#anyway i <3 love as doom and i <3 dog symbolism and this is also a fun new take on snake/worm/wyrm symbolism

[tyrannuspitch]

i don't know if it was a typo or a deliberate pun, but a loki art post i reblogged earlier said "heartworming" where you would expect "heartwarming" and i can't stop thinking about it. like. heartworms are real. they exist. you are implying that loki is a dog with parasites in his heart which are going to kill him one day, and, well,

[yeniayofnymeria]

Answers for Jonerys

The arguments put forward for the X theory are level by level. Level 1 arguments often contain the strongest sign. Second level arguments support level 1, but alone have only "thought-provoking" effects. Third level arguments, on their own, have no effect, and are additional arguments that support level 1 and 2.

> Her silver was trotting through the grass, to a darkling stream beneath a sea of stars. A corpse stood at the prow of a ship, eyes bright in his dead face, grey lips smiling sadly. A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice, and filled the air with sweetness… . mother of dragons, bride of fire …

The strongest argument naturally ranks first. In fact, the whole theory is based on this argument.  There are two problems with this argument. 

The first problem is that this is the only level 1 argument. No other level 1 argument was presented, whereas a strong theory must have more than one level 1 argument. (It is not completely necessary, though.)

The second problem is the misinterpretation of this quote.

We need to understand what a shipper theory is. Both sides have to fall in love with each other, have a relationship together, and something (even if it doesn't end with a happy ending) at the end of the day.

For example, one-sided love or forced coexistence can never be a shipper theory. Or something like a one-night romance. (An example is Arya and Gendry on the show. This is not a ship.)

Let's go back to the argument. When interpreting this argument, Jonerys fandoms overlook a fact.  

Dany is warned by the Undying Ones. They told her that some events would happen and that it would be her disaster. Dany didn't understand the jigsaw words. So Dany asked them to explain and show her and they did.

This vision is an image shown to explain those disasters. To show Dany things and people that will hurt in the future ... The blue flower on the ice is Jon Snow. This flower emits sweet scent into the air. This is not a "love" sign, but a "death" sign. In books, the word "sweet" appears to be a sign of death in weight (or to face death). In addition, the word sweet and death are used side by side. So we need to pay attention to the places where this word is used.

For example, Sweet Raff, nicknamed "sweet", shows that GRRM sentenced this person to death. He died in his Mercy POV. Dany remembers Sir Willem smelling "sweet" when he was on his death bed. (Sickness)+dead=sweet We see that later. Bran's fall. Before fall he felt sweet pain in his body and also he used "sweet peach" word and he almost died, he was in coma. Who gave poison to Jon Arryn? "A sweet old friend."(Lysa and LF). Varys calls Lancel as "sweet boy" And Tyrion too in second book. He almost died in Battle of Blackwater and he may die in the future. Dany's wine was described as "sweet" The wine was poisonous. Drogo's wound smeel "sweet" He died. Jorah even gave Dany a sweet peach. Just like the Renly and Stannis scene (both brothers are dead, will die) (These are just a few examples, more dozens. https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/cr8me0/a_death_mark_in_asoiaf_sweet_spoiler_main/ )

If we pack it all up, Jon Snow will have a direct or indirect stake in Dany's death in the future. So, Jon Snow = dead for Dany.

No one can draw ship theory from such a fate.

> These quotes make a subtle connection between Dany and Val. Jon as we know is very attracted to Val. He first describes Val’s hair as pale silver; Dany of course has pale silver hair. In fact it is one of the most distinguishing features about her. So the connection here is that Val is a substitute for Dany. Also, note that the moon is mention, which as we know is strongly connected symbolically to Dany throughout the series, ex. “Moon of my Life”.

Val's hair is blond. Just once looked like silver hair because of moon. Okay, this is a second level argument. Available.

Dany's contact with the moon covers her relationship with Drogo only in book 1. No one except Drogo calls him "my moon" and has no reference to the moon in the future. So we cannot say that there is a "very strong" moon reference. Ned also calls Arya "the moon" in the first book. By showing this; Can we say Arya = Moon? No, this alone cannot be used. However, for 5 books, Arya has many moon references, unlike Dany. (https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/eo3ghb/arya_stark_and_braavos_moon_and_water_spoiler/ )

This alone does not matter. The word moon shows signs similar to death as the word "sweet".Even though it does not cover all the words of the moon, there has been a death many times before or after the moon appears. Moon Door is a dead place, the moon and moonlight are mentioned all over the place in AGOT’s prologue. The Others appear after a half-moon rises, and there are multiple references to the moonlight reflecting off the Other’s blade. There is a moon icon all over the FM house, even at the door. FM = death. Braavos is a moon city from the beginning. They are enemy of Valyria and dragon lords, and probably all Braavos played a role in the Doom of Valyria (with FM) So Drogo called Dany all the time “my moon” and Dany killed him with a pillow.

That's why it's hard to use the Val and Jon scene for Dany and Jon. At least we can't use it for Jonerys.

What does the moon and sweet weather mean for Val? Death. Twice a death mark. (Jon smelled sweet in book 5 before he died.)

> In these quotes we find a connection between a dream lover of Dany and Jon Snow. In her dream/vision Dany’s lover is a comely young man whose face is hidden in shadows. Jon is described by Ygritte as having a sweet face (comely) and in the two additional quotes below we see Jon describe himself as being in the shadows and we see Mel describe his face as hidden in shadows. These descriptions associate the young lover Dany sees with Jon Snow.

Maybe it's available but I'm not so sure. This sound a bit like a pushing.

The word dream used in the quote of Dany is not a dream seen asleep. This word is a dream used to imagine. Something you do consciously while awake. Here, Dany naturally (awake) dreams of a younger and handsome man for herself. Jorah is old and ugly for him. The word shadow comes naturally from Dany not thinking about a particular man. Because there is no type of man she desires around. Already later she met Daario and found the man she desired. That shade now has a face, and Dany fell in love with him. She constantly thinks about him, and we even see Dany thinking about him in her last POV. (Just like Jon thinks about Arya and Rhaegar thinks about Lyanna. ;) )

> Although the timeline is unclear, Jon was stabbed and presumably killed within the same time that Dany found herself alone in the Dothraki sea. Dany hearing the wolf howl could be the author making a connection between Jon’s death and how Dany would feel about it.

>If Dany knew who Jon was to her, his death would be incredibly sad but most importantly it would be lonely. Jon of course is Dany’s last living relative, although she does not know this. That this wolf howl brought such strong emotions to Dany is definitely something of interest.

Jonsa fandoms also used the same argument. Sansa heard a howl of wolf, and they interpreted it for the same thing. Which of you is correct to interpret?

I'll say it. None of you. There is one to four months between Jon's death and the scenes of these two characters. Another important detail is that in the scene where Jon is dead, the Ghost is not howling in any way and making a sad voice.

In the second book, Jon has the Bran scene, and the Ghost is howling sad and long. A few chapters later, Arya hears the howl of the wolf, which is described in the same words while in Harrenhall. (Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/5cw18j/spoilers_extended_something_strange_about_aryas/d9zw29r/ )

> There would have been a sixth, but the Usurper’s dogs had murdered her brother’s son when he was still a babe at the breast. If he had lived, I might have married him. “

Yes, Young Griff is probably is fake Targaryen and Rhaegar’s son is Jon. But this level 3 argument doesn't mean anything for the Jonerys ship alone.

Dany is not talking about a love subject here, but a traditional “political” Targ marriage. We also see in the same book that Rhaegar's son has a character named Aegon, and he is(was) coming to her to marry Dany. So it's all about the two character stories that Dany and we think are real Aegon ... We will not see a happy marriage anyway, as we know Dany's arc end. So this argument is invalid for Jonerys in any way. (Even if we assume that Jon is in psychology who can marry his aunt)

Most likely, all that is done is the GRRM throwing a fishing rod to us(Dany-Aegon.. or not and we can see those two can marry, maybe, i do not know. Not sure when i think about Euron, whatever).

> Here the author winks and nods at us as Jon is wishing for the very same thing Dany has, three dragons.

> “He might as well wish for another thousand men, and maybe a dragon or three.”

Yes, I smile when I read this scene. I just couldn't understand how you interpreted this for Jonerys. It's hard to say even a level 3 argument. It seems a little bit of pushing again.

