#as well as of our own- if we think of our modern concepts as eternal principles of human society and human nature we lose the ability

[red-red-spout]

i know this is somewhat of a 🤓 take and not targeting anyone specific here but it's always annoying when people talk about "bible fanfiction" or whatever. Like, fanfiction doesn't mean "any work derivative of another work" it refers to a specific social relationship that only exists within the context of modern capitalist ip law. "Fanfiction" cannot and does not exist prior to the existence of IP law- the division between "canon" and "fanworks" is ultimately one of legality, of copyright ownership. Dante's inferno is not "bible fanfiction" because the bible was written over a thousand years before the invention of copyright- the same principle applies to, say, the Arthurian mythos- the social relationship which created a literary cycle through multiple authors over multiple centuries is very alien to the modern copyright-dominated media landscape.

[livefromcastledracula]

Odd thought, but what's your personal take on the vampiric weakness towards religious objects and places? Now obviously the myths, legends and folklore where our modern concept of a "vampire" originated, as well as the literary works that would popularize them in pop culture originated in deeply Christian Europe.

However distancing a bit from that context, I kinda like the idea that vampires as a rule are repelled by ANY religious object and place of worship backed with legitimate faith and belief. Could probably lead to a quite comedic scene where a Theistic Satanist of all things manages to have a better time warding off a vampire than a con man televangelist who doesn't actually believe a word he's saying.

There's a fair bit of debate about the cross thing, and I think it's important to separate the crucifix/cross repelling vampires in mythology and folklore from the depiction in pop culture.

Because pop culture vampires and folkloric vampires are quite different beasts, most of the time, and the underlying intent is different. And yes, pop culture does often query the "is it the power of the symbol or the power of the faith" and come up with different answers - the Netflix Dracula series as an example makes a big plot point out of this.

For Stoker, I think, his vampires are specifically demonic. They are not so much just the person they were in life but with fangs and blood hunger, they are a ravenous unclean spirit posessing the person's corpse - this is why Vampire Lucy is such a 180 from the sweetheart we knew her as - so the repulsion of the crucifix comes from that good vs evil thing.

And it's worth noting that whilst Jonathan is a Christian, he's Church of England and 'regards such things (as carrying crucifixes and rosaries) as in some measure idolatrous'. But the symbol still works for him, so it's possible that either his baseline Christianity still empowered it, Stoker (a Catholic definitely not a Catholic, my bad, but that makes this more interesting to me) was implying that Jonathan was wrong and the symbol DOES have power, or...the repulsion wasn't about the symbol or the wielder, but was on Dracula's end. Because there's also the argument that perhaps the vampires repelled by religious imagery, many of them (like Carmilla and Dracula) being themselves from that Christian old world in life, are repelled by the holy symbols because the symbol reminds either the demonic spirit or the shreds of the person that was of all the faith they once had that is now lost, of their severing from God, of their eternal, damned fate, like Mephistopheles in Faust mourning being cut off from the light of heaven, it's too overwhelming for them to bear. It's also plausible, of course, that both Carmilla and Dracula were not actually Christian in life, with Dracula having studied black magic at the Scholomance and Carmilla being born to the notoriously wicked and decadent Karnsteins, so then the implication would be that they were in life witches, devil worshipers, or dabblers in sorcery, and therefore find the whole Christian faith and all of its signifiers repulsive and hateful because of their own opposed faith (and may be afraid of the Christian God's power and judgment, in the context the authors are writing them in) In that case, a vampire from a non-Western culture, or a vaguely analogous creature like say a jiangshi or a manananggal, would arguably only respond to superstitious or religious repellants related to its part of the world and specific to its folklore, and not be repelled by a symbol that meant nothing to that creature, regardless of the faith of the wielder. On the 'mythology' end the cross, like the garlic and the wolfbane and the wild rose and mountain ash and all of the original folkloric vampire countermeasures are part of a much broader aspect of folkloric creatures being repulsed or warded off by specific symbols, rituals, superstitions or cultural practices. Some of these have connections to the religion of the culture they're from and some come more from local and community tradition. This is a very broad and complex topic, and it's hardly restrained to vampires - revenants, fairies, ogres, demons, witches, and evil spirits of all sorts have their specific wards and charms. As always with myth and folklore, it's not about what is 'true' or 'canon', because such things get very, very blurry with oral traditions that are centuries or millennia old, it's about the people telling the story - the people the story belongs to.

Anyway, the question you're really asking is - is the vampire repelled by the holy symbol because of: A) A spiritual power inherent in the symbol itself. B) The wielder's faith and belief in what the symbol represents. C) The vampire's belief in or fear of the power of the symbol or what it represents. D) Something else.

I think there's validity in each answer and a lot of fun to be had exploring them in fiction.

[hompunkulus]

This blog is about some history and my journey through Satanism, so I think it's a good time to stop calling myself a Satanist. I haven't found God, he doesn't exist. I'm not turning a new leaf, I'm just at the point where it is a budding dogma that can't get it's head out of its own ass.

If I say I'm a Satanist, three things come to most people's minds and I have issues with all three and it's not that important of a label for me anymore. The Devil is tempting me away from human concepts of his philosophy and majesty. I love the Devil, but the modern interpretations, omit much of the beautiful and influential literature, are horse shit.

1. Am I a member of the Church of Satan? No, because all I have ever done is argue with members that cannot admit fault. Even if you point it out in their literature, they always have an argument. Sometimes it makes sense and I understand better, but often it's just because they have brainwashed themselves into believing their own drivel. Sounds a lot like zealot Christianity.

2. An I a member of The Satanic Temple? Also, no, I am not. Lucien Greaves has a backround in Far-Right ideologies and even prompted the ACLU to defend a known White Supremacist in the early 2010's because, "Freedom of Speech." Well, Hate Speech is not, nor should be, protected under law because it's very existence is about taking right away from minorities, even to the point of violence. He did 'apologize' but, well, watch the video. It will point you to some nasty truths of the Temple.

You don't even have to watch the entire thing to get the point, but probably should to show support to the creator.

They are also based on double standards, much like their forefather, the Church of Satan. "We're atheists and we don't believe in magic!" Then why is Shiva Honey making money off selling magical products? They consider it ritual for psychological purposes... in chaos magic we call it the Paychological Model of Magic.

Just to be nitpicky, they sued Netflix for having a similar statue of their Baphomet in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. That's a waste of money and time for the causes that matter. I guess we should just conjure Eliphas Levi and have him sue the Satanic Temple!

I'm also not an athiest.

3. Then I'm a Devil Worshipper! Not exactly, because I don't believe in gods in that way. They are not anthropomorphic creatures, ancient ancestors, or any such thing to me. Gods, in my practice, exist much like consciousness does. We don't know what it is, how it is, why it is, or it's full potential, we just know that it is. It is also amorphous and abstract, no face, no body, no emotion, just something that exists and from time to time interacts with our objective universe.

Maybe I should use a rock as an example. It exists. It has no real purpose. Much like a god, it is damn near eternal, hard to break, and observes and remains until someone moves, buries it, or breaks it. Maybe a mountain or the ocean are better examples. Vast, myth inspiring, but they are not conscious like humans are, but they are powerful generators of myth and magic.

Satanism has had its place in my life, a very important one, but to consider myself a Satanist is to lie to myself and is not a battle I care to have with others. To reitirate, I still love the good ol' Devil and his concept as the Witch Father and various other deviations, but the Devil is not Satan and modern Satanism hardly acknowledges the Devil and their ilk in the way I have come to know them.

[doctorofmagic]

Big changes are coming to the cosmic and magic universe *nervous laughter*

Meet Wyn, a mysterious player in a war that exists outside of the orders we know and a vital member of an eons-old hierarchy that includes the omnipotent rulers of the universe such as Eternity, Infinity, and the Living Tribunal. After a fateful meeting with Doctor Strange, Wyn hints at something even bigger than the forces of good and evil, where the very building blocks of creation scheme and clash. It’s the beginning of a breathtaking epic at the crossroads of science and magic, one that will shatter our understanding and open our eyes to ideas beyond all that we perceive.

“When I came back to Marvel a few years ago, I wrote two series bibles. The first was HOUSE OF X and the other one was G.O.D.S.,” Hickman explained. “To say that I’m excited to finally be able to share this story with everyone is a massive understatement. G.O.D.S. takes place in its own special corner of the Marvel Universe — in the cracks that lie at the intersection of science and magic — and revisits some characters and concepts that we’ve reimagined for a more modern, continuity-driven audience.”

“When I was given a chance to work with Jonathan on a new project, I accepted right away,” Schiti said. “Then I discovered that we would be reimagining gods in the Marvel Universe: how they work, what they do, and how they interact with each other and humanity. It’s the kind of project that makes you weak in the knees when you think about it. Luckily, Jonathan has the gift to make even the most complex stories surprisingly simple and understandable. His pitch inspired me almost immediately. The core of the story is so perfect and clear that it swept away my anxiety and turned it into a burst of creativity.”

“I’ve had the pleasure of working with Valerio Schiti on this for the last year, and watching him bring this to life has been a total joy,” Hickman added. “G.O.D.S. is my favorite kind of Marvel comic: one that feels like something old, but pushes the Marvel Universe in an exciting new direction.”

“The thing that I love the most is how the story grows, starting on the streets of New York and then taking the characters and the readers on an incredible journey with the Marvel pantheon,” Valerio continued. “We will bring you to new places, show you what was hidden though the wrinkles of reality, introduce new characters, and put a fresh spin on old ones. You think you knew the Marvel Universe? Well, we will prove you wrong!”

