fanfic, is it? (Especially in small or non-current fandoms.) It’s more like holding a select literary salon at which you read to the few connoisseurs who are qualified to appreciate your brilliance.

I don’t know what a salon of 80s Who fans would look like, although I’m sure it would be over-lit.

#this has been a midnight ramble but I hope it's helpful to someone #because we like to think we write purely for the joy of it #but for a lot of people including me hearing from your audience is *part* of the joy of it!#and comparison is the thief of joy #especially if you compare yourself with people writing multi-chapter sagas in popular fandoms lol #fanfic #fic #fandom #doctor who #classic who

7 notes · View notes

vandorens-archive · 5 years ago

Note

hello! i recently saw your post on tropes and i’m a bit new to writing and i was wondering if you could tell me about some basic tropes and how to write them? or some tropes you particularly like? i’m sorry this is such a silly question ik but i’m a bit lost over here aha. thank you!

oh, nonnie, it’s not a silly question at all! i’m more than happy to help a new writer. here’s a basic rundown of tropes:

— what is a trope?

a trope is a catch-all for the use of figurative language for artistic effect, and a reoccurring theme or device. the first is more commonly known as a literary trope (for example, a euphemism, a metaphor, irony.etc) while the second is a more recent use of the word, which refers to something which has been used in certain mediums often enough to be recognised — which is what we’ll be talking about today.

— tropes vs cliches

a trope is something all storytellers use, whether conciously or not. a cliche, on the other hand, is what happens what a trope is overused, to the point where it’s tedious. a cliche can also be called a ‘bad trope’, because of their predictability. cliches aren’t all bad, though! some can be used for humourous effect, or to get a point across.

— examples of tropes

bad guys wear black — mostly seen in films, villains are often symbolised as such with a monochrome wardrobe (for example, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty)

lady chatterley’s lover — a love story between two people from different social classes (like in The Great Gatsby or many of Jane Austen’s novels)

the chosen one — we’ve seen it, some of us love it, others...not so much (best example and what i imagine might have made this trope popular is the Harry Potter series)

these are basic tropes, but there are hundreds more that have been used in literature and film. here is a good website to find some specific ones!

— some of my favourite tropes

because why pass up a moment to gush about them? i also occasionally reblog things about my favourite tropes (which you can find in this tag) but here are just a few of my favourites!

the reluctant hero (also known as I Just Want To Be Normal) — a classic. this character just got the opportunity to go on a big adventure, or they accidentally got powers, or the task of saving the world has suddenly fallen upon their shoulders. gross! they don’t want anything to do with it! they just want to live a nice, normal life. (example: Sabrina Spellman in Sabrina the Teenage Witch)

night and day/sun and moon duo — one is a ray of sunshine, a sweetheart, a pure, innocent, bright thing, while the other is brooding, mysterious, maybe even a bit cold. yes, they fall in love despite their differences. yes, they are narrative foils (a foil is a character that is the opposite of another in order to bring attention to a certain trait, usually by contrast)

can’t tie his tie — it’s intimate, it’s tender, it’s adorable. usually between a male character and his love interest, or between him and his mother. a bit overused, but i love it.

the snark knight — the bitter one in the group, the only one with common sense usually. that one person you see sitting at the back of the class, making quips about the teacher and rolling their eyes at the sheer idiocy of everyone around them. usually wears black. very often pretentious. secretly very sensitive and needs love and affection.

childhood friends (additionally: childhood friend romance) — the group of friends a character has known since they were little, and know that will always have their back. this trope can be used well with the second generation of characters in a novel (i.e the children of the main characters).

— so, tropes. how do i write them?

any way you want! that’s what's good about a trope; you can write them in so many different ways. the subversion of tropes can give birth to an amazing idea. alternatively, you might come up with a story that is centered around a trope that you want to write. it’s completely up to you! the most important thing isn’t how ‘unique’ you can make a trope, it’s how much fun you have writing it.

#hope this helped nonnie! feel free to send some follow up questions if you're confused about something #writing #writing advice #tropes #writing tips #writeblr #answered.#anonymous.

115 notes · View notes

agentrouka-blog · 5 years ago

Text

ASOIAF and the yellow feather.

I have been trying to understand why I have become so obsessed with understanding A Song of Ice and Fire. It's not just about unlocking a puzzle. It's about unlocking a puzzle that speaks my language. It’s a puzzle that becomes more beautiful the longer I look at it.

Where do you find food for your very mortal soul when you are not religious? What do you do when there is nothing after you die? How do you reconcile unresolved pain when its source is forever beyond reach? How do you come to fly when your legs are broken, how do you speak when your tongue has been ripped out, how do you see when you are blinded and how do you fight when your sword hand is gone? How do you live when your dreams have turned to ashes?

You can turn that pain outward and multiply it in the world around you. You can numb yourself to it and lose all connection to yourself in the bargain. Or you can turn to the power of the imagination and create your own reconciliation. Write in your head the story of a goodbye or an apology or a confession. Even write the perfect the response that will allow you to move forward with a sense of harmony. The power to create life and justice, to make sure that love prevails, can be very metaphorical.

That is the story GRRM is writing. He is writing a story about writing stories. About finding peace of mind in Western culture post-religion. He's writing it in the intricate, multidimensional, sensual, symbolic and intertextual manner of medieval Christianity. A feast for all senses.

(Vague spoilers below.)

What fits with this is how GRRM draws heavy inspiration from medieval hagiographies, saint’s lives and their stories of martyrdom, to flank our protagonists' journeys. Hagiographies and early biblical scholarship. Sansa, Jon, Arya, Ned, Syrio Forel... a lot. These stories are harrowing. Tremendous suffering with a reward only promised beyond death. There is also no happy ending in the real historical events that inspire so many of the worst fates in the books.

And the worst fates often happen right next to our heroes at the very same time. Lollys and Sansa. The miller's sons with Bran and Rickon. The innkeeper's daughter with Arya and the Hound. Doreah with Dany. Or they happen to their alter egos. Mutilation, rape, murder. The annihilation of their hopes and dreams and human dignity. We are working with double-Vision. The one who is savaged by the cruelties of reality, and the one who gets away. Our heroes get away.

What saves our heroes from such a fate each time? A knight, a guide, a twist of luck. The tools of the fairytale, the tools of fiction, of songs. And, indeed, GRRM has created a gigantic carpet of literary rerefences. From Grimm’s fairytales, to classic children’s books (SO MANY), ancient mythology, folklore, the entire spectrum of what you can reasonably draw inspiration from as a student of the written word, at least as per the western canon. (And likely much beyond.) Pick your favorite vaguely influential book, you will find it. But there is a pattern to it. He uses literary works AND their authors. E.B. White, Lord Byron, Charlotte Brontë, Mary Shelley, Jane Austen, Heinrich Heine, Sandor Petöfi, Abelard and Heloise, Cervantes, Anne Frank,... “And the old gods beyond counting.” You'll find them all represented in their life and their works. It’s especially harrowing when there is a particular tension between life and work: romance v. spinsterhood, childloss vs. Frankenstein’s Monster, the deep love of language and culture v. political exile from home, marriage for love v. death in battle. It is all there.

The “pointy end” of it all is the way human beings use fiction to cope. Humans write to battle with the conflict in their soul. “The human heart in conflict with itself.” But when they create, their art becomes a gift to the world. It becomes available as food for the soul of those who cannot wield a “sword” themselves. It becomes Stuart Little or Charlotte’s Web, or the Hardy Boys or Little red Ridinghood, it becomes Pride and Prejudice or MacBeth or Anne Frank’s Diary. It becomes the Roman de la Rose. It becomes the Song of Songs.

Stories save our Souls because they create a world for our dreams. Where our dreams can live, even one where our nightmares can safely dwell.

That is the power of Florian and Jonquil.

Our heroes will not outrun the horrors forever. GRRM will become less subtle in hinting at a tension between truth and fiction. Any happy ending we receive will be forged in the fires of the redemptive powers of writing. Of the kind of authorship that heals. The Kind of authorship that is both black and white, male and female. The author of the swan song.

After delving deeper into his use of languages, especially French and German, as well as into Oldtown, my understanding of the literary angle of Arya's swan song took another leap. Buried in bad linguistic puns, I got the following:

German:

Knight = Ritter, etymologically sourced in Reiter (rider), which is a homophone for an English word = writer, i.e. author,

French:

writer = ecrivain (m.), ecrivaine (f.) = “a craven”

Needle = aguille = a quill

Quill... quill.. quill...

Jonquil = Jon + Quill = jaune (fr. yellow) + quill

Quill: a writing tool made from a moulted flight feather (preferably a primary wing-feather) of a large bird. (Wikipedia)

What do you call a female swan: a pen

What is mightier than the sword: a pen

What is the craven, the ecrivaine: a female writer

A female knight, the Lady Knight. Lyanna. Arya. The blue flower, the Knight of Flowers. The Florian.

A blue flower (German: Blaue Blume) was a central symbol of inspiration for the Romanticism movement, and remains an enduring motif in Western art today.[1] It stands for desire, love, and the metaphysical striving for the infinite and unreachable. It symbolizes hope and the beauty of things. (Wikipedia)

The yellow feather is the craven’s sword, the writer’s pen.

A yellow feather also represents joy and hope. Jonquil is the new Needle. Arya is Florian. Jonquil is Lightbringer, the sword of Azor Ahai. (Azur = blue)

Arya will lose her sword hand and learn to use her “left hand”, the hand she has left, which Syrio had so approved of when he explained how to use her first Needle. She will be the writer, saving the world by wielding a pen. She will write it for Jon and Sansa, the other Florian and Jonquil. And for every single person whose suffering she witnessed on her many journeys.

On the show, the book Samwell Tarly presents to the Small Council as “The Song of Ice and Fire” is written by Maester Ebrose, whose specialty is medicine, the healing arts represented by the silver link in the maester’s chain.

Whichever way GRRM chooses to do it in the books, the creation of the Swan Song will be a healing event. It will not be bitter or nihilistic. I think it will be magical, with the option of being metaphorical. It will be food for our soul.

I think there are two quotes by authors that inspired GRRM, among many, that work with what it will be:

"All that I hope to say in books, all that I ever hope to say, is that I love the world.” (E. B. White)

“In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can’t build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery, and death. I see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness, I hear the ever approaching thunder, which will destroy us too, I can feel the sufferings of millions and yet, if I look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.” (Anne Frank)

(In fact: read every single thing she says here.)