Jon asked for 1000 men and then he took it, Jon also asked for 3 dragons. Maybe he will take all Dany's dragons? He's a Targaryen and probably a powerful warg. He can take it all for himself. Or as a matter of "alliance" for the danger of the Other, it is more correct to accept it as a weapon. Already, at first, Jon wanted 1000 men for defense, just as he wanted to defend all three dragons. There is no romantic reference from this.

> Finally, this pair of quotes is both a parallel and a connection between Dany and Jon. Both find themselves laying next to the person they love/are attracted to, as Jon ponders his lost of Ghost and Dany wakes from her nightmare not even the presence of these people they care about can drive the deep loneliness that they both feel.

Parallel scenes can be used as arguments. Sometimes level 2, level 3 ... However, they do not make sense on their own.

Remember, level 2 arguments are to support level 1 strong arguments, but there is no level 1 argument. You put forward one, but that is also completely misinterpretation.

Parallel scenes do not mean anything by themselves, because logically all characters have parallel scenes, life stories. Jon and Arya; Arya and Dany; Jon and Tyrion; Dany-Tyrion-Jon and Dany-Arya ... this is how it goes. For example Arya and Dany   https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/ew2z2y/ice_and_fire_two_sides_of_a_coin_spoiler_main/ and even Dany and Davos: https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/gj1wnp/spoilers_extended_a_big_parallel_between_davos/ Should we call a new ship “Daverys”? :D 

Parallel scenes may be a reference, but never a FS. “You are going to marry a King...” This can be FS. “My heart sometimes like a stone...” (Cat) is a FS. Sweet and Moon signs maybe can be a FS.

If this is the case, we can produce ship theories for all characters by looking at all these parallel scenes. There are too many parallel scenes between Arya and Bran. Shall we write another incest ship theory? For example, we can make a very crazy romantic ship theory between Dany and Arya, their life stories and their psychological developments are so similar to each other .. it's almost hard not to say their fate is one. Jon and Arya have similar parallel events too. If we can say Jonerys, we can say JonArya, right? How many characters will Jon have a romantic relationship with? I hope I was able to explain what I mean?

I have read the pov of Jon and Dany many times. I could not see a FS that there would be a romantic relationship between these two. If something is going to happen between two important characters, we cannot say that GRRM does not mark it. He does that. When I read Sansa povs, many signs for SanSan are laid before me without the need for a search. Or Jonarya signs.

First of all, it is necessary to wait for an infrastructure for a love relationship. Foreshadowing sentences are a sign for events that will happen, but is there any meaning unless there is character and story development?

In his speech, Jon and Ygritte, we saw that Jon had no problem with his love affair with foster sibling if he had no blood ties. So have we seen Jon volunteer to have a relationship with his own aunt? No. He can never be comfortable with incest because he wasn't raised that way.

This could happen without Jon knowing his identity, you might think. Just like in the show ... Possible. But we know that Dany will come in the 7th book, and they will probably meet in the middle of the book at the earliest. If you especially believe that the 2nd Dance will be between Dany and Aegon, the other kind seems hard to me.

So I'm asking, when will Jon learn about his real identity? At the end of the book? It is not possible. He needs to learn either at the end of Book 6 or at the beginning of Book 7. For his other danger, Jon is the real weapon and leader ... His family history will be his strength and superiority in this war. That's why he needs to know. Lord Reed knows everything, he will warn and inform Jon about everything. So when Jon meets Dany, he will either have learned his identity or will learn soon after meeting. So it's hard to wait for Jon to have a romantic relationship with a Dany. Another issue is that when these two characters meet, there is no suitable environment and time to form a love relationship between the two. Others have come and war has begun, death is everywhere and will these two find time to fall in love? Will it be possible to develop a story in this way? How? This book is not written by D&D, so let's not expect a disgrace like the show's script.

Thank you for read(Sorry for may bad English).

[fortunatelylori]

Crypts of Winterfell teaser

The 3 headed wolf

So ... this thing dropped sometime this morning while I was still asleep ...

First thing’s first ... We finally have an official release date, guys! I kept wondering if the show would start at the beginning of April or the end of April but as it turns out, HBO really wanted to be contrary so it’s the middle of April ... the 14th, to be exact. :)))

One of the disadvantages of living in Europe as a GOT fan is that by the time you see the new teasers, a whole host of other people have already analyzed it so you can’t really bring that much at the table. But I’ll give it a shot anyway. :)

The feather makes a come-back! 

No one really paid much attention to that feather, mostly because the last time the motif was revisited, it involved Sansa and we know how unimportant she is so why bother? Jonsa fans however have analyzed the symbolism behind it time and time again and what do you know? Here it is again, signaling the parentage reveal. Also, notice how the WW mist freezes the feather which in my mind can only mean that Jon will be in some kind of danger. 

The immediate interpretation is, of course, related to the fight with the WW that will take place at Winterfell so the feather in this context is a visual way of showing that conflict. 

It’s interesting that they chose the crypts for this teaser and involved the WW threat into it. A while back, I watched a video regarding how the crypts of Winterfell and the old kings of Winter might come into play in the story and considering this teaser, I think it’s worth revisiting this theory: 

Regardless of what secrets the crypts might hold in relation to the Starks relationship with the WW, the Winterfell crypts do pose a big problem for the humans fighting this war. If the NK can resurrect the dead, what is to say that he won’t raise the old kings from their crypts when he finally arrives at Winterfell? Imagine people taking refuge in the crypts during the final battle only for the dead to haunt them through the labyrinth. That would make for quite the sequence. 

But the feather symbolism can’t be related only to the WW because why would the WWs care who Jon’s parents are? The freezing of that feather must also relate to another hidden danger Jon will face. 

It’s interesting that they included Lyanna’s VO here: 

Lyanna: You have to protect him. 

Because this is where the feather and the VO come into play. Lyanna is asking Ned to protect Jon from Robert Baratheon. In that scene, if you remember, Lyanna says that if Robert were to find out who Jon is, he will kill him which leads Ned to keep the parentage of Jon a secret for almost 20 years. But let’s also remember where that feather came from ... it was Robert who placed that feather in the hand of Statue Lyanna. 

So that feather is a visual reminder that Robert would have killed Jon had he found out who he is. In addition to being the son of the man Robert hated, Jon posed a threat to Robert’s kingship. As Rhaegar’s son, Jon had a claim to the throne Robert had taken for himself.

But ... Robert is dead. He poses absolutely no danger to Jon now. But the threat is still highlighted here and the idea that Jon is in need of protection is brought up again. So against whom will Jon need protecting? Is  there another person in this story that might feel threatened by Jon’s claim? A person who has a huge army and at least one dragon and also a volatile temper? I would say that would be the person Jon would need protecting from. And as always with Jon, it seems that the people that will offer him protection will be named Stark. 

The wolf must have three heads 

(source: @undeadmanbun)

Perhaps we can now finally put to rest the theory of Jon, Tyrion and D*ny as the three heads of the dragon since this teaser strongly parallels Jon, Arya and Sansa to the original Ageon, Visenya and Rhaenys. Of course there are difference between the reiterations but if we were to look back at Aegon and his sisters, there are clues there that 3-way relationship was more in tune with Jon/Sansa/Arya then we might imagine. 

Yes, Aegon was married to both his sisters but his romantic preference for Rhaenys is blatant. I’d go as far as to say that the only reason why he ended up married to both his sisters was because Rhaenys was the youngest. I doubt he would have married Visenya, had things been reversed. Visenya, though, is Aegon’s equal in terms of military matters, his most direct partner when it comes to waging warfare. They have a pretty contentious relationship, with Visenya going so far as to physically harm Aegon in order to prove a point about him needed better protection. She’s the one that comes up with the idea of the King’s Guard. 

Speaking of which, let’s remember what Arya told Sansa in season 7. 

Sansa: You shouldn’t have run from them. (the guards)

Arya: I didn’t run. You need better guards. 

I can see Arya being the Visenya to Jon’s Aegon, without the sexual aspect. Pushing him, consulting with him on military matters, fighting with him when she believes he’s wrong while they work to achieve their common goal. I’ve said for a while that their relationship might be more strained than people imagine and I hold to that. I also think that no matter how many strains there are, they’ll always come together as a unit because of the incredibly deep bond they share. 

