#some of the arguments people come up with make these books far less interesting as works of literary fiction ong | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

where-theres-smoak-2 · 6 months

Text

Since the announcement that Dune part three is in development I've watched a couple of youtube videos and read some articles announcing the news, talking about potential release dates and just generally talking about what they want for the third installment and in the comment section of them there seems to be a lot of discussion around how true to the book the third film will be.

Some are saying that they think Villeneuve will stick closely to the book Dune Messiah, others are saying that he will throw the book out completely and just make up his own story for the third film. Some are saying that after the changes made in Dune Part Two, particularly with the changes to Chani's character arc, its now impossible for him to stay true to the book.

Now I haven't read the book so not only do I have very limited knowledge of the book, I also don't have any special attachment to it. So my following views on the subject are coming from that perspective and are based on the two films I've seen and some comments that were in these articles/comments section.

(So mild book spoilers here, you can learn this from reading the blurb of the book.) One thing I did learn is that the book the third film will be based on, Dune Messiah, is actually set 12 years after the end of Dune Part Two's events. We don't see the holy war, we only see the aftermath. Personally I found this news a little disappointing because I feel like they've been revving the audience up with this holy war for the last two movies and so I was really looking forward to seeing it, to seeing just how far Paul goes, whether he tries to hold back at all, whether he has moments of hesitation etc, I was just really hyped to see this war they kept going on about. That being said I do think that seeing the aftermath would still be interesting too.

I've also seen some people say that the book itself won't translate as well to film as the first book does, apparently it has a lot less action and is more political intrigue, as one article put it, its a lot of people sitting in a room and talking. Again haven't read the book so I don't know how accurate that is, but on a similar vein, I've seen a few people say that whilst the book is good its nowhere near the level that the first book is and so they are worried the third film could be a let down for non-book readers.

So as I said above, lots of opinions going around, mostly from book readers because naturally they know a lot more about what is coming than us non-book readers. But it got me thinking how might Villeneuve approach the film and work around some of the concerns I've seen being discussed, the main ones seeming to be, there not being enough action/ it not translating well to screen and how they are going to deal with Chani, as it seems she plays a vital role in messiah and kind of needs to be at Paul's side in order to fulfil that role. So here are my theories and guesses at how Villeneuve might approach the last film. Again these are just my own speculations and opinions.

This first one could definitely be influenced by my own wishful thinking, but one way they could add a bit more action to the film is to spend say the first hour, for example, showing the holy war and using the time to explain how and why Chani returns to Paul, the birth of Alia maybe, etc and then have the time skip to 12 years later and cover the events of Messiah. These films usually have a long run time so if they keep the long run time for this film maybe they'll be able to cover both events. I do believe that the messiah book is considerably shorter than the Dune book, but then the Dune book was split into two films so I am not entirely sure on how well it would work. I guess it would depend on how well it is written.

Another possibility is what some have suggested and that they just throw the book out pretty much completely. The argument here being that Herbert wrote Messiah because when his first book came out the audience didn't get his intended message that Paul wasn't the hero, so he wrote Messiah to really hit home his message that this was a story about the dangers of false prophets and not a hero's journey type story. However Villeneuve has already achieved this message in Dune part two, which could give him some leeway to take the story in a new direction and add his own spin on it. It could also be an opportunity to make the story more appealing to modern audiences, the books were written in the 60's so political and world views were a little different than today. I do think that might be part of the reason why they changed Chani's character, the loyal concubine who follows along with the false saviour's crusade might not have been all that appealing to a more modern audience. The flip side of that though is that abandoning the book completely might not be a popular decision amongst the book readers. So you could end up alienating one side of the audience in favour of making the story your own and trying to appeal more to the general audience.

The third way could be to stick as closely to the books as you can given the changes made in part two. Villeneuve could just start the film with a narration from one of the characters like he did with Chani in part one and Irulan in part two, maybe this time they could have a narration from Paul himself explaining what happened in the war and how and why Chani came back to him etc, setting the scene so to speak. Then from then out just follow whatever happens in the books. Personally I don't know how satisfying I would find this but it would at least follow the same pattern as the other two films if it opens with a narration.

One other thought I had was they could keep the time-skip for the film but have a miniseries that is set during the holy war, I know they are already doing a miniseries covering the bene gesserit so maybe they can also do one showing the war to fill in the gaps. However I think this would be highly unlikely as I don't think they'd have the time to film both a mini series and an actual film. But you never know maybe we'll get really really lucky.

Out of all the possible options, I personally think the first one would be the best option. It would be the best of both worlds, the book readers will still get to see the book adapted, but spending some time at the beginning of the film showing the war could add that needed action and make it more exciting for those who haven't read the book and who might otherwise be disappointed.

But I am curious to know what others think. If you haven't read the book how do you feel about there being such a large time-skip? Do you care if they skip over the war? Or if you are a book reader are you hoping they'll stay close to the book or do you share the same opinion as some of the other comments I saw saying it won't translate well to film? How important do you think the change to Chani's character is and do you agree with those saying it has messed things up going forward? I am very curious to know. All of this being said I am still very excited that they are making a third film and I trust that no matter what direction he chooses to go Villeneuve will deliver another amazing piece of media for us.

#dune #dune part three #dune part three theory #dune messiah #paul atreides #chani kynes #dune thoughts #dune part one #dune part 2 #dune part two

26 notes · View notes

halogenwarrior · 4 months

Text

Well I finally finished reading all of the Animorphs books (getting into them now as an adult) and I found them really interesting in terms of themes that they used the sci-fi premises to explore. Everyone talks about how they explore the trauma of war, but I thought something else very fascinating that they do (and which is connected to said exploration of war and the morality thereof) is how they use both the existence of aliens of different types and the ability of morph to interrogate the assumptions humans typically make to justify the lives of non-human animals being morally less significant than those of humans. In total, this series can be seen as an exploration of how to find moral understanding and purpose in life in a world where humans are not the only part of one’s vision of the world, but a wide variety of species with different experiences, all shaped by natural selection.

Note: the Animorphs series has an annoying habit of not using the term “sentient” as what it correctly means, it’s supposed to mean any being with a conscious, lived experience, with sapience being the term used for being capable of things like language, complex rational thought, etc. and generally being seen as “people”. So I will be using the terms in that way throughout this post.

In general, there are three arguments or assumptions that usually play into the belief in humans’ greater importance:

Superiority of lived experience

This is the often unspoken assumption that there is more inherent value, however one defines it, in the very experience of living for a human than any non-human animal, perhaps in the richness of emotion, ability to conceptualize values, the complex social life of humans, however you might put it, and therefore a human living is a greater gain and dying is a greater loss than for any other being. Throughout the books, the Animorphs transform into various animals and, due to how morphing works, get a sense of the instincts and natural conscious perspective of said animals. And some seem far preferable to others – while the dolphin and dog morphs give the main characters access to a kind of joy different from and stronger than what is experienced as a human, others like shrews (with constant fear) or especially ants (due to the loss of human conception of self, as well as the constant danger and brutal fighting) are so horrifying the Animorphs are reluctant to ever morph that creature again, even if it would give them an advantage, and even traumatized by the experience. This raises the question of how life could just generically be seen to have value and be sacred (as Cassie tends to think) when some lives’ innate experience, as just the condition of being that species rather than their particular circumstances, seem so much more worthwhile than others. But it’s worth noting that some animals’ lives do seem preferable to humans – it’s not humans who are the largest “utility monster” whose lives seem the most valuable of all, as is the typical human assumption.

The relative value of different species’ lived experience is a theme most directly confronted by Tobias, who, after the first book, is trapped in the form of a red-tailed hawk and now has to live life in the wild as a hawk rather than a human. Tobias’ attitude leaving up to this shows how many humans’ assumption that their life is the most preferable to live comes from disgust of alien experiences and the “wisdom of repugnance” rather than an objective valuation. Due to his open-mindedness and dissatisfaction with his human life, Tobias is able to avoid the default belief that being a human is “best” because being anything else is “weird”, finding much of the hawk’s experience like flying far preferable to his human life and not having an automatic aversion, at least in book #1, to other aspects like eating roadkill (an attitude that astonishes and disgusts the other children). When he is trapped, it's shown that even if he did not fully intentionally do so, he was attracted enough to the life of a hawk that he at least did not make as much of an effort as he could have to avoid it and semi-consciously seemed to want it to happen.

By book #3, Tobias finds himself having mixed feelings about his new life -in a “the grass is greener on the other side” sense, he misses various parts of the human experience when deprived of them, and feels horror at the idea of killing animals to survive in a way that seems less of a moral point (given he has no problem at this point with eating human-produced meat) and more of disgust, to the point of suicidal behavior upon realizing he cannot control his hawk instincts and is losing his humanity. But nonetheless, the feelings are still mixed, he finds much value in his life and much preferable to the life of a human, and is uncomfortable with his friends’ assumptions of him as solely an object of pity who tragically sacrificed any joy his life could ever have to live some kind of horrifying fate worse than death, as shown in the scene where they nearly get stuck as wolves and Tobias is deeply uncomfortable with how horrified they are at the idea of ending up like him. The others’ reactions lead to his self-consciousness, as shown by how he is embarrassed in #23 specifically about having the other Animorphs see him eat roadkill, when in #1 he notably did not have an inhibition about the idea of eating it. These early parts of Tobias’ arc explore whether our assumptions of human life being preferable, and thus of more value, are based only on the favoring of familiarity, while still portraying the ambiguity of his experience.

