#the day society thought there was 'bad art' and that inherently meant it had no value and was better off not existing was the day we lost. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

goddessdoeswitchery · 4 years ago

Text

Hellenic Polytheism 101: Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism

What follow is a transcript of all 7 episodes of my podcast Hellenic Polytheism 101, where I discussed the pillars of Hellenic Polytheism. There are more episodes to follow, but I figured it would be nice to have a place where all 7 of the episodes discussing the pillars were together. The series started on August 23rd and ended on Nov 1st, released on a bi-weekly basis at 8 am every Sunday. In total, it’s 12 pages long, so I’m placing it under a Read More because it is very, very long. In each episode, there is a list of resources, and each one is linked for you in the original post (just click the tag transcripts under this post, and it’ll take you to the transcripts for every podcast episode) to do your own follow up research. I hope that people will find this useful.

Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism: Technically, the pillars were never actually a “thing”. Unlike then 10 commandments, the pillars were never taught as a set of rules that everyone knew by the name “Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism”, or any variation thereof. What modern day practitioners of Hellenic Polytheism call “The Pillars” were essentially religious and cultural practices that were taught by family and friends via every day practices. The pillars were an essential part of the culture of Ancient Greece, taught to them the same way customs like tipping, saying “bless you” at sneezing, and the now-common practice of wearing a mask everywhere are taught to us today. In recreating Hellenic Polytheism for the modern age, the Pillars grew out of a need for a set of guidelines to help us recreate a very old religion.

KHARIS

Welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we will be discussing the Pillar of Hellenic Polytheism, Kharis. Kharis is the reciprocity inherent in Hellenic Polytheism, a devotional act for the Theoi with hope a return favor in kind. It is also so much more than a transactional behavior. Its not bribery, its not a quid pro quo. At the same time, it is not the Christian act of praise worship.

One of the most common actions as a Hellenic polytheist is devotional acts. Whether it be offerings, prayers, hymns, or the increasingly common Devotional Actions (like beauty routines for Aphrodite, studying for Athena, singing for Apollo, housecleaning for Hestia, etc); we worship by engaging in acts of devotion. Oftentimes, that act of devotion is also accompanied by a request. This act of devotion is not a bribe. This is an offering, and a plea. The deity in question can respond or not, it won’t change the fact that we made the offering and it shouldn’t affect how we give in the future. We give without the expectation of getting something in return, as an act of worship and of thanks for everyday blessings. We give to just give, and a lot of the times, the deity or deities in question will respond. We then give in thanks, and then they give to us. We give in thanks, they give to us and so continues the circle of praise and of blessing. This circle of reciprocity is Kharis.

And yeah, I completely understand how confusing that would be, so let’s try using some more relatable examples. I know not everyone will be able to relate to these examples, so there will be a few of them, and hopefully one of them will resonate enough that the concept of Kharis will become less confusing.

The first example I will use is of a couple. Let’s call them Kate and Ashley. They are very much in love. Kate is out grocery shopping and next to the checkout line is a display of flower bouquets. One of them has roses and lilies, Ashley’s two favorite flowers. So Kate grabs that bouquet and places it in a vase on the table for Ashley to see when she gets home. Kate isn’t getting the flowers for a birthday, or anniversary, or holiday. These aren’t apology flowers. These aren’t get well soon flowers. They’re the best kind of flowers. These are “Just Because I Love You” flowers. That night at dinner, Kate asks Ashley to take the trash can to the curb before bed and Ashley does so. The flowers weren’t payment for the favor of taking the trash to the curb. The flowers and the request may have come at the same time, but one wasn’t required for the other. The next morning, Kate makes Ashley breakfast in bed and Ashley starts Kate’s car so it’s warmed up and defrosted before Kate goes to work. Both are acts of love that aren’t reliant on each other. Now, say this cycle continues constantly. They do each other favors, they get each other small tokens, for the rest of their relationship. No one but the most cynical would say that they have a transactional relationship. Their tokens aren’t required for favors, and their favors aren’t required for tokens. Their actions are out of devotion to each other. That’s an example of how Kharis works.

Another example, this time between family members. My sister, my mom, and I have lived together for a lot of our lives. As adults, we have lived together for the last 5 years. My mom has a tendency to not eat, and there have been times when I’ve sent her a pizza while she’s at work, because I know then that she will eat. The food is an act of love, a way to show I care. When she responds in kind by cooking dinner for the house the next day, it is not a payment for the pizza. It’s a continuation of the circle. When I was off work for 3 weeks, I cleaned the whole house, reorganized their closets to be easier to navigate, and cleaned out the cabinets and cupboards. Its another way I show I care. My sister usually watches the kids all summer long, and my mom and I will get her flowers, as a way to say thank you. Every day of our lives as a family, we show love by doing favors for each other and getting things for each other. The favors are not a payment for the things and the things are not a payment for the favors.

Hopefully that explains what Kharis is a little better, so we can go a little deeper into what it means as a worshipper, as someone who calls themselves a Hellenic Polytheist.

Now, remember how I said that the pillars weren’t exactly a thing, and instead were a modern invention to assist those who weren’t raised in Ancient Greece with learning the customs and cultural behaviors that were common knowledge in Ancient Greece? Let’s keep that in mind. On a historical note, Kharis required something real. Having faith and good thoughts was not a part of the reciprocal circle that is Kharis. It required something real, and in Ancient Greece that did not mean devotional acts like making playlists. It meant something solid, offerings, like libations, food, incense, coins, seashells, and other solid, real items. If you have an altar, think about what you leave on it. On mine, I’ve got an incense holder, coins left at the foot of the statue of Hermes, corn from the field next to us, a nature ball with acorns and leaves and flowers in it, devotional drawings, fortunes from fortune cookies also at the foot of Hermes’ statue, dried roses and lilies in an empty wine bottle, seashells, pins, a book of myths, and a plate and cup where bread, oil, seeds, fruit, wine, and other food offerings can be left. Some of these are permanent, some of them get removed as they go bad. When I light incense and pray, when I leave food, when I leave seashells or coins or fortunes, I’m engaging in my part of the reciprocal circle that is Kharis. That means, historically, offering something real that goes above and beyond simple faith.

Now, not everyone can do that. Not everyone has the ability to have an altar, and not everyone can afford to burn incense everyday, and not everyone has the time to bake bread everyday. Now, that doesn’t mean that someone who lacks those abilities, or doesn’t have that time can’t engage in the reciprocal relationship that is Kharis. Remember, a huge part of practicing Hellenic Polytheism is bringing ancient worship into the modern world. Devotional acts are something real. You can offer a devotional act to the Theoi as your part of the Kharis. I’ve seen some stunning works of art created in devotion to the Theoi. I’ve heard songs wrote in devotion. I’ve read some deeply moving poetry. And I’ve seen prayers, prayers written with such devotion and love that they could bring you tears. Those actions are fully capable of being classified as part of the circle that is Kharis.

Kharis is not just actions, its a relationship. Much like how Xenia was a way of life ingrained into the culture of Ancient Greece, so too was Kharis. All the rites and rituals, sacrifices, prayers, hymns, offerings, everything that was offered to the Theoi; it came from the understanding that a relationship had to be built and maintained. You couldn’t just say your prayers and call it a day, you lived with the Theoi, and dealt with them every single day. Everyday, you had the opportunity to build the relationship, and the expectation that you would was built into society. Indeed, the concept of Kharis was so built into society that offerings and sacrifices were a part of their stories. Examples can be seen in many myths, plays, and epic poems from them. The reciprocal nature of Kharis is shown in the Illiad, the Odyssey, and the writings of Aristotle.

I’ve learned that Kharis can be hard to understand, especially when you’ve grown up in a society where the love of a deity is just…..constantly there. Kharis is the idea that the love of our deities is not unconditional, and our love for them need not be unconditional as well. We don’t have that relationship with our gods that is bondless. We build a relationship with them, and they build one back. That, to me, is one of the appeals of Hellenic Polytheism. The relationship is a reciprocal one built up over time, using something that is definable, real, an offering that you can hold and see. So, we give, they give, we give, they give, until you’ve built a solid foundation for a solid relationship. That relationship, built out of Kharis, is what makes the worship we engage in so beautiful.

Thanks for listening to today’s discussion of Kharis. For today’s episode, I relied on the Illiad, the Odyssey, Kharis: Hellenic Polytheism Explored by Sarah Kate Istra Winter, The emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature by David Konstan, and the Center for Hellenic Studies. You can always find a transcript of this and other episodes on my tumblr blog at goddessdoeswitchery.tumblr.com, as well as a link to the sources I used. Feel free to ask any questions, and don’t forget to tune in on September 6th, when we will be discussing Arete.

ARETE

Welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where I will be discussing the pillar of Hellenic polytheism, Arete. For first time listeners, I want to mention that technically, the pillars were never actually a “thing”. Unlike then 10 commandments, the pillars were never taught as a set of rules that everyone knew by the name “Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism”, or any variation thereof. What modern day practitioners of Hellenic Polytheism call “The Pillars” were essentially religious and cultural practices that were taught by family and friends via every day life. The pillars were an essential part of the culture of Ancient Greece, taught to them the same way customs like tipping, saying “bless you” at sneezing, and the now-common practice of wearing a mask everywhere are taught to us today. In recreating Hellenic Polytheism for the modern age, the Pillars grew out of a need for a set of guidelines to help us recreate a very old religion. Now, on to Arete.