So if Jon and Arya represent the warrior aspect of the 3 headed dragon/wolf, by extension, Sansa must represent the political aspect of it. Otherwise why include her in this teaser? Both Jon and Arya are more fight oriented to begin with. You need a political mind to balance everything out and this is where Sansa comes in. In addition to that, Sansa shares a lot of similiarties with Rhaenys due to their common love of music and stories, as well as being prone to flights of fancy. This might foreshadow a Sansa that begins to drop her barriers this season and gets back in touch with her softer side once again. 

As people have already pointed out, Jon is placed next to Sansa and not in the middle between the two sisters as Aegon is usually depicted, making him visually closer to Sansa and thus stocking the Jonsa fires. Personally I would have preferred for Sansa to be at Jon’s left to make things even clearer but you can’t have everything in life. 

Also placing Jon in the middle wouldn’t have been a wise blocking choice because of the differences in height. 

(source: @iheartgot) 

By placing Jon in the middle, you’d have what we call in my country a “donkey’s stair  which is always a big no-no visually. 

EDIT:  Color me stupid but it’s been pointed out in the comments that in fact Sansa is on Jon’s left side if we look at the statues themselves. She’s also on his left side when he turns. So there is actually no other way to set the 3 of them up if you want to have that effect. Well ... this is even better!

Parallels to the House of Black and White promo

One thing that struck me the most about this teaser is the similarities to the promo for season 6. 

We are, once again, treated to effigies of both dead characters as well as live ones. Looking at it superficially this seems to spell doom for Jon, Arya and Sansa but I don’t think that’s the interpretation we should take from it. 

After all, season 6 not only brought back Jon from the dead, it also marked the resurrection of House Stark from the ashes, culminating with Jon and Sansa taking back Winterfell and ending the season in control of the North, with Jon proclaimed King in the North. 

Also, look at the VOs they used in that promo and how they related to the actual plot. 

Ned: The man who passes the sentence, should swing the sword. 

Jon ends up passing the sentence on the NW brothers who assassinated him and swinging the sword at their execution. 

Robb: I’ve won every battle but I’m losing this war. 

Robb might have lost his war and Jon came close to losing the Battle of the Bastards but Sansa’s Kinghts of the Vale intervention and Wun Wun sacrifice got them back Winterfell and the North, readdressing the vaccum left by Robb’s murder. 

Catelyn: Show them how it feels to lose what they love

I think this can be linked to Arya’s revenge on the Freys. She’s the most obvious representative of the eye for an eye type of revenge Catelyn is talking about in that quote. 

Jofferey: Everyone is mine to torment. 

Joff has been dead for a long time so his inclusion in this trailer feels odd but ... I don’t think this is related to him. This is about Ramsay, who is a more extreme version of Joffrey. Of course, the season ends with him being eaten by his own dogs, a sentence orchestrated by Sansa, the woman he tormented, proving that when you’re a monster who enjoys hurting people eventually you will have that come back to haunt you in the most extreme way possible. 

Jon: The Long Night is coming and the dead come with it. 

This not only foreshadows Jon spearheading the fight against the WW but also the fact that he is one of the dead that comes with the Long Night, hence his resurrection. 

So, going by that parallel, what speculation can we draw from the season 8 teaser? Let’s look at the VOs: 

Lyanna: You have to protect him. 

I’ve already discussed this in the first section but aside from foreshadowing Jon coming under threat because of the parentage reveal, this also links back to the importance of who Jon’s mother is and the role she played, plays and will play in Jon’s life. 

All his life Jon tried to model himself after Ned Stark, the man he believed was his father and that gave him the legitimacy of being included in the Stark family, a position he’s always wanted to maintain, even when being a Stark brought derision and insults (Allister Throne calling him the son of a traitor, for example). Part of the reason for this, I feel, is because Jon doesn’t know anything about his mother and more importantly fears that his mother doesn’t care about him and that she abandoned him (as per Jon’s last conversation with Ned). The parentage reveal will connect Jon to his mother and also erase those fears. Because Lyanna loved Jon. Her last words were concerning him and his well being. Also, Lyanna will replace Ned as the link between Jon and his Stark heritage. 

Catelyn: All this horror that’s come to my family ... It’s all because I couldn’t love a motherless child. 

This is probably the most controversial of the VOs quotes because some people feel that this is being used to attack Catelyn. I don’t see it that way. For one, I think it brings back into the conversation the idea of Jon being legitimized as a Stark since in that monologue, the true source of shame for Cat is that she made a vow to help legitimize Jon but didn’t follow through. The fact that this is placed in tandem with Sansa walking past her mother’s statue, seems to indicate that the way Jon will be legitimized as a Stark is through Sansa. 

This interpretation is due to an anonymous ask I got last week. I’m going to link it here. Nonnie was the first to my recollection to point to this scene and it’s possible foreshadowing elements so huge kudos to them!

Ned: You are a Stark. You might not have my name but you have my blood. 

This foreshadows, I think, the struggle that Jon will face once the parentage reveal hits. He’s going to feel lost, hurt and deprived of the Stark connection that has informed his entire life and all of his choices. But as Ned put it, he is a Stark and that’s what he will always be. 

On another note, one of the most glaring absences in this teaser is Bran. You’d expect him to be in this teaser. For one, he’s the one that will reveal Jon’s parentage. He is also part of the pack, not to mention that he’s the key to defeating the WW. His absence does raise questions.

But I think that just like the Hall of Faces promo, the Crypts promo is deceiving. The Hall of the Faces promo leads one to believe that season 6 will be very focused on the House of Black and White and also that it will signal more loss for House Stark, in particular. But neither one of those things actually occurs in the actual season. The House of Black and White is a secondary plot line at best and as I’ve said season 6 is the season House Stark gets back on top. 

So, I’m going to speculate that the Crypts promo isn’t really about the WW conflict as the ending might suggest, which would explain Bran’s exclusion. I think that taking all of the context into consideration, this teaser is really about the Dance of Dragons 2.0 and the three headed wolf replacing the three headed dragon. 

Miscellaneous thoughts

The torch

I can’t say for sure why they decided to give Jon a torch, other than that it makes him look even more badass. However, the fact that it’s extinguished not only severs all connection between him and his dragon father but also serves as a reminder that fire is actually ineffectual against the WW. I don’t know how many other clues people need at this point that the dragons will be of no actual use in defeating the NK.

Sansa’s expression

(source: @bethnoel)

I was struck by Sansa’s expression here. We haven’t seen Sansa look so emotional since season 6. It kind of brings to mind Sophie’s quote about this season being about an emotional fight for Sansa. 

Jonsa is coming!

[lesbeet]

@butchkaz tagged me to do this ask game!

~ What movies do you wish you were a character in? i would love to be a side character in one of the first like 3 hp movies ksdjfsd, also i would love to live in a wes anderson film

~ Create your dream fragrance; what would be the ingredients and the name? chlorine (yes like at a pool), vanilla, sweet pea, strawberry, and orange, and somehow it would all work very nicely together. it would be called “rejuvenate”

~ As a siren, what bewitching song would you sing to lure people to their doom?

the coeur de pirate cover of wicked games

~ *Clicks shoes together three times* Anywhere in the world (fantasy or reality) where would you go?

post-war wizarding world let’s be real, or like. the 5th dimension

~ Similar to Harry Potter, if you could reside in a painting, which one would you choose?one of monet’s fields of flowers probably

~ Like the symbols associated with the Greek gods and goddesses; what would be your chosen symbol/s to embody you as a person? (eg: some symbols of Aphrodite are dove and sparrows)

wolves, the moon, dandelions, the constellation orion, a tiny tree

~ If you were to create your own met gala theme, what would it be based on? impressionism for the 22nd century

~ What seven objects would you choose to hide a fragment of your soul in? (The horcruxes) i mean i wouldn’t murder people and i have no desire to be immortal so i wouldn’t have horcruxes but if i did i would put them in like pens and books and other everyday objects. i know dumbledore is like “no those are portkeys” but that’s the smartest way to do it so nobody would be able to know what they’re looking for! like “oh i need to search the world for this one bic clicky pen, it’s black and absolutely not distinctive in anyway” good luck bitch i’m living forever. none of this “my soul is too precious for all but the best of artifacts” bullshit

~ You’re whistling while you work, what animals would you like to come and join you? some beavers would be nice. maybe otters. and a dog. or many dogs

~ Like the story of Swan Lake; what mythical creature/beings from folklore would you like to transform into by day? mermaid or some kind of bird, perhaps a falcon

i tag @prehistories @matd @sleepyshev idk i have no friends if you wanna do this be my guest

[pomegranate-salad]

Seeds of thought : Wicdiv 455AD

Hey everyone ! Fair warning, this month’s analysis is a bit heavy on the History lesson side. I try not to go all nerdy on here because I want to emphasize that this is only my opinion/thoughts and not “10 things you need to know to understand this issue” but the further we go back in time, the harder it gets to analyse things without putting them in context first. So yeah, sorry about that. Anyway, as usual spoilers under the cut. Enjoy !