But the picture is further complicated by showing ways in which a hawk’s, and by extension most animals’ (at least wild animals’) experience might truly be horrible, not just assumed to be so. It’s also noted that one large way the experience of a hawk differs from that of a human is that hawks have to spend all of their focus on survival – they are at constant risk of starvation and attack by other raptors, and have no hobbies or diversions in life. And this isn’t just a coincidence or rotten luck; the nature of predator/prey relationships in ecosystems is such that, from the predator’s perspective, starvation conditions are inevitable in regular cycles as the prey populations fluctuate. To some extent Tobias copes with this by romanticizing survival, finding peace in the push and pull of creatures every day living and struggling, giving a monologue to this effect in Megamorphs #2. And it helps that he already wants to “toughen up” and not be the child who was bullied for being sensitive anymore, and being a predator and survivor is helpful to his self-image. But his actions bely his words. At the end of the same book, Megamorphs #2, with the group transported back in time to the end of the Cretaceous Period, Tobias is the one to make the decision to not divert the comet that will cause the extinction at the end of this period, killing perhaps three fourths of species of animals on the planet in a horrific, drawn-out apocalypse because he knows that is the only way humans will come to exist in the future. The very character who claims he is at least partially happy and proud in the life of a hawk also believes that the existence of humanity is so important, and the value of the lives of animals like him so depreciating by them having pain and the struggle to survive to look forward to and little else complexity in their experience to alleviate this, that the animals’ actual deaths are preferable to humans just never having existed in the first place. Note there is also a small group of sapient aliens he is killing in this case, but while condemning them to death can be explained in a “trolley problem” sense by their number being much, much smaller than all the humans that did, now do, and will exist, I think his decision leading to the massacre of most of the animals on the planet is much more thematically relevant.

Book #23 further explores how thin Tobias’ justifications that his life is worthwhile are becoming. In this book, he is increasingly struggling to find food to the point of starvation, when a relative of his suddenly offers to adopt him – but becoming human to be adopted would mean losing his ability to morph forever. Others like Rachel have already wondered why he is so resistant to going back to being a human, and now with the prospect of family, Tobias isn’t sure himself, he feels little joy or purpose in his life anymore. But I think the reason why he hesitates is revealed by his reaction to finding out said relative is actually his enemy Visser Three in morph. It’s clear in this scene and others (like his flashbacks to earlier childhood in #33 or his alternate self joining the Sharing in Megamorphs #4) that Tobias is a dreamer, always hoping for and willing to imagine an escape from his life, and yet due to these qualities being attacked and belittled by other people he hates himself for daring to hope and being proven wrong. Remember that wanting to be a hawk, just like thinking he might have a family, was also a form of dream of escape, something he to some extent let happen. And to some extent, his friends belittled him for it, believing that his idea of an escape would actually be a miserable and disgraceful life and sometimes reacting to him as such. His reluctance to live as a human is largely a fear, or growing realization, that what everyone told him might be right – that the life he half-chose for himself might be a horrible one, the discomfort they had that he once saw as misguided and a sign of being close-minded could be right all along. And that would mean facing his worst fear of being a dupe, a naïve idiot who has dumb, self-destructive ideas for how his life could be better and he could escape when really the world doesn’t work that way. He has to remain a hawk because, even if he doesn’t want it, it’s a fair punishment in his mind for putting himself foolishly into a trap, for being his open-minded self, and even if he doesn’t enjoy it at least living as a predator fighting for survival is the perfect symbol of the tough cynic who can’t be bullied that he wants to become. At this point he seems to not think the life and experience of a hawk is worth anything for himself or, as shown in Megamorphs #2, for other animals.

It's not just Tobias’ arc that explores the question of whether a life can be worse than another or even not worth living due to the inherent experiences that come with being that kind of life form. There’s also the Taxxons, with their constant hunger that makes them desperate to do anything to escape it. When Arbron is trapped as one he tries to kill himself, but ultimately settles on living out of a belief that there can be hope in any life, and fighting for the Taxxon resistance. Even so, his life is still miserable in many ways, perhaps lived more for the opportunity to do good in the world than any personal happiness, and it’s surmised he might have been relieved when he finally died. And the Yeerks, who are motivated to enslave others as brain parasites because it’s their condition as Yeerks to have a depreciated experience of life without infesting someone. They have no sight and hearing, but perhaps most importantly for the comparison to humans viewing their lives as more rich and thus more worthy, have no ability to experience the diverse range of life that comes with a sapient species’ society. A Yeerk alone just floats in a pool and nothing else, when infesting another being they can have the wide range of activities and complexity of intellectual experience that a human would have. Again the question is asked – are any beings’ condition of living bad enough that death would be preferable? Are there any bad enough that hurting another to have an experience of life more comparable with the readers’ human reference point would be an understandable action?

The Animorphs books are also clear, though, that even with the main characters’ ability to live as other species and experience their instincts, and thus some slice of their lived experience, they don’t have nearly enough information to answer this question. As Rachel notes in #23 when trying to figure out why he doesn’t want to become human now that he has a family, Tobias is not fundamentally a hawk, but both a hawk and a human. He isn’t really making the decision whether the life of a human is preferable to that of a hawk, even the sad human life he lived before. He is making the decision of whether a human, coming from a human perspective, would be happier in his original form or as a hawk. For instance, his loneliness and need of a family isn’t a true “downside” of being a hawk from an actual hawk’s perspective, just from the mind of a social animal transplanted into one. Starvation and pain are things real hawks face, but they might conceptualize it completely differently than a human does. Note how studies have shown the pain people feel from injuries can vary depending on the story they mentally tell themselves, like soldiers believing their pain is for a cause feeling less than civilians who are injured by accident, and of course nonhuman animals don’t have language and thus likely don’t have a concept of a “story” behind their pain at all. This is explored in #33, when Tobias is being tortured and finds completely giving in to the instinctual experience a hawk would have helps him endure it – an acceptance of pain as a given, that “life is pain”, though this comes at the cost of not being able to appreciate pleasure from things like eating food like a human would as well. I’m not that convinced that this is how a hawk would experience things (I’d imagine due to natural selection promoting those feelings, a hawk would be likely to feel both pain and the pleasure of eating food intensely, if not in the same way as a person, and one could definitely argue not having a story and explanation for pain could make it feel worse), but obviously a human author can’t know and there’s a tough line to walk between anthropomorphism and complete denial of animals’ experiences paralleling humans in any way. And, although Yeerks like Aftran find being without a host a horrible fate, we see in Esplin’s perspective in the Hork-Bajir chronicles that Yeerks who have never had a host feel content enough in their pools, it’s only the comparison to a different experience that makes at least some feel lacking. Any attempt to use the experience in morph to judge how rich and happy the real animal’s experience is has this problem. The Animorphs’ much-despised ant morph is in part hated because of the constant violence, but also because of the loss of a human’s conception of self, something that would likely be only horrific if you started out as a human and not to a real ant.

One can make a comparison here to disability activism and the criticism of people’s assumption that, because someone with a disability has a certain experience or is missing a certain experience, their lives are miserable or even not worth living. This is often predicated on an assumption that the abled human being is a happy default – so while being deaf is stereotyped as being miserable because of the lack of hearing, not being able to see ultraviolet light or sense magnetic fields like some animals can do is never seen as a tragic loss, showing it’s less about some objective valuation of experiences and more about devaluing disabled people in particular. What is interesting about this series is how it explores this theme in a context where the abled human is not the default, instead there is a huge range of different species’ experiences that can be shared and exchanged through morphing or Yeerk parasitism. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t sometimes play the ableist tropes straight, unfortunately, such as Loren in #49 preferring to die than demorph a hawk and become blind again, only relenting when she finds her blindness will be cured. But there is definitely a parallel to the experiences of people with disabilities in how book #3 Tobias finds he can’t express the complexities, both good and bad, of his experience without it being whittled down by the other Animorphs into pity and assumption there is just misery.

Intelligence

Another perspective people often have is that humans’ intelligence grants them more moral relevance than that of non-human animals. This idea is explored in the Hork-Bajir Chronicles, which uses an interesting premise to explore this; a species that is less intelligent than the other sapient species in the series, but contains rare individuals who have intelligence comparable to those other species and thus capable of reflecting on how moral value is assigned, from whose perspective we can analyze and criticize this assumption. Through Dak Hamee’s perspective, we see how the Andalites around him, despite how they are supposed to be the Hork-Bajir’s allies and protectors against a common threat, are condescending to them and think them of little moral importance due to their lack of intelligence, to the point of being willing to sacrifice them all for a strategic gain. Dak Hamee reflects on how foolish it is to think intelligence as the be-all end-all of a being’s value, especially when it’s the Hork-Bajir who have lived in peace throughout their history and other species who are enthusiastic about war.

The thematic exploration really gets interesting when Dak Hamee and Aldrea encounter the Arn, the species that turns out to have created the Hork-Bajir through genetic engineering. Their motive for doing so is a very understandable one – in order to salvage their destroyed environment and allow their species, and life on their planet, to survive, they needed to create an ecosystem that allowed circulation of oxygen. One role required for such an ecosystem was a caretaker of the trees, so they created the Hork-Bajir to do so. So let’s talk about what exactly the Arn are doing here, and why Dak Hamee is so horrified by it. They are not exactly enslaving or forcing the Hork-Bajir to do anything; they haven’t even met any of the Hork-Bajir. What they are doing is forcing the Hork-Bajir into exactly the condition of a non-sapient animal within an ecosystem, and by showing the horror an individual who became aware of such a role, this book is posing the question of theodicy of sorts – how could a loving creator use the mechanisms of an ecosystem as a tool for their creations, even if such a scheme was successful in preventing apocalyptic destruction? As the Arn note, they did not make the Hork-Bajir very intelligent because, like animals in Earth’s ecosystems, they do not need intelligence to do their role. And the Arn did not bother to explain to them the nature of the world and their role in it and have them consent towards avoiding doing the things that would destroy that world. Instead they used brute force, the threat of predators in the deep, to keep them in their assigned roles. And the occasional death by predator is comparatively gentle compared to most wild animals’ lives on Earth, who, unable to understand like humans the threat of overuse of resources and peacefully manage their behavior, are kept in check, and the world kept functioning, by constant cycles of predation or starvation that decimate populations rather than just picking off a few occasionally (look at a predator and prey population chart with the cyclic dips for both). By having an individual from such a species which is kept in its world-preserving “duty” not by intelligence and awareness but by suffering and death who is uncommonly intelligent and able to reflect on their condition, the morality of a creator using such a system is questioned.