[Source]

--

This book has been teased for a LONG TIME NOW. So... my thoughts? Knowing Hickman, it will be a complex new thing that will explain the structure of science, magic and existence itself. As long as they keep Stephen’s essence the same, I can dig it. But it will definitely affect Jed's run, that much I’m sure. Hickman isn’t one to write things that are easily forgotten in the Marvel Universe. He’s the one who conceived Secret Wars and the new Krakoa era, after all. So we can definitely expect something BIG. I’ll keep all my three eyes on it and will let everyone know how important it is and how it will affect Jed’s run in the future. But yes, I’m kinda nervous about this.

[darlingpoppet]

What inspired you to start Where The Dead Forget? Also can you tell us some more about your PZA Dreamers AU? (e.g. what your favourite thing to write has been so far, things you look forward to or struggle with, or anything else you like). Thanks!

As for WTDF, honestly it pretty much all started with this tweet where I expressed interest in the concept of Patroclus Hadesgame losing his memories. I had seen such fanarts already so I was curious if there were fics out there too (there are of course! I have since found some, lol!) But a friend in the comments was encouraging to the notion of me writing one myself and I pretty much immediately began spiraling from there (I tweeted this the same day I posted Once More and also about a week before I posted Upon A Lazy Bed, so at the time my brain was on fire and I was constantly brimming with ideas!) The entire story from beginning to end pretty much came to me immediately and I’ve been expanding on it ever since! A lot of my inspiration has been fueled by the experience of consuming every depiction of Achilles & Patroclus I could get my hands on, as well as countless academic writings with various analyses on the characters. Also just the entire meta tradition of storytelling with folklore characters in general, where there’s no one “definitive version”, and thinking about how that might work in-universe where things like memories, bias, human fallibility, etc make objective truth difficult or impossible to obtain. Films such as Rashomon and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind that explore similar concepts to WTDF also inspired me!

As for the PZA Dreamers AU!! I can’t remember if I’ve ever properly explained the concept in a public post but for anyone curious: the whole thing was born out of me seeing a parallel/synergy between the themes of the film The Dreamers and certain interpretations of the Iliad (the Homeric version itself ofc but also particularly Shakespeare’s Troilus & Cressida.) The characters in these stories exist in this symbolic & narrative liminal space where they’re shutting themselves off from the outside world so they can Live Laugh Love—and in all the stories, reality catches up with them eventually, usually in tragic ways. I’m making it a modern AU (a vaguely 2010s period piece?) because as a millennial I also see parallels to my generation (& Gen Z) where as a whole our own lives also seem to be stuck in a figurative liminal space academically, economically, socially (especially in the era of covid where we were all shut-up in our houses finding there was more to life than The Grind, simultaneously reveling in simple pleasures & also going insane from the ambiguity of it all until we were all forced back out again) And at the same time our generations have this fascination with liminal spaces as an Internet meme (including vaporwave which also coincidentally appropriates classical Greco-Roman imagery in its aesthetics.) I’m reading serious non-fiction books like Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher and Retromania by Simon Reynolds in service of what at the end of the day is just a horny fanfic LMFAO.

Because getting back on track to what you actually asked me: I’m not gonna lie, my favorite parts of writing this story so far have been the sex scenes, haha. Like the whole vibe of the story is supposed to be just this completely unfettered dreamy indulgence, and even things like sex have a liminal quality to me (where time seems to stand still and people are joined together transitioning through several physical states) hopefully I’ll be able to pull the whole thing off the way I’m envisioning it! The fact that it’s a modern AU is probably what makes this both easier and harder to write—things like dialogue can have a more modern sensibility but it’s probably the more flowery prose that’s giving WTDF its own dreamy, liminal quality so it’s tricky figuring out how to balance it. I’m also having a hard time deciding whether I want to dump this entire high-concept, novella-length story as a one-shot (or at least split up into 2-3 parts that are published all at once) or if I should stick to a more traditional (for fanfic) serialized publication schedule ahahaha. I guess if anyone reading this has any preferences or insight feel free to let me know your thoughts!

Oh and as for the PZA of it all: writing Closest To My Heart was probably what reminded me of the existence of The Dreamers in the first place (I had seen it years and years ago) because I realized that film has a similar dynamic of an “outsider” falling into an erotic triangle with a pair who are essentially soulmates, and ends up biting off a little more than he can chew in keeping up with the two of them… I decided I wasn’t quite done exploring that dynamic and I wanted to write about it more! Though don’t worry, I don’t think this story is gonna be quite as dark as Closest (uh oh wait this might be a lie actually), and also Patrochilles are MUCH nicer to Zag in this story ;)

(Also I didn’t even mention Hadesgame itself where the entire underworld is a liminal space Zagreus passes through to reach the surface/self-actualization and how he is constantly dying/resurrecting… Zagreus is a very liminal character! But this is already an ETA so I shall leave my thoughts there for now, lol.)

Hopefully all that answers your questions, anon! Thanks so much for the ask <3

[so-i-grudgingly-joined-this-site]

Just sliding in here cause I am bored and basically ate through your sandman meta tag

Hot take: judging fictional characters in fictional circumstances that don’t even resemble our own society is a really wild concept.

Judging the endless from a human point is totally moot cause you know, they aren’t in the end mortal humans living in this age and time.

Especially since each Endless function represents both sides of the coin. Destiny is purpose but also can be restraining. Death can be violent but also can be a mercy. Dream includes hope but also our fears. Destruction well destroys but it is necessary to the process of creation. Without Despair, joy would be like light without the existence of shadows. Desire can be sweet but also end in obsession. Delirium is chaos, but often the best things come from it.

Humanity needs both sides.

They are their aspect, their domain. So it is in their nature, their duty to fulfill both. If they would only do the things we deem as good, they would fail in what they are.

It’s a bit like with the turtle and the scorpion where the turtle let the scorpion on it’s back to cross the river safely but the scorpion stings the turtle and when the turtle asked why the Scorpion said „It is in my nature“

Are some of Dreams choices bad? Totally from a human point. But then again all our choices are based on our expected consequences by society or faith. The endless are barely a real family, they don’t answer to each other, their parents eh parenting was „we fucked you exist now so good luck with that“. The endless are prayed to as gods in nearly every iteration of polytheistic pantheons, they inspire faith, but there is a reason why there is a distinction between the endless and gods as well.

The only thing they know has some consequence is that you should not kill family blood but even then, the consequence is not really one cause they can’t even die through the other gods as long as their function is needed. There will always be a new them until the very very very last moment of existence.

That last bit about the one thing with consequence being spilling family blood... what's really interesting is that I just read in The Sandman Companion that the "one rule" for the Endless was intended to be "Do not love mortals." And even then, it runs like the Jedi code where literally everything else--including sex or even rape--is totally okay provided there's no feelings involved. Which is utterly bizarre, because it renders the rule basically useless. If the rules are to prevent the Endless from harming each other, or harming the mortals, then why is there no consequence to it???

I SUSPECT the "killing a family member" deal might have more consequence if one Endless directly killed another. Lyta only goes free because Daniel-Dream specifically pardons her, and it's mentioned that Despair 1.0's killer is suffering for all eternity in some undisclosed way. So it is possible there would be a consequence for one Endless directly killing another, we just have no idea. Sure the murdered one's function would just reincarnate, but the murderer might have something happen to them or have their function changed somehow.

And as for the rest of it: yes, the Endless are incredibly alien to us, they're far removed from humanity and even gods, and their upbringing was incredibly shitty, so it would be odd to expect them to act morally according to our standards. The authorial intent was probably to capture the idea of some beings on a completely different level than even traditional ideas of gods/the divine. BUT how they are presented to an out-of-universe audience as part of a constructed work matters. Usually when I discuss the morality of Dream's actions I try not to make it about whether or not he himself is necessarily "good" or "bad" on some modern morality scale, but more how we're intended to think about him as a character. Especially since the series culminates in his death. Are we supposed to be cheering like the end of Return of the Jedi, or are we supposed to be mourning him too? Both?

[blueiight]

I think modern Louis still speaks like someone from a different time though, he doesn't use modern slang/references the way Daniel often does (even though he's an old man) so I think he's still relating the story using the language he is familiar with. The "sanctioned" part is because he wasn't going to compromise on the blood diet and in doing so is not giving Lestat his patriarchal privileges in the bedroom. He later calls it an agreement to Jonah but later he sees that its absolutely not after Lestat flips out on him and by the end of the episode he's walking out on him cause they can't get on the same page about anything. Yes there's conflicting sentiments in what he's saying but it's also cause the situation is so jumbled and you could also argue that Lestat has the same issue when he differentiates their cheating with Louis having feelings for Jonah, even though that was never prohibitive in their agreement?

well daniel is a mere 69-70 to louis’s 144-145 n danny work/ed in mass media so being in tune w current lingo / trends is a near req for his job. i think modern louis use of language is purposeful: when u think of the titular interview with the vampire, we have our own cultural perceptions, and to a certain extent, the ricean vampire is a relic of its time that is as stubborn as it is adaptive. they pick and choose what about the present they like, and maintain past patterns convenient for their purpose. so yes, louis may genuinely be out of trend but i like to think its also purposeful. he wants to be like that. louis is extremely familiar with literary conventions and archetypes. the interview itself is a rhetorical device, and louis is purposeful in the story he wants to tell in 2022 to the point of burning the 70s tapes even. thats not ethical louie lou lol. the introduction of the concept of vampire to the gp as an eternal creature purposefully discomfits the modern observer, reminds the modern viewer of its alien ways with its selectively archaic use of language. louis's power is his use of language. i think that was the point of the person's original post in discussing the contradictory use of language in the phrase "sanctioned infidelity” along w their other examples. agree that the semantics of sanctioned infidelity aside the actual situation in that moment for les x lou in the 1910s-20s is clearly one-way like u said it is not reciprocal at all bc louis is the wife/pursued party in this dynamic, and the anger from lestat is bc jonah is a tether to humanity. jonah & louis were both black gay men in the deep south, and knew eachother since they was young. even tho jonah was clearly leaving the city not long after to go back to the warfront & imo the only person 1910s lou could even think of or would try to be with outside of lestat, all these things, lestat is also a paranoid hypocrite scared of being abandoned nd cannot delineate louis's past feelings from the present. multiple things can be true ykwimmm. this is my catchphrase w my anons soz

[opticblasting]

hickman and schiti's new comic is going to be so fucking good. punching the air in excitement rn.