FOUND ROME IN MARBLE, LEFT IT IN SHAMBLES

 What in G-O-D’s name did poor Eleanor Rigby have on her face that made Ananke so pissed ? Because let’s face it, between 1831’s wannabe necromancer and 455AD’s emperor in training, her double murder ranks maybe a 3 on the Lucifers-are-a-pain-in-the-ass-o-meter. Having been a main character in the comic and both specials, Lucifer is at this stage the god we’re the most familiar with in the grand scheme of the Recurrence. And while our data is inevitably skewed because we haven’t seen enough incarnations of the other gods, it means that using him, we can begin to talk about gods not only throughout one specific incarnation, but as a succession of incarnations, and analyse their recurring traits – and their evolution – both as a character and a religious/mythological figure.

 A few hours before the special came out, I wrote this short analysis of the various wheel symbols of Lucifer in which I saw a common theme of both religious inadequacy and performative value. I observed that according to their symbols Lucifers were not mystic leaders, but performers, closer to the popular idea of themselves than to themselves. Turns out I was accidentally dead on, at least when it comes to the 455AD special. This time, Lucifer is literally an actor, and although it’s unclear whether or not he was one before becoming a god, I think we can assume it is the case, seeing how vindictive “Julius” is about making people respect actors.

Contrary to Greek traditions, actors in Rome were considered the lowest part of society, barely superior to slaves ; in fact many of them came from families of former slaves. A lot of them were basically courtesans who occasionally acted. And of course, the profession was associated with “shameful” sexual practices, homosexuality first and foremost.

Furthermore, Roman theatres are not a place of worship. It is rare to see gods in plays, and there is no religious meaning behind attending a play – something that is hinted at in Dionysus’ choice of calling himself Bacchus. So when “a catamite actor boy” reveals himself to be a god, should the tables turn ? Not as much as it would have seemed : in his flashbacks with Dionysus, Lucifer’s clothes and housing remain shabby, his tone bitter. Divine or not, Lucifer is just an actor. He cannot make History, only resurrect it onstage while Rome is falling. He is loved, but not respected, hated but not feared, brilliant but not enlightening. Who he was is in constant tension with who he became and what he wants to accomplish. Can you blame him for deciding to put on his stage costume permanently ?

In fact, this entire pantheon seems to have faced the same problem : who must you be to inspire people when you have so little time ? In later centuries, and especially in modern times, the answer will be much easier : be a performer. But in 455AD, inspiring figures are not onstage, they’re in the forum or on a battlefield. Those are political times. The answers the gods gave are varied : Baal is a city leader, Inanna arranges a political wedding, Mithras is a general of some sort, Minerva is linked to a place of knowledge. But as for Lucifer, a roman actor, who better to be than the ultimate junction of man, god, acting and political power ? He will be emperor.

 But adding a third facet to himself – actor, god, and now emperor – doesn’t solve his paradoxes and inadequacies ; it aggravates them. This special weaves a complex web of references linking all those facets, all of which ripe with tragic irony. There is of course the figure of Julius Caesar, who never technically became emperor and died trying, which Lucifer turns into some grand saviour of Rome. Then we have the usual suspects, Caligula and Nero, the madman and the artist, both of which wanted to succeed to the “great” emperors Julius Caesar and Augustus only to fail, finding a new incarnation in Lucifer. But I see two more emperors eluded to in this issue. First there is Tiberius, who started the practice of throwing criminals in the Tiber, and also famously forbade higher-class citizens to entertain relationships with actors. And even more interestingly, there was another emperor who straight-up forbade his priests and senators to set foot in a theatre : Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor.

 Holding Christian beliefs became legal in the Roman Empire in 313 under Constantine, who also became the first emperor to convert. Christianity then quickly became the dominant religion all over the empire, extending to the various Germanic tribes who had started integrating themselves to Eastern territories in search for cultivable lands, and had adopted roman culture for sometimes more than a century at the time of the special (if anyone was confused by Genseric being a Christian, here’s the explanation). But in 362, Emperor Julian briefly tried to restore paganism before dying from a battle wound. Only a few years after his death, paganism was outlawed for good in the Roman Empire.

 If there’s one invader hovering over this entire special, it’s not Genseric, it’s Christianity. A subject I find fascinating but hadn’t been touched much before by the comic is the relationship between the worshipping of the pantheon and the status of monotheistic, worldwide religions. In modern times, the two seemed to coexist in relative peace, as the cult of the pantheon didn’t seem able to transcend its members’ death. The Pantheon is an event, Religion an institution. But here, four centuries after the birth of Christianism, we are at the end of a cultural shift : Christianism has become the dominant religion while paganism is quickly disappearing. What this means is that this generation of pagan gods is experiencing, maybe for the first time, what it’s like to exist in a world that no longer worships you. Paradoxically, as these gods get farther away from the times they were actually dominant figures, they’ll have an easier time drawing from those sources and adapting them to match the current taste. But in 455AD ? The Pantheon is suffocating in the shadow of the Christ, not relevant enough anymore to sustain a cult on their own, not syncretised enough to resonate within the context of Christian culture.

 And this brings us to our poor Lucifer. Of all the members of this pantheon that we know of, he’s the one that will be assimilated most directly and most textually to Christianity. You could argue that Inanna found some sort of syncretism with the Virgin Mary, but if only by their names, all of them save for Lucifer will remain decidedly more pagan than Christian. Lucifer, on the other hand, will see his pagan origin completely erased by his Christian recuperation. From a minor god presumed to be the divine incarnation of Venus, he will gradually become one of the most important figures in Christian iconography, a position that will allow him a degree of changeability in concepts and role that will make for an incredibly rich series of incarnations. Eleanor drew from the evolution of mores and morality to create a supremely cool and even areligious devil, yet one that had the tang of a crisis of faith ; XIXth century Lucifer was both the devil of Romantic artists, a tragic incarnation of creativity and also the remnants of popular beliefs, the grotesque figure of evil philosophy quickly being replaced by higher concepts.

But in 455AD, Lucifer is a difficult one, “this time most of all”, because he finds himself in the middle of an identity crisis. He is being robbed of his traditional divinity and turned into something else. Something that, according to most interpretations, is not even divine, just “a dog shivering from the Divine’s whip”.

Taking the mantle of the emperor is not just an act of hubris, it’s an act of desperation, not only to stay alive as a member of the pantheon past two years, but as a divine figure past his time of worship. It’s interesting to note that if some emperors were indeed deified, they were so after their death ; to Lucifer, they are the proof you can retain divinity even after your time is over.

 But of course, you cannot escape programmed death, in more ways than one. Christianity is pertaining at every corner of this issue, dooming the gods to obscurity. The final destruction of the library of Alexandria is said to have been ordered by Pope Theophilus ; the figure of Ildico, the wife suspected to have assassinated Attila, will get overshadowed by Saint Genevieve, said to have stopped the Huns’ march in Gallia. As for Mithras feeding his army with his own flesh, I’m afraid we’ll only remember its famous precedent.

Ananke herself seems to incarnate the unstoppable march of Christianity : draped in a blue shawl reminiscent of the Virgin Mary herself, she is referred to by Lucifer as “the most necessitous mother”.

And as for Lucifer himself… he might try to be an actor, a pagan god, an emperor all at once, but at every turn, he is Christian. I joked that his own symbol, the upside-down Chi Rho, has never been associated with him, but indeed, his own symbol has never been associated with him. Upside-down or not, a Chi Rho is a Chi Rho, and it only ever refers to the Christ. In 455AD, you cannot even signify Lucifer anymore without using the Christ. And then we have Lucifer’s last moments. Like the actor he is, the builds his scene to evoke both his pagan origin (with Jupiter as his father) and his chosen personality Julius Caesar with his last words a direct reference. But while Caesar’s last words “Et tu, Brute ?” were addressing his son, in this context “Et tu, Jupiter” is addressing the father. A father who has abandoned him while he was trying to sacrifice himself for a people. Father, why hast thou forsaken me.