Arete is excellence. It’s living up to your fullest potential. It’s being the best you. Arete means doing your best to become your best and to live your best life. Arete’s end goal is a life fulfilled, and happy. Arete in Homer’s works is usually associated with the person who uses everything at their disposal to do the best work, the person who is most effective at achieving what they set out to achieve. Homer applies arete to Penelope as she fulfills her role as wife. Odysseus has arete when he uses his intelligence. In the Illiad, Achilles has arete by being the best warrior. In the Tenets of Solon, Arete is achieved by being honorable, honest, intelligent, and humble. He advised the following: Consider your honor, as a gentleman, of more weight than an oath; never speak falsely; pay attention to matters of importance; be not hasty in making friends and do not cast off those whom you have made; rule, after you have first learnt to submit to rule; advise not what is most agreeable, but what is best; make reason your guide; do not associate with the wicked; honor the gods; and respect your parents.

Arete is simply being the best version of you. One of the hardest things about Hellenic polytheism is taking those ancient concepts and applying them to the world we have now, one that doesn’t call for heroes like Achilles, and one where we can’t always take the time to better ourselves because work and life can get in the way. It is important to understand that arete doesn’t always mean being number one and winning whatever contest is at hand. One thing that should be understood is that a person can be their best, give it everything they’ve got, and still lose. There will be people who are objectively better at doing what you do than you are. Someone will get a higher grade. Someone else will get the role or solo or part you’re trying out for sometimes. Someone else can have a better idea than you. Someone else will write better, or draw better, or be better than you in whatever you are trying to achieve.

The first step of applying the concept of arete to our everyday lives is to accept that your best and the best of someone else are very different things. You are you and you can only do your own best. Now that does mean that you have to apply yourself. Doing the barest minimum to get by is not a way to achieve arete. Arete means taking control of, and responsibility for, your own life. It means challenging yourself everyday to become better than you are.

Take a moment and think about things you’ve always wanted to do. A language you wanted to learn. A hobby you wanted to pick up. A project that you’ve put to the side. Something you’ve always wanted to learn about. Arete means taking the time to do that. If you have a goal, arete means doing the work to reach it. Then it means creating another goal. Plato said that arete is the ideal form of a thing, something that you are always trying to achieve. You achieve arete by always trying to reach for it, always trying to be better. This means that you won’t always be at the top of your game. You will stumble. You will fail. You will make mistakes. Arete doesn’t mean you will never be wrong, you will never fail, and you will always be perfect. It is not expected of us to be perfect all the time. What is expected is that we will try. When we fail, we learn from that failure and try again.

Now, if you’re anything like me, you’ve probably got a busy life. Between work and taking care of a household, I rarely get time to do anything for me. It is hard to take that time that I want to use to watch Netflix, or pop on a movie, or scroll online doing nothing of any real substance and put it towards something that is actual work. But I try. I read, every day. I do research for this podcast and my own growth. I do the laundry. I clean the house. I spend time with my kids, as a parent, teaching them and guiding them and playing with them. I write. I exercise. I plan and cook meals that are good for us and aren’t the easiest options. I pray. I always strive to be better at work. I’ve given my boss ideas that we’ve implemented nationwide that have made our division look good. I reach for arete every day, by understanding that it is something that I must always strive for. By always striving for it, I hope to achieve it.

One of the things that made this episode a little bit more difficult to write than the previous ones is that arete is subjective. Xenia is a set of rules. Kharis is a reciprocal circle. But arete isn’t something that can simply be memorized and put into practice as we come across situations that could use it, like xenia is. Arete is not something built into our everyday worship, the way Kharis is. Arete is something that has to be strived for every day. It is something that is work. It takes focus. It takes energy. It takes commitment. Only you can know if you’re doing your best and so no one else can come up to you and say “You haven’t achieved arete, you’ve broken the rules, you need to do better next time.” It is up to you and you alone to strive for arete. No one can coach you one it. No one can teach it to you. So, this episode will be a lot shorter than the others, because I can’t teach you arete. I can only explain what it is, explain how it has been seen historically, and let you do he work from there. Now it’s time for you to do the work. Good luck.

Thank you for listening to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we discussed Arete, one of the pillars of Hellenic polytheism. Today, I relied on the Odyssey, the Illiad, the Center for Hellenic Studies, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Baring the Aegis, wikipedia’s page on Arete, and The Greek Way by Edith Hamilton. A transcript of this episode and all others can be found on my tumblr, goddessdoeswitchery.tumblr.com under the tag “transcripts”. There you will also find links to the sources used today to more research on your own. You can always ask me any questions there as well. Tune in on September 20th for the next episode, which will be about the next pillar of Hellenic polytheism, Sophia.

SOPHIA

Hello, and welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we will be discussing one of the pillars of Hellenic Polytheism: Sophia. Sophia is wisdom, cleverness, and skill. The concept has changed and has grown over time to be more applied to wisdom and the pursuit of wisdom, especially by Plato. It might be easier to recognize Sophia in the way it was applied to Socrates and Plato and Pythagoras, as part of the term “philosophia” or, philosophy, the love of wisdom. Now, remember how I’ve said in my other podcasts about the Pillars of Hellenic polytheism being more of a way of life than a literal set of rules? Here’s another part where that really comes through. In Greek culture, wisdom and the pursuit of it were incredibly important, so much so that it was the Ancient Greeks that were considered to be the founders of philosophy; and since Greek culture and Greek religion were so intertwined with each other, we are left asking, how can we, as modern day Hellenic polytheists, apply the concept of Sophia to our everyday lives?

One thing we can be sure of is that a person doesn’t need to be a world class philosopher like Plato to be a Hellenic polytheist. What we should be aiming for is the ever-present pursuit of wisdom. We should always be trying to learn, everyday. It doesn’t have to be a huge undertaking. Read a book. Watch a documentary. Read a scholarly article. Listen to a podcast. And if you come across something you don’t quite understand, research it. One of the best ways to pursue wisdom is to fight ignorance. There will be many times in your life when you are faced with something you don’t have any experience with, something you know nothing about. Living with the pillar Sophia means taking the time to learn and battling your own ignorance. In today’s world, I know how hard that can be. You can’t do a google search without their predictive algorithm doing some serious confirmation bias. Living with Sophia means taking the time, in pursuit of wisdom, to do it right.

Now, I love learning. I’m one of those people who, if given an unlimited supply of money and an eternity, I would be a student forever. But Sophia doesn’t necessarily mean learning in a classroom environment. Think about your last week. Did you come across new information? Did you read an online article that broadened your world view? Did you learn something new? Did you gain a deeper understanding of something you thought you already understood? Did you discover something that mostly everyone you knew was aware of, even something as simple as the fact that if you roll up the deodorant, you can take the plastic cover off without having to struggle with it? If so, outstanding! You battled ignorance in some small way this week.

Battling ignorance and pursuing wisdom also means battling the ignorance of others. If you’re hearing and listening to this, or reading the transcript, then it means that you’ve entered the online world in some way. That means you’ve also come across ignorant people, who seemed perfectly gleeful to remain that way. It also means you’ve come across people who were ignorant, simply because they didn’t know any better, and they needed someone to point the way. Anecdotal story break time: I’ve got a cousin who is a senior in high school. She plays a lot of different instruments and she’s very, very good. She has practiced, a lot, and has put some serious work into it. I’ve also got an uncle who is on his 4th or 5th black belt. He has put some serious effort and a couple decades worth of time into varying forms of Martial Arts. My sister’s friend is an artist, and an incredible one. She has more followers on her Instagram and tumblr and devian art pages than I care to count, and she’s graduating college as a graphic designer with job offers from some very big names. All 3 of these people are outstanding in their field. Now, to get to the why I brought them up: All 3 of them have told me, in some way, that once they reached a certain point in their skill level, the best way to get better was to start teaching. As they taught others, their own skill increased. I believe the same applies to everyone. So, one of the ways you can apply Sophia to your life is to teach those who don’t know any better. You will come across people who are resistant to fixing their ignorance but more often than not, people are willing to learn. That means you can take the time to teach them.

Sophia also means cleverness and skill. In fact Homer applies to the term with the meaning “skillful in handicraft and in arts” towards both Athena and Hephaestus. Now, I would never suggest that we, as Hellenic polytheists, can be as skillful the Theoi in any way. We should all know why that’s a bad idea. However, we can become skilled in our own handicrafts and arts. That is another way to practice Sophia. Now, I know not all of us have something we can reasonably point to and say “That’s an art”. There are artists and musicians and weavers and seamstresses and poets among us, to be sure. But we also have writers. We have readers. We have spellcrafters. We have engineers. We have software coders. We have jewelers. We have homemakers. Sophia means cleverness and skill. That means there are many, many ways you can apply it to your daily life. Everyone has something they can do with skill. Sophia means practicing that skill and utilizing it.

To me, Sophia is one of the easiest pillars of Hellenic polytheism to bring into my every day life. Pursuing wisdom, battling ignorance, practicing a skill, these are all things that we are doing every day. And Sophia is as simple as that. Thank you for listening to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism, where we discussed the pillar Sophia. Today, I relied on the notes from one of my college courses, Intro to Philosophy, and the Homeric Hymns. As always, you can find links to the, well, one source that is linkable this time around, on my tumblr page at goddessdoeswitchery.tumblr.com, where I am also always free for discussions and questions. Coming on October 4th, the next pillar Sophrosune. I look forward to seeing you all then.