All of this theodicy discussion ultimately connects back to the series’ resident “good” godlike being, the Ellimist. The Ellimist takes as his goal spreading altruism and allowing life to flourish, though his discussion with the Animorphs in #26 makes it clear his end goal and exactly why he wants these things. As he says “We watched the rise of other species throughout the galaxy. Helped at times, when we could. We wanted companions. We wanted to learn, We imagined a galaxy filled with millions of sentient species, each with its own science and art, its own beauty”. Using the word sentient while meaning sapient aside, what we can see here is that the Ellimist is motivated less by a utilitarian idea of allowing all life to flourish and be happy but specifically by a desire to increase the amount of sapient species, species that would be able to provide intellectual enhancement and new perspectives for him. Though the Ellimist chronicles, from his own perspective does show he cares about the happiness and survival of other species for their own sake rather than their intelligence in a way this quote somewhat downplays, he still limits this moral focus to sapient species, with his general principle of propagating life being more directed towards how it will give rise to sapience one day than that life existing for itself. And here we see a parallel to the Arn, by which the Ellimist’s morality can be questioned; can a godlike being justify a system where most of the beings in it are fodder, their suffering and deaths used only to eventually give rise to sapient beings which are considered the only morally important ones? Now admittedly, one can question whether the Ellimist has meaningful power to do otherwise; he is shown in his book to initially have notable limits to his power and knowledge of how interventions will affect things, and gaining much more power after his fight with Crayak happens at the same time as he is newly constrained by the rules of their “game”. But nonetheless, a being with such amazing power taking no consideration of non-sapient beings for their own sake in his moral system, apparently due to a lack of intelligence to provide interesting creations of their own, would still likely lead to him neglecting moral paths he could otherwise take within his considerable power. Which leads into the third reason people have for especially valuing sapient life, a view which one of the Animorphs holds herself…

Moral and Technological Understanding

Cassie outlines this view in Megamorphs #2 when she is arguing against killing a dinosaur. Sapient life is important from her perspective, not because their life experience or intelligence makes their lives inherently more valuable, but because they alone are capable of moral reflection and making choices that are influenced by something deeper than one’s own survival and that of one’s genetic relatives. “Yeah, we’re just animals ourselves. But we’re the animals who can think. We’re the animals who can imagine something better than kill or be killed. I don’t think predators are immoral. I’m not an idiot, whatever you may think. But I’m a human, okay? And I have to think and care, and I have to feel things”.

Interestingly, this is a perspective she doesn’t quite start out the series with. #9 shows how Cassie starts out with a naïve belief (it it can count as a belief, it’s more of an unspoken assumption she doesn’t think about or define enough to call a belief) of a sort of moral continuity among living things, that there’s something inherent and baked into the universe about how valuable and sacred life is. Her experience in this book with the termites makes her realize just how amoral the natural world is, of the utter loneliness of her convictions and ability to make sense of the world when the rule everywhere else is survival. This realization forms the core of her character and motivations throughout the rest of the series. Her worst fear is to make the decisions and follow the logic that an animal would according to the impetus of natural selection. Even if the decision seems the best from a utilitarian perspective, if it is a decision one could come to from just survival of oneself and one’s own without deeper reflection, than making it would prove the world is senseless and there would be no point to the survival it earns. This perspective is one that makes her feel isolated not only within the natural world that she loves but among the other Animorphs, who think in terms of the war they are fighting with its rules of us vs. them.

Whether you call it thinking more deeply and more wisely, or a stubbornness that values one’s own feelings of sanctity and security in the world over the suffering of others, Cassie’s perspective after #9 is fundamentally not naivete. Although she is still young and making the decisions she makes in an environment of war where flawed compromises and hypocrisy are inevitable - she’s not some kind of perfectly wise moral machine - she is presented as not out of touch but someone who is literally and metaphorically used to the earthy grittiness of life, and makes the decisions she makes with full knowledge of their implications. And for her, this means standing firm on the principle that every life is valuable, while making little distinction based on the particular abilities or subjective qualities of that life. Not no distinction (she calls the others out for stereotyping her when they think she wouldn’t be willing to kill a seal for their immediate survival, for example), but still a conviction that life has more or less the same value regardless of the contents of it. Even if the life is that of someone enslaved and trapped in their own brain, or doomed to endless, life-ruining hunger, as long as they are alive there can be hope of something different.

This is the dilemma she faces; to value lives differently based on their experiences can lead to bias and, though one might pretend at detached reasons in doing so, is very likely to lead to valuing human life most of all due to the disguised reasoning of preserving one’s genes, exactly what she wants to avoid. It’s also only a step back from the humans who have killed those of her own that they felt were inferior, like the Nazis, who Cassie often reflects on. But to insist all life is of equal value regardless of context can lead to a fanaticism that ignores reality, an ability to do anything to someone as long as they are still alive, since as long as they are alive their life is still equally valuable so you didn’t do anything bad to them at all. This is shown when she comes up with the plan to trap David as a rat, justifying herself with how she is not killing him, only for David in #48 to make it clear he would have just preferred to die. Still, Cassie is willing to listen to other beings, like Aftran, when they express their greatest fear being not to die but to live a life depreciated in experience and value, and willing to “put her money where her mouth is” by willingly sentencing herself to such a life to prove she does not demand of others what she would not demand of herself. And ultimately, for most of those she spares the life of like Yeerks and Taxxons, her determination to see other possibilities beyond those given by evolution and animal instincts leads to them getting the possibility to morph, which does in fact give them hope in lives that would have otherwise not been ideal, at least without harming another for one’s own sake in the Yeerks’ case. In doing so, despite her flaws she proves the strongest and most principled prophet of this third argument in the series.

After all, it is not just the ability to think morally that sapience grants, but the ability to create technology that can transcend the compromises and suffering that would otherwise seem like an inevitable biological condition of a given species. In doing so, the series presents somewhat of a transhumanist message (if not applied to actual humans). The morphing technology gives the Yeerks and Taxxons a chance to not be bound by their biological condition, as does the Iskoorts’ symbiosis. The latter is implied to be supported by the Ellimist, with him perhaps subtly hinting to the Animorphs that this could be a solution to allowing both the Yeerks and the species they parasitize to coexist. However, how the Ellimist’s ethics centering around promoting the diversity of sapient life would coexist with these ideas in other scenarios remains unclear.

To try to investigate this, it’s worth looking into the Ellimist’s own backstory. Growing up on his home planet, a big issue for the Ketrans was whether to use technology to transcend their condition of having to spend half their lives “docking” to keep the crystals they lived on afloat. To do so would undoubtably make their lives freer and better, but inertia and tradition made some reluctant to do so. One can draw the comparison (not a perfect comparison since some humans were hunter-gatherers before and during the rise of subsistence farming, rather than it appearing to be an inevitable condition of the species) to modern technology freeing the majority of the human population from spending much of their lives subsistence farming. When most of their species were killed, the Ellimist and Menno, a strong advocate for using such technology, were left on a spaceship together trying to find a home to restart their species, only to find that no other planet seemed to have crystals like the ones on their home planet. Menno suggested genetically altering the Ketrans to be able to survive on the surface, since there would be no hope of reproducing their old living conditions (which, as mentioned, had led to astronomical constraints on their lives) while the Ellimist argued otherwise on the grounds that doing so would make the species not what it once was. It would mean a piece of the diversity of experience (and particularly, from his perspective, sapient experience) would be lost, and he would argue there is great value for sapient species with their unique characteristics existing and being able to share their unique perspective with the rest of the universe.

His stand ultimately turned out to be for nothing when all of them but he himself were killed, but given his views expressed in #26 I think the idea of keeping diversity alive is very important in his moral calculus, deriving from the grieving memory of his own lost species. The Iskoort issue is one thing, as it preserves the other species who would otherwise be threatened by them while preserving the Iskoort themselves, but the morphing of Taxxons or Yeerks that Cassie thinks up would be ensuring that none of the offspring of such morphs will be Taxxons or Yeerks at all. It would mean the freeing of the Taxxons from their suffering and the Yeerks from the horrible choice they had to make, but the essential extinction of the species itself. And I think Cassie and the Ellimist, despite being allies of convenience for having more or less the same goals, would fundamentally differ on whether they think that would be justified – in addition to, as mentioned, whether they think non-sapient life has inherent moral value. And I just think it’s fascinating how this series explores questions like this and the different perspectives involved.

#animorphs #cassie animorphs #Tobias animorphs #Tobias fangor #animorphs analysis #animorphs meta

19 notes · View notes

melvisik · 1 year

Text

Aziraphale's Choice aka If this turns out to be too controversial, I'll take it down...

Since Good Omens season 2 dropped, public opinion of Aziraphale has pendulumed from frustration to sympathy in a matter of days, and it’s completely understandable. At first, most of us were more than likely experiencing the same as Crowley in that moment – that sinking feeling of ‘Oh god no, no he didn’t. This cannot be happening. Aziraphale, please be smarter than that.’ We were devastated, we were angry, we were disgusted at Aziraphale’s choice to essentially abandon Crowley. Justifiably so, to be honest.

Then came the switch, when we got a chance to breathe and realize that Aziraphale’s actions weren’t entirely unreasonable. He wants to make a toxic environment a better place, not just for humanity, but for Crowley as well. While he does still tend to view things too much in black and white, it’s no crime to want your world in a better state. And this isn’t as if Aziraphale is losing Crowley forever, at least not in his mind. Come Hell or high-water, Crowley always shows up again. Especially if there's even the slightest chance Aziraphale's walking into a risky situation.

Though this time just might be a step too far... However, another argument has often been made that I'd like to emphasize here: Aziraphale is, essentially, in a cult. Now it's a cult of a different color to be sure, as he hasn’t been forced into performing lascivious acts, or tortured, or imprisoned (as far as I know…), but he has been an integral part of an organization based around a single theological/idealogical idea - that his every waking moment should be dedicated to serving the will of an ineffable Higher Power, without question or complaint and in complete accordance with the demands of his superiors. In short - he's got major religious trauma. Getting out of a cult is frickin hard. (So much respect and support to those who have broken out of cults, and to those still trapped, I sincerely hope you find your way and peace someday.) Aziraphale has the idea of the righteousness of Heaven ingrained into his very being, and that can be extremely challenging to let go of, even if you see the consistent wrongness right in front you. Aziraphale sees it as being problematic because of some systematic flaws.

Crowley on the other hand, who has been literally rejected and hurt from this organization, sees the system itself as inherently flawed. Ok, you know what? Let’s go for it and use a plant metaphor, because this is Good Omens and it’s what we do: Aziraphale sees the tree as being sick because of a few bad apples, but he is attached to that tree. Crowley is already off and sees the tree as being rotten at the root; he's ready to sprout his own roots and be his own tree. Aziraphale is situated and comfortable in his environment, while Crowley is more or less accustomed to being displaced. For instance, Crowley loses the flat, but they take their plants with them - Crowley takes care of them, giving them what they need to survive (though they don’t exactly let them be ‘lazy’ about it).