GRRM is not writing an uncomplicated romance. But he will give us a song that will leave us fulfilled. It will leave us nourished. And he is writing it in such a way that we can take a walk outside, look at swans, trees, rivers, clouds and floating leaves on the wind and remember that feeling, the indomitable power of the human spirit when it chooses to create.

#asoiaf #asoiaf speculation #Florian and jonquil #arya stark #literature

13 notes · View notes

justfinishedreading · 4 years ago

Photo

The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

It has been at least 8 months since I finished reading this novel, and now I’m finally posting the last part of my review.

Part 3 – Margarita, Feminist Icon or Romantic Cliché?

Spoilers.

The Master, a thirty-something recluse male writer, first sees Margarita walking down the street. She has in her arms a bouquet of yellow flowers. The Master follows her, they exchange hellos and she asks him if he likes her flowers. He says no. She proceeds to throw the flowers in the gutter.

This is not a promising introduction to our heroine: a heroine who is quick to throw something away because a random man dislikes it. The situation doesn’t get any better after that; the two become infatuated with each other, and she becomes obsessed with his writing, with his “genius”, so much so that it is she who names him “The Master”. For me a clichéd classical heroine is characterized by two things: first she is young and pure, pure in spirit and body (i.e. meek and clueless). Secondly, she is hopelessly dedicated to her man, he is all she lives for. Now on the first point Margarita does not qualify, she’s a married woman having an affair with another man, not surprising considering Bulgakov’s taste for married women. But Margarita absolutely fulfils the second criteria: her main characteristic as a character is how unfailingly devoted she is to her lover.

The novel is split into two parts and if it weren’t for the events of the second then her character would be very dull indeed. In the first part most of the action is focused on the Devil’s appearance in Moscow and the chaos his companions inflict on the inhabitants of the city. We’re briefly introduced to the characters of the Master and his lover Margarita. We’re told of how she supported his writing, and how he fell into depression when his novel about Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate was ostracized by the Russian literary scene. There’s a passage in the novel in which Bulgakov explains that Margarita married young, now years later she’s living in a nice house, she’s a woman of leisure, she has money and her husband is decent enough, so why is she so unhappy? Bulgakov argues that she clearly needs the Master, she needs to live with him in that hole in the wall apartment and share his sorrow and pour herself into his work. Well Bulgakov you missed the mark. Margarita is so insanely attached to the Master’s novel (he gets jealous that she cares more for it than for him) that it seems clear to me that what she really needs isn’t the Master but for herself to get a job as an editor. What she needs is a challenge.

The first part of the novel jumps from character to character in alternating short comedic scenes, it is only in part two that the novel starts to feel more like a novel, it is the first time that more than two chapters (five to be exact) are dedicated to the same storyline: Margarita.

In this second part, one of the Devil’s companions offers Margarita a way to be reunited with her precious lover, whom she hasn’t seen in a long time, ever since he, willingly, disappeared from her. She is given a cream and told to apply it at midnight, she does so and turns into a witch, she feels a sense of liberation, removes all her clothes, grabs a broom and flies out into the night. After a few incidents she then meets the Devil and makes a bargin with him: he offers to reunite her with the Master if she will be the hostess at his Ball for the dead tonight. She accepts and fulfils her part perfectly and in return the Devil delivers her the Master and wishes them a happy life.

I have to say the second part of the novel, which relates to Margarita’s story, is what I enjoyed reading the most, it was a thrill to follow her new freedom and sense of adventure and wonder, and frankly a relief to be following a linear narrative. Margarita is the only character in the novel who takes action, the only one to be brave enough to face the Devil, take on his challenges and gain what she wants in the end.

And yet Margarita became a witch and got involved in the Devil’s business, she’s a heroine but one who gets mixed up with unholy things, and even before that she was an adulterer. In this sense she is a new type of heroine. There is a key moment in the Devil’s Ball when Margarita has to greet the Devil’s guests who are all dead sinners. She greets a woman who is deranged and keeps going on about a handkerchief, when she was alive she worked in a café, the owner “pressed her to join him in the pantry once, and nine months later she gave birth to a boy: she carried him off to the wood and stuffed a handkerchief into his mouth and then buried the boy in the ground. At the trial she said she had nothing to feed the child with.” To this Margarita asks what about the café owner? And one of the Devil’s minions replies: “what ever has the owner got to do with it! After all, he didn’t smother the baby in the wood!”

Now in the afterlife this woman is everyday presented with a handkerchief with a blue border identical to the one she used to kill her child, every day she destroys it and every morning she is presented with it anew, she is being forever tormented by the handkerchief, by her crime. When Margarita finishes her service to the Devil she asks that the torment to this woman be stopped. This shows a higher, more complex level of compassion than we usually see in romantic heroines. It’s easy to show a heroine to be compassionate and charitable to those who are innocent and poor, but here is compassion and understanding of how a person can be driven to acts of evil, and how they can be forgiven. And an acknowledgment of the man’s part in a woman’s ruin.

So apart from the character Margarita, are there any other moments that could tell us what was Bulgakov’s attitude towards women? Well whenever there are public incidents in The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov specifies that there are women screeching and wailing, implying that women will always be the ones to loose composure first and be “hysterical”. A character, angry with himself, exclaims “An idiot, a foolish woman, a coward! Carrion’s what I am, not a man!”. When one of the Devil’s minions approaches Margarita for the first time, he exclaims “Difficult people, these women!” when she is confused by his cryptic messages, a few minutes later he warns her “No dramas, no dramas”.

And then there’s Nakedness, nakedness is an important theme, there are five instances of nakedness: 1. The Devil has a group of four minions, one of whom is a woman, and she is always naked. Her nakedness is used to enthral and surprise her male victims on a number of occasions, but she is also described as a maidservant, who later in the book kneels down and rubs the Devil’s feet. 2. At the Devil’s stage performance in a theatre, his goons offer the people money, which later disappears, and to the women new frocks and shoes, which they exchange their old dresses for and change into on stage behind a curtain. Later on as they are leaving the show the dresses disappear and they are left naked. Nakedness here is used to embarrass. 3. Margarita and her maid turn into witches and go naked, this seems to be about liberation, liberation from social restraints, an abandonment to freedom, to adventure, to mischief. 4. The new witches meet a drunk fat man by a lake. Nakedness here reflects this man’s idiocy. 5. Women and black servants at the Devil’s Ball are naked. All male guests are formally dressed, the female guests wear nothing except for fancy shoes and elaborate headdresses. Serving the party are “motionless naked negroes with silver bands on their heads”. Is it liberating that the women are naked? Or is it just an indulgence for the men to feast their eyes upon? And to make the male readers giddy? Later in the party, the women, (and only the women) take off their shoes and jump into a large pool filled with champagne and get drunk.

After hours and hours and hours of serving as hostess at the Devil’s Ball, Margarita and the Devil are about to part ways, she has fulfilled her part of the bargain and now it is the time for the Devil to fulfil his and return the Master to her. But the Devil says nothing and neither does Margarita. She has worked so hard and been through so much and is about to walk away without demanding what is right: the payment for her services. As she is just about to leave the Devil exclaims: “Correct! (…) That’s the way! (…) never ask for anything! Never anything, and especially of those who are more powerful than you. They’ll make the offer themselves and give everything themselves.” What bullshit. I don’t know how exactly but I grew up with this belief, never ask for anything, if you deserve it, it will be given. What utter bullshit. I read in a study that one contribution to men getting more promotions at work than women was simply because men had more confidence in asking for promotions, whilst women assume that if they do their work well then a promotion should naturally happen. To all women everywhere: if you want something, go for it, ask for it, fight for it.

Bulgakov was a man who wrote a lot of himself into his work, in part 2 of my review I talked about all the similarities between Bulgakov’s struggle with censorship and the Master’s plot, Bulgakov also frequently broke the fourth wall as narrator and commented on the action or wrote things like “Follow me, Reader!”. So it is no surprise that Margarita has some similarities with Bulgakov’s third and final wife, Yelena Shilovskaya, who was a married women when they first met, and during and after Bulgakov’s life fought to get his work published. It seems clear to me that Margarita is a tribute to her.

I can’t say that The Master and Margarita is a feminist text, there are subtle moments of machismo which I feel Bulgakov would not have enough self-awareness to spot, and Margarita’s character has a number of problems, such as having no personal goals or desires outside of simply worshiping the “Master”, but I can say that there is enough to make Margarita a step in the right direction, a step in between a cliché of male desire, and a feminist icon for us women.

Review by Book Hamster

4 notes · View notes

jawnkeets · 5 years ago

Note

could u maybe recommend some theory texts that u read and actually liked/found beneficial to understanding other texts since u read them? i've been looking a lot at different books abt literary theory lately - i'm a student of english lit getting my bachelors degree but there's not a lot of theory included at my university, and i feel like it would help me to know some. anything would be appreciated! (tho i appreciate u anyways)

hey anon, apologies for the belated reply!

if ur looking for a useful overview of theory which takes you through pretty much every movement from the conception of ‘theory’ in the modern sense (traced back in the author’s opinion to matthew arnold) and ending with very contemporary stuff like eco criticism, then bertens’ literary theory: the basics is a good shout. it is very thorough and picks out each school’s most important and relevant passages so you don’t have to slog through thousands of pages yourself. that said, whilst this is a sort of quick fix, reading it all in one go probably not the best way to learn theory as there’s a lot to take in (speaking from experience). i’d read theory in small chunks, proceeding slowly, e.g. when you have a free hour read eliot’s ‘tradition and the individual talent’ or whimsatt and beardsley’s ‘the intentional fallacy’, rather than deciding you’ll tackle ALL of new criticism and feeling confused and overwhelmed (movements clash internally, too, so any insertion of ‘what new criticism thinks’ into an essay will be an unnecessary generalisation).

i am, however, hesitant to push you towards just learning every single ‘school’ (which are more ill-defined than is often presented) and then transferring this knowledge to your work. deciding to ‘do a marxist/ structuralist/ new critical reading’ has always to me seemed a little impositional and at times unnatural if done uncritically and arbitrarily. students often want to learn theory to improve their essays and make them seem more learned (i too have of course been there done that and am still guilty of it), but it can have the opposite effect in the eyes of an examiner, to their dismay. this is because it may seem as if they’re not thinking for themselves, even though they’ve spent loads of time and effort becoming familiar with complicated ideas. in itself that’s great, but the problem then becomes that a marker may think ‘yeah they understand post-structuralism, but so what?’.