SOPHROSUNE

Hello and welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we will be moving onto to the next pillar of Hellenic Polytheism: Sophrosyne, which is, essentially, moderation, prudence, self-control, self-discipline, or temperance based upon thorough self-examination. Since we are coming up on a holiday season in the US, this seems like the perfect time to focus on Sophrosyne, and to remember it’s opposite, hubris, and how to avoid it. It is also important to remember that even in Ancient Greece, it was well understood that Sophrosyne could be taken too far, something we also understand still today.

“Earth shaker, you would not consider me sophrosyne if I were to fight with you for the sake of wretched mortals” Apollo says this to Poseidon in the Illiad, as Homer brings us a look at what Sophrosyne would mean to the same deity who brings us the Delphic Maxims, such as know know thyself, know by learning, exercise prudence, praise virtue, nothing in excess, know who is the judge, keep secret what should be kept secret, take sensible risks, be well behaved, be self disciplined, be sensible. This is not the only example in Homer’s work of Sophrosyne. In fact, there are a really a lot of them. I would definitely suggest you read both of them and look closely for examples of sophrosyne. Homer was very sensitive to the need for Sophrosyne in society and in an individual. On an individual level, sophrosyne prevented people form getting into serious trouble, both with themselves and on a religious level. After all, someone exercising sophrosyne would be very unlikely to become a spider after being cursed by Athena, right? On a modern level, someone exercising sophrosyne is less likely to face personal problems as well. You won’t wind up drinking to excess and getting into a car accident. You won’t find yourself challenging someone better than you to a fight. You won’t find yourself taking on more tasks than you can manage. You won’t find yourself spending more money than you can spare on things you don’t need. By exercising sophrosyne you can avoid a lot of trouble. On a societal level, we should try to exercise that same self control and temperance. After all, there is no reason for any country to spend more than 56 countries combined on defense spending. There is no reason for a city to cut taxes and not invest in repairing roads or assisting those who need it the most. There is no reason for a group of friends to go out in the middle of a pandemic to a bar just to have a good time. We can bring the ideals of sophrosyne to our own lives and encourage others to do the same, through voting and talking to others and being an example.

When we do not practice sophrosyne, we tend to fall victim to hubris. For someone who has spent any sort of time practicing Hellenic polytheism, we should all know exactly how bad hubris is. We’ve all probably seen it or heard it online. Recently, there was a lot of talk of witches online cursing the moon, specifically aimed at making Artemis or Apollo angry. Now, in the end, it was revealed to be some big hoax, a lie they told to make other witches start saying things about how they could tell someone had hexed the moon because their own spells weren’t as effective. Then the original hexers could say “Ha! We told you witch craft and the gods weren’t real, see? These guys said they noticed a change but we didn’t do anything, so clearly they must be faking!” The whole ordeal was a perfect example of what could happen if people fell victim to hubris, and many more sensible folks online pointed out that it was hubris, believing anyone could have an affect on a deity by cursing the moon. We’ve all seen other examples of hubris. Hellenic polytheists who say that Artemis would never let a man worship her, or a straight woman, or a woman who has had sex with a man. People who gatekeep, projecting their personal bigotry onto the Theoi. We’ve all come across. Hopefully, most have us have rolled our eyes and ignored it.

Even in mythology, hubris is painted to be among the worst things a person can be. Niobe lost her sons and daughters to Artemis and Apollo after she bragged to Leto that she was better than Leto for having more children. Arachne, turned into a spider for daring to compare herself to Athena. Antigone’s father, who lost his son and his wife for believing that his life was higher than the law of the gods. Oedipus refuses to accept his own fate and wound up falling victim to it because of his hubris. Ajax, believing he was entitled to the armor of Achilles and being driven mad and eventually killing himself. Icarus, flying to close to the sun, too prideful to listen to his father’s warnings. Orestes taking it upon himself to avenge his father by killing his mother and being driven mad. Greek stories are teeming with examples of people who have fallen victim to hubris. In many of these stories, sophrosyne is pointed to as a virtue to aspire to strictly to avoid it’s opposite, hubris.

And yet, we can also take sophrosyne too far. For example, in the Bacchae, Pentheus holds himself as a champion of sophrosyne, as fails to understand that by being overly self-controlled and self-discplined and holding himself up as the model of sophrosyne, he ignores the moderation and temperance part. He tried to force everyone listen to him, to oppose the Bacchic rites, and, in the end, his obsession with only a part of sophrosyne causes his own death. The Ancient Greeks understood that there was such a thing as being too controlled. There was such a thing as a fatal exaggeration of one side of the many-sided virtue of sophrosyne. Thus one of the biggest keys to sophrosyne is moderation. Nothing in excess says one of the Delphic Maxims, not even self-control and self-discipline.

As we go through this holiday there a lot of ways you can apply sophrosyne to your life. One of the dangers of the holidays is becoming over-extended. For example, I have a large family. Like…..over 100 people kind of large. So large that we could probably fill a high school basketball stadium kind of large. It’s also got a lot of different branches. Mom’s side, which has dad and mom in separate houses. My ex-stepdad, whose family we still see. My dad and his family. My dad’s ex wife and her daughter and her kids, who I’m also close to. My girlfriend. My kids’ dad and his family. I always joke that we’ve got our own little 12 days of Christmas skit between grandpa jones, grandpa long, Uncle Cody, Uncle Andrew, my dad, his ex wife’s house, my girlfriend, the kids’ dad, his family, and we’ve still got to squeeze out time for our own holiday celebration too. Factor in the fact that, like most customer service based companies in the US, my job doesn’t allow us to take more than half of Christmas Eve and all of Christmas day off. Sure, we’ve got the Sunday before and after when I’m off as well, but that’s barely 3 days for 4 states and 10 places to visit. Factor in the budget for all those places and all those gifts, not to mention the drama that comes around when we decide where we’re having Thanksgiving at and you can understand why I bring up being overextended as a danger of the holiday season. Now, maybe that isn’t a problem for you. Maybe you become over extended by volunteering to work too many hours to help your more Christian friends have time off. Maybe you offer to do too much during Thanksgiving and wind up having to wake up at 5 am to get started on a meal that you can’t believe you promised to cook. Maybe during Halloween, you spend too much time focused on parties or trick-or-treating and realize that you would have had a much better time sitting at home, watching Halloweentown with a bowl of candy and some friends. Either way, we all tend to push ourselves too hard, especially once the holidays roll around and we start wanting to do everything so we can get every experience. We need to remember sophrosyne during this time. Exercise self-control and stay home when it’s something you want to do. Exercise self-discipline and avoid getting gifts when you can’t afford it, there is no shame in saying “Look, finances are strapped and I can’t manage more than X”. Exercise moderation and remember that you can’t actually do everything. Be prudent and accept the reality of whatever situation you are facing. Practice sophrosyne.

Thank you for listening to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101 where we discussed another one of the Pillars of Hellenic polytheism, Sophrosyne. Today, I relied on the Odyssey, The Illiad, Sophrosyne: Self Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature by Helen North, A Period of Opposition to Sophrosyne In Greek Thought also by Helen North, Mythology of the Greeks by George Grote, and the Wikipedia entry for Sophrosyne. Remember, all links to the resources I used can be found on my tumblr at goddessdoeswitchery.tumblr.com, along with a transcript of today’s episode under the tag “Transcripts”. I look forward to speaking with you all again on October 18th, where we will be discussing Eusebia.

EUSEBIA

Hello and welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we will be discussing, Eusebia, or reverence and duty towards the gods. Now, keep in mind that Eusebia was so revered, so vital to the worship and religion of the ancient greeks that she became a personified spirit, who was married to Nomos, the Law, and had a child, Dike. This already sets aside this particular pillar from the others. As a being, Eusebia was the personified spirit of piety, loyalty, duty and filial respect. However, we are not yet at the point for deities or personifications, so mostly all of today will be focused on talking about what Eusebia is as a concept and how we can practice it as a modern worshipper. Now, so far we’ve talked a lot about our relationships with the many deities we worship. We’ve talked about offerings and Kharis, we’ve talked about the humility we should approach them with, and we’ve talked about the respect we should bring with us whenever we approach them. All of that goes into Eusebia.

Eusebia is about reverence towards the Theoi. That reverence is where, I’ve noticed, a lot of modern worshippers tend to falter. There is nothing wrong with making a joke about some of the Theoi. I don’t know if all of you have heard the one about Hermes being the only god to pay his worshippers for their worship. It’s fun to joke about that. I always like using Hermes as an example of a deity that a lot of worshippers are fairly causal with. He is, in my experience, one of the most easy going deities. He’s the type of god that puts a train on every track between your home and work on the only morning you’re running late for the last 6 months, just to get a message to you. He’s a prankster, a jokester….and still deserves the same degree of reverence as every other deity. Just because you can laugh with him doesn’t mean he is not revered by you. After all, he is also the shepherd of the dead, the one who guides their souls. He is the god of travel, of languages, of luck, of communication, and like 1000 other things.

It is not reverent to attempt to speak for the Theoi. It is not reverent to make up bullshit facts about a specific goddess to say that she would be on your side of an online discourse. It is not reverent to leave a deity out of your worship because you don’t like how one interpretation of one of the myths portray the deity. It is not reverent to drag the Theoi down to the level of an online personality. They are gods and goddesses and they deserve to revered as such. By virtue of what they are, they deserve the worship, offerings, and the rituals that we engage in. Impiety was frowned upon by the ancient greeks and should continue to be frowned upon today. It has never been acceptable to treat the Theoi like accessories, to be tried on and discarded whenever you don’t have enough time to engage with them. You find time, you make time, in whatever you can. And it doesn’t have to be a big thing. A prayer. A lit candle. Some incense. A quick offering. The Theoi deserve worship.