“When I came back to Marvel a few years ago, I wrote two series bibles. The first was House of X, and the other one was G.O.D.S.,” Hickman explained. “To say that I’m excited to finally be able to share this story with everyone is a massive understatement. G.O.D.S. takes place in its own special corner of the Marvel Universe — in the cracks that lie at the intersection of science and magic — and revisits some characters and concepts that we’ve reimagined for a more modern, continuity-driven audience.”

“When I was given a chance to work with Jonathan on a new project, I accepted right away,” Schiti said. “Then I discovered that we would be reimagining gods in the Marvel Universe: how they work, what they do, and how they interact with each other and humanity. It’s the kind of project that makes you weak in the knees when you think about it. Luckily, Jonathan has the gift to make even the most complex stories surprisingly simple and understandable. His pitch inspired me almost immediately. The core of the story is so perfect and clear that it swept away my anxiety and turned it into a burst of creativity.”

Meet Wyn, a mysterious player in a war that exists outside of the orders we know and a vital member of an eons-old hierarchy that includes the omnipotent rulers of the universe such as Eternity, Infinity, and the Living Tribunal. After a fateful meeting with Doctor Strange, Wyn hints at something even bigger than the forces of good and evil, where the very building blocks of creation scheme and clash. It’s the beginning of a breathtaking epic at the crossroads of science and magic, one that will shatter our understanding and open our eyes to ideas beyond all that we perceive.

“I’ve had the pleasure of working with Valerio Schiti on this for the last year, and watching him bring this to life has been a total joy,” Hickman added. “G.O.D.S. is my favorite kind of Marvel comic: one that feels like something old, but pushes the Marvel Universe in an exciting new direction.”

“The thing that I love the most is how the story grows, starting on the streets of New York and then taking the characters and the readers on an incredible journey with the Marvel pantheon,” Valerio continued. “We will bring you to new places, show you what was hidden though the wrinkles of reality, introduce new characters, and put a fresh spin on old ones. You think you knew the Marvel Universe? Well, we will prove you wrong!”

Taken from the press release

[warningsine]

WHILE THE INTENSITY of scientifically inspired New Atheism has to some extent withered since the Iraq War and its aftermath, the scientifically inspired Christian responses to it just keep coming. The main figures in this countermovement have been scientist theologians who populate Britain’s ancient universities and pockets of American academe. The Vatican Observatory and assorted evangelicals, as well as Jewish and Muslim scholars, round out what has become one of the most important intellectual dénouements of modern times, inaugurated by Ian Barbour’s publication of Issues in Science and Religion in 1966.

An underestimated communicator for science and religion in dialogue is John F. Haught, an emeritus lay Catholic theologian from Georgetown University. His writing is among the most accessible of all the academic figures in the movement, and he is keenly aware of the dynamism of science, in contrast to the static tone of much of popular Christianity: “A feeling for deep cosmic time is also virtually absent from academic theology and suburban homilies.”

Building on his earlier books, such as God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, Haught focuses his sights on an even larger spatiotemporal horizon by asking in his new volume what the word “God” means after Albert Einstein: “I want to ask what the God of Jesus means to us if we think in depth about the [Einsteinian] Big Bang universe.” Not just Einstein the scientist, however. Einstein’s thoughts about religion, already the subject of several monographs, are material evidence in establishing “reasons for [spiritual] hope” in a relativistic universe. Einstein plays two roles: hero and nemesis. Yet, as with Stephen Jay Gould and other public scientists of the 20th century, he cannot quite escape the intellectual prison of “archaeconomic” perspectives that claim that the universe is pointless.

The same holds true for philosopher Thomas Nagel, whose Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False created a maelstrom amongst the New Atheists’ best and brightest a few years back because of his advocacy for the idea that reductionism is insufficient for a scientific understanding of the universe. Nagel’s critique of scientific naturalism never got close to affirming God, but Haught takes over where Nagel leaves off. Haught’s borrowings from philosophy are not as analytically framed as Nagel’s, but his wide-angle lens treats science, history, and religion with equal respect and care.

Picking up on themes explored earlier in his career, Haught identifies religion with a sense of “indestructible rightness” that combines with a shared sense of multispecies adventure. The book’s chapters are disarming: “Mystery,” “Life,” “Eternity,” “Thought,” “Compassion,” etc. He launches an Einsteinian-inflected “soft metaphysics,” chiefly inspired by A. N. Whitehead. For Haught, God is at least understood by key aspects of Christian tradition but is the opposite of a ruling authority by virtue of being subject to time, change, and chance. God is thus either more than or less than Christian thought habitually intuits. No “heresies” are advanced, but a disorienting cluster of themes emerges.

Early in Haught’s narrative comes the universe’s slow unfolding as an “ongoing epic,” a “story still being told.” Our cosmos is a drama. Einstein’s thought undermines the small, privatized God of so much of popular tradition. Yet, he was slow to realize some of the implications of his own discovery of the arrow of time. Hence, Haught wants us to know, contrary to Einstein’s own conservatism, that “[n]ature is not a machine but an awakening.” For Haught, time is to be embraced, not feared. His thinking is unbounded: Neoplatonism, pantheism, and materialism — all need to go.

As laid out in Max Jammer’s 2002 book, Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Einstein came to a deep kind of religiosity, despite refusing to become bar mitzvahed. He embraced a notion of cosmic religious feeling reminiscent of Friedrich Schleiermacher, and developed a love of eternity partly based on the pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza, for whom no personal God was possible. As Einstein famously stated, “God does not play dice.” From this ambiguous start, Haught shows how Einstein’s logic could entail a personal God — and even faith, though he redefines it as “anticipation.” Einstein’s discovery of a very large universe eliminates the two other options (reductionism and dualism). What matters for Haught is that Einstein could have embraced a universe created by a personal God for reasons internal to Einstein’s thinking. This is disarmingly clever, not a Christian reconnoiter of the empirical realm.

Haught’s solution to the problem of time is resolved in two ways. First, God enters time. Jesus shows us how God is emptied into the life of a single person, who is humiliated and crucified (the technical theological term is “kenosis”). Second, thanks to Einstein, the radical openness of the future is empirically manifest. The universe, then, is not merely spatial, in diametric opposition to an eternal God. It is spatiotemporal-oriented. So it is reasonable to have hope in a God who is “in some sense not-yet.” Ironically though, Einstein himself thought of time as a stationary block; contrary to common human experience, he did not understand time as an irreversible passage. Advocates of a final theory that unites relativity theory with quantum theory may yet win out, but on Haught’s understanding, this is unlikely because the necessarily decreasing amount of usable energy in the universe simply correlates with a creation of the world as a “Big Bang.” Though he recanted later, Einstein originally refused to even see the expanding universe theory as correct, despite its formulation by the acclaimed Belgian astrophysicist and Catholic priest, Georges Lemaȋtre.

Admirably, Haught has chosen a road with obstacles in his way. He has to distinguish between Einstein’s scientific cosmology and his philosophy in order to retrieve his true significance. Contrary to Einstein’s own predilections, he maintains that narrative is a plausible way to tell the story of the universe, because geometry is not enough. The reflex to see nature’s evolution in narrative terms channels the thought of the French Jesuit paleontologist and scientific poet, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who makes several appearances in Haught’s book. This is unsurprising given Teilhard’s stature as a magnet for liberal Catholics worldwide, and nowhere more than in the United States. Teilhard’s scientific credentials are considerable, yet controversial. He has been rebuked for his doctrine of progress and his unsettling speculations about eugenics. Haught has dealt with such worries elsewhere, so he forges ahead with a Teilhardian fusion of poetic metaphysics and cosmology.

In his effort to distinguish his own view from the Christian tradition writ large, Haught deploys the idea of “anticipation,” in contrast to the “analogical metaphysics” of that version of the perennial philosophy. His main target is the timelessness prized by the Greco-Roman heritage. “Archaeconomic” thought merely reduces reality to the visible parts that we can analyze. The latter is the blinkered view of Democritus, contemporary scientific atheists, and many others in between. Haught’s “anticipatory” claim is that classical philosophy is insufficient to account for the drama of time.

This seems tidy, but not all is clarity. Haught overlooks Christian theology’s scandalous disruption of the classical metaphysical tradition. The resurrection of the body stretched it to breaking point, so Haught’s Christian self-critique falls short. His effort to naturalize faith (“Faith, cosmically speaking, has its roots in the striving of life”) likewise elides the idea that faith is God’s gift to us. Playing center stage in this book is eschatology, Christian speech about the end of time. Yet Haught’s dependence on Whitehead for offering a God who is a source of novelty in the world does not deal with evil or final justice. The God who is drawn into the world too tightly does not possess authority over it. Haught wants God to be changed by the world more than he sees the world being changed by God.

The puzzling aspect of this book is the unclear status played by Einstein himself. Haught has Einstein “allow for” many advances in thought. Yet, as you finish reading the book, you wonder whether Einstein is really such a flexible cipher. The brilliance of Haught’s work over the decades is his equal-opportunity critique against both the religious distortions of science and the scientific distortions of religion. Sentences like “The world thus leans not on the past, as the materialist assumes, but on the future, as hope requires” show a mind honed by metaphysics without abstruseness.

As more and more scholars now realize, the science/religion impasse of the 20th century was largely construed on a false historiography written between 1880 and 1970. Better historiography is now available thanks to a healthy revisionism afoot in the academy. Haught is laying some of the complementary, conceptual groundwork for a 21st century science/religion rapprochement. As Einstein might have said, these two worlds may yet keep each other honest.