Aziraphale keeps his bookshop and takes care of books, which requires considerably less effort. And although Aziraphale eventually leaves his books, he’s going back to a familiar environment under the banner of improving it. In Aziraphale's mind, Heaven still represents all the good deeds humanity chooses to do, even if Heaven and humanity have shown very different brands of ‘goodness’ (and a worse kind of badness when it comes to Hell for that matter, humans doing something so much worse than Hell could have imagined). And of course going to Hell would be bad since they're the bad guys (I mean, completely ignoring Beelzebub as another demon capable of love, but who's counting?), but Heaven is a different matter, right? There are people like ‘Jim’ and Muriel who seem well-intentioned, so it can’t be all bad, can it? It can be fixed, can't it? An interesting question that many people asked in the first season – does Aziraphale realize that Armageddon, the War between Heaven and Hell, means that he’ll probably have to kill Crowley? Or at least that Crowley very likely will be killed, since he’s so sure that Heaven will win? Besides this part…

…it doesn’t seem to register in his head. It could be argued that even Gabriel and Beelzebub seem to acknowledge this, not wanting to start up another Armageddon and risk destroying each other. But why not Aziraphale? Sometimes, Aziraphale reminds me of the kind of person who smiles at you and goes, “You don’t seem like such a bad sort, it’s such a shame you’re going to Hell. I’ll pray for you.” *cough*Iforgiveyou*cough* You know who sounds sorta like that?

As I said, cults are difficult leave. They’re often even dangerous and vindictive towards ‘deserters’ (Book of Life anyone?) Aziraphale does need to finally see the light, but at the moment he’s so blinded by Heaven’s. The kicker is, it’s something he must want. Nobody else, not even Crowley, can make that decision for him. Crowley can't rescue him from this. Crowley can only help him, give him guidance or be there to catch him if he… well, hopefully metaphorically falls. This has to be Aziraphale’s choice. But we all knew that. So...

It’s just hard for him, y’all. P.S. There's so many beautiful analyses on Aziraphale's choice, but one I would highly recommend (it's also a bit of a different take):

#good omens #good omens 2 spoilers #sorry if I'm flipflopping with Crowley's pronouns #not always sure what to call them #aziraphale #crowley #crowley x arizaphale #good omens 2 #neil gaiman #go 2 spoilers #go2 spoilers #david tennant #michael sheen #supreme archangel aziraphale #ineffable divorce

40 notes · View notes

theaawalker · 10 months

Note

how do i brainstorm my book? I have soooo many ideas but i don't know how to organize them. Do you have any advice? 🙏

Thanks for your query!

Brainstorming ideas for your book is a huge, albeit first, stepping stone. Before I considered I might need to, well, actually plot my plots, my stories always tangled into nonsense or, worse, wound to a close without saying anything much. Why? Because my story brainstorming was off. I would come up with a vague idea and launch into writing; inevitably, the resulting stories lacked sense and depth.

[ ~ through the dark, through the door ~ ]

Although it’s tempting to skip to your favorite part of the process—the writing—you’ll get better results if you decide on a few key elements first. And considering the ease, and speed, with which I wrote my most recent short stories, I’m now convinced this 5-step method is a vital part of the process.

1. Genre

I seem to get into a pickle very quickly if I don’t choose a genre first, because as I write the endless possibilities of plot direction become overwhelming. Genre narrows your options, and that works in your favour.

Writers usually suggest you begin by writing in the genre you read most, and that’s good advice. Occasionally though, by choosing a genre we’re less well-versed in (assuming we read widely in other areas) we can end up bringing a fresh perspective. I don’t read a lot of horror-genre books, so when I wrote my short story Doll’s House, for example, it ended up having a romance-twist that works quite well.

2. Truth

Some people would refer to this step as “theme” but I don’t think that’s clear. Sure, you might be writing a story about a man who collects snails that’s really about the theme of love, but what is it precisely you want to say about the nature of love?

The truth you want to get across could be something detailed as how you think people should behave in an argument or expansive as what you believe happens after we die. It doesn’t matter; what’s important is your truth is something you believe will give the reader something to ponder beyond the action of your story.

Ordinarily, you’ll communicate this idea by the protagonist learning it at some point along their inner journey. In my short story Bitter Lemon, for example, the truth explored is that you don’t have to stay trapped in an unhappy situation: there’s always another way—but only if you’re brave enough to take it.

3. Character

If your protagonist is compelling, your readers will be interested in following their story; that holds true whether they’ve stayed home in a moth-eaten dressing gown for 5 years or they’re travelling the world, expensive leather suitcases in tow.

But what makes a character compelling? Complexity and inner turmoil catch the reader’s attention, because that’s something everyone can relate to.

You can obviously do a deep-dive into your characters by asking yourself everything from their favourite foods to their bedtime, but if you want to work quickly and still make them compelling, ask yourself these 3 questions:

What does your protagonist desire? (This is the thing they think they want or believe will make them happy.)

What are they afraid of? (I.e. what is standing in the way of them achieving their desire.)

What is their misbelief? (What about life or the world do they not yet understand.)

This last point should be the opposite of your truth and will give you the opportunity to explore it by taking your protagonist (or even antagonist) on a journey of self-discovery.

I’m currently writing a short story, for example, where the protagonist desires to be independent after the death of her husband but is afraid of facing the world without him. Her misbelief is that he was the “important one” and that’s she’s nothing without him, but through the story she’ll realise the truth was very far from what it always seemed.

4. Location

Always choose and research a location to anchor your plot ideas; it will literally ground your story.

When I wrote the short story Doll’s House, I spent a lot of time pondering the location: a pair of isolated cabins in remote Scottish woodland. I thought about what birds might be around, what the weather would be like, how cold it might be during the winter season, how the sky would look. Considering this before I started writing helped the story flow.

You could also find collecting images and research about your story location in on place, like for example Pinterest, helps spark inspiration.

5. Mood

Possibly the most delicious step of the process is deciding on a mood for your story. The quickest way to do this is to just pick a few words that you want to characterize the story’s vibe.

This will typically tie in with step 1, genre, but it’s also a chance to experiment. Your contemporary thriller could be tense, exciting and fast-paced but it could also be funny, romantic or heart-warming.

As with location, this is another great opportunity to make a mood board that expresses the feeling of your story. I often even scroll YouTube for an ambient soundtrack that captures my story’s mood.

Some people believe creativity should be unhampered by structure, but I’ve experienced the opposite. Structures like this 5-step brainstorming process provide a framework that helps our ideas flow and, more importantly, ensures they have depth.

Want to Learn More About Writing?

Follow me here (theaawalker)

...On Instagram (_.sincerelyme._)

...On Twitter (theaawalker)

...Or Tiktok (@.the.aa.walker)

I post my fandom imagines, too. Check out my masterlister (pinned), and my latest one here.

Did I mention I'm publishing a book soon?! If you're interested in YA fantasy, fiction, and philosophy, then see my website, newsletter, or email me at [email protected] for updates.

19 notes · View notes

alliluyevas · 10 months

Note

hiii do u have any recs for books on mormon history? i'm mostly interested in how joseph smith's doctrine was shaped by american society around him and how mormon pioneers adopted settler colonialism/how they thought about race, also how they clashed with the american government and where mormons' anti-federal views began. but i'll really take recs on anything!!! google is not very helpful for finding mormon history books that are written from ppl outside the church lol

oh I am SO happy to help you, I love giving book recs.

I think all of the topics you've mentioned are fascinating and they're actually things I really want to dig deeper into myself. Most of what I've read so far has been either more overview/biography or focused on women's issues or polygamy. Obviously, both Mormon settler-colonialism and conflict with the federal government comes up while researching other topics, but I feel like I both want and need to read more specifically focusing on those subjects because they are definitely very important. I can still point you in the direction of a few books with either direct or tangential connection to your interests that I've read and liked, and some others I haven't read but have heard good things about.

Joseph Smith

For your question about Smith's doctrine and how he was shaped by his society, I would strongly recommend Dan Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. This is sort of an origin-story biography, focusing on JS's life up until 1831, the year after he published the Book of Mormon and formally founded the LDS church. But it's also a close reading of the text of the BOM examining how JS's life experiences and the context of the world around him affected the book he produced. There's also a follow up book, Charisma under Pressure: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1831–1839, focusing on the Ohio and Missouri periods of the early church, which came out this year and I haven't read it yet. The first volume is fantastic, though, and it's very close to what you're looking for.

I also have some recs that less directly address your question but still are relevant, and I think they're just good overall. Benjamin Park's Kingdom of Nauvoo focuses on Nauvoo-era Mormonism and does a really good job of putting their doctrine and society in its cultural context and comparing them to broader American society. Spencer McBride's Joseph Smith for President focuses on JS's 1844 third-party presidential campaign and his assassination mid-campaign.

Mormon Settler-Colonialism and Attitudes About Race

You absolutely need to read Virginia Kerns' Sally in Three Worlds: An Indian Captive in the House of Brigham Young. This is an absolutely fantastic and deeply moving book, I think it's one of the best works of Mormon-related history I've read. Kerns does a wonderful job of outlining the painful intimacy of how Sally's life intersected with the Young family, and there's a lot in this book both about how the Mormon settlement of Utah affected native people and about how Mormons settlers saw natives.

I would also recommend Pioneer Prophet, John Turner's biography of Brigham Young. It's a very engaging read and a really good biography of Young, and I think given his role as primary architect of Utah's colonization and the creator of the priesthood ban against black men, it's relevant to the topic.

I had mixed feelings about Joanna Brooks' Mormonism and White Supremacy, I think there are a lot of things she could have gone into more detail about and sometimes her arguments are a bit clumsy. I still think it's worth reading, especially for information about the church during the civil rights movement and the arguments over ending the priesthood ban. (Despite its broad title, the book is mostly focused on Mormon attitudes towards people of African descent, and chronologically on the 20th century rather than earlier. It is a good introduction to that subject, though, and it has a lot of really rich primary sources that are very informative).

I have not read Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness, but I have heard very good things.

Conflict with the Federal Government

Unfortunately, this is the area where I think I can help you least. I've read a lot touching on conflicts with the federal government, which is in many ways the defining theme of Mormonism in the latter half of the 19th century, but not a lot focusing specifically on it.