But, just like with some of the other pillars, the people of ancient Greece knew that there was such a thing as being too pious. There were people who spent too much time praying, too much time fearing the Theoi, and were constantly sure they had something to offend the Theoi and so spent even more time praying and offering and attending to the temples. This excessive fear, or deisidaimonia, was a sign of taking Eusebia too far. It was understood that a person should be mindful of the Theoi, and take an appropriate amount of time and give the appropriate offerings. This also included attending and participating in the appropriate rituals and festivals.

Eusebia also means understanding why we do the things we do. Why do we give these particular offerings? Why are offerings for Chthonic and Ouranic deities different? What are the reasons behind certain rituals? What are the reasons behind traditional offerings? Eusebia means understanding these things, having the answers to these questions and not just blindly following a traditional path. It’s important to understand the reason why. And so, Eusebia means taking the time to research your beliefs. If you have questions, put in the work to answer them. This can also definitely include asking others. We are a community. So, if you have questions, reach out. Ask people, “Why are coins such a common offering to Hermes?” Find a book in the library about the life of people of ancient Greece. Put in the effort to research and create your own calendar with your own rituals and holidays. Take the time to understand why, to research your deities and understand what they might ask of you, and why they would ask it. All too often, I’ve seen popular bloggers and popular authors in the community asked the same question a 100 times because the idea of taking the time to do your own research is apparently distasteful to some people.

It is important to remember, as a part of Eusebia, that the Theoi are not room mates or friends or accessories. They are deities. They are gods and goddesses and titans and by virtue of what they are, they deserve our devotion. I’ve always seen Hellenic polytheism as a simpler path than Christianity. We do not have a single, omniscient, all powerful god that offers a set of rules that must be followed or else we will suffer for all eternity. That’s not how Hellenic polytheism works. We worship our gods in our own way, at our own pace. Hellenic polytheism is a very personable religion. Everything about it, from hymns to holidays to rituals to altars to offerings, everything is unique to each individual practitioner. But, on the flip side, that means that we don’t have a holy book to draw from. That means that we don’t have a set of authority figures we have to listen to. We are responsible for our own piety. We are responsible for our own worship. We are responsible for our own research. We are responsible for our own devoutness. We are responsible for ourselves.

And that’s what Eusebia is, that’s why it is gets set up as a pillar of Hellenic polytheism. It is a vital component of our religious practice, to take the time to not only worship, but to know how and why we worship the way we do. It is necessary to show the Theoi the respect they are due, by virtue of their very being. It is necessary to speak about them with reverence, to be loyal, to not use them as talking points or spell ingredients. It is necessary to take the time, to do the research, to understand the whys, to understand the rituals we take part in when we light incense and offer up a prayer and use an epithet and recite a Homeric hymn. This isn’t a religion where we can just go through the motions. We have to put the proper amount of reverence into our actions. We have to be devout, and loyal, and have a healthy amount of respect and fear towards these beings who we worship and who take the time to guide us on our way. It is necessary to be humble, to understand that what we are doing is worshipping the Theoi. I don’t know about anyone else, but when I pray, when I let incense or a candle or wrap my hands around a set of prayer beads, when I take that time…..I’ve never felt so at peace. That feeling, that love and devotion and serenity…..that’s the feeling of Eusebia. Next time you get to that point, when you feel that, take the time to focus on that feeling and harness it. Meditate on it. That’s what you should draw on when you think of Eusebia and how to interact with the Theoi, those beings that we worship as Hellenic polytheists.

Thank you for listening to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we discussed Eusebia. For my sources today, I used the book Greek Religion by Walter Burkett, found on the Internet Archive. I also used The Greek Way by Edith Hamilton. I used Baring the Aegis’ and Elanion’s posting on Eusebia as well. Remember, you can find links to the sources, as well as a transcript of today’s episode, on my tumblr at goddessdoeswitchery.tumblr.com. You can also always reach me there as well with any questions. Don’t forget to tune in to the next episode, on November 1st, which will be the last one discussing the pillars the Hellenic polytheism. I will be discussing the final pillar, hagneia. I look forward to seeing you all then!

HAGNEIA

Hello and welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic polytheism 101 where we will be discussing the final pillar, Hangeia. Now, anyone who is able to look at this word might note it bears a striking similarity to the word “hygienic” and then, you would be on to something. Hagneia is more of a ritual purity, an avoidance of miasma and cleansing oneself before you go before the Theoi, before you engage in rituals. Now, does this mean you can’t shoot off a quick prayer before you wash your hands while gardening? No, of course not, thus the “ritual” part of the “ritual purity”. Now, there is actually a lot of disagreement regarding miasma and cleansing in the Hellenic polytheism community. There are those that claim that for the most part, the average person won’t be contaminated with miasma throughout the course of an average life. There are those that believe that we collect miasma throughout the course of our everyday life. There are those that believe that we must fully cleanse ourselves before an offering. There are those that believe that a simple washing of the hands will suffice. There are those that believe the cleansing must be done with khernips, or lustral water. There are those that believe the cleansing can be done with any clean water. And there are those believe any variation of those beliefs combined. Remember one of the best part of Hellenic polytheism is that it is so personable. Therefore, most of this is going to be looking at it from how I work. As always, I urge you to do your own research on the matter.

Now, the first thing to keep in mind is that Hagneia was used to mostly mean ritually pure, spiritually pure, and was understood to mean whether or not someone was fit to approach the gods. There were things you could come into contact with that would create a buildup of miasma and it was best to avoid those things when you could. However, you can’t always do so. Some of those things are death in the family, giving birth, illness (not chronic illness, but like the flu), are all examples of something that can be considered miasmic. The real question we face today is how to cleanse that miasma? Most of the time, the biggest cure for miasma was time. There was a period of time you had to wait to no longer be considered miasmic after having given birth, or after losing a loved one. You were supposed to wait until after an illness has passed. And, you were supposed to cleanse yourself. Mostly that meant washing up, getting physically clean. For today, that means wash your hands, wash your face, take a shower or a bath (especially if you’d been sick, take a shower and change into clean clothes). So that part is really simple.

Now, historically, there was also another thing that rendered you miasmic. It very likely won’t apply to anyone hearing this or reading the transcript, but it is an issue that is covered in pretty much every source I read regarding miasma and Hagneia so I am going to mention it as well. Murdering someone was very much a cause of miasma. There were very special midnight rituals one was supposed to engage in in order to cleanse oneself of the miasma caused by murder. I would say that in today’s society that if you commit murder, you’re likely to get caught and so won’t have much use of said ritual, but that’s statistically unlikely so I’m just gonna say, don’t commit murder and you won’t have to worry about what that midnight ritual is. Mostly I just figured the fact that it’s mentioned so often is an interesting historical side note.

Time to move on the things that are more likely to affect you, such as how to practice Hagneia as a modern worshipper. While I would love it if the average Hellenic polytheist could go to a temple and worship with others on a regular basis, the fact is that most of us worship and prayer and do rituals on our own, or with a very tight knit group in a personal, private space. I myself am mostly a solitary practitioner. Sure, I have my mom and my sister and my kids, and I have a community of people online; but in my daily practice, it’s me, by myself doing the offering and praying and general worshipping. That’s probably true of most of you all as well. So how does a mostly solitary practitioner who isn’t going attending a ritual hosted by or attended by a large amount of people deal with the community based concepts like miasma and Hagneia? Well, in my case it means that I tend to put holiday rituals and offerings on hold when I would be considered miasmic. It means that when a close family member died, I prayed at the funeral for her safe passage and otherwise avoided rituals for a month. It means that when I gave birth to my kids, rituals and offerings were on hold for 10 days, which was about how long it took for me to even be in the mindset to get back to daily worship and prayers. It means that when I am sick, I wait until I am recovered to engage in practice and worship. When I got the flu a few years back, (three times that year, which is what I get for not getting the flu shot, I’m telling you, I’ll never miss it again and if you haven’t yet gotten your flu shot this year, please do) I stayed in bed and rested until I was better. I may have said a few informal prayers, like something along the lines of “please let this stop, I feel like I’m dying here”, but I waited until I was well. I then cleaned my bed and my room and myself and my clothes and changed my toothbrush and brushed my teeth with the clean toothbrush and got clean again before I went back to a regular worship schedule. So, for about 5 weeks that winter, I didn’t do very much in the way or practicing. And that’s okay. That’s what practicing Hagneia and avoiding bringing miasma to the Theoi is.

So, as a modern worshipper, the best way to practice Hagneia is to stay clean. Cleanse yourself of miasma as you come across it, make sure that you are fit to approach the Theoi before you do so. It’s a very simple pillar to follow because for the most, most of us already do. The next time you feel guilty about not being able to worship because you’re sick, or have a death in the family, or a newborn at home, remember that the break you’re taking is required, and important. It’ll be okay. The Theoi will understand.

Thank you for listening to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101. This is the last one that will be spent discussing the Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism. Remember, you can always find a transcript of the podcast on my blog at goddessdoeswitchery.tumblr.com, as well as a link to the sources I used today, which were: Inner Purity and Pollution by Andrej Petrov; Shame and Purity in Euripides' Hippolytus by Charles Segal; Shame in Ancient Greece by David Konstan, The Pillars of Hellenismos and What is and Is Not Miasmic by BaringTheAegis; and finally, A Beginner’s Guide to Hellenismos by Timothy Jay Alexander. You can also always ask me any questions at any time there as well. Finally, I will also have on there a complete transcript of all 7 episodes about the Pillars in a single post as well. Right now, we’re looking at 12 pages, and 8637 words, so it’ll be a very long post, set under a read more. The post will contain links to all the sources used for these last 7 episodes as well, so please fell free to check it out and continue your own research. For the next episode, I’m going to be discussing the Delphic maxims. There are 147 of them, so don’t worry, I’m not about to go fully in depth with each one the way I did the pillars. It’ll be just a simple discussion on the maxims themselves. I look forward to seeing you all then on Nov 15th!