a good essay writer will instead read a theory or theorist and latch onto the ideas to improve their own. this is hard to explain and equally as hard to do. it can happen, to my mind, in one of two ways. one is by adapting or applying the particular idea(s) to the book(s)/ poem(s)/ play(s) etc the essay is focusing on with nuance, and seeing how the theory interacts with said book(s)/ poem(s)/ play(s) (i.e. not writing a blanket statement like ‘a feminist would say that…’, but focusing on a very specific idea from one theorist and quoting relevantly from the original work, saying what YOU think at all times - using the theory as a tool, not a substitute for your opinion), and how the passage itself ‘bites [the theory] back’ so to speak, raises questions about its legitimacy, demands modification, etc. the other is by allowing the intricacy of thought, imagination, etc in theory to guide and elevate your intellect, without necessarily using the theorist’s specific ideas at all. to put it in a more simple way, reading clever and edifying things will over time be edifying and make one cleverer. but this should not be to the extent that your own voice is obscured - i personally like the fact that i’m me and write like me and not t. s. eliot!!

i would like to recommend reading classical literary theory/ criticism, too, because i feel like us students often look towards the modern stuff and apply it somewhat impositionally and artificially on texts written beforehand (unless we are careful), whereas a lot of the classical stuff actually influenced much of english literature, especially the slightly older english literature, so it can be integrated into essays more naturally (though of course what i’ve said above still applies). i’d recommend horace’s art of poetry and longinus’ on great writing/ the sublime to begin with! they’re easy reads and quite short, but very rewarding.

there are also really useful books that aren’t mainstream/ ‘canonical’ theory as such but can help you read texts with a fresh perspective, like bennett and royle’s an introduction to literature, criticism and theory (which is very readable and moves away from rigid ‘schools’). my final recommendation is harold bloom’s interviews on youtube. they have helped me ‘read’ texts via reminding me that it’s not necessarily only heavily theoretical stuff that’s going to aid reading (not that bloom’s work isn’t ever heavily theoretical of course) - for example, you can find a strange sort of ‘understanding’ in reading aloud. as bloom says in a 2000 interview, literature ‘alters you a little. it changes you.’ and sometimes going back to the roots of why you chose it can improve an essay just as much as tackling heavy theory. there are different ways of being thoughtful, if that makes sense.

sorry this got so long! i hope it’s answered your question and is helpful and not too patronising; obviously we’re both undergrads at uni so i’m very much still learning all this stuff too. but just my two cents ❤️ if you’d like any more specific recommendations hmu anytime!

#asks #my guides

84 notes · View notes

kabane52 · 5 years ago

Text

The Unity of the Canon in the Law on the Central Sanctuary and Altars

A standard liberal critical argument is as follows: "The Priestly Source is emphatic: sacrifices can only take place in the one place that God chooses (i.e. the temple in Jerusalem). Yet, throughout the Hebrew Bible, we see examples of seemingly lawful sacrifices taking place outside of the tabernacle or temple after the giving of the Law. Samuel sacrifices at Mizpah (1 Samuel 7), Elijah sacrifices on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18)." How would you respond?

Thanks for your question- this is indeed one of the foundational assumptions of the conventional liberal-critical understanding of the history of the people of Israel and of the Sacred Writings. As such, it is an excellent case study of the ways in which liberal biblical criticism obscures the authentic sense of the inspired text on account of its use of interpretive shortcuts when facing a text which suggests the unexpected or inexplicable. If the Christian doctrine of Scripture is correct, such unexpected or confusing texts are actually opportunities, whose integration into one’s biblical theology will correct unseen misunderstandings and provide new insight into the faith.

For those unfamiliar, in Deuteronomy 12 we are told that God will set His Name at a special place of His choice. It is at this place that the people of Israel are to gather to offer sacrifice and to celebrate the Passover, Weeks (Pentecost), and Tabernacles (Booths).Throughout the history of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the people worship at “high places” or independent cult sites found on hills throughout the land. This persists until the reforms of Kings Hezekiah and later Josiah, both of whom seek to remove the high places and establish the centrality of Israel’s liturgical cult at Jerusalem. It is important to distinguish worship at the high places from rank idolatry. Usually, the people worshiped the one God of Israel at these cult sites rather than pagan gods. In other words, it is a violation of the Second Word (which not only requires worship of the true God but worship of Him in the manner He has commanded) instead of the First Word.

However, the orthodox view in biblical criticism is that the requirement for a central sanctuary is a late innovation which was developed in order to increase the wealth of the priestly class in Jerusalem. One does not need to be a genius to see the influence of the Puritan and then liberal Protestant prejudice against “priestcraft” or an ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is merely the old cliche that priests are simply out for your money. This does not prove it historically wrong but it does set it in its context.

Concerning your original question- Deuteronomy is generally considered to represent a largely self-contained source called “D” whereas “P” represents much of Genesis-Numbers, especially the first half of Leviticus (the latter half tends to be attributed to the so-called “H” author). Deuteronomy is supposed to be a forgery of the priests of King Josiah, though in some cases scholars place the forgery in the reign of King Hezekiah. Unfortunately for such critics, the literary form of the Deuteronomic covenant clearly reflects the more ancient form prevalent among the early Hittites and Egyptians (I believe this form belongs to a tradition coming from God’s revelation to Adam through Noah) instead of the later Assyrian form from which it is allegedly derived. This is a very serious problem which has not been adequately dealt with or even addressed. This case is made by Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen in his enormous survey of the literary tradition of Near Eastern and Egyptian treaties.

Before addressing the substantial point of your question, I wish to point out the classic paradox of biblical criticism as it is manifest in this case. On the one hand, the texts are supposed to be in such obvious contradiction that the only explanation is that they are an ad hoc collection of texts which themselves are a pastiche of various different hypothetical sources in contradiction. But on the other hand, we are invited to believe that the hand of the redactor knit these texts together into a single scroll- which were then transmitted as a corpus by the tradition of the Jewish people. The redactor is alleged to have harmonized the disparate sources and to have edited his texts in order to create a single literary unit. Moreover, when features of one alleged source emerge in a text alleged to be in a different source, the conventional biblical critic again summons the redactor as an explanation. And so we are to believe that the texts are plainly distinct, except when they are not. We must believe that the redactor created a literary unity, except when he chose to permit obvious contradictions.

In this case, the contradiction is so obvious that one wonders how it could have possibly been missed. This is especially so in the sacrifice on Mt. Carmel. Kings is supposed to be a part of the “Deuteronomistic history” whose central purpose is to exalt the reforms of Josiah and explain the exile by the failure to centralize Israel’s sacrificial liturgy. So what in the world is a major sacrifice on Mt. Carmel doing at the heart of the book’s narrative? A major theme of the Book of Kings is the failure of the kings to obey the words of God as communicated through the prophets. The prophetic ministry in the life of Israel manifests the preeminence of divine action in the nation. The prophets are called to a charismatic ministry whose authorization comes from the divine call. Not being from a specific family or deriving their legitimacy from their line of descent, the work of the prophets cannot be controlled or stamped out by the kings of Israel and Judah. No matter how hard they try, those rulers who seek to dethrone the Lord of Hosts from the kingship of Israel and Judah are unable to do so on account of the intrinsically unpredictable institution of prophecy. The literary core of Kings is in the extended narratives describing the ministries of the Prophets Elijah and Elisha.

Christ our Lord, describing the person born of the Holy Spirit, likens them to the wind which "blows where it wishes." As Solomon declares in Ecclesiastes, it is the sovereign Creator alone who can shepherd the wind and govern all things with righteousness. Mankind cannot force the future into his preferred mode. Thus, men must respond in faith to the will of God and recognize that He will bring out of their work everything He intends do unto a good and wise purpose. The prophet is made such by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In the order of the cherubic faces, the prophetic face is the Eagle (priestly being the Bull and kingly being the Lion) and in the anointing of an Israelite in the priesthood, the ear, hand, and foot is anointed. The foot is associated with the prophetic. All of this establishes prophets as they who are in motion, who cannot be seized or controlled, who, with the eagle riding upon the wind, fly from place to place by the will of God. Consider how Elijah escapes again and again from the persecutions of Ahab and Jezebel. Consider how he is taken up into the heavens by the Spirit. And Elisha likewise is constantly on the move. He goes even to the nations of the world and anoints Hazael as king of Syria. The travel and motion of the prophet stands as a corrective to the attempts of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel to control their history by their own power and to fix a given political order in place without possibility of change. From the times of Elijah and Elisha, the prophets begin to blow among the nations. Jonah travels to Nineveh soon afterwards. Many of the writing prophets (writing prophets arise at this time in covenant history) communicate oracles to the nations and their kings which they must have sent to the nations, being specifically addressed to the nations and warning of punishment if they did not obey.

The primacy of the prophetic is key in the consideration of this issue, and we will return to it later. For now, I simply want to point out the absurdity of positing that the very "Deuteronomist" who was absolutely committed to the total centralization of sacrificial worship in Jerusalem also placed the construction of a non-Jerusalemite altar in the literary center of his text. Other texts describing Elisha describe him as a kind of living temple of the Spirit. For elaboration on this point, see Peter Leithart's remarkable commentary on Kings. Because of the above, the alleged contradiction is prima facie extremely unlikely.

The manifest nature of the alleged contradiction suggests that what we have encountered is not an obvious contradiction but a failure to properly interpret the teaching of Deuteronomy. So let us consider its actual content.

First, does Deuteronomy 12 refer to the city of Jerusalem in referring to the place where God will make His Name dwell? This is assumed to be the case, and the lack of a named reference to the city is explained by the desire of the forger to avoid anachronism by identifying a city which would only come to prominence several centuries after the time of Moses. But if the forger was so concerned to avoid references to later institutions, why does he refer to the institution of the monarchy in Deuteronomy 17? Such makes no sense. The fact that biblical critics believe Deuteronomy 12 to be a prophetic reference to the building of the temple of Jerusalem reflects their deep lack of care in interpreting the text.

The Book of Joshua is suffused with the language and theological emphases of Deuteronomy. Yet Joshua 8 describes the construction of a cult site on Mt. Ebal as the ark of the covenant is processed before them. Later, in Joshua 24, there is a covenant renewal in the presence of the sanctuary at Shechem. If the heart of Deuteronomy were the centralization of worship in the city of Jerusalem, why does the first book in the “deuteronomistic history” refer directly to liturgical worship at sites other than Jerusalem? The answer to this question lies in the point that Deuteronomy 12 is not about Jerusalem. It is simply about the principle of a central sanctuary for Israel. The actual site of the sanctuary moved around. Throughout much of the period of the judges the cult site is focused on Shiloh. A passage from Jeremiah actually makes note of this directly:

(Jeremiah 7:10-12) and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’–only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel.