I have not read any of these books, and cannot vouch for their quality, but they do seem relevant to the topic and certainly may be worth checking out.

Unpopular Sovereignty: Mormons and the Federal Management of Early Utah Territory

The Mormon Rebellion: America's First Civil War 1857-1858

The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America

Pioneer Prophet will definitely also address this topic!

Please let me know if you have any other questions or you end up reading and enjoying any of these books! I love talking about this kind of thing!

#getting my career as a librarian started before i even start library school! who is doing it like me #mormonposting tag #please enjoy!!!

7 notes · View notes

b4b3tte · 1 year

Note

Hi can u please make a Rowan x gn reader but afab where reader is a new student and shy little water nymph who is part of Bianca's clique and they become friends for a while but Rowan feels he's out of their league so they reassure him and it's friends to lovers? No rush, i like reading ur stuff 💞

꒰ ⊹ ˚ Summary — outcast Rowan befriends a popular water nymph and accidentally develops feelings, he feels out of readers league since they are apart of a popular clique but Reader makes sure he thinks otherwise!! ( might make this a series!! )

Contains of — fluff,friends to lovers, comfort, kisses slight bullying,feeling like an outcast, negative thoughts and more!!

Babette’s note — Hi I am literally so fucking excited for this request like AAA- but tysm for requesting! At first I didn’t know what a water nymph was so I researched what it was and got an idea, I looked at some photos so please if I described or anything of the sort wrong I deeply apologize and would be more than happy to fix it! This is part one, part two is going to be full on fluff and if you want maybe some smut if you’d like :0!! Not proofread

- Going to Public school while being a nymph was extremely difficult and frustrating. Having to get up early in the morning to hide your identity from other students was such a hassle.

- Your legal guardian decided to hire a private teacher but obviously it was expensive none of the less, that is when your legal guardian came across Nevermore academy, a school for outcasts

- your legal guardian thought it was a dream come true, finally having a school suitable for you, but after so many promises and lies that your going to finally fit in somewhere

- you didn’t think that this was any different but you were grateful for how hard they were trying to find a place suitable for you. The day of going to nevermore academy was the worse, you had second thoughts and got into a argument with your legal guardian

- you just wanted a private teacher so you can stay at home, you were tired of feeling like an outcast. But at the end of the day you realized that this might be the last chance you'll have at feeling normal at a school environment or in general.

- It’s been a month since you transferred to nevermore academy, and so far it’s been a blast not having to hide who you are and having a group of peers just like you was a dream, you became great friends with Bianca,divina and Kent a group of sirens

- you also befriended a shy outcast which other people refer him as a “ freak “ , “ geek “ , “ nerd “ , “ lazy “ , “ loser “. sadly the people who referred him as that were your group of friends

- they were fun to hang out with but you have to admit, they were rude to other students although on your free time you’d hang out with Rowan in the library, which happened a lot,

- it wasn’t a surprise that you both developed feelings for each other, of course none of you made it clear that you guys were in-love, rowan was the one that had the most doubt, you being in a popular clique already Made him feel worse about himself and bring more negativity in his mind “ why would they want someone like me? “

- rowan naturally had a negative mindset since he was little, mainly about his uniqueness and interesting mindset, yet you looked past that, you thought it didn’t matter but Rowan thought otherwise

- rowan was whispering to himself in his dorm room, Xavier was out and about so he was alone, meanwhile you were walking down the dormitory hallway going to return his study book since he left it in the library

- weirdly the door was cracked open, which made you think something was up so you slowly walked to the door and putting your ear to the door you only hear soft whispering so you open the door

- you see Rowan sitting at his desk and hear him say “ would y/n ever love me back? “ you were genuinely surprised at the sudden sentence Rowan said, you were at the lost for words really.

- you wanted to say something but also stay quiet, but the quietness turned to loudness from the unexpected ring from both ends of the door.

- one from being sent and one from being received

- “ oh shit “

- the ring was a text. A text from Rowan saying “ hey are you free right now? “ thing is you know Rowan heard the ring, so obviously he looked at the door and saw a figure.

- he quickly got up and opened the door, shocked to find out it was you.

Hey thank you for reading!! I truly appreciate it!! Create a life that feels good on the inside, not one that just looks good on the outside!! Love you so much take care part two coming up!!🫶🤍⭐️

side note Someone please write me some rocky balboa fanfics<3 mwah mwah

45 notes · View notes

infini-tree · 1 year

Text

ok thinking about every post/video/theory that goes along the lines of, “oogway was the True Villain all along”. and if you’ve been here long enough you know how much i... disagree, to put it mildly.

that isn’t to say that oogway hasn’t done some questionable things or has no “negative” character traits, but between his minor role in the story, the implications of his backstory being minimal in the final product and any further elaboration is in the concept art books, and biases, its often conflated into its worst case.

consider this a counter-argument turned me gushing about my favorite scenes in a kfp short and casual oogway character essay (but we’re not there yet, ssh).

speaking of, what is oogway’s negative trait? its also his greatest boon: his knowledge and wisdom! it comes through in different ways, but it usually amounts to his worldliness and how he can see the big picture. it helps guide himself and others to a greater goal-- which more or less amounts to keeping the peace.

(when i say negative, its in the context of the scene/characters interpreting it. traits are inherently neutral unless put up against a situation that would hurt/help-- being bullheaded to refuse help and the determination to save the day still comes from the same root of stubbornness.

as an aside, one could say how that could derive from his previous experience as a former warlord but that’s not what this is talking about)

the negative aspects are more in regards to the chain reaction. seeing the big picture leads to hurting the individuals involved whether he means to or not. people like to talk about oogway’s treatment of tai lung or kai, but a lot of it is more in the subtext or concept art books-- while useful, it leaves a lot of wiggle room.

so let’s pivot and talk about secrets of the masters.

maybe people will brush this off on account of it not being Main Canon Material (ie. the movies), but considering that it was often bundled with kfp2′s dvd releases its meant to be supplementary material and additional context to the main canon. plus, it showcases oogway as an actual character and being “manipulative” on-screen in a way the tai lung and kai examples don’t have, which you think would make this prime evidence.

in the short, the entire reason why the past Master’s Council comes together is because (spoilers) oogway lies to them! when he tries to mobilize them to join him, he tries to appeal to them by mentioning the abstract good that can be done by accomplishing the mission to go to the hubei volcano and defeating the wu sisters-- he talks about using their kung fu for a noble purpose and helping the innocent.

this does not impress the past Master’s Council, who are much more pragmatic and are looking out for a material reward. and this is his reaction.

CROC: I can’t help but feel that something is still missing.

OOGWAY: [sighs] Because upon completing the mission, you’ll discover a path to a wealth of riches.

oogway pivots quick from listing off virtues to something they would want to hear once he realizes his usual speech won’t rouse them to his side. far from his usual peaceful, unshakeable self from a few moments ago-- let alone the movies-- he's exasperated and a little thrown off that the trio wouldn’t do it without the promise of a theoretical reward.

and that exasperation continues throughout the short. it’s interesting that while the plot hinges on oogway basically manipulating them, he is at his most blunt, where he expresses frustration and an awareness to his own role (which arguably can be construed as either genre savviness for laughs, complete confidence/arrogance, or an attempt to impart the wisdom that they’re stronger together, depending on how you want to read the scene).

OOGWAY: It’s so nice you’ve managed to take the most respected art form in China and use it to pursue nothing but fame.

T. RHINO: How does this help us get across?

OOGWAY: [chuckles] It doesn’t! It helps me... and by helping me, you help yourself.

but the lie does eventually catch up with oogway, to disastrous consequences. whatever goodwill was built up in the journey to defeat the wu sisters immediately crumbles-- both literally and metaphorically as the ground crumbles under the trio and into a lava river headed straight over a cliff... only for oogway to save them and be deemed dead on the spot as he plummets in their place.

OOGWAY: Well, I never said money.

CROC: You did!

OOGWAY: I said riches, as in emotional riches.

[...]

T. RHINO: Wait a sec-- no money? That’s the only reason why we followed you.

while in the end, they get the character growth needed to fight the wu sisters and become the master’s council, it didn’t come without a cost-- the trio were manipulated for most of the journey, through unforgiving terrain far from home, nearly died, and just saw someone they trusted basically die in front of them. they don’t have the hindsight that oogway isn’t going to die like the audience. and that was before they even had to fight the wu sisters!

it’s messed up if you put it plainly. however, one could argue that oogway was performing his role as a mentor figure to them. while he may have known the “end result” leading them to being the council by whatever means established in canon, in the end he had to put his faith on them that they’ll do the right thing without him being there-- which is a lot to ask.

another argument one can posit is that since oogway is trying to do this for good or that it lead to notable good results, that this action wasn’t manipulative and was teaching them a lesson so it doesn’t count. its both! it is complicated!

how is him trying to do the best under the circumstances shown in masters different from him not giving tai lung the dragon scroll? how is it not different from him going up against kai and having to “send him to the Spirit Realm” and later hide his past legacy? he tried to look at the big picture to do what’s best, but in these situations his attempts backfired horribly.

anyway tl;dr: oogway’s doing his best, yes the fact that he looks so big picture that he ends up hurting others is his greatest weakness but also why he’s managed to protect others, inspire to protect others, and why kung fu continues to be a thing

#mells thinking out loud on her blog again #uhhhhh i hope this makes sense i wrote this to try and not think abt the thing making me anxious so forgive me for any inaccuracies #this is also an excuse for me to drop my favorite Oogway Line Ever #ch: you're the one to change your story

18 notes · View notes

thosearentcrimes · 2 years

Text

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a lot better than Dracula. The flow of the text is better, it's more fun to read, the themes are more subtle and interesting. Perhaps a better work to compare to would be The Vampyre, a work which arose from the same impromptu writing circle as Frankenstein, and which apparently introduced the vampire into anglophone literature in a form recognizably similar to that which appears many decades later in Dracula. However, I have read Dracula, and so have many others, and I have not read The Vampyre.

By way of example of the superiority of Frankenstein, consider the use of the epistolary device. Dracula retains it throughout the narrative, in which it interferes constantly, to no appreciable benefit. The rapid shift from narrator to narrator is not accompanied by significant insight into their character and internal world, as the characters are in fact precisely who everyone else takes them to be. By contrast, Frankenstein also begins with an epistolary introduction, but then transitions reasonably cleanly into narrative. The epistolary device is not used to much greater effect, but less of a bad thing is still an improvement.