[uesp]

Theory: Todd is the sleeping Godhead that we all talk about. Also he achieved absolute CHIM

You're definitely free to come up with whatever theory on that you like, but if you're genuinely curious, I would say you're a bit off from the intended takeaway.

Trying to figure out who the Godhead is a bit of a self-defeating exercise. In fact, to get a bit ahead of the point I'm going to make, it's often easier to describe the One by what he is not. If you're looking at the rare in-series mentions of the Godhead (most of the uses of "godhead" are actually referring to more generic godhood, which is also a more modern form of "godhead"), you come up with two mentions of the Godhead, and only one of them describes the Godhead at all.

The eyes, once bleached by falling stars of utmost revelation, will forever see the faint insight drawn by the overwhelming question, as only the True Enquiry shapes the edge of thought. The rest is vulgar fiction, attempts to impose order on the consensus mantlings of an uncaring godhead.

From Waking Dreams of A Starless Sky

The Godhead is uncaring. And that is basically the depth of actual text on the Godhead. If you go with sources that did not appear in the game, you'll do a bit better, but not really to any satisfying degree. So how do we get a satisfying answer? We escape the confines of the rare and deliberately esoteric mentions of this part of the lore and look at its real-world inspiration. Speaking for myself, the best summary of this part of the lore I ever read is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Sincerely, after reading that and its associated articles, I went from "wow this is all a bit complex" to "alright, this is surprisingly straightforward". To tangent slightly, while there are numerous fan writings that try to explore these concepts, and I do enjoy a lot of them, I find that some of them often have trouble expressing what it all actually means because they often restrict themselves to the trappings of TES. We're going to remove those trappings, and see if it helps.

If you want more help, here is how I mentally tie some TES lore topics to its real world counterpart.

The Godhead is the Godhead (Monad)

CHIM is Gnosis

CHIM has been described as the secret syllable of royalty. It is best understood as a state of being which allows for escape from all known laws and limitations. It is the process of reaching some sort of epiphany about the nature of the universe and one's place in it, leading to a simultaneous comprehension of the full scope of existence as well as one's own individuality.

Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge. It is best known from Gnosticism, where it signifies a spiritual knowledge or insight into humanity's real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence.

Amaranth is Emanationism

The Tower touches all the mantles of Heaven, brother-noviates, and by its apex one can be as he will. More: be as he was and yet changed for all else on that path for those that walk after. This is the third key of Nu-mantia and the secret of how mortals become makers, and makers back to mortals.

Emanationism is an idea in the cosmology or cosmogony of certain religious or philosophical systems. Emanation, from the Latin emanare meaning "to flow from" or "to pour forth or out of", is the mode by which all things are derived from the first reality, or principle. All things are derived from the first reality or perfect God by steps of degradation to lesser degrees of the first reality or God, and at every step the emanating beings are less pure, less perfect, less divine. Emanationism is a transcendent principle from which everything is derived, and is opposed to both creationism (wherein the universe is created by a sentient God who is separate from creation) and materialism (which posits no underlying subjective and/or ontological nature behind phenomena being immanent).

Anu and Padomay and their derivatives are Aeons

Lorkhan is the Demiurge

Lorkhan, the Missing God, is the Creator-Trickster-Tester deity present in every Tamrielic mythic tradition. He is known as the Spirit of Nirn, the god of all mortals. Names for versions or aspects of Lorkhan include Lorkhaj (the Moon Beast) in Elsweyr, Lorkh, the Spirit of Man, the Mortal Spirit, or the Sower of Flesh to the Reachmen, Sep in Hammerfell, Sheor in High Rock, Shor in Skyrim, and Shezarr in Cyrodiil. He convinced or contrived the Original Spirits (et'Ada) to bring about the creation of the Mundus, upsetting the status quo—much like his (figurative) father Padomay is usually credited for introducing instability, and hence possibility for creation, into the undivided universe (or the Beginning Place).

In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge is an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physical universe. The Gnostics adopted the term demiurge. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the monotheistic sense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered either uncreated and eternal or the product of some other entity.

The word demiurge is an English word derived from demiurgus, a Latinised form of the Greek δημιουργός or dēmiurgós. It was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually came to mean "producer", and eventually "creator". The philosophical usage and the proper noun derive from Plato's Timaeus, written c. 360 BC, where the demiurge is presented as the creator of the universe. The demiurge is also described as a creator in the Platonic (c. 310–90 BC) and Middle Platonic (c. 90 BC – AD 300) philosophical traditions. In the various branches of the Neoplatonic school (third century onwards), the demiurge is the fashioner of the real, perceptible world after the model of the Ideas, but (in most Neoplatonic systems) is still not itself "the One". In the arch-dualist ideology of the various Gnostic systems, the material universe is evil, while the non-material world is good. According to some strains of Gnosticism, the demiurge is malevolent, as it is linked to the material world. In others, including the teaching of Valentinus, the demiurge is simply ignorant or misguided.

I think that by seeing these concepts side by side it will help make sense of it all. You can definitely research this further, and argue that specific parts of the lore are more directly related to other concepts, but from my limited understanding of theology/philosophy, this is a framework for understanding what the lore was based on, and the ideas that might otherwise go unconnected. If you can do better than me here, by all means, be better than me.

But this takes us to the secret question within all of this: How does this effect the setting? The answer to that is that it really doesn't. Knowing that the setting of The Elder Scrolls is the material world created by the Demiurge, separating its inhabitants from the Godhead, doesn't really change anything. After all, you can literally say the exact same thing about our world. The presence of these concepts in The Elder Scrolls setting should change how you appreciate it in roughly the same way that this school of thought existing in our own world changes your view on our setting.

If you thought this was interesting, I certainly agree with you. If you think this is all a bit too much, and don't want to think about it anymore, you won't be missing out on much by ignoring it going forward. If you want to explore different theories on this, you’re definitely free too, I hope you enjoy exploring your own thoughts on this subject.

[monkey-network]

Good Stuff: Pixar’s Soul

SPOILERS AHEAD

Reviewing animation is a passion of mine; you probably know that if you’ve followed me long enough. I enjoy doing it for everything new that comes as much as the good stuff of yore. I can’t tell you why I got into it long as I have or if I should consider a full time gig of it, all I know it’s that it’s as much my passion as many other things in my life. That really is a piece to a personal puzzle I’ve developed as I watched Soul, this film from a studio that I admittedly wasn’t sure if it could get its groove back after it felt like they were stumbling a bit. The SparkShorts are good, but Incredibles 2, Toy Story 4, and Onward especially didn’t resonate with me. Didn’t tell me Pixar stood out as much as they in the “Golden Era”. This one did, and let me say it kinda cut deep.

Off the bat, as I understand that the trailers were quite a turn-off, I came to know before watching this that they weren’t trying to reveal everything. Honestly, the trailers were purposefully misleading as the most of what we got from the “Inside Out Knock-Off Blue Blob” world was a little over the first twenty minutes and the very, very end for the climax, less than you’d believe. It is the point I wasn’t too invested in with how simple it all felt; it’s basically if Microsoft or Google developed your birthright. It luckily doesn’t blow smoke up the ass with the way it runs things, takes more shots at ethical philosophy than any religion I could think of, but there’s good reason why we’re not in this world for very long. The Soul world did it’s purpose, but a little too well because it really wasn’t interesting outside the bond between Joe and 22 and a few laughs. Like I said though, we aren’t in it too long before we jump back to Earth with something I should’ve expected with this film but was still blown aback. I’m talking BODY SWAPPED ADVENTURE, Baby! [[SPOILERS AHEAD]]

Far Enjoyable than Your Name, don’t at me

A good chunk of the film has 22 in Joe’s body, Joe in a therapeutic cat’s body, and I’m surprised at how much engaging it was. It helps that 22 is never by any means a nuisance and they actually pull off the mechanics behind the trope well where it doesn’t feel like 22 in Joe’s body is annoyingly all over the place once she gets used to it. Weird that all of New York didn’t seem to give a shit about a middle-aged man stumbling in nothing but a medic robe, but never crossed that line for me to say, “Okay, this shit is stupid.” But what really makes this, basically the majority of Soul work, is Joe (or 22) interacting with the city.

If there’s one great takaway for this, it’s indeed the musicality for the New York life. The barbershop, the subway, the jazz club, the tailor suite run by Joe’s mother, the living streets really make this city feel like a character in its own right. I say this film makes every person we meet count for something. The devil’s truly in the details; every location has a story to tell as well as remind viewers, myself especially, of people and places so close to life. The story paces along nicely too as we get to the “main event” before getting to the moment that made me cry the second time. I cried a total of four times, mostly in the latter half of the film because that was where things were certainly coming together. That was where, I doubt intentionally, the film hit me in the heart more than I could’ve imagined with the simple thought:

I was Joe and 22, and I still am from time to time

Sappy consideration, I know, but to get a little philosophical & personal for a bit. This film is generally about the direction of your life. Joe had a direction set in stone for himself to play the hottest jazz gig despite professedly doing/trying nothing else big with his life, living actively average you’d say. 22, the number which can mean “coming and going” since it’s a palindrome, has no direction despite being capable of understanding everything. As of now, I may only be in my early twenties, but I’ve felt like I’ve been both these characters at the same time, like a eternally spinning coin. I can feel directionless, having no clue to who I really want to be, but I know there is passion in me somewhere that I myself haven’t figured out yet but push forward with every major choice I make. I have both felt like I’ve done nothing and can’t do anything in life despite making it this far. But if there’s anything this film showed me, it’s that it’s alright.