 Lucifer dies closer to a failed Christ as he does to his own pagan roots. But how could he have not failed ? It wasn’t that he was bad, or powerless, but he was inadequate. As an actor and as a god, in a time that had no use for the old him anymore and no use for the new him yet. More than anything else, Lucifer is battling the invincible push and pull of History. Being born in the wrong time and place, practicing the wrong profession, loving the wrong person. Being the wrong god. When you’re out of place in History, there is no changing the stage. You can’t create your own atmosphere. When you’re not in tune, you’re not in tune.

And through Lucifer, it’s the death of Rome itself that’s told. Deified emperors were not just additions to the pantheon ; they were the divinities most closely associated to Rome as a political entity. In pagan times, when they invaded other regions, Romans famously let people keep their religion, but all had to be present on the days of celebration of deified emperors. They served as a unifying cultural fabric throughout the Empire. The emperors were the gods of Rome. Lucifer, like Julian the Apostate, tries to reinstate paganism, but with a particular target : the very spirit of the greatness of Rome. He vows a cult to the idea of the Empire more than its gods.

 But the Empire is done. And so will be, in barely 70 years, the Vandal kingdom, reconquered by the Eastern Roman Empire. As for what vandal will come to mean… In her final speech to Genseric, is Ananke purposely lying or is she just as ignorant of the future as he is ? Most of all, I think she does not care. In her own words, gods are meant to burn bright to light humanity’s path, but each and every god of this pantheon accompanied the end of an era. If the gods serve any purpose, they do not ensure that the path will remain the same, only that there is a path to continue on. Failure is just as significant as victory ; the pantheon walks alongside History, they do not shape it. The 455AD pantheon’s purpose was to bear witness to the fall of the old world, of their world, and Ananke would not let them deviate from it.

In fact, we are two specials in, and so far have we witnessed anything but endings and falsification ? The events of the summer of 1831 did not just remain a mystery as Ananke destroyed Inanna’s journal, they also coincided with the end of the golden age of the Romantics. 455AD does not simply marks another step towards Rome’s rapid fall, but what really happened is now mere “wilder theories” according to David Blake. So far, it seems a successful pantheon to Ananke’s standards is one she managed to almost erase from History. Once again, ironically, this special IS our Sulla : we’ve seen Ananke rewrite History once, we know she can do it again. How many times HAS she done it ?

“Lucifer was only an actor made great by History” and, as Ananke hints, so is everyone. But Lucifer in the History she rewrote is neither great nor part of History. If truly we are all actors on the stage of History, then every generation is playing for the future ones. The actors do not know their role and the audience does not know the truth. And if the play goes wrong, Ananke will there to sweep the stage after each performance. Alea falsata est.

  WHAT I THOUGHT OF THE ISSUE

 So, before anything else, can we agree that if Wicdiv ever gets to make figurines of its characters, Lucifer with his homemade harp needs to be one ? Because I have a figurine of the Hieronymus Bosch knife-penis from The Garden of Delights that needs a friend. Cool ? Cool.

 I do admire the wicdiv team’s will to have the special be their own thing instead of a simple extension of the normal wicdiv canon. They read like a completely different series, with its own language and rhythm. This one had even fewer kieronisms than the last one and the style is almost antithetic to McKelvie’s. But what this also means is that this reads like the issue #2 of a series more than an outgrowth of the main one. Meaning, it’s a series that’s still finding its footing.

Wicdiv 455AD is much better than its predecessor Wicdiv 1831, but as part of its series I have a feeling it’s not quite what it has the potential of being yet. The story 1831 was trying to tell simply didn’t work for the one-shot format : it felt rushed, with stakes minimal, and its referencing didn’t seem to add up to anything. 455AD, despite technically happening on a grander scale, tells a much more personal story. The limited number of pages certainly works better with one character and a straight timeline than it does with four on multiple storytelling levels. And if the references forced me to take maybe one too many trips by Wikipedialand, it felt purposeful, adding to the text instead of subtracting from it.

So the most obvious problems from 1831 have clearly been fixed. The story of 455AD works wonderfully as a one-shot, albeit one that requires a decent baggage on both the Wicdiv canon and ancient History. This is one of those “the less you know about the character, the better” cases, and reading the reviews I find it very telling that everyone seems to have different levels of empathy for the main character. Over the course of the one-shot, he appears both extremely sympathetic and insufferable. But the shortness of the plot never allows us to form a meaningful connexion with him, meaning we always keep a certain distance from the story, which in this case is a good thing : this special is about the movement of history, the towering feeling of hindsight, the spectacle of failure. Having such distance to the characters allows us to seize the foolishness of his quest while also finding room for sympathy ; if we were more involved, we’d resent his failure. In that perspective, we are more on Ananke’s side than his. We come from a place so far away in History that we cannot possibly root for his success, because we cannot envision the dramatic change that would mean for our own history. Just like Wicdiv #27 took a time limit and turned this limitations into an asset by embracing frenzy and confusion, Wicdiv 455AD took its limited number of pages and used it to tell a story on ineluctability. It had just the right level of story not told to get us just as involved as we need to be.

 However, the format of the one-shot still feels a bit too short for its story. It focuses on the character, which was the most important element, but to the detriment of the rest. Rome is falling, but we barely see it ; the most we get is burning rooftops and murdered courtiers. It’s hard to feel the toll and stakes of it all when the camera is zooming so closely on the main character. And call me greedy, but I would have liked to see more of Araùjo’s depiction of Rome. I just love this style so much. I’m not sure if that’s a common type of style in Anglo-Saxon media, but for me in Europe it’s a huge nostalgia bomb. I grew up on French/Belgian comics and this kind of super detailed, expressive and somewhat cartoonish style is basically my childhood. Plus, coincidentally, this type of comics was obsessed with Ancient Rome. Here however, the story happens mostly in geometrical interiors, and save for the triumph scene, the city feels almost empty. Of course, part of it is intentional : Ananke’s walk to the Tiber, from the magnificent streets though walls too small to be intimidating, to a dirty river under dirty stone exudes maybe the most powerful pathos Wicdiv has ever wrung out. But as a whole, the setting lacks scale and life. I think I’ve already said before that locations are maybe the least interesting graphic aspect of Wicdiv, but goddamn, if you give me Rome before the fall and I don’t get a little bit whiplashed by the setting, I feel robbed. Clearly the décor had to be kind of sacrificed for the characters, and the expressions here are just fantastic. They achieve a level of ugliness that’s completely foreign to McKelvie’s style ; even when his characters are pissed, they never stop looking like perfect cut-outs from magazines. The expressiveness of Araùjo’s drawings immediately plunges us in something realer, more tangible and grounded. I just wish there had been more of a balance between character and background.

As for the writing, it still occasionally feels like there was way too much going on in those scripts and what made it onto the pages is what won at eeny meeny miny moe but as a whole there’s much more breathing room in the dialogues. Lucifer and Ananke’s discussion is the one bordering the most on overbearing, but it’s too much of a delight to see Ananke’s manipulative ways to really mind. Of Gillen’s habitual writing style, this special retains its disjointedness (which as usual works when it works and lets you roll with it if not) but adds a substantial touch of natural that’s not that common in the main wicdiv run : bizarrely, despite the complex speech patterns of Antique Rome, this special feels more intimate and direct than the average Wicdiv issue.

 Overall, I did really like this special. I think it was starting with a bit of an advantage given how interested I am in Ancient Rome. The Art is to die for, even though it still felt like it could have been showcased even better. The story is purposeful and all the googling didn’t feel like a waste of time. Still, I feel like there’s still some wiggle room to make a truly great one-shot in which the limited space and the conceptuality won’t hinder the emotional connexion. I’d also like to see the specials mix it up by maybe getting away from the “end of the pantheon” motive, and given the next special should be the modernist pantheon and we’ve already seen their end, it feels like the perfect place to do it.

Yeah, I’m aware my opinion is not all that interesting this time, as for me this special falls in the “very good but not great” category, and I’m not that clear on what could have been done to make it great. Most of all, I think it tells us that standalone issues are hard, and when they have to do with a completely different historical context and revelations on the main canon to cram in somewhere, it’s not every day you’ll get something as rich and enjoyable as this.

[lisamhayes]

8 Point Checklist to Get Back On Track When Everything Has Gone off the Rails

I'm not going to lie. I should have seen it coming. I should have just cleared the months of July and August in advance. There was an omen, and I knew it was a forebearer of some messy change the minute I realized what it was. Several weeks ago I noticed my yard was teaming with crying crows. They were screaming in fact, and there were a lot of them.