The writing of these letters is remarkably bad. I understand that tastes change, but the letters (including those cited in the non-epistolary section) consist largely of people telling each other things they clearly already know, for the benefit of the reader. Surely there is no point in writing letters into the story if they're not going to make sense within the narrative? Additionally, both letters and dialogue are all rendered in the same voice.

On this note, while Shelley has gone to great lengths to justify the eloquence of the monster, and this eloquence does in fact serve a worthwhile thematic purpose, the effect of it is reduced somewhat by every other character being bizarrely eloquent as well. Additionally the mechanism by which the monster is rendered eloquent is quite frankly a long series of plot holes. As appropriate as it is for the monster to reference Paradise Lost, it is quite inexplicable for a French-speaking monster in 18th century Germany to have found a copy of it (and some other books) in the first place, let alone been able to read it, for starters.

Some of the character introductions, especially but not exclusively those done by way of letters, are a bit too obviously utilitarian. I rather prefer it when the author either sets up all the characters and plot points in such a way that the reader cannot tell that they serve a specific narrative purpose later, or that they simply introduce them when they come up. A character brought up with no immediate motivation a chapter or two before they become narratively relevant is like a recognizable big-name actor in a police procedural, it gives the game away. I wonder what happens in a couple chapters with this tragic innocent in this gothic horror novel!

Despite all my criticism, I quite liked Frankenstein and I think it is not only worth reading but additionally a good book. The story has relevant themes, ably explored, without letting them get too far in the way of a gripping narrative. The philosophical points it sets out are still valid and relevant today, and not in a facile way. Merely substitute "life" for "intelligence", which in any case is really a substitution of synonyms as far as the general form of the argument goes, and make other minor adjustments as necessary, and you get a more intelligent analysis of AI than almost any I have read in the press or in blogs, though that speaks more to the miserable state of that discourse than anything else.

Easily the most affecting part of the book is the narration by the monster himself, and really the book improves as it approaches this point, and deteriorates as it departs. Some decontextualized quotes that particularly stuck with me: "I, too, can create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair to him", "My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor", and best of all "I intended to reason. This passion is detrimental to me; for you do not reflect that you are the cause of its excess."

#book report #Frankenstein #Mary Shelley #I should come up with a tag for books I liked

11 notes · View notes

bambirex · 1 year

Text

Jaskier and Jesse Pinkman are kind of the same person: Part 1

(Part 1 because I wanted to put pictures for each bulletpoint and the 10 pics per post limit whacked me over the head and stopped me from making one giant post)

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I've seen Breaking Bad only recently and I couldn't help but notice my blorbo from this show is a bit similar to my blorbo from another show.

I've started looking for parallels on purpose after a while, and I've found quite a lot of them, so to take a break from sobbing over contract law, I've made this list comparing my two faves to entertain no one but myself.

Obviously, I did take into consideration that Jaskier is (unfortunately) only a side character, while Jesse is a main character, and that Breaking Bad has gone on for 5 seasons (and there was also a 2 hours long movie focusing on just him), while The Witcher has only had two seasons so far. I'm also only focusing on show Jaskier, not the books/game counterparts of him. So obviously this little analysis suffers from some disadvantages but oh well!

Feel free to add on and express your opinion if your interests in these characters overlap, but I'm absolutely not looking for any arguments (unless it's over something funny like whose pants are the baggiest)!

Contains many spoilers for both shows of course.

Part 2 Part 3

First of all, they both have a lot of empathy and are generally one of the kindest characters on their shows with the biggest heart. Specific example: Jaskier's entire Sandpiper storyline where he's smuggling the elves to safety to save them from persecution, and his kindness and understanding shown towards a magic-less Yennefer when they reunite in Season 2., despite the fact they haven't exactly been on good terms before; also how he's willing to give her the benefit of doubt after she betrays Geralt.

Similarly, Jesse has a special love for kids, so much so that his need to protect them is often used against him. He's also the character who tries to find ways to avoid violence, even when the rest of the characters are already planning murder. He's also the most torn up when he eventually has to hurt someone.

Both can be a little childish/immature (see specifically Jaskier's tug of war with Geralt over the djinn amphora, and Jesse entertaining himself in the lab when Walt cannot come in to work with him), as well as impulsive.

They both have artistic tendencies: Jaskier being the most renowned bard and poet of the Continent, while Jesse draws beautifully and is also passionate about woodworking. We also hear Jesse sing and he has a drumkit in his house.

Kind of going back to my point about their empathy, they always seem to see the best in people, which leads to a certain sense of naivety; especially prevalent in Jesse constantly standing up for Walt and often refusing to even consider he could be harmful, up until the very end.

Point could also stand for the fact that Jaskier has stuck by Geralt's side over twenty years, despite not necessarily being treated the way he deserved, and how he approached him without fear when they first met, not leaving even after he found out he's a witcher (and again, him trying to find reasons to justify Yennefer's choice of giving Ciri over). Also relevant to this point: their extreme loyalty to the people mentioned above, and in general.

Both characters are pretty emotional; Jesse explicitly expresses his feelings by crying quite often throughout the show, while Jaskier's emotions are most prominently shown through his songs (and in some cases, his near-crying, such as the reunion with Geralt and his face after finishing his performance of Burn Butcher Burn).

(to be continued)

#jaskier #jesse pinkman #the witcher #breaking bad #meta post #blorbo showdown #not really i'm not making them fight #bambi says some bullshit

5 notes · View notes

pr3ttym3l · 25 days

Text

blooming love <3 (onionthief fanfic! :3)

Chapter 1: The Discord Server

In the chaotic world of the internet, there are countless niches where people find their communities. For Onionthief and Y/N, their haven was a Discord server dedicated to the novel Blooming Panic. It was a vibrant corner of the web where fans of the book gathered to discuss theories, share fan art, and revel in their love for the story.

Onionthief, known in real life as Adrian, was the server’s unofficial moderator. His presence was like a well-intentioned storm—authoritative and disciplined. He believed in maintaining order and keeping discussions on track. To him, the server was a sanctuary where people could escape the chaos of life and immerse themselves in the world of Blooming Panic. His strictness was his way of showing dedication to the community he cherished.

Y/N, or Emily as she was known to her friends, stumbled into the server one evening after another exhausting day at her finance job. Her life was a whirlwind of spreadsheets and numbers, a world far removed from the fantastical realms she read about in her favorite novels. She joined the server hoping to find some respite, and what she found was a group of people who shared her passion for Blooming Panic. Emily quickly became an active member, bringing her own unique insights and creative theories to the discussions.

Chapter 2: The Clash

Adrian and Emily’s first interaction was anything but smooth. Emily had posted a theory about a subplot in Blooming Panic that Adrian, with his meticulous approach, thought was off-base. A debate ensued in the server, with Adrian arguing his point with the rigor of a scholar, while Emily defended her theory with passionate enthusiasm.

"Your theory is interesting, but it doesn’t quite fit with the timeline," Adrian said in a firm tone.

Emily replied, "I see where you’re coming from, but I think you're missing a crucial detail. If you consider the character's background, it makes perfect sense."

The debate continued, with both sides presenting their arguments. The discussion was civil but intense. For the first time, Emily felt both challenged and intrigued by someone who seemed to be her intellectual equal.

Chapter 3: The Compromise

Despite their initial clash, Emily and Adrian found themselves drawn to each other’s perspectives. They started to communicate more, not just about Blooming Panic, but about their lives outside the server. Emily learned that Adrian was a dedicated student who valued education above all else, while Adrian discovered that Emily was trapped in a job she despised, using her love for literature as an escape.

Their conversations became more personal and less about the book. They shared their dreams and frustrations, their fears and hopes. Adrian admired Emily’s passion for literature and her resilience, while Emily began to appreciate Adrian’s dedication and the principles he stood by.

One day, Adrian opened up about how his strict approach to life stemmed from his desire to ensure a better future for himself and those he cared about. Emily, in turn, shared her struggles with her finance job and how it drained her creative spirit.

Chapter 4: The Connection

Over time, their relationship evolved from a series of debates to something deeper. They found themselves looking forward to their conversations, feeling a connection that went beyond their shared love for Blooming Panic. They started meeting in person, finding a delicate balance between Adrian’s structured nature and Emily’s spontaneous spirit.

Adrian introduced Emily to his world of academic rigor, helping her understand the value of discipline in achieving one's goals. Emily, in turn, showed Adrian how to embrace the unpredictability of life, encouraging him to take breaks and enjoy the little things.

Chapter 5: The Blooming Love

Their love story mirrored the unfolding drama in Blooming Panic. Just as the novel’s characters faced challenges and grew through their experiences, Adrian and Emily navigated their differences and found strength in their union.

Adrian’s strictness softened as he learned to appreciate the unpredictability and beauty in Emily’s world. Emily, in turn, discovered a newfound respect for structure and discipline, finding a way to integrate it into her own life without losing her love for literature.

Their love was a testament to the power of compromise and understanding. They taught each other that while differences might seem like obstacles, they can also be the foundation of a stronger, more meaningful connection.

Epilogue: A New Chapter

Years later, Adrian and Emily still frequented the Discord server, now as a couple deeply in love. They continued to discuss Blooming Panic and their lives, finding joy in the community that had brought them together.

Adrian had found a balance between his academic pursuits and his personal life, while Emily had transformed her passion for literature into a career. They both cherished their shared journey, knowing that their love had blossomed from a disagreement into a lifelong partnership.

Their story was a reminder that love can be found in the most unexpected places, and sometimes, the most unlikely people can come together to create something truly beautiful.

1 note · View note

mandy4ever69420 · 4 months

Text

jumpscared by the first tag game i've interacted with in years by @softmick . Solidarity with another duckduckgo user 💪

Name: u can use like isador. wolf. i mean whatever though people have called me sasuke to my face before

Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? (or you): TX united states

Ok, so this week we are going to snoop into your google duck duck go search. Type in each phrase and tell us what the first suggestion is that google gives you!

What is the best way to…. lose weight? it's hard to think of something i'm less interested in.

Where can I…. watch season 4 of the chosen? <-considered legitimately using this as a show rec before seeing it was about jesus.