The desolation of Shiloh in 1 Samuel 4 is here cited by the Lord as a paradigm for the desolation of the Temple of Jerusalem. In Kings, the prophet-historian Jeremiah describes the fall of the Temple and sack of Jerusalem in language drawn from the catastrophe of the battle of Aphek. The sons of Zedekiah are killed like the sons of Eli. And as Eli became blind at the end of his life, so also is King Zedekiah blinded as punishment. The point is that Deuteronomy 12 has nothing to do with a retroactive attempt to justify the centrality of Jerusalem. It is about the principle of one central sanctuary. That sanctuary can move from place to place throughout history.

Second, we need to consider whether Deuteronomy actually prohibited any and all sacrifice except that performed at the central sanctuary. That is, does "central sanctuary" mean "only sanctuary"? Surprisingly, there is evidence even from the Second Temple period that many Jews did not believe so. After the return from Babylon, we know from the historical record that there were at least four functioning Jewish temples: Jerusalem, Elephantine, Leontopolis, and Tel-Arad. The temples of Leontopolis and Elephantine are particuarly interesting. Concerning the former, it was presided over by the exiled high priestly line descended from Zadok, in fidelity to the biblical requirements concerning the bloodline of the high priests. Moreover, there are later Jewish texts- written after AD 70, which considered the Leontopolis Temple to be legitimate. That they are written after AD 70 is especially significant, for we know that Judaism did not set up alternative temples or cult sites when the Temple was destroyed. We would expect, then, for a complete rejection of the legitimacy of any temple not at Jerusalem. That we actually find a diversity of opinions is strong evidence that many within Judaism during the time of the Second Temple believed that Deuteronomy 12 was not a complete prohibition on all altars except that of the central sanctuary. The temple at Elephantine, Egypt is even more interesting. Scholars have recovered an actual document at Elephantine authorizing the construction of the Elephantine Temple. The author of this text was the High Priest of the Temple of Jerusalem. This is extremely telling, for if any group within Judaism can be expected to reject altogether any cult sites except in Jerusalem, it would be, the priesthood of that one Temple. And yet we find that the High Priest of Jerusalem not only tolerated, but authorized the construction of this cult site.

These witnesses are sufficiently late that it cannot be seriously argued that the canonical authority of Deuteronomy was in doubt among any sect of Judaism at this point in time, even if one holds that the concept of canon was a late development, which I do not The historical evidence tells us that the living memory of the divine commandments concerning the worship of Israel did not include an absolute prohibition on altars or even temples outside of the central sanctuary. Nor is it likely that this constitutes a reversion to the old sin of worshiping at the high places. Just as rank idolatry became increasingly rare after the coming of the Kingdom transformed the tribal confederation of the period of the judges, so also the sin of worshiping according to one's preference and not God's became rare to nonexistent after the return from Babylon. Indeed, the prophets of this period never mention worship at high places.

Third, let us consider the actual theology of the central sanctuary. All of the above constitutes powerful circumstantial evidence for an alternative approach to Deuteronomy 12, but it remains for us to acually construct such an interpretive framework. What is the canonical and theological context for the legislation concerning a central sanctuary? Biblical critics, in assuming that the text is merely an arbitrary way to justify a reform invented for political ends, have missed the profound theology of Deuteronomy and the place of the central sanctuary in the history of God's work in the world. After the creation of the world, God instructs the human family to "subdue" or "conquer" the world, exercising dominion on God's behalf. Such language, as I have discussed elsewhere, is about the development of the created order, its glorification, and its ordering in service to the Creator. The creation is both good and undeveloped. It belongs to Adam to participate with God in the completion of the creative project. What God does in the six days is the paradigm for human activity, as it is man who is the image of God. Adam is the high priest of creation. Importantly for our discussion, the creation before the flood had a central sanctuary. The garden of Eden was a sanctuary on a mountain. After man's exile from Eden, angels guarded its gate together with the flaming sword (fire and blade are the two instruments of sacrifice) but at the bottom of the mountain the human family conducted its liturgical worship at this site. We understand this from the reference to Sin (a way of referring to the Serpent) "crouching at the door", the context naturally referring to the gate of Eden. Abel is identified as the "guardian of sheep" and Cain a "cultivator of the ground." Adam's dual roles as guardian and cultivator thus pass to two distinct sons. The former language is associated with priesthood, the latter with kingship. Thus, Abel constituted the priestly line. This is why Seth is described as having been appointed in the place of Abel. His birth coincides with people beginning to "call upon the Name of the Lord", a phrase which nearly always occurs in a ritual context, particularly a sacrificial one.

Seth is the appointed heir to Abel's priestly ministry who administers the central sanctuary at the gate of Eden, the place where mankind is called to engage with God in worship. His heir, Noah, conducts liturgical offices as the builder of the ark, described clearly as a three-leveled s temple and as sacred space. After the flood he leads the ascension offering after which God manifests the glory-cloud in the form of a rainbow: compare the language of Ezekiel concerning the rainbow and the cloud. Noah's prophetic word to his sons transmits the priestly ministry through Shem: "Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem, and let Canaan be his slave." The name "Yahweh" is the Name liturgically invoked (Ex. 3:15) in the priestly work of the old covenant, as it is the Name "called upon" by Seth and his heirs. The use of this name in the blessing on Shem identifies his line as the line of priesthood. However, the central sanctuary of Eden's Gate was destroyed in the universal flood, challenging mankind's access to God. Shem's descendants are identified in Genesis 10 and 11. The division after the Tower of Babel occurs in the generation of Eber's two sons, Joktan and Peleg. Genesis 10 describes the migration of the Joktanite clans eastward. These were the clans which were "moving east" in Genesis 11:2. The Babel project was led therefore by a partnership of Hamites and Shemites under the bloody rule of Nimrod, identified in sacrificial language as a "mighty slaughterer before the Lord" pointing to the bloody way in which the uniformity of culture around a false liturgy was maintained. The Babel project involved both a city and a tower, both language and lip. Language refers to culture, lip refers to the God whom you worship as David professes: "I will not take the names [of false gods] on my lip." The lip is designed to "call upon the Name of the Lord." City corresponds to language and tower to lip. The tower is meant as a ladder to heaven.

God had not reestablished the sanctuary where He linked Heaven with Earth, and so it was natural that the human family would attempt to reestablish that link on its own terms and so attempt to seize a position in the Heavenly Court. Adam had desired to be "as a god", referring to a member of the heavenly council. The Sethite families had given their daughters to the "Sons of God", another reference to members of that heavenly court (compare the language of Dt. 32:8-9, Job 1-2) as an attempt to marry into the heavenly throne-room and seize the inheritance in that fashion. Here, we see the participation of the Joktanite priestly family in the construction of the false ladder to heaven. Joktan must have been the firstborn because of Peleg's being named after the event of the judgment on Babel. Thus, he was born after his brother's clans had officiated as the priestly family at Babel. Peleg's bloodline is traced in Genesis 11 down to Abram. Abram is led out of Mesopotamia and into the land of Canaan where he builds an altar and "calls on the Name of the Lord" the same phrase being used to describe the ministry of Seth in Genesis 4. We are therefore invited to see a continuity in the roles of Seth and Abram. Additionally, God promises to Abram to make a "great name", the same purpose for which the architects of Babel had acted.

The central sanctuary, according to Deuteronomy 12, is the place where God makes His "Name dwell." The identity of God as Lord, Creator, and Sovereign is rooted and grounded in the concrete link He has with the creation through its ladder to heaven. In Genesis 14, when Abram arrives at the city of Jerusalem, he is given Bread and Wine by the high priest of that city, identified by his throne-name Melchizedek, meaning "king of righteousness." Jewish traditions identify Melchizedek with Shem the son of Noah and heir to the high priesthood transmitted by Adam through the line of Seth. The bringing out of Bread and Wine to Abram is highly significant, for in Genesis 9 Noah's investiture of authority was signified by his consumption of wine in sabbatical rest. Melchizedek pronounces a blessing upon Abram which resembles the blessing pronounced by Noah on Shem. The transmission of priestly office thus passes to the children of Abraham. The essential characteristic of this unique calling is its link with the world's single ladder to heaven. In Genesis 28, Jacob sees a vision of the ladder to heaven in a text which echoes Genesis 11 in reversal. Jacob's ladder to heaven is "truly the gate of heaven" as the name Babel means "gate of God." The reference to its gates provides an additional link with the gates of Eden. After this vision, Jacob prophetically names the city "Bethel" meaning "house of God." And indeed, Bethel is one of the locations at which the Tabernacle dwells.

We see thus that throughout Genesis a major theme is the existence- or lack thereof- of the central sanctuary and ladder to heaven. This sanctuary was of significance for all mankind and was served by a specially consecrated priestly line. Exodus records the actual reestablishment by God of the ladder to heaven, beginning with a description of Israel's being forced to build dwellings and cities for Pharaoh and idolatrous gods- Rameses and Pi-Atum- but concludes with the construction of the Tabernacle, the single house of the true God. In Exodus 19, Israel as a whole is consecrated as the priestly nation. It is Israel's election to be the light of the world, and Israel's mission on behalf of all mankind is to officiate liturgically and politically at the one central sanctuary. The description of the Tabernacle, especially its consecration in Leviticus 8-10, links it in many ways with the garden of Eden. The High Priest is symbolically identified as a microcosm not only of Israel, bearing all twelve tribes upon his shoulders, but the entire human race, being a figure of Adam and being vested with vestments signifying the whole creation. The threefold division of priestly prerogatives opens, in a highly regulated and guarded way, the door of access into the divine presence. The High Priest, bearing all mankind with him, is able to enter once a year into the Most Holy Place where the God of Israel personally dwells. The sacrificial services there also constitute a service on behalf of all nations. On the Feast of Tabernacles, Israel sacrifices seventy bulls in a work of intercession for the seventy nations of the world.

The nature of the central sanctuary is not actually about the elimination of any kind of sacrifice outside of the Temple of Jerusalem or Shiloh Tabernacle. In reality, its purpose is the uniqueness of the singular Name of the God of Israel, lifted as a banner to all nations. Its purpose is as a focal point for all mankind, being the one ladder to heaven where God interacts directly with the human family.

One can see, moreover, that the regulations of Deuteronomy 12 about high places concern the perpetuation of the idolatrous worship of Canaan in the utilization of their cultic sites and sacred trees.

(Deuteronomy 12:2-3) You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and burn their Asherim with fire. You shall chop down the carved images of their gods and destroy their name out of that place.