I tried to feed them. I gave the crows yarn and tiny shiny objects. I played them music. I talked to them. I attempted to calm them for several hours before I realized what had happened and when I figured it out, the feeling of foreboding was persistent.

I sent my husband a text: "You need to come home now. There are two dead crows in the pool. Their friends are super fucking upset."

Yes, I'm a baby. I'm not the girl who's going to fish the dead crows out of the pool by myself. Don't judge.

We buried the crows with the most sacred ceremony possible. We decorated the grave site. I left offerings for their friends for days. However, it left me unsettled. I knew I was waiting for something, and I didn't know what it was. I know what crow medicine is, but I researched it relentlessly anyway.

Bottom line, two dead crows is probably not a great omen no matter how you look at it.

I didn't have to wait that long to start to figure it out because within the week a series of unrelated, but persistently unending events started rolling through my life and continued for weeks.

Some of those events were just the worst, the kind of seriously horrible things that make me want to go to bed and not get up. Some of them were amazing and nearly miraculous, but still, reality shaking and challenging to process.

I know my pattern. I tend to do all of my hard stuff at once in big batches. I feel things intensely, so it's not surprising that once I get on a roll, I attract more intensity in kind. However, as I think back on those crows, I have a particular kind of peace that this was all going to happen no matter what.

On the front end of this shit storm, my husband and I went to Vegas for our anniversary. There was no gambling or casinos. There was simply a spa retreat hotel room and a pool with a waitstaff at the cabana. I have found myself saying out loud and in my head, more times than I can count, "I just want to go back to Vegas."

It's not the bright lights, loud music, and expensive food that has me craving Vegas. It's the retreat, the solitude of that room. It's the nothingness of being anonymity in the crowd. I'm intending we're on the other side of the chaos as of today. However, we all know how this system works. If I've ever going to get enough wind in the sails to get out of chaos, I have to activate peace. That fact that I'm craving Vegas gives me some solid clues about what might be next. Peace and respite are the orders of the day.

I usually don't write publicly about the crap that goes on in my life until I'm well on the other side of the storm. However, today I'm making an exception. I going to share my the vibration repair process I'm putting into effect today.

I'm sharing because I know I'm not the only one going through massive shift storms right now. I'm also sharing it because a little accountability goes a long way in my world. So, I'm committing to you; this will get shifted starting now.

Here are the household rules for vibration rehab:

1. Turn off the TV.

Yes, there are natural disasters. Yes, our political system is a rolling train wreck of unimaginable proportions. Yes, the world might feel like it's falling apart. However, my fragile vibe just can't take it right now. So, we're turning off the noise for now. Not forever - for today and the next few days, the durations of which is still to be determined.

CNN alerts are not important enough to risk making my precarious mood even more unstable. Being in the know isn't helping. So, we're unplugged, and it's not easy. I've become very addicted to the adrenaline of the news cycle. But I'm willing to do the detox. It's important.

2. Stop talking about it.

I'm willing to talk about my feelings. Feelings matter. Talking about them might be healthy.

It's not easy. I want to rattle off a twenty point checklist of doom right now. However, repeating the ever-growing list of fuckery in my life to illustrate the point that my current situation is a shit show is doing nothing more than magnifying the shit show.

There are lots of things to talk about that are working. However, knowing I'm in an adrenaline run up, I know that fixating on the peaceful might not feel all that satisfying right now. But it's required.

I'm still surrounded by snoring dogs. I went to a lovely wedding celebration last weekend. I've got Doctor Pepper in the frig. I'm not going to give audience to my upset right now.

All is well. All is well. All is well.

3. Get back on track with my self-care without excuses.

There were days last week where self-care at its best was taking a shower before my husband got home from work, so I didn't stink. I didn't manage to even pull that off every day.

That said, I need my vitamins. I need to exercise. I need to get outside of my house to do more than buy more Doctor Pepper. I need to meditate. When the going gets tough, the first thing to go is usually self-care when you need it the most.

My failure to care for myself properly has created an inability to care for anything else well including my family, my home, and my business.

I tend to be an all or nothing kind of girl. Either I'm rocking my self-care, or I'm slouched in the corner in a puddle. As of today, I'm getting back on the self-care wagon, even if it happens one step at a time instead of all at once.

4. Zenify my home.

Part of what I long for from the Vegas retreat is maid service and the minimalist decor. Although my home is not a shit hole, it's feeling far from Zen.

I'm making a point to move at least five things to their proper place every time I get up from my seat. At this rate, eventually, the landscape will stop being a distraction.

I've scheduled in a half an hour every day for the next two weeks to tackle the most important to me spaces in my home. That starts with my bedroom and my office.

I'm opening windows to let real fresh air blow through. I'm saging the nooks and crannies to excavate the stuck energy. After I finish this post, I'm texting my housekeeper to make sure I'll see his happy face tomorrow.

Part of the magic is in visually seeing progress being made. However, the real magic is that what's happening on the outside is a reflection of what's going on on the inside. I may not be able to fully control the inner chaos, but I can wrangle the outer chaos into order, and it starts to calm my crazy making mind.

5. Leverage ritual and make magic.

Oh those damn crows, I knew it when I saw it. They were bringers of dark magic into my world. However, it was magic none the less, and the symbolism was not lost on me.

I'm going to honor the fuck out of those crows. Crow medicine has worked it's way into my totem, and I'm embracing that. Crow rituals will abound along with lots of other magic making to ease the waters.

I'm most at peace when I'm at my altar or on my yoga mat. I haven't been dipping myself in the waters of my spiritual practice, and the absence of that discipline has left a vacuum for a lot of turbulence in my life. As I stood in front of my altar this morning, I felt very disconnected from it and that is a solid gold indicator I'm disconnected from myself.

The practice may be different than it was a few weeks ago, but a practice that grounds my spiritual side is required of me right now, and I know it. Every experience is a spiritual experience. I need to get back in the game with the Divine to give the meaning I choose to whatever is happening.

6. Surrender, Surrender, Surrender.

While some of this might not be my preference, I can accept it, all of it. Resistance is not only painful; it's futile.

I will breathe through the discomfort instead of trying to distract myself from it.

I will EFT until my face is bruised if I need to.

I will surrender a thousand times a day because that's what's required. I can let everything be a blessing if I don't allow myself to flee back into victim mode.

There is no going around an energetic shit storm. There is only going through, and surrender is the ONLY way to do that without hurting myself or others in the process.

7. I will remind myself what I want on the regular.

I'm not too super stoked about what is a lot of the time at this point. However, what I want is to anchor a state of peace, and I will remind myself that's what I'm after persistently.

I will visualize desired outcomes instead of replaying the fuck show in my head like a horror movie trailer. I will focus on the many things that have gone really right and amplify those in my mind's eye.

Deliberate creating takes mental muscle, and I feel a bit like someone training for the Olympics that hasn't been in the gym for six weeks. But that's ok. I've done this before.

I know I don't have to feel good to create things I really want. I just need to be the boss of my focus. I can do that, or at least I can start doing that right now.

8. Find the feel good wherever it's hiding.

Comedies - check Sex - check Music - check Clean sheets - check Chocolate - check

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sharing is sexy. If you liked this article, share, comment, or pass it on.

Lisa Hayes, The Love Whisperer, is an LOA Relationship Coach. She helps clients leverage Law of Attraction to get the relationships they dream about and build the lives they want. Lisa is the author of the newly released hit book, Score Your Soulmate and How to Escape from Relationship Hell and The Passion Plan.

[wendyimmiller]

Dismiss British Garden Writers? Absurd.

Beth Chatto’s Gravel Garden built on the remains of an old car park gives hope to gardeners everywhere that matching the plant to one’s conditions can spell success.

Guest Rant by Marianne Wilburn 

Given the choice of dinner companions at an industry event, with fourteen topics on the table and the wine flowing softly and smoothly, Scott Beuerlein would be at the top of my list. He is entertaining, clever, and charmingly self-deprecating — and an excellent conversationalist.

That’s why it pains me greatly to say that he has his head right up his smart ass.

When, in his July/August column for Horticulture[1], he advocated for the total abandonment of British garden writers by American gardeners, and went so far as to tell the late and sainted Beth Chatto to “bugger off,” he no doubt knew he’d get some pushback.

And as it happens, I’m just in the mood.