If there’s anything that I can say describes Pete Doctor’s direction with this and Inside Out, it’s that he makes the most basic and simple human truths feel necessary, welcoming, and especially otherworldly. With Inside Out saying “it’s good to be more emotive”, Soul tells me “it’s good to enjoy the simple things in life.” Not to say you should live average and accept it, nor is every big moment you have will/should impact you the same way or the way you wanted, but appreciate those moments where things just go your way for a change. Where you can just look at the world, take a deep breath, and just feel comfortable with yourself to live another day. This isn’t a particularly surprising message, but it works because it fulfills everything it built up. Who else but Joe on that day, finally getting what he wanted after so long, can feel empty from it as opposed to the moments where he got to enjoy those enjoyably average moments he didn’t think he’d get along the way? And who else but him could show 22 that living doesn’t mean having a purpose or having that purpose in your mind 24/7. 

You can just... live as everything does.

This film isn’t as honest as Inside Out, especially with the whole concept of the Great Before, but it still offers that pragmatic advice in a way that definitely sticks. It can feel like this film came out at a bad time with the given circumstances of our reality, but it’s as much a simple pat on the back to tell you it’s okay. I figure the execution won’t be for everyone, the film isn’t perfect plotwise, but to me it’s definitely a golden, just as mature light for modern Pixar. A considerable classic that I hope is given well with time as much as a chance with all audiences. 

4 Out of 5. A Soulful Sensation of a Film

[invalidtumbls]

I Love “Rumbling Hearts”. Don't watch it.

Copying this over from a thread on Mastodon, for the sake of a first post.

Well, I said I was going to post more original content here on Mastodon than on the other site.

And despite the fact that I see a lot more of my iOS/Mac dev friends here than Anitwitter refugees, I'm going to kick off a thread about #anime, because my favorite show just became available on Crunchyroll, as part of the Funimation merger: https://www.crunchyroll.com/series/G6ZXM399R/rumbling-hearts

Rumbling Hearts, or Kimi ga Nozomu Eien ("The Eternity You Desire") is a 2003 14-episode series based on a 2001 visual novel, a sort of choose-your-own-adventure style of video game that's heavy on reading and light on interaction. The anime is rated mature for adult situations and nudity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumbling_Hearts

I'm not going to recommend you watch Rumbling Hearts, because I believe it is an uncommonly difficult sell in 2022. But the fact that it's so much of its time might be why I like it, why I go back to it, and why you won't find anything remotely like it today.

For starters, Rumbling Hearts is a romantic drama aimed at adult male viewers. We really don't have anything comparable in the west today.

I think we used to! I mean, Casablanca is one of Hollywood's most beloved romantic dramas, and that's told from Rick's point of view, not Ilsa's. But romance has been denigrated in the west, marginalized as being for women only, and saddled with insulting slurs like "chick flicks".

Anime has a thriving genre of male-skewing romance, often built around the concept of "moé", ("mo-EH"), a feeing of wanting to cherish and protect someone.

Some of the most popular of these come from a company called Key, known for tear-jerkers like Clannad and Angel Beats.

The thing is, in Key's stories, the romantic interests are tragic characters who usually suffer through no fault of their own. In Clannad, for example, Nagisa has a chronic disease, Kotori's parents died in a plane crash, Fuuko is a girl in a coma in the next town over and doesn't actually exist, etc.

What makes Rumbling Hearts different is that the characters aren't innocent. They are all deeply flawed, and largely the cause of their own suffering.

Takayuki, our protagonist, is friendly, cheerful, and just wants to get along. This, unfortunately, is his problem: that's all he wants. He is evasive, quick to tell little white lies, and unwilling or unable to make the right decision when he needs to.

Haruka has had a crush on Takayuki for years, but hasn't been able to act on it. She is innocent to a fault: timid, shy, sometimes even mousy.

Mitsuki is Haruka's best friend, and a gal-pal to Takayuki. She sets the two of them up, and then later decides she might have actually wanted Takayuki for herself. She can be manipulative, and after the three-year time-skip, her adult version develops some truly dangerous habits, like using sex to get what she wants, and going blackout drunk to avoid her problems.

Akane is Haruka's younger sister. In her youth, she aspired to be a swimming champ like Mitsuki. Post-time-skip, she fiercely defends her sister. She's everything that Takayuki and Haruka aren't: bold and pushy, though she has a tendency to take things way too far.

So, there I think is the problem. In 2022, western audiences generally don't want flawed characters. We want protagonists who are likable. More than that, I think there's a mindset that if we're going to imprint on a character, they have to be perfect, because that reflects better on us. We can't relate to fuckups, because that would mean that we're fuckups. There's an empty narcissism to modern media consumption and I really hate it.

When I was young and learning writing, all the guides said that characters have to be flawed to be believable and relatable. Whatever happened to that?

I'll tell you my pet theory: JK Rowling ruined an entire generation of readers and viewers. When the Sorting Hat literally tells you who's good, bad, and indifferent, there is zero room left for nuance or depth. Harry Potter is the good guy, I like Harry Potter, therefore I am a good guy. Thanks, I hate it.

So that leaves Rumbling Hearts to thread this incredibly hazardous needle: to give you these characters who screw up and hurt themselves and hurt those around them, and then asks you to root for them anyways, to want them be able to overcome themselves and their own bad habits.

As you probably guessed, this goes over like a lead balloon with a lot of people. You'll find a lot more YouTube videos trashing Rumbling Hearts than praising it. https://youtu.be/wr0BuAUbDqw?t=1048

So, yeah, I can't recommend Rumbling Hearts, because I doubt most people are going to relate to it. The ideas behind it are fundamentally unpalatable to most modern audiences.

And the fact it was made with early digital animation techniques to save money, with the expectation it would be viewed on a fuzzy CRT and not a 60" 4K LCD, doesn't help either.

But… well… I wouldn't have written such a long and unwelcome thread if I didn't think there was something truly special and valuable here. I come back to it every few years and discover something new, either in the show or in myself.

So, don't watch Rumbling Hearts, but hopefully you'll understand why it lands like it does for me.

[ashleyetc]

i said i wasnt gonna rant about how fucking bad Eternals was but ive decided that i can bitch about this particularly bad mcu movie as a treat. this is long, but the movie is the better part of three hours so

okay so first of all, it starts off like, dumb. it starts off with a fucking opening crawl like its star wars with an explanation of how the eternals exist to fight for intelligent life blah blah blah but as someone over the age of 8 its immediately really apparent that this is gonna be bullshit and theyll have been unknowingly evil the whole time. like its set up so weakly and impotently that like at best it reads as an early draft.

in our first scene of the eternals fighting the deviants (this movie's cgi monsters, which i will say are at least more visually engaging than a lot of comparable ones. whoever animated them really wished they got to work on Annihilation and it shows in a good way) i immediately clocked that 'hey chiseled jaw white dude who can fly and shoot eye lasers looks pretty fucking sinister huh. oh god please dont' (spoilers, they very much do).

then it really starts with us seeing protag in the modern day. nothing about this section is interesting. i think we're supposed to find her and kit harrington cute as a couple, and i dont object to them, but hes never significant in this and spoilers for one of the aftercredits scenes literally only features so prominently because hes setup to be in Blade. there are much larger issues with this shitshow but thats a peak mcu problem right there

so then we get to the first fight scene in the modern day and i am immediately confused because for some completely unfathomable reason the black point is set absurdly wrong so fight scenes, at night, poorly lit, with a mostly black cgi monster, are completely illegible. this will continue to be the case throughout every scene not in daylight and it will never get better or make any more sense.

now predictably, we soon find out that oh no, the eternals have been working in service of the baddies the whole time, who want to cultivate intelligent life to hatch their kids. said bad guys, the celestials, are also like, gods effectively, in that they create and maintain the universe. we have no info on this outside of what one of them tells our protag tho so like weird dynamic. but anyways. for some reason half the eternals are like 'well yeah alright lets let it happen' and keep going back and forth on that which if this movie were written by someone who even pretended to give a shit could be an interesting concept.

moving on we continue to get the band back together and run into druig. now in a flashback we see that he led to them scattering across the planet when he went 'hey maybe we should stop genocide sometimes' and this started a big fight. so naturally, youre thinking ah yes this must be a more likeable member of the team. and thats a reasonable assumption! an understandable thing to think, really. except his powers are literally mass mind control of humans and while in earlier flashbacks he just uses these to like, stop fights and get ppl to chill out, when we see him in the modern day hes like, possessing an entire village in south america for his own little paradise? which is an absolutely deranged choice to make for a character we i think are at least not supposed to despise. like holy shit guys, you sure did that and have decided hes not the villain for it.

at some point we flash back to their original leader ajak deciding to actually stop the celestial from being born and killing earth, not because she thinks genocide in general is wrong- she is the one whose known the whole time this is what theyre doing- but because well it was earth ppl who beat thanos so i guess they should get a pass. like she is explicitly 'well these ones are good tho. no regrets on the other planets we've done this to that only i remember tho.' at this point she is killed by icarus, the chiseled jaw flying wite dude with superstrength and eye lasers. yup! its a But What If Superman Bad story now! we even have a scene where a child explicitly calls him fucking superman!!the hack writing here knows no fucking bounds.

did i mention sprite? the one who despite the fact theyre immortal (robots, we find out sometime in all this) is a 13 ish year old girl visually? when icarus decides to betray everyone and try to make sure they cant stop the celestial birth she joins him because she apperntly has always been in unrequited love with him. now this goes nowhere and serves no purpose other than to make me deeply fucking uncomfortable, but at least sprite is a user of illusion magic who literally stabs our protag in the back during the final fight. its discount loki!

oh also hephastus's whole deal is hes like, an artificer and has pushed human tech along and theres a fucking scene that blows my goddamn mind. where we see ajak comforting him as he weeps in the fresh destruction of hiroshima. where hes like 'oh god i did this humanity is awful and not worth saving blah blah blah' and its like. okay. this character, i cannot stress enough, is black. presumably, if he was instrumental in the atom bomb, was living in america. as a black guy. in the 1940s. and hes only just now starting to doubt humanity is all great and good? tell me the writers room wasnt as diverse as the cast without telling me the writers room wasnt as diverse as the cast. like in a good movie exploring these immortals who have lived alongside humanity for all of history debating whether humanity deserves to live, youd think the black one might have an interesting perspective or something to say about race. this aint that movie tho.