#transcripts #transcript #hellenic polytheism 101 #pillars of hellenic polytheism #sophia #hagneia #kharis #arete #sophrosyne #eusebia #xenia

28 notes · View notes

auntbibby · 4 years ago

Text

the things we DON’T share in our struggle, for cruel & arbitrary reasons

ohhhhhhhhhhhh...... sooo.... so, the "let's get down" part of "let's get down to business" would be a euphemism/innuendo for sex????? yeah, ohhh... okay, yeah, then i can see how that line in the song would imply something that was completely or mostly uninteresting to asexuals... A.K.A. a snoozefest for them lol

if i had caught on to THAT part then i probably wouldn't have stupidly asked "DuRrRrRr HoW dOeS aSeXuAlIsM CoNnEcT tO tHe AgEnDeRiSm MeNtIoNeD iN tHe LaSt CoMmEnT DuRrRrRr I tHoUgHt AcE oNlY mEaNt AsExUaL nOt AgEnDeR" but, i literally didn't percieve anything at all in your comment relating to or even referencing in any way Sex or Sexuality or Asexuality other than the word "Ace" itself...... so i moved on to the comment you were replying to and saw the word "Agender" and automatically assumed that that must have been what you were connecting the word "Ace" to, but i just had to confirm with you, because even THAT seemed to conflict with literally everything i had ever heard about the word "Ace" and what it was meant to refer to.... lmao...

being autistic in a neurotypical world is like having to successfully solve a really hard Professor Layton for Nintendo DS puzzle challenge everytime you interact with a specific piece of language, body language, gestural meaning, text, art, or architecture that was made by a neurotypical person... but if you fail at figuring it out, that's on YOU and you failed to meet the bare minimum requirement of Society (not neurotypical society, just Society... because we don't have an autistic society to compare this to, unfortunately, so our neurotypically-shaped society is assumed to be Default-shaped by law, morality & every other societal metric in every nation on earth). but when a neurotypical person even NOTICES you dropping your neurotypical-mask for a single second to react RATIONALLY to the reality you actually perceive 24/7, it's ALSO on you to change YOUR behavior to reflect a more acceptable neurotypical-style reaction to something that YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT ACTUALLY SEEING or, guess what? once again, you failed to meet the bare minimum requirement of Society......

you see, a lot of us autistic people don't realise it, but to the extent to which our autism is severe, it also makes the reality we perceive completely different than the "objectively-universal" reality that neurotypicals percieve. we may not realize this in part because the only shoes we've ever stepped in are our own, so to speak (a fish won't know about the existence of water if it's been swimming in it since it hatched), so we don't actually have a way of knowing exactly how differently we perceive reality than neurotypicals. but according to the intense world theory of autism as well as just broader notions of how autism works, autism is basically just a disorder of either 1) how your sensory organs report on your external reality to your brain thru your nervous system, or more likely 2) how your brain processes that sensory data before it starts trying to make sense of it (finding patterns, making predictions based on those patterns, scaling this process up in a hierarchical pattern)... but the thing is, of course, the brain itself has no way of knowing anything whatsoever about the world outside the skull it's encased in except thru this sensory data, so if it comes into the brain differently than another person's brain, this brain will effectively just be perceiving a different reality entirely...

so believe it or not, the fact that we can't filter out the annoying sound of the electric lights on the ceiling and the fact that we feel most comfortable eating the same set of foods over & over again without exploring new tastes because we actually will never get bored of the incredibly-rare few tastes that don't make us gag are actually just indicators of a larger difference in how we inherently & biologically perceive the entire universe that our eyes, ears, skin etc. sends data via nerves into our neurons.... and we had no choice in the matter about this....

youtube

we were born autistic, and therefor have no choice but to perceive a severely different reality than all neurotypical people to the precise extent that our autism is deemed to be severe.... just as trans people had no choice but to feel like they were born in a body that doesn't fit their gender identity, and gay people have no choice but to be attracted to the same gender from birth, and people of one race or another were born in a body that could only pass as being the races that it can pass as, with no choice in the matter, and no way to change this for the rest of their life.

in some ways ableism has a lot more similarity to queer oppression than racial oppression, because with queer and disabled people, the oppression stems from the oppressors refusal to accept that the oppressed group ARE inherently or biologically different for reasons that they have no control or choice over, and to be willing to make compromises for these very-different needs (mainly because they refuse to accept that they are, in fact, NEEDS and not WANTS)..........

....while with racial oppression, the oppression stems from the oppressors refusal to accept that there ISN'T anything inherently or biologically different with the oppressed group (other than skin color and other aspects of surface apperance) compared to the racial oppressor..... the fact that the oppressed group has a significantly-different culture (with differently defined and originated moral compasses & societal values) as well as higher statistical rates of failing to succeed in the oppressors allegedly fair-and-balanced society (The American Dream states that anyone can succeed from any origin in america) and also higher statistical rates of things like addiction & incarceration that the societies of the oppressor AND the oppressed both might see as a failure of the individual??? It's all proof of a problem with the racial oppressors society itself (systemic racism) that can't be explained by a few "bad apples" on one side or the other or both.....unless you believe that there IS something inherently or biologically different about an oppressed race, in which case you are simply a racist.....

so essentially, the way to view queer and disabled people as a NON-bigoted person, is the way to view people of systematically-oppressed races as a VERY BIGOTED person.... and vice-versa.....

which just shows that, racism is an arbitrary and unscientific cruelty based on the genuine belief of something that is a ludicrous fantasy (that people of certain races are somehow less human or have less capacity for Goodness than others) that LINGERS ON like A RESILIENT DELUSION THAT COULD ONLY HAVE COME FROM HUMANITY’S IRRATIONAL PAST, despite the acceleration at which WIDELY-KNOWN TRUTHS about HUGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE are distributed to families in the racist parts of the world over the DECADES, CENTURIES, MILLENNIA, and even right up to this day.......

while in contrast, homophobia, transphobia, & ableism are stubborn and selfish cruelties based on the lack of genuine knowledge of something that is an undeniable truth (that people with certain bodies are somehow differently human and yet still have the same capacity for Goodness as others) that COVER THEIR EYES like FRAGILE DELUSIONS THAT COULD EASILY ARISE FROM HUMANITY’S NAIVE ASSUMPTIONS despite the unchanging nature of CERTAIN SPECIFIC TRUTHS about SMALL PERCENTAGES OF PEOPLE that have been born to families all over the world for DECADES, CENTURIES, MILLENNIA, and even right up to this day.........