“Brit garden writers have had it so good for so long!” he wailed. “[Their] books, gloriously illustrated…filled with classic design ideas and expert care instructions – are naught but works of deception. They have brought us Yanks nothing but suffering and heartbreak.”

Beuerlein’s passionate words went on to decry the injustice of meconopsis. Christopher Lloyd’s name was taken in vain. A Big Gulp was inexplicably referenced.

“Just sell your damn books to the Australians,” he ended. Or at least he should have done.

I am not a British garden writer. But I admit to a dog in the fight in that I hold two passports.

Although one of them will no longer be looked upon with favor in European airports after Brexit (the other one never was), I have a certain fondness for the country.

I went to university there. My son was born there. I developed a deep and abiding love for gin and tonics there, and have recently begun guiding other like-minded souls around its great gardens under the auspices of CarexTours.

These admissions might crush all pretense of neutrality if it were not for the following statement: I am not and never have been an inhabitant of the Pacific Northwest — the only region in North America whose populace can guzzle from the well-spring of British garden literature and never taste bitterness.

Instead I live in Northern Virginia, bitterly cold in February, life-suckingly humid in July.  Each year we are offered the promise of an English spring and then delivered an Amazonian summer.

Oh yes, I have tasted the bitterness. Big frothy gulps of it.

And yet my shelves are overflowing with the very best of the Brits. In addition to scores of excellent books and articles penned by American garden writers, there lurk the Vereys, the Chattos, the Lloyds and the Dons. Three shelves are given over entirely to British garden essayists, and I admit to the profligacy of international subscriptions to Gardens Illustrated and Country Living UK.

And Scott, here’s why:

Prose as poetry

Musa basjoo towers over the century-old yew hedge at Great Dixter, where in 1993, Christopher Lloyd shocked the establishment by ripping out roses and planting an exotic garden.

Christopher Lloyd was as caustic & clever as Dorothy Parker, but as loveable as Ogden Nash. Chatto beguiled us with the humble words of a self-taught gardener, but won ten successive gold medals at Chelsea and created a global masterpiece in the Essex countryside. Monty Don (as author, not as television sex symbol and international man of mystery) writes with a sensuousness worthy of Coleridge:

There are peaches to be eaten warm from the brick of the wall they are grown against, peas picked off the tendrilly plant and shucked straight from pod to mouth…tomatoes waiting to release their own musty muskiness as teeth break their skin.[2]

When he starts undressing figs with his fingers I need a moment to compose myself.

Critical eyes, witty tongues

Wit is an elusive quality in gardening prose. There are millions of outrage merchants out there, but it’s quiet, clever criticism that gets my attention – and keeps it. At this the British excel.

Here’s Christopher Lloyd, calling out the snobs:

There are some gardeners in whose company I feel vulgar.  They will expect you to fall on your knees with a magnifying glass to worship before the shrine of a spikelet of tiny green flowers…yet will themselves turn away disgusted from a huge, opulent quilt of hortensia hydrangeas.[3]

Or the ideologues:

I confess to being unattracted to the concept of gardening with a moral implication. It puts a dampener on going all out to garden full-bloodedly in whatever way appeals to you most.[4]

The best British garden writers have honed the ability to inflict dagger-sized wounds with the prick of a pin. Even when it’s your own ideologies that lie bloodied and martyred, you cannot help but smile.

And read more.

An abundance of foliage and flower leading to The Hovel at Great Dixter.

Gardening as a cultural premise

The British population is presented at birth with a trowel and a bit of twine. They are also presented with a packet of Bishop’s flower and sternly told to call it Ammi majus. Thus the population is primed and ready for garden writers who won’t have to waste precious time explaining what a cold-frame is before they can explain what to do with it.

The British don’t have to vainly search an HGTV channel to find a bit of G. Gardening programs run freely through their radio and television networks, their streaming choices, and quite possibly through their dreams at night.

This premise results in a different approach toward garden writing. Authors don’t need to claim that “it’s easy.”  They assume you know it may be difficult, but it’s worth it.

In the words of St. Beth:

If Damp Gardening sounds like hard work, I can assure you that, unless Nature provides for you, initially it is…But when it is successful I think it is possibly one of the most beautiful forms of gardening.[5]

We’re frightened to do this as American garden writers. We know we’re often holding people by the fine thread that connects ‘lifestyle’ to ‘the garden.’ Saying “it’s difficult” could send them over to scrapbooking.

Garden gravitas

They’ve simply been doing it longer. Their gardens are older. Their tools are better oiled. There is nothing television-worthy about a rumpled and grubby Monty Don; except, there is.

We can chafe and grumble at such cosmic injustice and lash out with words like ‘stodgy’ and ‘predictable,’ but Lloyd was never predictable, nor is Noel Kingsbury, nor Dan Pearson, nor Keith Wiley. And they get to apply all that generational knowledge and exciting innovation to gardens that sport stone walls older than a bit of Brooklyn Brownstone.

Green, juicy envy

Scott, sometimes we need a bit of envy in our lives. We need inspiration. We need something that, by its sheer sumptuousness, primes the engines within us and gets us moving.

Something that gets us thinking. Gets us creating. Makes us fall in love again.

That’s Christopher Lloyd’s Flower Garden, Hugh Johnson’s The Principles of Gardening, Rosemary Verey’s The Making of a Garden; and, I have no doubt, Jimi Blake & Noel Kingsbury’s new book A Beautiful Obsession.

Have you ever read Hugh Johnson, Scott?  You’d think the man wouldn’t have time to pen clever words about magnolias with the amount of French wine he’s quaffing from his veranda in central France.  Johnson’s words could ignite envy in the Dalai Lama.

I want to be Hugh Johnson. Failing that, I want to read Hugh Johnson.

The long border at Waterperry Gardens in Oxfordshire on a sunny September day.

The Accent

The only thing better than reading Monty Don is listening to Monty Don read Monty Don.

That’s got to piss you off, Scott.

I understand. A Cincinnati short-a accent grappling with ‘clematis’ just doesn’t have the same…well…gravitas.

Sure, these people garden with the sweet Gulf Stream at their backs and beautiful French plonk just a day-trip away. My garden no more resembles theirs than Vita Sackville-West resembles Mama June.

But then, my garden doesn’t resemble Jenks Farmer’s gorgeous farm in South Carolina either, or Nan Sterman’s xeriscaped designs in Southern California. This is, after all a big country.

I study their words anyway, and try Farmer’s crinums when winters are kind, and Sterman’s agaves even though they never are. I appreciate Henry Mitchell’s wit and the grace of Elizabeth Lawrence, and lap up anything Andrea Wulf is serving on either side of the Atlantic.

We take what we can from each of these authors – British or American – and feel connected in our shared passion. Particularly over a very large gin and tonic.

Therefore I urge readers to reject the obviously tortured, Zone 6, possibly 5b words of Scott Beuerlein. Do not give up on the gorgeousness of great British garden porn in a burst of American Puritanism, or avoid an occasional doomed flirtation with meconopsis. Let those Brits tempt and tickle you. Love affairs should not be squelched because they are hopeless.

Sometimes those are the very best ones.

__________________________________________________________

Marianne is a garden columnist and the author of Big Dreams, Small Garden. Read more at smalltowngardener.com or follow @smalltowngardener on Facebook and Instagram.

[1] Scott Beuerlein, “Time for a Grexit,” Horticulture, July/August 2019, 64.

[2] Monty Don, Gardening Mad, London: Bloomsbury,  1997, 108.

[3] Christopher Lloyd, In My Garden, New York: Macmillian, 1984, 220-221.

[4] Christopher Lloyd & Beth Chatto, Dear Friend and Gardener, London: Frances Lincoln Ltd., 1998, 15.

[5] Beth Chatto, The Damp Garden, Second ed., Sagaponack, NY: Sagapress Inc. 1996, 13-14.

Dismiss British Garden Writers? Absurd. originally appeared on GardenRant on July 18, 2019.

from Gardening https://www.gardenrant.com/2019/07/dismiss-british-garden-writers-absurd.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

[turfandlawncare]

Dismiss British Garden Writers? Absurd.

Beth Chatto’s Gravel Garden built on the remains of an old car park gives hope to gardeners everywhere that matching the plant to one’s conditions can spell success.

Guest Rant by Marianne Wilburn 

Given the choice of dinner companions at an industry event, with fourteen topics on the table and the wine flowing softly and smoothly, Scott Beuerlein would be at the top of my list. He is entertaining, clever, and charmingly self-deprecating — and an excellent conversationalist.