The purpose is to "destroy the name" of the false gods out of their "place" in contrast to the exalted "Name" of Israel's God which will be placed in the central sanctuary. Israel is elected as a "kingdom of priests and a consecrated nation" at Mt. Sinai. The principal goal of the Sinai revelation is the revelation of the pattern of the central sanctuary, which Moses beholds in Exodus 25-31. The language used in Exodus 40 concerning Moses' building of that sanctuary echoes the language used of Noah's building of the ark, and Israel's fundamental constitution is centered on their relationship to the Tabernacle. In 1 Kings 8, Solomon describes the Temple as the focal point of God's fidelity to Israel. When the people and their king honor the divine presence in the Temple, when they turn towards the Temple and pray for God's activity, God answers. This occurs in the reign of King Hezekiah- the first time that a king of Judah actually uses the Temple to beg God's protection. Previous kings used the temple for protection, but only in looting its wealth and using it to placate foreign invaders.

When King David establishes the unique Zion tabernacle (the Temple is built on Mt. Moriah), he organizes a Levitical orchestra with a range of instruments to play in conjunction with the daily liturgy. Gentiles play an unparalleled role in serving the Zion tabernacle, and the ark stands almost without boundaries in relation to the people. The prophets consistently associate Zion with the ingathering of the nations and the redemption of Israel, for it is Zion and its liturgy that manifests and foreshadows Israel's fulfillment of her destiny as the light of the world in a unique way. The genealogies of Chronicles are arranged in order to place the Levitical orchestra in a central position. The history of Adam's bloodline, Ezra is telling us, comes to a certain climax with the birth of a family of musicians for Levitical service. In the Psalter, the Gentiles call upon the people to "sing the songs of Zion", and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost corresponds to the Levitical orchestra, for in the former many languages are spoken in a perfect harmony just as in the latter the plenitude of instruments are harmonized towards a single work of service. The Apostle Paul likewise links the Spirit with music: "be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit, singing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs."

Thus we must always recall that the central sanctuary has a definite and positive role within the history of salvation. It is not principally a prohibition of sacrificial worship elsewhere, but a commandment to establish a focal point for the gathering of Israel, the divine presence, and proclamation of the Name of God to all nations. Moreover, we see that the prohibition on "high places" is given in the context of eliminating the traditional Canaanite places of worship. These sites had a history reaching back into the evil gods worshiped by the descendants of Canaan, and through intermixture and failure to conquer the land, these traditional cultic sites were syncretized with Israel's religion and wounding the divinely willed unity of the tribes as one nation. The thrice-annual gathering of all Israel to the central sanctuary create social bonds among all the children of Israel and facilitates the development of a national consciousness. The failure to subdue all the land to Israelite dominion and observe the festivals according to God's will allowed for the stunting of this national consciousness, eventually leading to the division of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and thus the stunting of the Israelite witness to the Divine Name.

Moreover, the emphasis in Deuteronomy 12 is not so much the specific place chosen by the Lord but the act of election itself. Undoubtedly the theology of the central sanctuary forms an important thread in Moses' overarching intent. Still, it should be recognized that the preeminence and priority of divine election lies near the core of the book, with divine will being the active agent in the election of Israel, the calling of prophets, the arrangement of the Levitical order, and the choice of king. The point is that Israel's constitution is fundamentally divine, and Israel's life and blessing turns on the consistent obedience of faith which the nation owes to God in virtue of His redemptive work in the exodus. For example, Deuteronomy 11 emphasizes the essential nature of rain in the land of Israel in contrast to the Nile in Egypt. Dependence on rain for productive harvests makes concrete the necessity of constant trust in the providence of God: rivers can be expected to remain consistent from year to year, but the coming of rain is unpredictable and demands that Israel trust in the Creator's daily provision.

Moses' sermon to Israel as a whole is arranged according to the Ten Commandments. In each section, Moses explicates God's will in a way which unpacks the logic of each commandment. Deuteronomy 12 corresponds to the Second Commandment which prohibits the worship of God through graven images. According to Deuteronomy, this is because Israel "saw no form" at Sinai. The builders of Babel attempted to build a ladder to heaven from the bottom up- but it was God who built a ladder downwards to Jacob who is then invited to climb it (in Genesis 33, his podvig is completed as he reaches "Sukkoth" or "Clouds") according to God's revelation. In other words, God reveals Himself and we worship Him according to the mode of that revelation. Since Israel beheld no form, their worship of God must be formless. Since God revealed Himself in the commandment to not worship at the traditional high places, Israel could not do so. She must worship God after the pattern set forth by God.

This feature of the text helps elucidate the purpose of other cultic sites besides the central sanctuary in Israel's history. One finds the frequent association of prophecy with the worship at these sites. For example, the altar at Mt. Ebal commanded in Deuteronomy 27 (within Deuteronomy itself!) is given by God through the authorized prophet, Moses. Notably, it follows the instructions given in Exodus 20 concerning the building of altars:

(Deuteronomy 27:4-8) And when you have crossed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, concerning which I command you today, on Mount Ebal, and you shall plaster them with plaster. And there you shall build an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones. You shall wield no iron tool on them; you shall build an altar to the Lord your God of uncut stones. And you shall offer burnt offerings on it to the Lord your God, and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat there, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God. And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law very plainly."

(Exodus 20:24-26) An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones, for if you wield your tool on it you profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it.'

Such a connection gives the lie to the assumption of biblical critics that Exodus 20:24-26 represents a different and originally independent literary source which was at odds with the central sanctuary evident in the hypothetical "P" and "D." The phrase "cause my Name to be remembered" is also crucial. It suggests the principle of divine initiative in worship- God actively "causes" His Name to be "remembered." This comes from Exodus 3:15 where the Sacred Name is revealed to Moses in his prophetic call:

(Exodus 3:15) God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

The revelation of the Name means the revelation of God's essential character by which we can know Him as faithful and trustworthy. The Name is revealed in the context of announcing the imminent fulfillment of those promises made to the patriarchs. It is set in a ritual context: the glory of God is manifest in the bush, God invites Israel to the holy mountain for sacrifice:

(Exodus 3:18) And they will listen to your voice, and you and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of Egypt and say to him, 'The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; and now, please let us go a three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.'

The word "sacrifice" specifically denotes the "peace offering" within which the sacrificial food is shared between God and Israel. This commandment is given in the same speech where God promises to verify before the "Elders of Israel" His faithfulness by miraculous signs. This sacrificial meal shared between God and Israel occurs in Exodus 24 where the Seventy Elders seal the covenant with Yahweh by eating and drinking as they gaze upon the God of Israel. So we see that the particular Name which is caused to be remembered is the Name which signifies absolute divine faithfulness and theophanic revelation to create a covenantal, marital (thus the joint-meal- a covenant is always a marital bond) link between God and His people. Altars throughout Scripture are miniature holy mountains at the top of which the sacrificial fire and smoke corresponds to the fiery glory of God which dwelt on Sinai, causing it to smoke.

(Exodus 19:18) Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly.

This language is strongly allusive to the sacrificial altar: the Lord descends in His glory-fire (as He did on the burning bush) and causes smoke to ascend to heaven. This descent by God to creation is matched by a corresponding ascent: the fire comes down, the smoke rises. The revelation of the Divine Name is a matter of divine initiative and is spatially focused. The altar is a miniature mountain, a ladder to heaven which commemorates and perpetuates the union actualized by God. Again, the centrality of divine initiative explains the problem with Israel's high places. In most cases, the high places were cultic sites which had bene built in the service of the devils worshiped by the Canaanites. They were intrinsicaly connected with the "name" of the gods whose "memory" was commemorated at the high place. The revelation of the one God as absolutely supreme and victorious over the devils occurs in the destruction of the high places.

Let's consider one other text in Deuteronomy mitigating against the assumption that it mandates only one altar for sacrificial worship:

(Deuteronomy 16:21-22) "You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside an altar of the Lord your God that you shall make. And you shall not set up a pillar, which the Lord your God hates.

The ESV renders "an altar of the Lord your God" with the definite article: "the altar of the Lord your God", creating the impression that it refers to the one altar in the Courtyard of the Tabernacle. Given the design and specific structure of the Tabernacle and Temple, this is unlikely. Moreover the only other place in Deuteronomy where building an altar is mentioned is found in Deuteronomy 27:5-6 at Ebal.

Considering all of the above, let's look at specific instances where a sacrificial altar is legitimately built and utilized by an Israelite after the Torah covenant is made. Given what is said in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 12, we should expect that altars are associated with prophecy and are constructed in a place where God has made His Name and presence distinctly manifest. Three examples from Judges come to mind. First, Gideon builds an altar at Ophrah in the preparation for the expulsion of the Midianites. Second, Manoah and his wife build an altar at Zorah in the context of the annunciation of Samson. Third, Israel collectively builds an altar at Bethel in the preparation for making war upon the apostate Benjaminites.

Each of these cases matches the criteria I unpacked above concerning the legitimacy of particular altars. It must be a place where God has manifested in a unique and revelatory way His "Name", making that place a bridge between heaven and earth signified in the altar as a miniature holy mountain from which the smoke lifts up the sacrifice (and the one offering the sacrifice) in an ascent to heaven.

The cases of Gideon and Manoah are remarkably straightforward:

(Judges 6:20-24) And the angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened cakes, and put them on this rock, and pour the broth over them." And he did so. Then the angel of the Lord reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes. And fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. And the angel of the Lord vanished from his sight. Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord. And Gideon said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face." But the Lord said to him, "Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die." Then Gideon built an altar there to the Lord and called it, The Lord is Peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.

Here two things are of note. First, given the aforementioned emphasis on the revelation of the Divine Name, we find here that God theophanically manifests to Gideon a specific aspect of His Name. Gideon beholds the glorious presence of God directly but through the sacrificial meal consumed by God, he is bound to him in such a way that he lives. This signifies the peace that is reestablished with Israel through the elimination of the Baalite altars and name in Gideon's work. The altar is constructed precisely in order to manifest the divine Name under its property of peace: "Yahweh is Peace." Second, the altar and its theophany is linked with a rock. Gideon pours broth on the rock and God's fire is manifest thereafter. The symbolism of the rock is frequently associated with the Temple, which in its glorious form is built from stone and where the setting of the foundation stone (Zechariah 4) is of preeminent importance. This is because Yahweh is the "Rock of Ages" throughout the Pentateuch. The word in Hebrew for "glory" also signifies the notion of heaviness and weight. Pharaoh is said to become in his heart "glorious" in his own eyes. Thus, Pharaoh and his armies "sink like a stone." We find also that the Rock is associated with the divine birthgiving of Israel, especially through the gift of the water of life which pours forth to enliven the nation in Exodus. This corresponds neatly to the presence of the spring of the water of life at the top of the holy mountain and the river of life that is said to proceed from the messianic temple in Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 47. In Genesis 28, a similar scene takes place where God reveals Himself in a ladder built down from Heaven and where Jacob takes the stone on which his head rested and pours oil over it. The pouring of oil signifies the anointing of Jacob's head with the Spirit. He does the same thing at the same place at the completion of his ascesis in Genesis 33. Having been persecuted unjustly between Genesis 28 and Genesis 33, the patriarch Jacob has climbed the ladder to heaven. Beginning at a well, he ends in the clouds, at Succoth.