7 notes · View notes

gibsonmusicart · 4 years ago

Text

Thoughts For the Aspiring Musician

by Christopher Knab

I have been watching, studying, and analyzing why some musicians ‘make it’ and others don’t for a long time, and I have given up trying to come up with some magic formula that every up and coming musician can follow on some imaginary road to success. It doesn’t work out that way. Today more than ever there are countless advisors like myself who offer tips to developing acts and ‘struggling musicians’, and all too often we try to inflict some ‘step by step’ process on musicians that will help them become tomorrow’s superstar. In fact, I think as Americans in general, we are addicted to self-help books and formulas for success. What is missing in our day-to-day lives that demands such lofty goals from us? Is there a difference between the attitude of successful, well known acts and the attitude of upcoming acts? Why do some musicians make it big, while other equally talented people songwriters and musicians never get their music heard by the masses? What specific skills and/or inherent talents do the successful artists embody that so many ‘wannabees’ do not? Is it charisma? That special something that many artists seem to exude the minute they walk into a room? I think that is part of it, but many successful acts have as much charisma as a pitcher of milk, and yet do quite well for themselves. How about a lot of money? Yeah that seems to be the one sure thing behind every star. There are always major labels with deep pockets who know how to spend the money to push their acts into the hearts and minds of the public, right?…well lets talk about that for a moment. Money can only push something out to the public for their acceptance or rejection…that’s all it can do. Nobody reaches into their wallets and purses and spends their hard earned money on anything….unless there is some real value in what is being offered to them. Think about it. Today there is a lot of what some observers call ‘shallow and immature’ lyrics and disposable pop music out there on the charts….and yet, no one who bought that music would cop to that criticism. The people who buy the latest sounds on the pop charts bought that music because it gave them some kind of pleasure. It meant something to them. I think we should look at what sells and what is successful from this standpoint; music fulfills the needs, wants, and desires of any group of fans because they identify with it. And they like a song because they can hum it in the shower. The ONE thing that all successful acts have in common when they cross over to mass appeal is great songs! This is true as well for the more edgy artists who seem to eek out a living from smaller fanbases, they still write compelling songs that touch the hearts and minds of their fans. Whether or not you personally ‘like’ hit songs or not has nothing to do with it. Enough somebodys coughed up $15 each to prove your tastes are not always the most accurate barometer for what other people may enjoy. What other thing is it that successful artists and bands have that separates them from those who struggle. My answer is business savvy. Yup…that’s it. Somebody somewhere in every successful acts history had enough business savvy people behind them to make them the stars that they are or were. NOW….listen up! It isn’t as simple as you think. Historically that business savvy may have been solely the talents and skills of a weasel-like manager, or record label executive. It may have been the unscrupulous business practices of shady lawyers and booking agents, as well as greedy club owners, or money hungry publishers. My point is that no matter what the behavior of a particular music business gatekeeper may have been…they got a certain part of the job done…they broke on through to the other side of the competition, and got their act’s song into the ears of the thousands of music fans. And to do that, I can assure you they had a plan. There are no short cuts to success, and there just isn’t enough room at the top for everyone who makes music to make a living from their music. But there is a balance that can be obtained in ones life. With the tools available on the Internet, and the technology of downloadable music now an every day reality, no musician who writes great songs should have that much problem realizing modest successes with their music. Be careful of the "10 Steps To Musical Success" and the " What every A&R Rep Is Looking For" articles and books. I have written some articles with such titles, only because they are my way of getting the attention of an ever growing group of music star ‘wannabees’. Once I get their attention, I try to give them proven tactics and strategy tips that are time-tested ways that record labels and industry professionals work. In reality, there are no 10 steps to anything! There is the conscious involvement, and commitment to your music and the business of music. That, and relentless dedication to the art of making music. Remember that the world of commercial music is a world of dollars and cents, whether you like it or not. But that does not mean that Art and Commerce cannot walk hand in hand…they must do that. I teach a history of popular music course, and it never ceases to amaze me how often history repeats itself when it comes to the question of artistic achievement and music business savvy. Most ‘artists’ in the truest sense of the world are narrowly focused people who never take no for an answer. No matter what challenge comes their way, they have no recourse but to turn to their creative side and get lost in their music as a way of staying alive, in the truest sense of the term. Then, along comes a business person who either is or is not ethical, but knows the music business inside out, and hears the magic in their music, and does what it takes to get that music heard. More and more as the decades unravel however, those people are becoming the artists themselves. We live in a capitalist, consumer driven society. The successful musicians of tomorrow will be those people who either attract dedicated, knowledgeable business men and women to do the marketing and promotion for them, or take that responsibility on themselves and realize that no artist has to sell hundreds of thousands of copies of their music to make some money with their music. Being a musician/business person means you have to be able to write and perform great songs, and then produce them with a contemporary sound, AND you have to take the time to read Billboard and other music business trades and tipsheets, AND also find time to call club bookers (over and over), read bad and good music reviews, stay in touch with your fans on a regular basis, AND still put on a great show when you're exhausted or sick. Do you know what being a professional musician is really all about?…entertaining people. Entertaining the public as a life commitment involves getting yourself into a deep sense of personal commitment to your art. It seems to me that artists who are able to that have come to grips with the notion that success is more an internal experience, and not necessarily one that will be satisfied by a money-hungry music industry that defines success only in dollars and cents calculations. Looking at the work habits of most big stars, I think they all have an ‘Entertainer’ inside them. That's what allows them to succeed in all areas of the business. That is what keeps them going during the fifth press interview of the day, and all the other crap that has nothing to do with music and everything to do with the business of music marketing. When an upcoming artist finally ‘makes it’, the pressure to keep producing sellable music is huge. So the ‘artist’ has to be healthy and ready to create on demand. You may be asked to hit the road for nine straight months, then make a world-class album immediately following the grueling tour. What it all boils down to is that stars have to be on top of their game, both artistically and business-wise. It is essential to create a balance between music and business early on. First make sure your psyche is in the right place. You know, screw your head on right! Be honest with yourself regarding what things you are and aren't willing to do to be successful with your music. Then, make a plan. Map out how you will improve your skills in both business and art. Put it on paper. Try living the 50% business - 50% music rule. Make sure you honor your business commitments and always act professionally. Make sure you keep your artist side healthy and creative. Take days off, take walks in nature, take time to noodle around that song idea that just popped into your head. Such activities will help keep the artist inside you healthy and able to nourish your creative juices. Being a famous musician is not a "normal" life. To survive and thrive requires a special set of skills. The good news is those skills can be learned and developed. Every bit you learn now will benefit your career plan down the road. Believe in yourself, and never stop improving. Your hard work will pay off, if not at the cash register, at least with a sense of personal satisfaction for having done the best work creatively and business-wise, that you could.

Source: Music-Articles.com

#music career tips #music industry articles #music career advice #music career articles #music business articles #unsigned musicians #unsigned artists #unsigned bands

2 notes · View notes

completelynobody · 4 years ago

Text

Legis....It’s you

Olidas' Afternoon, 15th day of Summer's Warmth, Year 45 A.E.

---------------------------------------------------------------

United Merchant's Guild Hall, Freehold of Proust

---------------------------------------------------------------

Lex Legis handed over the parchment containing the completed form he was required to fill out in order to be considered for the position.

"All the information you asked for."

The halfling behind the counter accepted it, and looked it over with a skeptical scowl.

"Right....Mister Legless..."

"Legis," He interrupted, "Lex Legis."

The halfling gave him a sidelong glance.

"That's what I said...Legis...anyway, the Kaelinth city guard is currently at a full roster. If you're dead-set on a city guard position, Jobrak will be where the action is."

Lex nodded.

"Wherever...its fine."

The halfling set the parchment down.

"If you're so motivated to be a guard, why not try one of the kingdoms? The lords are always looking to hire guards, or outriders."

Lex shook his head.

"Nobody in any of the kingdoms had any use for my father. Now, I don't have any use for them. I'm perfectly happy in Proust."

The halfling shrugged.

"Suit yourself. I'll get this information into the works. Someone will come out to talk to you shortly."

Lex nodded.

These guild people were very thorough. He liked that.

After a lifetime of uncertainty, things were finally following a logical order for him.

Born to off-world parents, Lex never really was accepted by the children his age, who were born native to this world.

His father, being an off-worlder was forced to find work where he could. That meant the Legis family often had to move from settlement, to settlement.

Despite his father's prowess in battle, none of the native born rulers particularly cared to hire him on.

Probably due to the blue tinted flesh, inborn to his race.

The Zenythri, a people who could trace their lineage back to beings hailing from the outer planes devoted to law and order, were rare enough on the world his family escaped, before the Illithids ravaged it. Here, on Alluria, the Legis family was positively unique.

Unfortunately, uniqueness was not a favorable condition in this world's different societies.

When Lex reached fifteen years of age, he left his family back in the lands of the western frontier, and made his way as a mercenary adventurer.

Using all his father had taught him of the art of marksmanship using blaze-dust weapons, Lex had made a name for himself among the ranks of independent men-at-arms.

In the intervening decade, Lex had shed blood on two continents against all manner of foes.

He preferred to take jobs working for established rulers...much the same way his father had tried. Despite their resistances to hiring men like him. Men who were different.

No matter what the cause, some part of him could not be brought to work for any entity opposed to the established authority.

After ten years of it, Lex had seen enough though. The disorder that invariably accompanied the nomadic lifestyle of adventuring was wearing on him.

He chose to settle in Proust.

Lex couldn't quite explain why, though. Perhaps it was the inherent disorder of the freehold's lack of any centralized authority that called to him? A situation that, on some inborn level, he felt he could rectify.

The closest thing to a governing body in the freehold was the United Merchants Guild. Moral ambiguities aside, they represented order in the region. It was that order that appealed to Lex the most.

Of course, the money wasn't bad either.

"Lex Legis?"

A comely human female was holding his parchment. She cut an impressive figure, standing rigidly amidst the bustling happenings of the guild hall.

"Here, I'm here."

He stood and waved a hand to gain her attention.

She looked at him with a blank expression, belying no prejudices she may have due to his unusual skin tone.

"You're here applying to join the guard?"

He nodded.

"Yes, someplace fixed though. One of the towns or cities. I'm not exactly eager to patrol long stretches of empty roads."

She smiled.

"I completely understand. Follow me."

She lead him back to an out-of-the-way office, deeper in the guild hall. Holding open the door she beckoned him inside.

Once in, she closed the door and rounded the desk.

Settling into her chair, she indicated the empty seat across from her.

"Make yourself comfortable Mr. Legis."

Lex sat, hands folded in his lap.

"My name is Dandria Dustil. I'm chief recruiter for the guild's security forces here in Proust."

Lex studied her. Her dark hair and features, as well as her tan skin tone spoke volumes as to her origins.

"You're Redgulan, are you not?" He asked.

She blushed.

"Yes, originally. I was born on a farmstead north of Lanterum. But I moved to the city when I was very young. Lived there until the attack eleven years ago. Now I'm a proud citizen of Proust."

He nodded with a slight smile.

Changing the subject, Dandria pretended to recheck the information on the parchment.

"So you're aware of the fact we're looking to fill the ranks of the Jobrak guard, yes?"

Lex nodded.

"Like I told the small-fellow out there, wherever is fine."

Dandria offered a nod in return.

"It says here your preferred method of armament is a blaze-dust pistol?"

Lex smiled.

"Its a family thing. My parents and I came here from another world with the rest of the refugees escaping the Illithid armada. Where we came from, my father was a fairly respected warrior. His weapon of choice was the same as mine is today."

She offered no indication of approval or disapproval.

"Those weapons have become more common since the war. The old Admiralty made use of them extensively. Did you serve?"

Lex shook his head.

"I thought about it, but if my father wasn't good enough for them, then they weren't good enough for me."

She clicked at him with a humorous tone.

"Oooh...a bit of callousness? That'll come in handy here in the freeholds."

He shrugged.

"Let's just call it a pragmatic indifference."

She smirked.