the climactic fight scene ends with such an impotent fart of a climax that i genuinely feel like i missed something. throughout the whole thing theres mentions of how sersi and icarus were in love for thousands of years, icarus only leaving her when he found out the truth of their mission and couldnt bear to be around her and not tell her. and in their final fight, he looks into her eyes, we see a flashback to an earlier scene of them getting married in like 200 ad or w/e, and he silently decides to fly into the sun killing himself (presumably).

this movie is 2 hours and 45 minutes.

i expect bad mcu movies. i expect dull, i expect propagandic, i expect humorless quips and half baked characters. i dont expect something so unpleasant and offensive to anyone who wants to actually think about anything happening on screen that it feels designed to be frustrating. the worst mcu movie previously in my opinion was thor 2, but its biggest sin was being painfully dull. this is worse. its painfully engrossing. i often enjoy watching movies i think are bad or whose ideas i disagree with, but this refused to even have ideas, really- it constantly threatened to but they never really showed up, at least not without being immediately contradicted. genuinely this is worse than Suicide Squad (2016). i would rather rewatch the snyder cut.

one of the worst things about it is how clearly it was calculated in some boardroom, that if we had a diverse cast we didnt need a good movie. like sure, we have plently of racial diversity, we have a mute character (genuinely unclear based on a particular scene whether shes deaf or not but she speaks via sign), we have a gay man raising a kid with his husband, etc. guess we dont need anything else. guess thats definitely the only thing that matters. and i know some incredibly stupid people will agree with that. you google it and get articles about how its doing so much good for representation and like. im reminded of when tumblr was like 'you gotta watch black lightning there are black lesbians' and nobody bothered to mention that the show fucking sucked (to be fair i think it was a cw show so thats on me for not assuming but).

anyways harry styles has a cameo in one of the post credits scenes. its charmless. 1/10 movie, both in general and for the mcu.

[tdcloud]

Vikings and Witches and History--Oh my! [blog#10]

September is here, and good god, where has the year gone? This monthly blog just makes me forcibly cognizant of the passage of time, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing. At least fall is on its way and cool weather along with it—as well as my yearly patreon event! Only one more month until I start rolling out my new novella over there for all patrons. I’ve still got another forty-odd pages left to write, but I’m well on schedule and looking forward to unleashing Carnival, a demonic masquerade fever-dream, onto people. It’s been a blast to write so far, and I think it’ll be even more fun to read. 

Consider joining us by pledging at least $1 by October to get access to each chapter as it drops every week. You’ll also get access to so many completed novellas and book-length works from past events and serializations on top of our ongoing serialized work Apotheosis, the prequel to Letifer. The support means the world to me, and the more, the merrier!

For this month’s blog, I’ve decided to continue on in the vein of teasing future works, though in this particular case, it may be a throwback as well as a first look. Those who have kept up with me since my early fanfiction days may recall a story I wrote for a big bang event called Aubade. I’ve always intended to turn it into a full-length book, and I’m happy to report that its time to shine is nigh. To give everyone a refresher—or a sneak peek, if you aren’t familiar with this particular old work—let’s take another look at Aubade, a Norse historical fantasy!

I hope you take note of how I describe this story: Norse historical fantasy. Not romance. Not erotica. That isn’t to say this story doesn’t involve traces of both of those things; Aubade does have a sex scene and there is a main character and what could, in the loosest terms possible, be considered a love interest. Just as I put in the author’s note when I first posted it back in 2016 though, I do not consider Aubade romance. It was always intended to be a treatise of a sort, one commenting on toxic masculinity in Old Norse culture, and in part, our own. It follows the story of Sindri, a male völva, as he finds himself strong-armed into curing a mysterious blight ravaging Jarl Iarund’s lands. For those unaware, a völva is a Norse magic-user, a witch for lack of a better term, but one highly respected within a community and relied upon for matters of wisdom, health, and war. The problems Sindri faces from the get-go are related to his gender—in this culture, magic holds a sacred space, but one reserved only for women. The story begins with him imprisoned, awaiting execution for the crime of wielding magic when it isn’t his domain. In any other world, any other situation, the Jarl would see someone like Sindri drowned in the nearest bog. The only problem is, the blight afflicting his lands is clearly caused by magic, and its targets begin with each village’s völva before spreading to the rest in turn.

Sindri is the only magic-wielder left, and Iarund can’t afford to be picky when his rival—smelling weakness—is all but scratching at his door. 

I initially came up with the concept of this work after receiving a bevy of asks from a Norwegian fan on tumblr. She was curious if I’d ever heard of völvas before—specifically about how they were known to perform sex-magic during some of their rituals—and asked if I’d ever consider writing something in a similar vein. At the time, I wasn’t familiar with the term. To be honest, I wasn’t all that familiar with Norse mythology in general, and my history courses only ever touched on Scandinavia in passing, though some of my medieval courses included talk of vikings and their exploits (as well as my Old English class where we translated the eternity of Beowulf into modern English, but that’s neither here nor there). It was an interesting, unique concept and one that invited a lot of research to execute. I adore both of those things, and given I had a big bang event coming up, I found it the perfect prompt for what would, in turn, become the 90 page-long angst-bomb known as Aubade. 

And boy, was it angst-y. There are only a few fics I’ve written that have inspired the emotional response Aubade earned me, but even with those existing, Aubade definitely occupies a league of its own just for the sheer amount of comments I got begging me to change the ending whenever I ended up turning it into a full book. So many people wanted this story to be a romance when it just flat-out couldn’t be one. I’m sorry to disappoint them, but it still won’t be one when I throw it on the rewrite block early next year. It’s going to be the next patreon serialization, and it’s going to be just as painful an experience as it was the first go-around, just this time with another five or so chapters and a more impactful final arc. If you’d like to read the old version, go take a gander at my Ao3; it’s still up there, and even though I find it woefully old, bad, and immaturely written, I think it’ll at least serve as a good indicator of the tone and type of story it’ll be. The ending won’t change—that’s a promise. Just the way we get there. 

Even with this story set to be as emotionally grueling for me to write as it will be for you guys to read, I can’t help but be excited to dive into it. I’ve attempted some re-reads of it here and there, but every time I try to read it in full, I fail. I just… cringe so badly when I read it now, and it’s not necessarily just from my antiquated writing. Like I said before, I find it very immaturely handled. I know when I posted it that many people enjoyed it, and I have several close friends who have no problem telling me when I’ve fucked something up who, upon first reading it, praised it highly for the way I handled the heavy themes, but… God, I just don’t see it now. I could have kept things subtler. I could have handled things more deftly. A lot of it was just my inexperience showing through, and I think that’s what keeps me looking ahead at what a great story this could be now that I’m older and better equipped to convey the heavy tones it holds. I don’t want people to leave this book wishing things had been more romantic—I want people to close the book and understand the theme I always intended it to have: sometimes, fate has other plans, and sometimes all you can do is go your separate ways. Some people aren’t meant to be together. In another world, in another time, maybe, but right now? Right now, it’s not meant to be. And that’s okay. 

This may be the one story I don’t feel bad about giving the ending away for. To be honest, I want people to know how it ends. It can only end, in my mind, this singular way, and the journey really is the important thing. I won’t tell you what all happens in the inbetween, but I want people to know this story doesn’t end well, but it doesn’t end badly either. It’s meant to be bittersweet, and I feel like that’s an ending you don’t see enough in works like these. In so many stories the characters treat one another horribly and still end up together by the time the movie reaches its credit sequence. If there’s one thing watching a lifetime’s worth of straight romances has taught me, it’s that just being hot and involved in a shared crisis is not the bedrock for a long-lasting relationship. Sure, you’ve saved the world, but do you really think you’re going to last longer than a month without the threat of shit exploding gluing you together? Especially after he did like, the worst shit imaginable in the first half of the movie? 

I can’t pretend Aubade is like any movie Hollywood’s made, at least to my admittedly thin movie knowledgebase. These issues go beyond a character’s inherent personality flaws. Redemption arcs are all well and good, but when the issues reside on the societal level, there’s only so much you can do, you know? A person can change, but the person they have to be for the world at large isn’t nearly as malleable. Iarund can be a bad guy. I know he can be a better one, but he won’t, because he can’t, and I’m not willing to forgive him enough for what he could be to change the ending to suit a fairytale cliche. 

I know I may be in the minority when I willingly embrace bittersweet endings, but I need to see it in my fiction every now and again. Sometimes you need to acknowledge that the world can be unjust and unfair, and that fairytales don’t actually exist to erase the issues we so glaringly see at the beginning of each story we embark on. Seeing a character survive the unjustness and walk away from it, changed but uncowed, disappointed but buoyed by the realization that there’s more for me out there, better things, and I can still move towards them even though it hurts to walk away… That’s a valuable lesson too, in its own way. It’s more realistic, and I hope people will be able to empathize with Sindri throughout this story because of that. 

To be honest, it almost feels like kismet, bringing this story out of the vault right now. I sort of feel like a band going through a new marked “phase.” I had my fae phase, my drow phase, and now we’re in the midst of my “tragic lead witch/vampire” phase, though the latter half of that isn’t so much of a quantifiable output as a behind-the-scenes slow-burn that will be paying dividends as soon as these long-ass books are completed. The first half, however, is where Sindri firmly falls. Someone should really start a support group for my severely maligned witch-boys who keep finding themselves in terrible situations with men who aren’t good for them physically or mentally. My editor will likely be the one to lead the charge—they tell me almost weekly how horrible I am/was to Rehan and Thierry. Adding Sindri to the mix won’t make that much of a difference in their tirades.