The journey of heavenly ascent is key in the theology of Judges 6, where, like Jacob in his vision of the Angel of the Lord, sees God "face to face" and yet lives. In that case, the Lord renews His covenantal promise, thus manifesting His fidelity contained in His Name. Jacob himself is renamed "Israel" and renames Luz prophetically as "Bethel" the house of God. The building of the altar occurs as the concrete realization of the action of God to "cause" the "Name to be remembered."

Judges 13 is very similar to Gideon's altar and revelation:

(Judges 13:17-23) And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, "What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?" And the angel of the Lord said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the Lord, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the Lord went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground. The angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord. And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." But his wife said to him, "If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these."

Here, the Name of God is again the focus of the text. Like in Genesis 28, God's Name is requested, and here it is manifest according to His working of wonders. In Judges 6, the Name of God is "The Lord is Peace" and in Judges 13 it is "the Lord is Wonderful." Remarkably, the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9, describing the heir to the throne of David whose kingdom endures forever, incorporates both of these revelations into the "Name" by which He shall be caused: He is "Wonderful" and also the "Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:1-6 is actually constituted by a series of allusions to Israel's victory in Judges. The Angel of Yahweh is thus identified with the coming messianic seed. Finally, the "rock" is again the locus of the offering taken up by the heavenly flame.

The third example is found in Judges 21, where Israel gathers to Bethel to inquire of God and consider their course of action with respect to the apostate Tribe of Benjamin. According to Judges 20, the people had gathered to Bethel in order to inquire of God, after which they received a revelation. Thus we know it as a place of revelation. However, the text of Judges itself does not clearly fit the criteria specified above concerning the importance of a theophany and the revelation of the Name. However, this is because Bethel had already been the place of exactly such a revelation. Both Judges 6 and 13 allude to Genesis 28 and 33, as noted above. The locale in which these events take place is Bethel- prophetically named by Jacob as the house of God because of the ladder to heaven which is built by God down to earth, identified by the patriarch as the "Gate of Heaven." So this is likewise a place at which God's iniative was preeminent in revealing His character in a manifestation of His presence. The altar constructed at Bethel confirmed Israel in her bond to Yahweh, a bond sealed by the trust formed in Yahweh by His faithfulness to exactly what He signified by His Name.

After the period of the Judges during which there is an established central sanctuary preeminently located at Shiloh (though it does move to different places) we come to the Book of Samuel. Samuel begins with a description of the detestable acts committed by the Israelite priesthood, leading to the desolation of the sanctuary and its exile among the Philistines. Throughout Samuel, the ark of the covenant (the focal point of divine presence) moves from place to place, and after it is recovered from the Philistines it brings curses on Israel so that its administration is managed by Gentiles until it is brought to Zion by King David in 2 Samuel 6. The other part of the tabernacle, however, continued to operate, the two parts only being reunited in the construction of the Holy Temple by King Solomon. A key aspect of the prophetic office is the revelation of the place of worship. The Name is revealed to Moses who also reveals the pattern of the Tabernacle. The prophets are personal focal points of the same Spirit dwelling in the sanctuary. So in Samuel, during the ark's exile, the prophet builds an altar in Ramah where he sits in judgment and to which all Israel is gathered.

We find worship at a "high place" in 1 Samuel 9-10, a place which is called the "hill of God." However, we note that this is near Bethel, a traditional cultic site for the people of Israel rooted in the revelation of the Divine Name to Jacob in the building of the ladder from heaven to earth. Moreover, this is especially associated with the prophetic institution, with Saul's ascent to the hill marking the moment where he receives from other prophets the gift of the Holy Spirit. Finally, David builds an altar in 2 Samuel 24, and this altar is built on the site where the Temple will be constructed.

Turning finally to Mt. Carmel- first of all, given the priority of divine initiative, that the altar of Carmel is authorized by the prophet sets it apart from violations of Deuteronomy 12 at Canaanite cultic sites. But there's more to say than this. Jeroboam in the north created at Bethel graven images dedicated to the worship of Yahweh, fearing the necessity of the people's thrice-annual gathering at Jerusalem. Wishing to maintain social independence from Jerusalem, Jeroboam created graven images and set up an alternative cult and priesthood, actively suppressing any attempts to honor the Jerusalem temple. The work of Elijah and Elisha takes place in the northern kingdom, a kingdom seriously wounded by their lack of unity with the divinely authorized place of gathering and worship for all Israel. These two prophets build up a remmant of Israel in preparation for the coming exile, and they do so by the foundation of uniquely prophetic institutions and ministries which manifest the divine presence to Israel independent of the Temple of Jerusalem. So Elisha is described in terms reminiscent of the temple itself: a walking, talking temple of the Spirit, carrying with him the presence of God resident therein.

The altar at Mt. Carmel has a similar purpose. The supremacy of the one Name of God is manifested in the revelation on this mountain in fire. Moses revealed the Tabernacle to Israel from God: Elijah is described as a Mosaic prophet, actually traveling to Sinai in 1 Kings 19. The ascent of Ahab to "eat and drink" on the mountain at which God had manifested Himself resembles closely the meal of the seventy elders in Exodus 24, precisely in the context of the giving of the Tabernacle plans. Thus we must recognize that the presence of the altar at Mt. Carmel and successive events was never intended to be a manifestation of the normative Sinaitic order. It is precisely a special prophetic mode of the old covenant in response to the apostasy of the priesthood and the idolatrous alternative sanctuary built by apostate kings. The creation of schools of the prophets passes the normative task of teaching the Scriptures from the Levitical priesthood to a tradition of thought transmitted by the prophets themselves to a chain of disciples.

I think this is sufficient to put this biblical-critical objection to rest and manifest its failure to pay attention to the details of the canonical text and its interrelationships. Thanks for the good question!

5 notes · View notes

sandranelsonuk · 6 years ago

Text

581 Sensory Words to Take Your Writing from Bland to Brilliant

It’s almost too easy.

By using sensory words to evoke sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell; smart and attractive writers just like you are able to make their words burst to life in their readers’ minds.

In this post, you’ll learn:

The science behind sensory details (e.g. why sensory words are so persuasive);

The definition of sensory words (plus examples);

How answering five simple questions will help you write descriptive words that pack your content with sensory language;

500+ sensory words you can incorporate into your own writing (right now).

Let’s dive in.

Pin Image

The Colossal Power of Sensory Details

Remember the final scene in Field of Dreams when Ray Kinsella has a catch with his dad?

You can smell the grass on the field.

You can hear the sound of the baseball hitting their gloves.

And you can feel Ray’s years of guilt melting away as he closes his eyes, smiles, and tosses the ball back to his dad.

(Be honest. You’re crying right now, aren’t you?)

Field of Dreams made you feel like you were in Ray’s shoes, on his field, playing catch with dad.

The scene creates such a vivid experience for many viewers that whenever they think of playing catch, this scene will come up alongside their own childhood memories.

Here’s why:

When you paint a strong scene in your audience’s mind, you make it easier for them to pull it back up from their memory. You’ve essentially bookmarked it for them so they can easily find it when something — a sight, a smell, a sound — reminds them of it.

That’s the power of content that incorporates sensory details.

And this power isn’t limited to cinema classics capable of making grown men cry. For centuries, literary giants have been packing their prose with powerful words that evoke the senses:

“Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war; That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial” — William Shakespeare (circa 1599)

In addition to The Bard, authors like Maya Angelou, Edgar Allan Poe, and Charles Dickens excel at sensory language. So do literally every famous poet you learned about in school.

And that begs the obvious question��

Why are Sensory Details so Effective?

Short answer:

Our brains handle sensory words differently than ordinary words.

In a 2011 study published in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, experts found that our brains process “tangible” (i.e. sensory) words faster than other words.

And in a study published for Brain and Language in 2012, psychologists found that a certain part of our brain is “activated” when we read sensory words.

In other words:

So, we know why sensory details are powerful. And we know writers have been tapping into their power for a long, long time.

Now let’s define them and go over a few examples:

What are Sensory Words?

Sensory words are descriptive words — using imagery, they describe how we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell the world around us.

Let’s break each one down:

#1. Sight Sensory Words

Words related to vision describe the appearance of something (its color, size, shape, and so on).

Examples of visual words:

Her golden hair looked disheveled thanks to the gust of wind.

He was a towering presence.

I ordered a large orange juice, but the waiter brought me a teeny-tiny glass the size of a thimble.

→ Click here to unfold the full list of Sight Sensory Words.

Angular Azure Billowy Black Bleary Bloated Blonde Blue Blurred Blushing Branching Bright Brilliant Broad Brown Brunette Bulbous Bulky Camouflaged Chubby Circular Colorful Colorless Colossal Contoured Cosmic Craggy Crimson Crinkled Crooked Crowded Crystalline Curved Dark Dazzling Deep Dim Dingy Disheveled Distinct Drab Dreary Dull Dusty Elegant Enchanting Engaging Enormous Faded Fancy Fat Filthy Flashy Flat Flickering Foggy Forked Freckled Fuzzy Gargantuan Gaudy Gigantic Ginormous Glamorous Gleaming Glimpse Glistening Glitter Glittering Globular Gloomy Glossy Glowing Gold Graceful Gray Green Grotesque Hazy Hollow Homely Huge Illuminated Immense Indistinct Ivory Knotty Lacy Lanky Large Lavender Lean Lithe Little Lofty Long Low Malnourished Maroon Massive Miniature Misshapen Misty Motionless Mottled Mountainous Muddy Murky Narrow Obtuse Olive Opaque Orange Oval Pale Peered Petite Pink Portly Pristine Prodigious Purple Quaint Radiant Rectangular Red Reddish Rippling Rotund Round Ruby Ruddy Rusty Sabotaged Shadowy Shallow Shapeless Sheer Shimmering Shiny Short Silver Skinny Small Smudged Soaring Sparkling Sparkly Spherical Spotless Spotted Square Steep Stormy Straight Strange Striped Sunny Swooping Tall Tapering Tarnished Teeny-tiny Tiny Towering Translucent Transparent Triangular Turquoise Twinkling Twisted Ugly Unsightly Unusual Vibrant Vivid Weird White Wide Wiry Wispy Wizened Wrinkled Wrinkly Yellow

#2. Sound Sensory Words

Words related to hearing often describe the sound they make (known as onomatopoeia), but this isn’t always the case.