"Fair enough. It also says here you've done wok as a bounty hunter?"

He nodded again.

"Yes. Tracking down lawbreakers mostly. Bringing crooks to justice just appeals to my nature, I guess."

She quirked a brow.

"Were any of these 'crooks' guild members?"

He chuckled.

"A few."

Dandria reclined in her chair.

"Then why come work for the guild if you know we don't exactly operate within the law all the time?"

Lex shrugged.

"I figure, here, you are the law. Doesn't affront me much if the laws of other regions are being bent. Just so long as what's law here remains consistent and equally enforceable."

She smiled again.

"They are indeed."

She leaned forward and used a quill to sign off on the parchment.

"You can go ahead and report to the constabulary headquarters in Jobrak. Bring your gun. I suspect you'll need it sooner than later. As far as I'm concerned, you're the newest copper in the Jobrak city guard."

Lex smiled and got to his feet.

"Thank you Miss Dunstil. I'll head out first thing."

----------------------------------------------------------

Heindas' Evening, 10th Day of Summer's Ebb, Year 47 A.E.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Nymph's Nest brothel, Jobrak, Freehold Territory of Proust.

----------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, Lord Idald, I am fully aware of your status in the Kingdom of Redgulus. But, as I've repeatedly reminded you, you're not in Redgulus."

Lex shook his head when he took in the state of the Redgulan nobleman's appearance.

Half-dressed, covered in spatters of vomit and other less identifiable stains. The noble shook a fist toward him.

"I am Rosgrave Idald, second son of Count Hernon Idald!"

He waved a sheet of wine-stained vellum at Lex.

"And I've just gotten word of my father's passing! So...naturally, I am grieving in the proper Redgulan fashion! I'm getting drunk and sporting with harlots!"

He waved the vellum so hard, he threw off his own balance. He stumbled into Lex's partner, a gruff Dwarf named Gaorge Stonepalm. Gaorge shoved the nobleman to the floor.

"Keep off of me with all that mess!"

Gaorge clenched a fist.

"Or I'll spill the contents of yer skull all over this lovely carpeting!"

Several of the courtesans who worked at the brothel looked on from an adjoining room. Lex could hear their whispers of disgust.

He gently reached out and clutched Gaorge's wrist, giving it a quick squeeze, calming the dwarf.

"I am sorry for your loss Lord Idald. But that doesn't mean you can shirk your bill here. These ladies have provided a service for you, and they expect to be compensated. If you don't pay up, my partner and I will have no choice but to take you to the city's jail, and hold you until your family sends funds to cover what you owe, as well as post your bail. I'm quite sure the last thing your poor, beleaguered mother needs right now, in this difficult time, is word that one of her sons is sitting in a freehold city's jail cell because he refused to pay his brothel tab."

The lord rolled onto his ass and sat on the floor, drunk and incredulous.

He began to weep.

"I'm sorry!"

He grabbed a fat coin purse from his belt and threw it at Lex and Gaorge.

"Here! Just take it! Take it all. I don't care anymore!"

He accentuated his words with more waves of the vellum.

Gaorge smiled and picked up the pouch, testing its weight. He looked to Lex.

"This ought to cover the bill, and then some. A pittance for our troubles?"

Lex shook his head and took the coin purse.

"No, Mister Stonepalm, we're duly compensated for the work we do."

He opened it and counted out enough coin to cover the nobleman's bill. He handed the coins to Gaorge.

"Go settle Lord Idald's account, I'll get his lordship on his feet and out of here. I'll see about getting him a room at the Red Boar Inn. Meet me there."

Gaorge smirked as he eyed up the ladies who were turning on their sultry charms now that the Dwarf had gold in his hand.

"You bet Legis. Say...an hour?"

Lex glared at him.

"Ten minutes. And that's to pay the bill already due, not for your own sport.”

Gaorge scowled.

"Pelor’s balls, Legis, yer too uptight sometimes. Whatever. I'll meet you in ten."

Lex nodded and crouched down, helping Rosgrave to his feet, and tucking the coin purse back into the nobleman's belt.

"See you there."

He threw the nobleman's arm around his shoulder to help support him.

"Come on now Lord Idald, let's get you somewhere you can sleep this off."

----------------------------------------------------------

Hexdas' Midnight, 23rd day of Autumn's Rest, Year 49 A.E.

----------------------------------------------------------

Beggar's Alley, Jobrak, Freehold of Proust

----------------------------------------------------------

Lex cursed and he crouched behind a stack of ruined crates, and quickly went about reloading his pistol.

Lex really hated the undead. Especially vampires. Even more so when those vampires liked to cast spells at him.

He looked across the alley to his partner Gaorge. Smiling, as he worked at reloading, he called out to the wounded dwarf.

"How we doing over there, Stoney?"

The Dwarf clutched at a wound on his scalp that was still gushing blood.

"Me? Oh, I'm just fuckin' dandy! Its all fresh mangoes and perky pixie-tits over here!. How about you, Legis? Still fiddling with that stupid gun? Anyone ever tell you swords don't need reloading?"

Lex smirked as he tamped the ball and powder tight.

"And anyone ever tell you that swords require you to get awfully close to the raging vampires you're trying to vanquish?"

He peered up from behind his cover to see the vampire was working out the somatic component to another spell.

He crouched back down and cursed again.

"He's warming up another one Stoney! What's the plan?"

The dwarf pulled his hand away from the wound and rubbed his bloody fingers together. He laughed.

"Same strategy my father's great grandfather, Orlock Stonepalm used against the dreaded Minotaur Lord of the Sullen-Depths Labyrinth!"

Lex chuckled.

"Let me guess...we rush it?"

The Dwarf hefted his axe and nodded.

Lex shook his head as he pulled back the firing mechanism.

"Our Warforged colleague, Constable Spade, tried that already. He didn't fair so well."

Gaorge shrugged.

"Maybe the bloodsucker will be surprised we'd be dumb enough to try it too?"

Lex rolled his eyes.

"Alright, on three...I'll put a ball in the bastard while you clear the distance and hack it down."

Gaorge smiled.

"I can agree to that."

Lex grinned.

"You know why I love being partnered with you Stoney?"

The dwarf's face crinkled in confusion.

"No, why?"

Lex smiled wide.

"You're real easy to shoot over."

Gaorge rolled his eyes this time.

"Kiss my ass Legis."

Lex laughed.

Garoge smirked.

"You ready Legis?"

Lex nodded.

Gaorge set in a crouch.

"On three, right?"

Lex peered up again.

"Yep."

Gaorge nodded.

"Alright....THREE!"

He burst forth from behind his cover and rushed down the alley at the Vampire.

Lex laughed and quickly stood up, taking aim.

As the dwarf closed the gap, Lex saw the vampire's eyes go wide for a moment before it completed its spell.

He pulled the trigger, and in less than a heartbeat, the familiar buck of the explosive recoil shook his arm.

At the same moment in time, the vampire's spell was unleashed.

Lex felt his muscles begin to seize up.

He braced himself against the tightening sensation, trying to steel his fortitude against the vampire's arcane power....

Gaorge heard the whistle of Lex's shot whizz over his head. The vampire's spell must not have gone off properly, because he didn't see any brilliant flashes or feel the heat of any explosions.

Gaorge almost pitied the creature when his axe buried into its head, splitting it like a ripened fruit.

The creature dissipated into a gaseous state and drifted away in the night winds.

He sighed.

"Well Legis, looks like it got away this time."

He paused, awaiting some sarcastic, yet dry reply. When one didn't come, he turned and looked back up the alley.

"Hey Legis, did you hear me?"

He saw Lex, standing motionless in the shadows. His arm still extended, aiming the pistol at where the vampire was.

"Legis, you alright?"

He started walking back towards his partner, who refused to answer.

"Come on man! Its gone! Quit posing and come help me pick up the pieces of what's left of Spade. Knowing Jimur, he'll want to melt down the poor bastard's body for the raw Adamantine."

Legis still refused to answer, much less drop the aiming pose.

The dwarf walked a little more briskly toward his silent and still partner.

"Come on Lex, what in the hells is wrong with you?”

He kicked a small, empty wooden keg at him.

Legis made no attempt to move, or block the projectile. It made impact, and knocked Lex down.

Gaorge's heart sank when he heard the distinct sound of rock, striking rock, and cracking.

The dwarf ran as fast as his short legs would carry him to his now fallen partner.

He dropped to his knees when he found Legis laying in the alley, completely petrified.

The keg he'd kicked had knocked over the living statue, causing it to make impact with the cobblestone alley.

The arm holding the pistol had broken off at the shoulder. The chest cracked diagonally from the broken shoulder, down to the hip.

Gaorge tried to frantically hoist the statue back up to its feet, but the blood on his hands caused him to lose his grip..

He watched in horror as his partner's form impacted the ground again, separating the upper section from the lower along the fault line.

"Oh gods...Legis. I'm so sorry."

Thirty minutes later, Gaorge pushed a wheelbarrow filled with the parts of the fallen warforged constable, and the pieces of his petrified and shattered partner, into the Jobrak City Guard headquarters.

"Someone help!"

---------------------------------------------

Bocdas' Afternoon, 8th Day of Winter's End, Year 50 A.E.

---------------------------------------------

Hallink Gemnibbler, the gnomish enchanter, smiled as he gazed upon his completed creation. He turned to his current patron, Jimur Fletcher, who stood nearby.

"Well? What do you think?"

Jimur stepped out of the shadow of the large bodyguard who was never farther than an arm's length from him.

He casually looked over the creation.