But anyway, I suppose I’ll take the time now to tell you some more about our two leads. I’m not too sure what else to talk about in regards to this story beyond that—the fic version is available to the public, and if you’re really curious about the overall premise, it’s there for you right now. The characters, at least, have seen development since Aubade was merely fanfiction, not just some shining new names. Sindri, our woebegotten hero, is a male völva, as I said before. We’ll start with him.

The name Sindri means “sparkling,” which I found rather cute, and he came by his trade by learning it from his mother, a well-respected völva who passed away a few years before the start of Aubade. Sindri has been traveling from the moment he could walk, and running from society’s prejudice almost just as long. He’s noticeably foreign-looking. His father was likely a slave from the West. In almost every way, Sindri is “othered,” and when he isn’t being gawked at for that, he’s being maligned for the great power residing with him instead. 

Sindri is probably one of the strongest people in the land, even before the plague took the other völva out. The sad thing is, it doesn’t matter. Throughout the story we explore the old Norse concept of “ergi” and how it directly relates to Sindri’s horrible situation. Like I said before, Aubade is a treatise on toxic masculinity within this culture. Back then, the concept of “manliness/masculinity” was paramount. It meant courage both on and off the battlefield, and, ultimately, a willingness to defend one’s honor, even if it resulted in death. There was a social hierarchy to things much as there is now, and well-defined social rings specific groups of people were meant to occupy. A man’s place was on the battlefield, defending hearth and home. A woman’s place was within the home, or in the case of völvas, alongside the battlefields—in many ways, magic was a form of power women could exert without worry, and it was a point of social standing if they were knowledgeable of such things. But only for women. 

For a man to occupy a woman’s place was for a man to physically put himself in the position of a woman. For a man to dabble in magic, it was akin to becoming a woman. Debasement into a woman’s role was one of the worst offenses a man could suffer. If it were a willing debasement, that was a crime against society worthy of death. 

There are accounts of male völva being drowned in bogs, laden down with sticks to keep them from surfacing so that the men doing the drowning wouldn’t have to touch them. There are accounts from an old saga of a male völva who was beaten and then burned inside a building when a band of warriors caught him practicing magic. To be considered “agyr” (a conjugated form of “ergi”) was just about the worst insult a man could suffer, and it was so great an offense that the accused could challenge the accuser outright and kill him in response to prove that the claim was false. If the claim was found true, it reduced one in society to the level of a woman, or worse. I recall one source specifically stating that it was akin to being viewed as an animal meant only for breeding, and despite what tumblr history posts will try to tell you, homosexuality was not a well-accepted thing among vikings. To be a passive partner in a homosexual relationship was, again, to willingly debase oneself into a female role. These men were also considered guilty of “ergi.” Dominant partners, however, were not—there’s nothing more masculine than reducing another man in status, evidently, and while I’m positive relationships where this dynamic wasn’t the case exist, the overarching societal perception isn’t as kind. 

But this post isn’t meant to be an info-dump on vikings and what not, even if it does allow me to dabble in my degree. Back to the matter at hand: Sindri experiences a lot throughout the story. We find him wasting away in a frigid prison cell, half-starved, abused, and fresh from the betrayal of a village he thought was grateful for the magical help he’d offered them. He is a character abundantly aware of his place in the world and bitterly cognizant of the fact that capture likely means death for him. Still, he is proud of who he is, what he can do, and where he came from. Odin, the All-Father, uses magic—something no one seems to think about when they disparage him for doing the same. There’s a nobility in him that transcends his situation, and I really respect him as a character for how he refuses to fall into the hatred so many people have for him and his kind. He’s kind through it all to those who need kindness most. 

Those who have read the old story know this abundantly well. (There’s an MVP in this story that needs no introduction. Coming fresh off my Tempest books, I recall a friend telling me that if I kept putting animal companions in my work I’d get typecasted. The thing is… if Moop wasn’t in this book, it’d be unreadable. Suffice to say, she’ll make it into this extended cut. The world needs her. The world needs Moop.)

Now, for our not-really-a-love-interest, let’s talk a little about Iarund. My memory’s a little foggy on what his name means—I picked out the names like, four or five years ago, and I’m not sure I ever wrote it down. Also, I’m writing this at 12:06 a.m., so I doubt that’s helping things much either. I believe it means “battle-worn” or something to that effect, and he’s the Jarl in our viking not-romance. He’s a quintessential one at that. He believes in the core values this society holds in the highest regard. He defends his territory and cares about his people, and even though he absolutely reviles Sindri and what his existence stands for, he understands that the only chance he has at maintaining his kingdom resides in suffering to let Sindri live—at least, just as long as it takes to cure the curse-plague. Though his men don’t agree with him, Iarund is the sort to see the bigger picture. As dedicated as he is to his beliefs, he is willing to put them aside when the situation needs it—though his prejudice is still loud, regular, and readily exacerbated by the men who look to him as the pinnacle example they all try to follow.

Iarund is a symbol more than a man with desires of his own. He’s a reflection of those around him, and in turn, society. He’s also the worst sort of man while he’s at it. I’m sure you all know the type, the one who is only kind when no one else is looking. The one who makes a show of knocking the books out of your hands when his buddies are around but returns one you missed once they’ve moved on to other targets. He has the capacity to be a better man, but not the flexibility in his position to allow that sort of “weakness” to color him. He’s the man who you hate and can’t help but hate yourself even more for hoping that he’ll get better as the story goes on. And the terrible thing is, he does. He’s not a bad person. I truly believe that. But the world won’t let him show it. It’d need to be changed too much for one man alone to instigate, and we learn in this story just how weak a Jarl actually is.

Because Iarund is the weak one in this story. He’s weak because he can’t be free like Sindri is. He has to live within society’s dictated structure, he has to follow its plan to the letter or risk everything he’s built. Toxic masculinity hurts more than those it targets; it also prevents men from engaging with their emotions in healthy ways, from letting them be soft, vulnerable, or fragile. Sindri can seek comfort while Iarund can’t. This isn’t a story about how terrible men are—it’s a story about how terrible the concept of toxic masculinity is for those who have to live with it, men, women, and everyone in between.

To be honest, I don’t expect a lot of people to like this book. I already know I’m going to have to have a disclaimer on the sales page, my website, and likely inside the book as well reminding people what sort of story this actually is. The ones who liked the old version are the ones I’m hoping will appreciate this the most. It’s never been meant to be a feel-good book. You’ll probably cry while reading it. You’ll definitely curse out Iarund and be upset—maybe even triggered—by the actions of his men. If you aren’t a cis man, it’s likely going to be a difficult read at times because so much of Sindri’s experience resonates with the afab/gender non-conforming experience at large. I just hope that those who give it a chance get something positive out of the whole thing, and if that’s asking too much, then at least understand my intentions behind writing it and picking the themes I chose to explore. 

I feel like a lot of the work I’m putting out right now has taken a bit of a darker tone than the stuff that came before. I can’t pretend like the Tempest and Duskriven books didn’t have their fair share of dark content—I’m far too fond of putting my characters through the wringer to claim I’ve got clean hands as it is—but the content in Infaust, Ossuary, and soon Aubade are definitely Dark as a genre type. To be honest, I can’t really say why that is. Infaust was dreamt up and written years ago. Same with Aubade. Ossuary is newer, but still an idea from pre-2020. Perhaps we really are just entering the Dark Phase of my publication period, but I do hope you guys know better than to judge this phase as the new normal. I’ve always been, and continue to be, a firm believer in eclectic tones, eclectic genres, and the overarching goal of writing at least one thing for every palate. Lighter things are on the way—need I remind you of the Vigilante trio? And Carnival is much closer in tone to some of the Duskriven stuff than anything else. There’s still so much more on the way. I really hope you’re all excited for it, and that you give Aubade a chance if you feel up to it—and if not, seriously, no hard feelings. I’m happy to just have you wait for the story after it, and for the continued trust that better is always on the way.

Now, let’s turn things over to some questions. Since Aubade was previously published, there are several die-hard fans who have sought me out just to ask about the rewrite process, and therefore, there are many readers familiar with it and brimming with questions on what might happen or be included in the full version. I’ll try to keep things spoiler-free as much as I can—at least in regards to major spoilers. 

Questions come from Instagram and private messages this time!

I’m curious about the historical context of Aubade’s magic topic. Which sources did you use for it? And was there a model or some other inspiration for Sindri’s personality? He is very different from Chrollo’s personality.

Good questions! I can’t pull sources for you at the moment given they’re on my old laptop and buried beneath several years’ worth of other documents, but I’ll definitely have them dug up when it comes time to begin work on this story again. Off the top of my head, I recall reading through several scholarly articles found via my college’s JSTOR account (ah, the perks of having student access to those databases! I miss it terribly), general searches online for open-sourced documents related to the concept of “ergi” which thankfully referenced male magic users to some extent as it was a fairly egregious crime when it came to that term, and a few Old Norse sources that hadn’t been translated for some reason? But that I’d brought to my Old English professor and puzzled our way through together to make sense of the stuff. 

There’s also, of course, our good friend Drømde mik en drøm i nat from the Codex Runicus, the oldest known secular song in the Norse world. I stumbled upon that while researching as well as it’s believed to have been sung by a völva to her lover out at sea. That’s what encouraged me to name the story Aubade in the end. I’m a sucker for tragic shit and it just fits far too well to pass up.

But beyond that, like I said before, there really is precious little to be found on this topic. There’s an alright-amount of information on female völva, but very little on male ones. A lot of my research only told me what about the typical female völva, and from there I had to extrapolate what the experience of a male one would be like. Also, never google “Viking Sex Magic” in hopes of learning about traditional völva rituals. You will not find what you are looking for, and it will not be a fun experience! As with most magic in my work, it is mostly made up. Magic is real in this world, so it’s a little difficult to apply it to historical things that, you know, weren’t actually magical. I just tried to incorporate the culture as much as I was able and hoped it all translated well in the story itself.