Examples of hearing words:

He had a big, booming voice.

The sound of screeching tires was soon followed by the deafening sound of a car horn.

As I peeked under the bed, the cackling laughter coming from the closet made the hairs on my arms stand up.

→ Click here to unfold the full list of Sound Sensory Words.

Babble Bang Barking Bawled Bawling Bellow Blare Blaring Bleat Boom Booming Bray Buzz Buzzing Cackle Cackling Chatter Chattering Cheer Chiming Chirping Chuckle Clamor Clang Clanging Clap Clapping Clicking Clink Clinking Cooing Coughing Crackle Crackling Crashing Creak Croaking Crow Crunch Crunching Crunchy Cry Crying Deafening Distorted Dripping Ear-piercing Earsplitting Exploding Faint Fizzing Gagging Gasping Giggle Giggling Grate Grating Growl Grumble Grunt Grunting Guffaw Gurgle Gurgling Hanging Hiss Hissing Honking Howl Hubbub Hum Humming Hush Jabber Jangle Jangling Laughing Moaning Monotonous Mooing Muffled Mumble Mumbling Murmur Mutter Muttering Noisy Peeping Piercing Ping Pinging Plopping Pop Purring Quacking Quiet Rant Rapping Rasping Raucous Rave Ringing Roar Roaring Rumble Rumbling Rustle Rustling Scratching Scream Screaming Screech Screeching Serene Shout Shouting Shrieking Shrill Sigh Silent Sing Singing Sizzling Slam Slamming Snap Snappy Snoring Snort Splashing Squawking Squeaky Stammer Stomp Storm Stuttering Tearing Thudding Thump Thumping Thunder Thundering Ticking Tingling Tinkling Twitter Twittering Wail Warbling Wheezing Whimper Whimpering Whine Whining Whir Whisper Whispering Whistle Whooping Yell Yelp

#3. Touch Sensory Words

Touch words describe the texture of how something feels. They can also describe emotional feelings.

Examples of touch words:

Two minutes into the interview, I knew his abrasive personality would be an issue if we hired him.

With a forced smile, I put on the itchy Christmas sweater my grandmother bought me.

The Hot Pocket was scalding on the outside, but ice-cold in the middle.

→ Click here to unfold the full list of Touch Sensory Words.

Abrasive Balmy Biting Boiling Breezy Bristly Bubbly Bubby Bumpy Burning Bushy Chilled Chilly Clammy Coarse Cold Cool Cottony Crawly Creepy Cuddly Cushioned Damp Dank Dirty Downy Drenched Dry Elastic Feathery Feverish Fine Fleshy Fluff Fluffy Foamy Fragile Freezing Furry Glassy Gluey Gooey Grainy Greasy Gritty Gushy Hairy Heavy Hot Humid Ice-Cold Icy Itchy Knobbed Leathery Light Lightweight Limp Lukewarm Lumpy Matted Metallic Moist Mushy Numbing Oily Plastic Pointed Powdery Pulpy Rocky Rough Rubbery Sandy Scalding Scorching Scratchy Scummy Serrated Shaggy Sharp Shivering Shivery Silky Slimy Slippery Sloppy Smooth Smothering Soapy Soft Sopping Soupy Splintery Spongy Springy Sputter Squashy Squeal Squishy Steamy Steely Sticky Stifled Stifling Stinging Stony Stubby Tangled Tapered Tender Tepid Thick Thin Thorny Tickling Tough Unsanitary Velvety Warm Waxy Wet Woolly

#4. Taste Sensory Words

Taste words are interesting. Though they can describe food, they’re often used in comparisons and metaphors.

Examples of taste words:

It’s a bittersweet situation.

Her zesty personality caught Karl’s eye.

The scrumptious jalapeno poppers comforted Karl after his bitter rejection.

→ Click here to unfold the full list of Taste Sensory Words.

Acidic Appetizing Bitter Bittersweet Bland Buttery Charred Contaminated Creamy Crispy Delectable Delicious Doughy Earthy Fermented Flavorful Flavorless Floury Garlicky Gingery Gritty Hearty Juicy Luscious Medicinal Mellow Melted Nauseating Nutritious Nutty Palatable Peppery Pickled Piquant Raw Refreshing Rich Ripe Runt Savory Scrumptious Stale Sugary Syrupy Tangy Tart Tasteless Unripe Vinegary Yummy Zesty

#5. Smell Sensory Words

Words related to smell describe — yes, you guessed it — how things smell. Often underutilized, sensory words connected with smell can be very effective.

Examples of smell words:

The pungent smell was unmistakable: someone in this elevator was wearing Axe Body Spray.

No matter the expiration date, it was clear from its rancid stench the milk had gone bad.

The flowery aroma was a welcome change after the elevator and milk incidents.

→ Click here to unfold the full list of Smell Sensory Words.

Ambrosial Antiseptic Aroma Aromatic Briny Citrusy Decayed Decomposed Doggy Fetid Floral Flowery Foul-smelling Fragrant Gamy Gaseous Horrid Inodorous Malodorous Mephitic Musky Musty Odiferous Odor Odorless Old Perfumed Piney Polluted Pungent Putrid Rancid Rank Redolent Reeking Scent Scented Sickly Skunky Smell Smoky Stagnant Stench Stinky Sweaty Tempting

Note on Taste and Smell:

Because they’re closely related, some sensory words can be used for both taste and smell. Examples: fruity, minty, and tantalizing.

→ Click here to unfold the full list of Taste and Smell Sensory Words.

Acrid Burnt Fishy Fresh Fruity Lemony Minty Moldy Mouth-watering Rotten Salty Sour Spicy Spoiled Sweet Tantalizing

Sensory Details: Examples in the Wild

Imagine the following headline came across your Twitter feed:

How to Avoid Using Boring Stock Photo Images in Your Content

Would you click it?

Better question…

Could you read the headline without falling asleep?

The answers are probably “no” and “heck no.”

Now imagine you saw this headline:

Much better, right?

The simple addition of the sensory word “cringeworthy” changes the tone of the entire headline. Instead of yawning, you’re thinking of an awkward or embarrassing moment you really don’t want to relive.

Let’s look at a few more modern-day examples of sharp people using sensory language to spruce up their content:

Using Sensory Words in Author Bios

I’ll pick on me for this one.

Here’s the author bio I used for one of my first-ever guest posts:

Kevin Duncan is the owner of Be A Better Blogger, where he helps people become the best bloggers they can be.

Now look at the author bio my friend Henneke wrote for Writer’s Block: 27 Techniques to Overcome It Forever:

Henneke Duistermaat is an irreverent copywriter and business writing coach. She’s on a mission to stamp out gobbledygook and to make boring business blogs sparkle.

My bio is devoid of sensory words (or any interesting words at all, if we’re being honest).

Henneke’s is chock full of them.

Her bio is interesting.

Mine is boring.

The lesson? Add at least one sensory word to your author bio.

Using Sensory Words in Social Media Profiles

Some people opt for brevity when writing their social media profiles, and that’s fine.

But if you want your Twitter profile (or Facebook, Instagram, or any other social media profile) to stand out from the crowd, sprinkle in a sensory word or two.

Like so:

Mel Wicks is a veteran copywriter who knows a thing or two about the effectiveness of descriptive words, so she uses them to spice up her Twitter profile.

Here’s an example from my badly-neglected Instagram account:

“Enchanting” and “adorably-jubilant” are wonderful sensory words — so wonderful, it’s a shame they’re wasted on a profile no one sees.

Look at your own profiles and see if there’s a place to add a sensory word or two. They’ll help your profile jump off the screen.

Heck, see if you can use enchanting and adorably-jubilant.

They deserve to be seen.

Using Sensory Words in Introductions

The opening lines of your content are so important.

If you’re a student, your opening sets the tone for your teacher (who we both know is dying to use his red pen).

If you’re an author, your opening can be the difference between someone buying your book or putting it back on the shelf in favor of one of those Twilight books (probably).

And if you’re a blogger, writer, content marketer, or business; your opening can hook the reader (increasing dwell time, which is great in Google’s eyes) or send them scurrying for the “back” button.

It’s why we put such an emphasis on introductions here at Smart Blogger.

Sometimes our openings hook you with a question.

Sometimes we strike a note of empathy or (like this post) focus on searcher intent.

And sometimes we give you a heaping helping of sensory words:

Imagine you’re sitting in a lounge chair on the beach, staring out over the glittering sea, the ocean breeze ruffling your hair, listening to the slow, steady rhythm of the waves.

In the above opening for How to Become a Freelance Writer and Get Paid $200 – $1K per Post, Jon Morrow uses sensory language to set a scene for the reader.

And it’s highly, highly effective.

Using Sensory Words in Email Subject Lines

Like you, your readers are flooded with emails.

And with open rates in a steady decline, people are trying anything and everything to make their email subject lines stand out:

Emojis;

Capitalized words;

All lowercase letters;

Two exclamation points;

Clickbait that would make even BuzzFeed go, “that’s too far, man.”

You name it, people are trying it.

Want a simpler, far-more-effective way to help your emails stand out from the crowd?

Add a sensory word.

Brian Dean loves to include words like “boom” in his subjects:

The folks at AppSumo and Sumo (formerly SumoMe) regularly feature descriptive words in their subjects and headlines.

Here’s one example:

And sensory language appears in most everything Henneke writes, including her subject lines.

In this one she also uses an emoji related to her sensory word. Very clever:

Now that we’ve covered several examples, let’s dig a bit deeper…

Let’s discuss some practical steps you can take that will make adding sensory language to your writing a breeze:

How Descriptive Words Can Pack Your Writing With Sensory Language

If you’ve taken a good English or writing class, you’ve probably been told a time or two to “show, don’t tell.”

This means you should create an engaging experience for your audience; not just tell them what you want them to know.

You accomplish this by using descriptive language that conveys sensations and lets readers experience your words (rather than simply read them).

And how do you do that, exactly?