How old is… Taylor Swift? <-getting the sense that the search suggestion algorithm is not trying very hard.

How long does it take.... to get a passport? last time i updated my passport as a teen it took like 4h in the worst government building ever. horrible horrible architecture, designed to torture people. passed the time trying to remember the lyrics to bei mir bistu sheyn (bei mir hostu khein, bei mir bistu einer oif der veld)

How many… weeks in a year? <-again like i am being stonewalled by default searches. good news for my internet safety though?

Who set the record for…. belmont stakes? <- learning what this was is now the most ive ever known about horse racing

When did…. ww2 end? depressing ass question. feels like an essay question that im supposed to subvert. like, am i supposed bring up an argument about the cold war & worldwide proxy wars as an immediate consequence? far, far, too depressing by far

What does it feel like to… get shot? dear dear friend of mine will be in some shameless type situations tbf id just ask him

Can you… name all women shit i had no idea there were that many? i never found the fucking tiktok i was looking for with this one. For the love of god if anyone has it let me know. "amelia eirhart.. ummm.. doja kat." <-thats what he said

When you… say nothing at all 🤐

Why do…n't we just dance? i have long since forgotten how😔 i probably need to relearn bc i do think it's lovely.

Is there a way… to unsend an email? if there was an obvious one id never communicate with anyone at all.

How old do you have to be… to scuba dive? this is the first time i've considered an age limit. i suppose it makes sense not to let like a 3 year old down there though. i mean like imagine the consequences.

Where do the… lakers play? ya rabb wala 7ada yahtamu 3an jadd

What is the best time to… book a flight? several months in advance, probably.

And to finish us off…. What comes up when you type in Shameless? "Shameless season 1 monica" i was trying, fruitlessly, to remember the episode number of her first appearance because i'm the rube who doesnt memorize that. anyway did we know the wiki fucking sucks for shameless. like it absolutely sucks ass

tagging: ill be SO honest no one knows me from here so this is a random assemblage of people who i don't believe will shoot me in the face for it🤗 @pomodoriyum @eviefrie No pressure though. Anemoneway

#i've been out excuse me. Hi

0 notes

the1975attheirverybest · 8 months

Note

Not sure why I am bothering to reply at this point but I mentioned that I was a German teacher it in the very first message I sent you and I never said you were stupid or any of that other stuff. I also never questioned what you wrote about Infinite Jest or said that your positions weren't valid. At all. I literally said that I would generally agree with your take/ am interested in your opinions and thoughts - I simply pointed out that, so far, I hadn't come to any exciting conculsions by myself but was open to changing my mind. Guess that wasn't appreciated. Still, I don't really understand where you're coming from or why you're so uncharacteristically hostile and you feel the need to go as far as low key insinuating that I am a bad teacher/ my arguments lack logic while going "how dare you" on me. And no, I do not feel threatened, I just don't think it's very nice/ productive to automatically assume everybody knows less than you and/ or is out to get you. Nevertheless, I can tell that I clearly upset you somehow which wasn't my intention. So apologies. And happy writing.

Idk bestie. I ran your messages by others on here because I was so confused as to why what I perceived as perfectly cordial conversation suddenly escalated like that. I wasn’t sure if maybe I missed a step or phrased something weirdly that might have come off aggressive when I didn’t meant it to. and those people agreed with me that it was weird of you to be offended. So, idk what to say anymore.

I’m following your logic. I agree with all that you’ve said here. Hence my confusion about your “biting your head off” or whatever. I thought we were on the same page? But clearly I’ve done something that you perceive as an attack. Even when I mentioned the Goethe thing. I wasn’t trying to like correct or educate you or anything. I was just thinking about a way that the book could be relevant to the show. You know , like consumption? But idk even that seemed to upset you.

For what it’s worth since we’ve here now I might as well. I didn’t even mean those books. I was looking at whatever was behind matty in that clip of the birthday party that I linked before. Because, like I said, those were books of Matty’s personal collection. And the playboy magazine in the basket next to him and stuff. Like those are intentional. Because of the sex/ porn/ excessive conception of media and isolation and all of that. But I felt like going into detail about it when you were just trying to help by providing a close up with high def images would just be pretentious and weird so I figured “alright everyone has a different interpretation” was polite enough. Again, clearly not lmao.

Maybe you’re having some kind of bad day, maybe I am having a bad day and all my friends whom I’ve shown your messages to are just lying to me to make me feel better about myself. Who knows. But I promise you none of what you perceive as offensive to your opinion or your profession or your taste in books or whatever was meant as such. I was simply saying I think those books have meaning. Idk what you were saying because I’ve clearly failed in understanding your point or communicating with you but I promise you even if what you have to say is different from me I didn’t meant to nor would I ever like attack you over it. That’s all that’s going on (from my side of things ) anyway. Yeah. Not sure what’s going on but I’m sorry and I hope you’re not upset. Genuinely I’m not being ironic cuz maybe I’m bad at tone? Idk anyways all the

Love 💗

0 notes

lesfeldickbiblestudy · 1 year

Text

Through the Bible with Les Feldick LESSON 2 * PART 4 * BOOK 72 THE BIG PICTURE PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE (CONTINUED ...) - 4 I Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25 Okay, program number four and again we just want to invite our television audience to study with us. We trust you take your own Bible and make notes and go back and restudy even after the program is over, because the name of the game is to get a handle on what the Word of God says. Because it’s not all that hard once you learn to differentiate some of these things that we’re trying to show this afternoon. All right, we’re still going to continue on in the dispensation of the Grace of God, which, of course, was given to the Apostle Paul and no one else. The Twelve didn’t have one iota of any of the doctrines that are pertinent for us. So we’ll continue on that line. We’re going to jump in at Romans chapter 3 only for the sake of showing how Paul covers all the bases for our dispensation of Grace by bringing us out of the mentality of the Law. And it is so appropriate for today, because, again, most of Christendom thinks that if I do the best I can, if I keep the commandments, surely God will accept me. That’s not it at all. It’s as far from the truth as you can get. If you know anything about the Book of Romans, you know that the first two and a half to three chapters are God building His case against the whole human race. First He shows how guilty the immoral section of society is. Then He looks at the moral individual who seemingly lives an upright life but his conscience and his mind and all of his thinking are just as evil as the overt. And then you come to the third part, which of course dealt primarily with the Nation of Israel who was religious. With all their religion they thought that they were pleasing God. But they were just as guilty. So the Apostle comes to God’s conclusion, not his, where in chapter 3 verse 9, he says: Romans 3:9-10 “What then? are we (Jews, because of their religion) better than they? (Those pagan Gentiles) No, in no wise: for we have before proved (Now watch this.) both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all (What?)under sin. (under the fall of Adam) 10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” All right, now it’s interesting that here again Paul makes it so explicit. Where did the sin problem originate? “By one man” he says in Romans 5. We won’t find that in any other portion of Scripture. Now, Ezekiel says, “the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful, who can know it?” But it doesn’t come right out and explicitly tell us that the whole sin problem originated with Adam. But Paul does. And that’s where he becomes the Apostle that reveals so many things that were more or less in limbo even in this Jewish economy. All right, now I’m going to jump all the way up to verse 19. Romans 3:19a “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, (I think the word law here is just confined to the Ten Commandments—the moral law. He’s not talking about the civil and the sacrifices and all that, but the moral law, the Ten Commandments.) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law:…” Well, only Israel was under the Law. Only Israel was given the directions for that dispensation. The Gentile world, as we saw earlier this afternoon, had no way of knowing anything about the things of Israel’s God. But, the moral law is going to go to the whole human race. It’s God’s law for the planet earth. That is in the last half of the verse. Romans 3:19b “…that every mouth (not just Jews) may be stopped, (with no argument) and all the world (not just Israel) may become guilty before God.” Now that’s the exact opposite of what most of Christendom is preaching and teaching, isn’t it? There isn’t one iota of thought here that associates salvation with keeping the Law. It’s the opposite. And what is it? It condemns. The Law doesn’t help people get to heaven. It condemns them and people don’t like that.

I shared it with you last taping. I had a young man call, and he was upset because of what I’d said about the Law. And I said, “I didn’t say it, the Book did.” He said, “I don’t care. I still don’t like it, because that’s how I’m going to get heaven.” Sorry, it won’t fly. The Law was only given to condemn, not to help anybody. All right, now verse 20 is just frosting on the cake. Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds (the keeping) of the Law there shall no flesh (Not one human being is going to gain God’s heaven by keeping the Law.) be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge (or the understanding) of sin.” Oh, people have been sold a bill of goods, haven’t they? And who’s behind it? Satan. And then they tell us that 66% of our political leaders do not believe in a literal, physical, veritable Satan? I just read that yesterday. Frightening and yet it’s maddening. How in the world can people in so called Christian America, (but we aren’t Christian anymore, I guess) maintain there’s no such thing as a satanic power? I asked my Wisconsin Seminar a question – Why is America in the spiritual dilemma that we’re in? One word? What’s our problem? Unbelief! They no longer believe a word of this Book. And we’re going down, down, down, down. And that’s the number one problem. They can’t even believe that there is a satanic power evident in the universe, or especially on planet earth. All right, so here we have that the Law is only given for one purpose and that was to show Israel their sin, but not just Israel, the whole human race is brought about guilty because they’re breaking God’s Law. All right, verse 21, here was one I think we used in our But God and But Now series. Romans 3:21 “But now (What does he mean by that? On this side of the cross. Not on the front side in Christ’s earthly ministry, but on this side of the cross.) the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;” Of course, that’s all background. I use this illustration over and over: there’s no use going into higher mathematics if you can’t add two and two and get four. You have to have the basics before you can understand the deep things. Well, it’s the same way here. The Old Testament was all just a background for our understanding now of these New Testament truths. Romans 3:22a “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ…” And like I said in an earlier program today, what Jesus Christ does Paul know? The crucified, buried, and risen Christ. Whenever he terms Jesus Christ, that’s what he’s talking about—the crucified, buried, and risen Christ. All right, so it’s by our faith in that Jesus Christ and the finished work of the cross that saves you. Romans 3:22 “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that (What?) believe: (But see, most of Christendom complicates it, and they start adding. But you don’t dare do that. It’s by faith alone in that finished work of the cross. And then he says:) for there is no difference:” In other words, a Jew has to be saved the same way that we do. Somebody just told me at break time that one of their friends heard that I said a Jew couldn’t be saved. Yes, they can. But now they must come the same way we in the Body of Christ must come. But it’s not likely they will, because they are so blinded. I was just reading an article last night in a Jewish magazine where the Rabbi was explicitly warning his Jewish readers to have nothing to do with this Jesus of Nazareth. Well, what else can you expect? Here we have it that there is no difference as far as the means of salvation between Jew and Gentile. But the Jew is going to be hard pressed to come to a faith in this which they, for the most part, have been rejecting. All right, then verse 23, here’s the verse that begins with every salvation experience. We have to know that we’re lost before we can be saved. And here it is.