That’s why it pains me greatly to say that he has his head right up his smart ass.

When, in his July/August column for Horticulture[1], he advocated for the total abandonment of British garden writers by American gardeners, and went so far as to tell the late and sainted Beth Chatto to “bugger off,” he no doubt knew he’d get some pushback.

And as it happens, I’m just in the mood.

“Brit garden writers have had it so good for so long!” he wailed. “[Their] books, gloriously illustrated…filled with classic design ideas and expert care instructions – are naught but works of deception. They have brought us Yanks nothing but suffering and heartbreak.”

Beuerlein’s passionate words went on to decry the injustice of meconopsis. Christopher Lloyd’s name was taken in vain. A Big Gulp was inexplicably referenced.

“Just sell your damn books to the Australians,” he ended. Or at least he should have done.

I am not a British garden writer. But I admit to a dog in the fight in that I hold two passports.

Although one of them will no longer be looked upon with favor in European airports after Brexit (the other one never was), I have a certain fondness for the country.

I went to university there. My son was born there. I developed a deep and abiding love for gin and tonics there, and have recently begun guiding other like-minded souls around its great gardens under the auspices of CarexTours.

These admissions might crush all pretense of neutrality if it were not for the following statement: I am not and never have been an inhabitant of the Pacific Northwest — the only region in North America whose populace can guzzle from the well-spring of British garden literature and never taste bitterness.

Instead I live in Northern Virginia, bitterly cold in February, life-suckingly humid in July.  Each year we are offered the promise of an English spring and then delivered an Amazonian summer.

Oh yes, I have tasted the bitterness. Big frothy gulps of it.

And yet my shelves are overflowing with the very best of the Brits. In addition to scores of excellent books and articles penned by American garden writers, there lurk the Vereys, the Chattos, the Lloyds and the Dons. Three shelves are given over entirely to British garden essayists, and I admit to the profligacy of international subscriptions to Gardens Illustrated and Country Living UK.

And Scott, here’s why:

Prose as poetry

Musa basjoo towers over the century-old yew hedge at Great Dixter, where in 1993, Christopher Lloyd shocked the establishment by ripping out roses and planting an exotic garden.

Christopher Lloyd was as caustic & clever as Dorothy Parker, but as loveable as Ogden Nash. Chatto beguiled us with the humble words of a self-taught gardener, but won ten successive gold medals at Chelsea and created a global masterpiece in the Essex countryside. Monty Don (as author, not as television sex symbol and international man of mystery) writes with a sensuousness worthy of Coleridge:

There are peaches to be eaten warm from the brick of the wall they are grown against, peas picked off the tendrilly plant and shucked straight from pod to mouth…tomatoes waiting to release their own musty muskiness as teeth break their skin.[2]

When he starts undressing figs with his fingers I need a moment to compose myself.

Critical eyes, witty tongues

Wit is an elusive quality in gardening prose. There are millions of outrage merchants out there, but it’s quiet, clever criticism that gets my attention – and keeps it. At this the British excel.

Here’s Christopher Lloyd, calling out the snobs:

There are some gardeners in whose company I feel vulgar.  They will expect you to fall on your knees with a magnifying glass to worship before the shrine of a spikelet of tiny green flowers…yet will themselves turn away disgusted from a huge, opulent quilt of hortensia hydrangeas.[3]

Or the ideologues:

I confess to being unattracted to the concept of gardening with a moral implication. It puts a dampener on going all out to garden full-bloodedly in whatever way appeals to you most.[4]

The best British garden writers have honed the ability to inflict dagger-sized wounds with the prick of a pin. Even when it’s your own ideologies that lie bloodied and martyred, you cannot help but smile.

And read more.

An abundance of foliage and flower leading to The Hovel at Great Dixter.

Gardening as a cultural premise

The British population is presented at birth with a trowel and a bit of twine. They are also presented with a packet of Bishop’s flower and sternly told to call it Ammi majus. Thus the population is primed and ready for garden writers who won’t have to waste precious time explaining what a cold-frame is before they can explain what to do with it.

The British don’t have to vainly search an HGTV channel to find a bit of G. Gardening programs run freely through their radio and television networks, their streaming choices, and quite possibly through their dreams at night.

This premise results in a different approach toward garden writing. Authors don’t need to claim that “it’s easy.”  They assume you know it may be difficult, but it’s worth it.

In the words of St. Beth:

If Damp Gardening sounds like hard work, I can assure you that, unless Nature provides for you, initially it is…But when it is successful I think it is possibly one of the most beautiful forms of gardening.[5]

We’re frightened to do this as American garden writers. We know we’re often holding people by the fine thread that connects ‘lifestyle’ to ‘the garden.’ Saying “it’s difficult” could send them over to scrapbooking.

Garden gravitas

They’ve simply been doing it longer. Their gardens are older. Their tools are better oiled. There is nothing television-worthy about a rumpled and grubby Monty Don; except, there is.

We can chafe and grumble at such cosmic injustice and lash out with words like ‘stodgy’ and ‘predictable,’ but Lloyd was never predictable, nor is Noel Kingsbury, nor Dan Pearson, nor Keith Wiley. And they get to apply all that generational knowledge and exciting innovation to gardens that sport stone walls older than a bit of Brooklyn Brownstone.

Green, juicy envy

Scott, sometimes we need a bit of envy in our lives. We need inspiration. We need something that, by its sheer sumptuousness, primes the engines within us and gets us moving.

Something that gets us thinking. Gets us creating. Makes us fall in love again.

That’s Christopher Lloyd’s Flower Garden, Hugh Johnson’s The Principles of Gardening, Rosemary Verey’s The Making of a Garden; and, I have no doubt, Jimi Blake & Noel Kingsbury’s new book A Beautiful Obsession.

Have you ever read Hugh Johnson, Scott?  You’d think the man wouldn’t have time to pen clever words about magnolias with the amount of French wine he’s quaffing from his veranda in central France.  Johnson’s words could ignite envy in the Dalai Lama.

I want to be Hugh Johnson. Failing that, I want to read Hugh Johnson.

The long border at Waterperry Gardens in Oxfordshire on a sunny September day.

The Accent

The only thing better than reading Monty Don is listening to Monty Don read Monty Don.

That’s got to piss you off, Scott.

I understand. A Cincinnati short-a accent grappling with ‘clematis’ just doesn’t have the same…well…gravitas.

Sure, these people garden with the sweet Gulf Stream at their backs and beautiful French plonk just a day-trip away. My garden no more resembles theirs than Vita Sackville-West resembles Mama June.

But then, my garden doesn’t resemble Jenks Farmer’s gorgeous farm in South Carolina either, or Nan Sterman’s xeriscaped designs in Southern California. This is, after all a big country.

I study their words anyway, and try Farmer’s crinums when winters are kind, and Sterman’s agaves even though they never are. I appreciate Henry Mitchell’s wit and the grace of Elizabeth Lawrence, and lap up anything Andrea Wulf is serving on either side of the Atlantic.

We take what we can from each of these authors – British or American – and feel connected in our shared passion. Particularly over a very large gin and tonic.

Therefore I urge readers to reject the obviously tortured, Zone 6, possibly 5b words of Scott Beuerlein. Do not give up on the gorgeousness of great British garden porn in a burst of American Puritanism, or avoid an occasional doomed flirtation with meconopsis. Let those Brits tempt and tickle you. Love affairs should not be squelched because they are hopeless.

Sometimes those are the very best ones.

__________________________________________________________

Marianne is a garden columnist and the author of Big Dreams, Small Garden. Read more at smalltowngardener.com or follow @smalltowngardener on Facebook and Instagram.

[1] Scott Beuerlein, “Time for a Grexit,” Horticulture, July/August 2019, 64.

[2] Monty Don, Gardening Mad, London: Bloomsbury,  1997, 108.

[3] Christopher Lloyd, In My Garden, New York: Macmillian, 1984, 220-221.

[4] Christopher Lloyd & Beth Chatto, Dear Friend and Gardener, London: Frances Lincoln Ltd., 1998, 15.

[5] Beth Chatto, The Damp Garden, Second ed., Sagaponack, NY: Sagapress Inc. 1996, 13-14.

Dismiss British Garden Writers? Absurd. originally appeared on GardenRant on July 18, 2019.

from GardenRant https://ift.tt/2JNypiC