Ask yourself these five questions when you’re writing:

#1. What Do You See?

It isn’t enough to tell your readers there was a scary house in your neighborhood when you were a child. Describe the house to them in vivid detail.

What shade of gray was it?

Were the doors boarded up?

Precisely how many ghostly figures did you see staring at you from the upstairs bedroom windows, and how many are standing behind you right now?

Paint a mental picture for your readers.

#2. What Do You Hear?

We listen to uptempo songs to push us through cardio workouts. Many of us listen to rainfall when we’re trying to sleep. Some of us listen to Justin Bieber when we want to punish our neighbors.

Want to transplant readers into your literary world?

Talk about the drip, drip, drip of the faucet.

Mention the squeaking floors beneath your feet.

Describe the awful music coming from your next-door-neighbor’s house.

#3. How Does it Feel?

Touch sensory words can convey both tactile and emotional sensations.

Can you describe to the reader how something feels when touched? Is it smooth or rough? Round or flat? Is it covered in goo or is it goo-less?

Paint a picture for your reader so they can touch what you’re touching.

The same goes for emotions. Help the reader feel what you (or your character) are feeling. Draw them in.

#4. What Does it Taste Like?

Does the beach air taste salty? Is the roaring fire so intense you can taste the smoke? Is the smell of your roommate’s tuna fish sandwich so strong you can taste it from across the room?

Tell your audience.

Be descriptive.

Make them taste the fishiness.

#5. How Does it Smell?

It wasn’t a basement you walked into — it was a musty, moldy basement.

And you didn’t simply enjoy your Mom’s homemade lasagna. You inhaled the aromatic scents of sauce, cheese, and basil.

Evoking the sense of smell is possibly the most effective way to pull readers out of their world and into yours.

So when you sit down to write, ask yourself if it’s possible to describe how something smells. And if you can? Do it.

The Massive Sensory Words List: 581 (and Counting) Descriptive Words to Supercharge Your Writing

Once you’ve asked and answered the five questions above, your writing will be packed with sensory details.

In time, you’ll build up your own massive list of sensory words you can reference and sprinkle throughout your work.

But in the meantime, here’s my list.

Bookmark them.

Print them.

Use them often:

SIGHT

SOUND

Angular Babble Azure Bang Billowy Barking Black Bawled Bleary Bawling Bloated Bellow Blonde Blare Blue Blaring Blurred Bleat Blushing Boom Branching Booming Bright Bray Brilliant Buzz Broad Buzzing Brown Cackle Brunette Cackling Bulbous Chatter Bulky Chattering Camouflaged Cheer Chubby Chiming Circular Chirping Colorful Chuckle Colorless Clamor Colossal Clang Contoured Clanging Cosmic Clap Craggy Clapping Crimson Clicking Crinkled Clink Crooked Clinking Crowded Cooing Crystalline Coughing Curved Crackle Dark Crackling Dazzling Crashing Deep Creak Dim Croaking Dingy Crow Disheveled Crunch Distinct Crunching Drab Crunchy Dreary Cry Dull Crying Dusty Deafening Elegant Distorted Enchanting Dripping Engaging Ear-piercing Enormous Earsplitting Faded Exploding Fancy Faint Fat Fizzing Filthy Gagging Flashy Gasping Flat Giggle Flickering Giggling Foggy Grate Forked Grating Freckled Growl Fuzzy Grumble Gargantuan Grunt Gaudy Grunting Gigantic Guffaw Ginormous Gurgle Glamorous Gurgling Gleaming Hanging Glimpse Hiss Glistening Hissing Glitter Honking Glittering Howl Globular Hubbub Gloomy Hum Glossy Humming Glowing Hush Gold Jabber Graceful Jangle Gray Jangling Green Laughing Grotesque Moaning Hazy Monotonous Hollow Mooing Homely Muffled Huge Mumble Illuminated Mumbling Immense Murmur Indistinct Mutter Ivory Muttering Knotty Noisy Lacy Peeping Lanky Piercing Large Ping Lavender Pinging Lean Plopping Lithe Pop Little Purring Lofty Quacking Long Quiet Low Rant Malnourished Rapping Maroon Rasping Massive Raucous Miniature Rave Misshapen Ringing Misty Roar Motionless Roaring Mottled Rumble Mountainous Rumbling Muddy Rustle Murky Rustling Narrow Scratching Obtuse Scream Olive Screaming Opaque Screech Orange Screeching Oval Serene Pale Shout Peered Shouting Petite Shrieking Pink Shrill Portly Sigh Pristine Silent Prodigious Sing Purple Singing Quaint Sizzling Radiant Slam Rectangular Slamming Red Snap Reddish Snappy Rippling Snoring Rotund Snort Round Splashing Ruby Squawking Ruddy Squeaky Rusty Stammer Sabotaged Stomp Shadowy Storm Shallow Stuttering Shapeless Tearing Sheer Thudding Shimmering Thump Shiny Thumping Short Thunder Silver Thundering Skinny Ticking Small Tingling Smudged Tinkling Soaring Twitter Sparkling Twittering Sparkly Wail Spherical Warbling Spotless Wheezing Spotted Whimper Square Whimpering Steep Whine Stormy Whining Straight Whir Strange Whisper Striped Whispering Sunny Whistle Swooping Whooping Tall Yell Tapering Yelp Tarnished Teeny-tiny Tiny Towering Translucent Transparent Triangular Turquoise Twinkling Twisted Ugly Unsightly Unusual Vibrant Vivid Weird White Wide Wiry Wispy Wizened Wrinkled Wrinkly Yellow

TOUCH

TASTE

Abrasive Acidic Balmy Appetizing Biting Bitter Boiling Bittersweet Breezy Bland Bristly Buttery Bubbly Charred Bubby Contaminated Bumpy Creamy Burning Crispy Bushy Delectable Chilled Delicious Chilly Doughy Clammy Earthy Coarse Fermented Cold Flavorful Cool Flavorless Cottony Floury Crawly Garlicky Creepy Gingery Cuddly Gritty Cushioned Hearty Damp Juicy Dank Luscious Dirty Medicinal Downy Mellow Drenched Melted Dry Nauseating Elastic Nutritious Feathery Nutty Feverish Palatable Fine Peppery Fleshy Pickled Fluff Piquant Fluffy Raw Foamy Refreshing Fragile Rich Freezing Ripe Furry Runt Glassy Savory Gluey Scrumptious Gooey Stale Grainy Sugary Greasy Syrupy Gritty Tangy Gushy Tart Hairy Tasteless Heavy Unripe Hot Vinegary Humid Yummy Ice-Cold Zesty Icy Itchy Knobbed Leathery Light Lightweight Limp Lukewarm Lumpy Matted Metallic Moist Mushy Numbing Oily Plastic Pointed Powdery Pulpy Rocky Rough Rubbery Sandy Scalding Scorching Scratchy Scummy Serrated Shaggy Sharp Shivering Shivery Silky Slimy Slippery Sloppy Smooth Smothering Soapy Soft Sopping Soupy Splintery Spongy Springy Sputter Squashy Squeal Squishy Steamy Steely Sticky Stifled Stifling Stinging Stony Stubby Tangled Tapered Tender Tepid Thick Thin Thorny Tickling Tough Unsanitary Velvety Warm Waxy Wet Woolly

SMELL

TASTE & SMELL

Ambrosial Acrid Antiseptic Burnt Aroma Fishy Aromatic Fresh Briny Fruity Citrusy Lemony Decayed Minty Decomposed Moldy Doggy Mouth-watering Fetid Rotten Floral Salty Flowery Sour Foul-smelling Spicy Fragrant Spoiled Gamy Sweet Gaseous Tantalizing Horrid Inodorous Malodorous Mephitic Musky Musty Odiferous Odor Odorless Old Perfumed Piney Polluted Pungent Putrid Rancid Rank Redolent Reeking Scent Scented Sickly Skunky Smell Smoky Stagnant Stench Stinky Sweaty Tempting

Are You Ready to Unleash the Power of Sensory Words?

It’s time to say goodbye.

Goodbye to lifeless words that sit on the page.

Goodbye to indifferent readers ready to move on to something, anything, else.

You now know why sensory details are so effective. You know how to sprinkle descriptive words throughout your content. And you now have a massive, ever-growing list of sensory words to bookmark and come back to again and again.

Variations of the following quote have been attributed to everyone from Carl W. Buehner to Maya Angelou, but regardless of who said it, and how they said it, it’s true:

“People may forget what you said, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel.”

It’s time to make your readers feel.

Are you ready?

Then let’s do this thing.

About the Author: When he’s not busy telling waitresses, baristas, and anyone else who crosses his path that Jon Morrow once said he was in the top 1% of bloggers, Kevin J. Duncan is the Blog Editor and Social Media Manager for Smart Blogger.

The post 581 Sensory Words to Take Your Writing from Bland to Brilliant appeared first on Smart Blogger.

from Julia Garza Social Media Tips https://smartblogger.com/sensory-words/

6 notes · View notes

moffixxey · 6 years ago

Text

581 Sensory Words to Take Your Writing from Bland to Brilliant

It’s almost too easy.

By using sensory words to evoke sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell; smart and attractive writers just like you are able to make their words burst to life in their readers’ minds.

In this post, you’ll learn:

The science behind sensory details (e.g. why sensory words are so persuasive);

The definition of sensory words (plus examples);

How answering five simple questions will help you write descriptive words that pack your content with sensory language;

500+ sensory words you can incorporate into your own writing (right now).

Let’s dive in.

Pin Image

The Colossal Power of Sensory Details

Remember the final scene in Field of Dreams when Ray Kinsella has a catch with his dad?

You can smell the grass on the field.

You can hear the sound of the baseball hitting their gloves.

And you can feel Ray’s years of guilt melting away as he closes his eyes, smiles, and tosses the ball back to his dad.

(Be honest. You’re crying right now, aren’t you?)

Field of Dreams made you feel like you were in Ray’s shoes, on his field, playing catch with dad.

The scene creates such a vivid experience for many viewers that whenever they think of playing catch, this scene will come up alongside their own childhood memories.

Here’s why:

That’s the power of content that incorporates sensory details.

And this power isn’t limited to cinema classics capable of making grown men cry. For centuries, literary giants have been packing their prose with powerful words that evoke the senses:

“Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war; That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial” — William Shakespeare (circa 1599)

In addition to The Bard, authors like Maya Angelou, Edgar Allan Poe, and Charles Dickens excel at sensory language. So do literally every famous poet you learned about in school.

And that begs the obvious question…