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Nobody can keep the Ten Commandments good enough to get to Heaven. It’s impossible. Only Christ Himself was able to do that. But here’s where the goodness of God comes in. Here’s the Grace of God. Romans 3:24a “Being justified freely by his grace…” Without a cost—you don’t have to raise a million dollars. I’m repeating it for the third time this afternoon. You don’t have to swim a raging river. You don’t have to climb a sheer cliff to find salvation. It’s right in front of us, and all we have to do is believe it. Oh, it’s so simple. And yet, I think the reason most people reject it is they’re afraid they’re going to have to give up things. It’s going to change their lifestyle where life will be misery. But that’s not the way it is at all. And you and I know it. When people come out of that background and come into the joy of salvation – have you ever heard of a true believer that wanted to go back into his old lifestyle? I never have. So what are they worried about? What are they afraid of? It’s just as if, oh, I can’t do that, because then I can’t enjoy the things I’m enjoying. Listen, they don’t know the half of it. The things they think they enjoy are really a millstone around their neck. Romans 3:24-25a “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (Not because we’ve worked for it or deserved it, but it comes through the redemption or the process of buying us out of the slave-market of sin, and how did God do it? Through the shed blood of the cross—the Christ in verse 24) 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,…” In other words, the moment we trust that work of the cross, including His shed blood, then Christ becomes everything that was pictured in that tabernacle in the wilderness. Now, that may be a difficult way to explain it, because a lot of people don’t know what’s involved in the tabernacle. But we’ll be coming to it in the daily program err long as they’re coming up through Genesis and we hit Exodus. We’ll be teaching the tabernacle. Every facet of that tabernacle, everything: the materials, the silver, the gold, the brass, the cloth, the linen, they were all pictures of one aspect of Christ’s life or another. All right, the sacrificial animals – what where they? A picture of His sacrifice. Everything pertaining to that little tabernacle out in the wilderness was a composite picture of Jesus Christ in our relationship. He was everything that we need to gain favor with God. That’s what propitiation means. He not only was the sacrifice, He was the place of sacrifice. He was not only the laver of cleaning, He was the cleansing. He not only was the table of showbread, He is the table of showbread. And all the way through that tabernacle, that’s our understanding of what Christ is to us. All right, now verse 26: Romans 3:26 “To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: (Not ours. We aren’t what we are because we’ve done so much. We are what we are because of what He has done on our behalf. All right, so we declare His righteous.) that he (speaking of God in verse 25. God will be absolutely--) might be just, (or fair) and be the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.” Now, isn’t that plain? In other words, the moment we believe, what does God declare us? Justified—no longer are we guilty. We have been set free. We have been justified of all things. Then verse 27: Romans 3:27-29 “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. (We have no room to boast. We haven’t done anything except believe it.) By what law? (…is it excluded?) of works? No: but by the law of faith. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (All right, now to show that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in this Age of Grace, look at the next verse.) 29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? (Well, he answers his own question.

) Yes, of the Gentiles also:” It’s the one and the same God. But now, of course, there is that different economy by which we come into a relationship with God. It’s not by the Old Testament economy of works and law and temple worship and sacrifices, now it’s by faith and faith alone in that finished work of the cross. All right, now in the few moments that we have left, let’s go across, still in Romans, to chapter 7. I’m just hitting some of the highlights now of Paul’s teachings concerning the directions for our living, directions for our belief system during this Dispensation of Grace. And all these instructions are completely different from what God was instructing the Nation of Israel under the Law. Romans 7:4 “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also (as a believer now) are become dead to the law (Now people don’t like that. What’d he mean dead to the Law? The Law has nothing to do with me anymore. Christ has satisfied all the demands of that Law.) by the body of Christ; (That work of the cross when He suffered and died. All right, then what’s supposed to be the result? When we become a believer--) that ye should be married (brought into a union) to another, (Who?) even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” In other words, our relationship with Christ as an ordinary, everyday citizen of whatever part of the world we may live. Our primary purpose is to be an influence on lost people to bring them to a knowledge of salvation. I think I shared it with you when we first came back from our Aegean Cruise. We were in the footsteps of Paul, and we were at one of the places in Western Turkey. I think we were probably at the amphitheater of Ephesus. We had a little, young Muslim guide, about 27 or 28 years old. She spoke perfect English. She was educated. I had an opportunity for about five minutes while everybody was looking at the ruins and everything to have a one-on-one conversation with her. Come to find out, she was raised Muslim, but she wasn’t practicing it. She was what she called a secular Muslim. She had no interest in the religion or something like that. I started showing her the plan of salvation and the hope of Glory, and tears started coming down her cheeks. She said, “Why are you so interested in me?” And I said, “Because God loves you. God doesn’t want you to go to an eternal doom. God wants you in His Heaven. God wants you there. I want you there. That’s the only thing.” And she couldn’t comprehend that. Why should you care about me? And then I told her, “Well, you see, that’s the difference between us and the Muslim religion. We aren’t going to conquer Muslims with the sword and with the guns and the warfare. We want to conquer them with the love of Christ. And that’s the difference.” This is the whole idea that we as believers are to live our life in such a way that we have an influence on the lost world around us. Now, I’m not one that promotes grabbing people and preaching at them and trying to force it down their throat. Hey, that’s not the way God wants us to do it. God wants us to be an influence. He wants us to be ambassadors as He says in II Corinthians chapter 5. Okay, now come back to Romans 7 if you will, verse 5. Romans 7:5a “For when we (as believers now) were in the flesh,...” We were just like the unsaved world around us. It doesn’t make any difference. Maybe we didn’t go out and get drunk and get high and all these other things that a lot of the world does. But there are a lot of good people out in the world, too. You’ve got to recognize it. There are a lot of good people, but they’re still lost. So, when we were in that state, we may have been living a good life, but we were lost until we recognized that the Law condemned us. We were just as guilty as if we’d been doing it. Romans 7:5a “For when we were in the flesh, (We were still out there as lost sinners.) the motions (or the acts) of sins, which were by the law,…” What does

that mean? Well, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t kill, don’t covet, and don’t gossip. Those were all things that the Law condemns every human being. And we were just as guilty as anybody else. All right, so when those things were part of our lifestyle. Romans 7:5b “…the law, did work in our members (That is our body of flesh, that if we were to go on to the end of our life as lawbreakers, where do we spend eternity? Lost) to bring forth fruit unto death.” Spiritual death. That’s what it says. Verse 5 again, “These things work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Spiritual death. Eternal separation from God. That’s where the lost person is headed, whether he’s good or bad makes no difference. All right, now verse 6, here’s the other side of the coin. Romans 7:6 “But now (As believers, because that’s who he’s writing to.) we (as believers) are delivered from the law, (In other words, the Law has no more power over us to convict us of any of it. We’re delivered from it.) that being dead wherein we were held; (In other words, the Law had its heavy hand of condemnation on us every moment of our life until now.) that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” Now what’s the comparison? Now, as a believer, we’re not under the heavy demand of the Law. We are now under the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit shows us what’s wrong. The Holy Spirit shows us what we should do and shouldn’t do. And that makes all the difference in the world. We’re not under “the oldness of the letter,” which is Paul’s term for the moral law. We just have nothing to do with that whatsoever. All right, now I’m going to come on over to one of my favorite chapters in the whole Bible—Romans chapter 8. Let’s start at verse 1, and this is all part of this dispensation of the Grace of God. You won’t see something like this back in the Old Testament, beloved. You won’t see something like this under Christ’s earthly ministry. But here on this side of the cross, yes, this is evident. Verse 1: Romans 8:1a “There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus,…” Now don’t forget, how do we get in Christ Jesus? By the baptism of the Holy Spirit that places us by an invisible, unfeeling act of God to become a member of the Body of Christ. All right, now as a member of the Body of Christ, I don’t care what any other preacher says, I don’t care how famous he is; once you’re in the Body of Christ, nothing can take you out. Nothing! And, oh, they like to scare people – be careful. Iris and I have always said, “The people that preach that are seemingly the most careless in their Christian life.” Why, if I had that preached at me, I’d be scared to take a deep breath, wouldn’t you? For fear I’d be losing something. But listen, it’s not going to happen. There it is, the promise – “there is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.” But you’ve got to remember, a lot of professing people are not in Christ. With this, I think I can turn over to—I didn’t intend to do this. You’re getting this free for nothing. I’ve got two minutes left. Go to II Corinthians chapter 5. I know I’ve used it on the program before, but it’s been a long time ago. Now remember where I came from – Romans 8:1--“There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.” Now look at II Corinthians 5:17. II Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if any man be (Where?) in Christ, (You see that? The same in Christ that Romans is talking about.) he is a new creature: (He has been created new.) old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Now, whenever I use this verse I think of an anecdote I used years ago where a pastor of a large church in Chicago was preaching on this verse one Sunday morning. He had a large congregation. He read the verse, and then he asked his congregation, “How many of you here this morning claim to be a Christian?” Every last one stood up.

No exceptions. He said, “Okay, be seated. Now, I’m going to ask you another question. How many of you this morning know that you are in Christ?” How many stood up? Just a sprinkling. What was the point? Oh, our churches are full of people who are Christian in name only, but they’re not in Christ. And see, that’s what makes the difference. Only those who are in Christ are going to be in eternity with Him! The rest are going to miss it. And you see, when these churches are constantly putting out a social gospel, a feel good, entertaining type gospel, they’re not bringing people to that position in Christ. And they’re going to be held responsible. I’d hate to be in their shoes. Listen, if it was so complicated, I’d feel guilty talking about it. But it isn’t. It’s so simple! All you have to do is believe it.

0 notes