I intend to do a lot more renewed research once we hit 2023 to refresh myself on all of the information out there, and I know I have a few people (German speakers, believe it or not) who have offered their services in researching and translating some German works on viking culture for me, as they believe the scholarship in that language is a bit more robust than what I’ve got available to me in English. We shall see if anything comes from that. Either way, I’m just excited for a new research project. It’s been entirely too long since my last one.

As for your other question, I don’t think I have any model for Sindri’s personality in particular. I tend to write with a set amount of archetypes that I change up based on the story at hand. I’m not exaggerating when I say that Rehan, Thierry, and now Sindri are all very thematically similar. They are all outcasts with their backs against a wall being forced to react to a bad situation as it grows worse in hopes of keeping their heads above water. I think the big difference between Sindri and Chrollo is that Chrollo is almost never out of his depth. Sindri, in contrast, is by design always struggling to stay afloat. 

I really enjoy writing protagonists like this because they are very easy to get behind and root for. You feel a much deeper kinship with them because they are only doing what they have to in order to survive, and if they manage to be kind despite that, as Sindri will be (not Rehan or Thierry though lol), you just root for them even more and feel proud of them for keeping their humanity when it would have been so much easier to throw it away. I know Sindri will change from how he was portrayed when he was still just Chrollo in the fanfic. He’s going to undergo a lot of personality tweaks and some alterations, but I want him to end up kind at the end of this. He defends himself and those he thinks need defending, and he never strikes out unless provoked. He’s stronger than Iarund and all of his men combined—still, he only wields his power to help others. He’s living proof that kindness can be more powerful than any sword, even if society refuses to believe that. Even if the proof is right in front of them too!

Am I allowed to forcefully put them in a happy relationship in my mind? Yes or yes?

Seems to me like you’ve rigged this little quiz XD I mean, more power to you if you choose to think of it like that. You wouldn’t be the only one to do that, going off the comments on the fic itself. A lot of people begged me to give the full version a happy, romantic ending or cursed me out for not letting them get together, but if you’re able to look past Iarund’s shortcomings and still want him to win Sindri’s love at the end of this, then by all means, daydream away. Personally, I don’t want them to be together, but that’s why fandom exists. The world is your oyster, and your headcanons are always valid.

Why do you make us suffer like this?

So you know what it means to be happy.

Really though, I do it because sometimes I get tired of writing nice things and I want to dust off other emotions and have my fun that way. Writing is all about evoking emotions in the reader. They don’t always have to be good feelings, and I find it cathartic to indulge in heavy concepts like this so I don’t get bored by writing the same thing over and over again. As always, I do try to give people notice before they read my work if it’s going to be intense content, but I think you guys pick up the stuff because you know it’s going to make you feel things you wouldn’t have felt otherwise. You’re still here waiting for the rewrite, so I gotta imagine you enjoyed the suffering XD 

Here’s to the pain, and may your tears always fill my goblet to the brim!

Can Moop get her own spin-off series?

Now this is a fun question! While I firmly believe Moop is deserving of one and would be one hell of an animal childrens’ show star, no, I have no plans to make a Moop spin-off. That’s probably because I don’t know how to write something like that. What I do know though is that I always mulled over the idea of having an Aubade sequel/spiritual sequel stand-alone, one involving actually giving Sindri a happy ever after with someone who could accept him and be with him without anything getting in the way. It either involved another male völva or a traveling mercenary coming across Sindri in the woods where he eventually made his home, either by accident or on purpose. If it was on purpose, the warrior would be there to ask for a spell, and if by accident, he would have been injured on the road and Sindri would have felt honor bound to lend him aid, even if aiding him did invite potential betrayal or exposure once he went on his way. Moop at that point would have become Sindri’s familiar and would always be a little lamb. 

I don’t know if I’ll ever get around to writing this—to be honest, Aubade doesn’t really NEED a sequel, and I’m not convinced making one wouldn’t lessen the impact it holds by ending the way it does—but it was a thought I had and would be the closest thing Moop could get to a spin-off of her own. Who knows though. It may become a completely different story with new characters in the future. I’m currently hitting a point where I need to come up with some future story ideas, and this may be revisited at some point. Keep an eye out, I suppose. Perhaps this post teases two future IPs for the price of one XD

But anyway, that’s it for this month. Hopefully you guys found this… fun? I say the word “fun” a lot when it comes to things that probably aren’t very fun. Maybe “edifying” is the word I should use instead? Either way, I hope it whet your whistle for this story if it is indeed something you are interested in reading. As it currently stands, we’re set to wrap up on Apotheosis in… April, I think, of 2023 over on patreon. That means that May should bring with it not only flowers, but the first chapter of Aubade, too. Consider joining us for it then, or hop on now and join us for Carnival in October. If you like lovesick demons, 2008-era Goths, and infernal masquerades, it’s definitely a story you won’t want to miss <3

As always, until next time!

T.D. Cloud

[the-quiet-fire-of-defiance]

I can't find the post anywhere [edit it's from the fabulous @maglor-still-lives here]

but there was one going around recently about just how long the gap between the Last Alliance and LoTR is. Like, of course most of Middle Earth forgot about Sauron! It was three thousand years ago. Having immortal beings like elves around sure helps preserve memory of the events and makes keeping a historical record much easier. But it doesn't change the sheer length of that time.

That post got me thinking about Elrond, which sent me down a Google rabbit hole. By the events of LoTR he's about 6500 years old. What were humans doing 6500 years ago?

4000 years ago the last wooly mammoths went extinct.

4500 years ago the Great Pyramids were built.

5500 years ago writing was invented and the Bronze Age began.

6000 years ago the first civilization was founded in Mesopotamia. Chickens were domesticated in Asia. Yes, Elrond is older than the concept of chickens.

6500 years ago marked the end of the Neolithic period [edit for clarification: in the Near East]. The genetic makeup of modern Europe was established.

Elrond is old, we all know that, but that actual scale of his age is difficult to grasp. He lives through 6500 years, and he lives through those years in Beleriand and Middle Earth. There's no blessed eternal preservation of Valinor for him. There are elves in ME who are even older, like Galadriel. But I feel like the weight of the years would be heavier on Elrond than Galadriel. She creates her own version of a world that is separate from time, that is preserved perfectly in one moment. Meanwhile, Elrond is directly involved in most of the events of the Sevond and Third Ages. Rivendell holds mortals as well as elves, and travellers pass through with their connections to the outside world. Rivendell lives in mortal time but with immortal beings, and that blows my mind to think about.

And then there's the other factor that would make Elrond feel his age more than Galadriel. He is part mortal himself, and has family among mortals. He watches his brother's descendants grow and die, in endless cycles.

No wonder Elrond is exhausted and drained by the end of the Third Age. No wonder he can't stay in ME anymore.

This also raises questions and Thoughts in my head about the progression of Mannish cultures & civilizations in Arda and the discrepancies with our own world, but that's meta for another time. [Edited to link this post]

Anyway have this badly made meme

[unlawfullawyer]

debunking RP talking points: women as men’s muses.

If you have ever listened to Jordan Peterson and other RP youtubers, you will have probably heard about the concept that men have built civilisations, invented gadgets and gone to war for women; meaning women inspired them in one way or another to pursue the achievement of these feats. 

Now let’s start with the fact that men didn’t build civilization on their own, regardless of whether you think women contributed more or less is not the matter at hand; saying that 50% of the population built civilization all on their own is just an example of male hubris (arrogance). Same thing with inventions and discoveries, Isaac Newton said it best: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”, meaning we rely on the discoveries and inventions of others to propel us further (that is why I don’t believe in self-help or the self-made man/woman, but that is for another day). When it comes to wars, sure most people on combat units were men, but there were plenty of women-only brigades and military groups (snippers like Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko, The Night Witches) as well as nurses that took care of the soldiers in dangerous situations. Regardless, this is not the point. 

Saying that the men who have been great were inspired to be that way by women is an ego stroke for women that will put them back in the kitchen. What do I mean by this? Well, this idea puts women in the position of the muse and not the inventor, conqueror or builder, it conveys that the way for women to be great is to be the inspiration for great men to do their feats, and not to do the feats themselves. Effectively it is the “behind every great man there is a great woman”. regurgitated and plated in a new way to not offend modern sensibilities. Don’t get me wrong, it is rather flattering to think that these great men like Einstein, Nietzsche or Aristotle were inspired by women, but how true is this?

You will make sure: that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order; that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room; that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego: my sitting at home with you; my going out or travelling with you. You will obey the following points in your relations with me: you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way; you will stop talking to me if I request it; you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behaviour.        (Source: Einstein: His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson)

“Woman is unutterably more wicked than man, and cleverer; goodness in a woman is already a form of degeneration... Deep down inside all so-called ‘beautiful souls’* there is a physiological illness—I shan’t say any more, to avoid becoming medicynical. The struggle for equal rights is even a symptom of illness: every doctor knows that.—The more womanly a woman is, the more she fights tooth and nail to defend herself against any kind of rights: the natural state, the eternal war between the sexes puts her in first place by a wide margin, after all.” (Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Ecce Homo)

“The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities, a natural defectiveness.”- Aristotle

How can such misogynistic men be inspired by the women around them if they can’t even see them as equals? 

Here is the thing, men will argue that they build skyscrapers, create new technological devices and go to war for women so that women feel obligated to give back in the form of some sex and so that they are relegated to the positions of subservient muses. 

As far as I am concerned, men don’t have a pussy clause in their contracts, where they are promised women in exchange for work, inventions or fighting in wars. This is male entitlement. If a man ever tries to make you feel obligated to be intimate with him because he did a,b,c and d for the community, kindly remind him that he was getting paid with money, not pussy.