"Is it alive?"

Hallink clicked his teeth.

"He is most certainly alive. It took me a few months to piece everything together properly, and I had to make a few necessary adjustments here and there...but yes. I think its all in all a successful experiment."

Jimur looked at the gnome with a dubious glare.

"So you just pieced the poor bastards together, and brought him back to life like this?"

The gnome nodded.

"Yes. I'm afraid the warforged was a complete loss. And the petrified constable would have been as well. Luckily there was enough of the fallen warforged's....chassis...left to act as a new body."

Fletcher looked first to his bodyguard, then to the creation.

"So he's a living golem?"

Hallink shook his head.

"Technically, he's a half-golem."

The bodyguard let out an agitated groan, but otherwise remained silent.

Jimur turned to face Hallink.

"So he's alive, but has golem parts?"

The gnome nodded.

"Yes, I suppose that's accurate. Save for his head, and torso, his body is primarily artificial."

Jimur looked back at the creation.

"Well...when can he get back to work?"

The gnome laughed.

"Whenever you'd like."

Jimur's eyes narrowed.

"You put him back together physically...but is he 'all-there' mentally?"

The gnome shrugged.

"Depends on how mentally stable he was before. There's also bound to be some slight residual affect to his state of mind. He's really been through quite a shock. But...I took steps to ensure he won't pose a danger to the general public."

Jimur stared at the creation.

"What kind of steps?"

The gnome walked over and stood next to Jimur.

"I wove a few mentally binding spells into the whole construction process. He's going to fairly single-mindedly perform his duties as a constable. But unlike a true golem, he is capable of his own thoughts and able to plan his own courses of action. The spells are more like safeguards. Directives, if you will."

Jimur turned to him.

"Oh yeah? What are these directives?"

The gnome smiled.

"Ask him."

Jimur quirked a brow and turned to the creation.

"Officer....what are your directives?"

Lex Legis blankly looked up at Jimur Fletcher.

"Serve the public trust. Protect the innocent. Uphold the law."

#dungeons and dragons #npc #d&d 5e #sundered schemes

5 notes · View notes

lysergicdialectic · 4 years ago

Text

Matt Christman on his satori moment and prestige TV

Excerpted from “Better Call Saul? More Like Worse Write, Paul,” April 26, 2020, and lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

Hello friends. So yesterday—I don’t know if anyone watched the stream I did yesterday—I was kind of tripping balls. And at the end of it, after I finished recording, I sat in my little back area, my little fenced-in area, and I looked up at the sky for a while. And wouldn’t you know it, I ended up having one of those legitimate, full-blown satori moments. Actual enlightenment, actual transcendence, like bloop. One second, one with the universe. Whatever you want to call it—ego death, blah-blah-blah—I was there.

I had a moment of complete identification and oneness with the universe, and then of course, the second it was over, I came back into my body and became reincarnated, reembodied as me. And of course, I started falling away from that moment as the rock started rolling back down the hill. I was Sisyphus, and I got to walk down it. And the thing about Sisyphus is, Camus says you must imagine Sisyphus happy. That’s one of those things that just sounds like a zen koan

I understand it now, because happy Sisyphus is the one who gets to the top of the hill as often as possible because being on the top of the hill is fun, and walking down the hill—it's not as fun as being on the top of the hill but it's a lot more fun than pushing the goddamn rock up the hill. So you just gotta increase the circuits. You can't keep pushing the boulder up one long gradient, which is what most people do and what we're cursed to do because of our material realities that constrain us and chain us . . . . As I was coming back to my body and I was going down the hill and falling away, the first word that came into my mind after—because obviously in that time and space there's no words because language is obliterated. It's not needed because you are one; there's no need to translate. As soon as I came back to my body, the first word, it was an image in the sky of a crashing wave and the word Yes. And I realized that a lot of the stuff I've been trying to get my head around, in terms of spirituality ad theology and questions of body and mind and all these things that I've been working on in my head, and I feel I've been making progress but I've been struggling with—the word Yes cut through a lot of it and it created a symbolic order that allowed me to make sense of everything I've been trying to get my head around. And since my specific orientation as age, race, gender, class background, language, culture, all that stuff—when I heard Yes, the first thing I thought was the end of Ulysses. And all of a sudden, I had one moment of thinking "Oh, that's what it's like to have read Ulysses," and then I was like, "Oh wait a minute," and then I thought, "Oh great, now I don't have to read Ulysses." But then I realized: I have to read Ulysses now, even if it's bad, even if it's a slog, even if it's whatever, because it will remind me of that moment, and doing it every day will remind me of that moment and keep me living in a way that gets me there, or gets me closer to it. It will inform my actions and it will inform my behavior toward the people around me, and it will make them turn toward that sound. So I'm going to start reading Ulysses.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it's good or not. It doesn't matter if it's worth it. What matters is reading it. The reason that I'm thinking within these terms is, I did a tweet that got a lot of people mad about Better Call Saul, because I said that Better Call Saul, in my opinion, suffers from trying to be a prestige TV show, given the ingredients it has. You've got Saul Goodman here, played by Bob Odenkirk, a great character we all love, and we've got these great people behind the casts, great cinematography. And it ended up being the show it is, with its basically copying the rhythms of Breaking Bad and becoming a Breaking Bad explicit prequel filling in all these gaps of Where'd Hector get his bell? and things like that. That's inevitable as soon as it had to fit the format of a prestige show. As a prestige show, it probably is great. I've watched enough of it. Yes, it fits all the terms that we discuss when we talk about prestige television. Yes. I would say it's as good as Mad Men, it's as good as Breaking Bad or even better, it's as good as The Sopranos, whatever you want to say. Fine. It's good. But it's good in the context of a television show. I've written about prestige TV and I've talked a lot about it, and I was trying to articulate something that I've never actually been able to explicitly say in a way that I felt like I was saying what I meant, let alone if other people understood it. What I realized with this mental Ginsu now to chop everything up that I encounter is, my problem with Better Call Saul is that it is a product of the demiurge. Better Call Saul, like all prestige TV, is a product of the demiurge. Art is an attempt to reach the etheric plane. Art is always an attempt to strike at the heart of the universe, to strike God and become God. Everything attempt at art is that, in some small way, the way that the person making it can do or try to do. It's the urge to do it. But then, there's the reality, the embodied reality of being a person, being a body that has needs. Those material needs that shape the world and limit us, that's what the Gnostics talked about. That's what the demiurge, the evil god who creates the material world that is illusion below the spiritual realm. In this case, if we're talking about art, in an objective sense, television is a more degraded form of art than literature by the very simple fact that it is more commercial. And you might say, "Well, Stephen King makes a lot of money." No. What I mean by that is, the writing of a book and the publication of a book are relatively capital unintensive. Making a television show is much more, by exponential numbers, more capitally intensive than a book, which means that whatever art is in it has been constrained by being a product of a commercial enterprise. That means that television can be good. Every show could be fun. You should enjoy every program you watch. Either stop watching it if you can't find yourself enjoying it, or find something about it that speaks to you. Everything should be enjoyable, artistically. And if it isn't, find something that will, something that you can work it. Some things aren't going to work because the talent of the people involved, the amount of resources put to it, the amount of commercialism leavened within it, it's going to hit you and make it hard. That is why I see Better Call Saul, and I go egh because it just reminds me that we're all praying to this degraded version of art. And the reason we are is because we have been immiserated culturally. Capitalism has done that to us. That's not something you can argue. Our tastes are more broad, and poptimists like to say, "You're being a snob." But I'm recognizing a goddamn reality here, which is that there's a structural difference between art depending on how much they are required to make money, the degree to which a piece of art needs to make money to be worth the endeavor leavens its individual artistic expression because it has to be translatable to the largest possible group. The art, in translation, gets lost. And that's fine. You can find the sparks. You can find the things you like in anything, including Breaking Bad. But because we have lost free time, we've lost energy, we've lost the ability to take a small moment and treasure something and really dig into it, that we need our entertainments to go down easier. They have to be absorbable because we don't have the energy, the mental or spiritual energy to sit with anything because of where we are, because of how degraded our conditions are, because of our bodies essentially. All these institutions—capitalism, feudalism before it, slave labor—every class order created was created to manage the issue of keeping bodies alive, basically. That creates our structures. It creates our economic structures, it creates our art, it creates our culture, it creates our personalities, it creates our religions, it creates our ideologies, it creates everything. It creates this computer, it creates this phone. It creates this shirt, and it creates the systems that create the hyperexploitation that goes into making this shirt, the gunpoint slave coltan mining that makes this phone. Those things are all necessary to the degree to which they allow for the human bodies to be restored.

Then there is the temptation to seek pleasure, and pleasure always comes at the expense of someone else. Pleasure always comes at the expense of us—always. All pleasure is at the expense of others and at the expense of ourselves—karma. And so these institutions get warped. "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." What that means is, the crookedness is the fact that we have bodies. That's not a sin, it's not bad—the Christian thing is another mistranslation from the initial true divining of reality. The material world gets in the way, and it gets baffled, and so Christianity gets muddled up with all this stuff. When you say, "The body creates this world," it's not bad—it's inevitable. It's inherent. We have to deal with it. We have to create a society that minimizes suffering by spreading pleasure out as broadly as possible, not concentrating on any individual because doing so creates a situation where you cause misery to all the people whose exploitation goes into the pleasure of that one person, and that one person's pleasure is fleeting. It's going away. They're going to face the flames of judgment, which is the coming of death, with the terror of hell in their heart. There's no stopping it. And so no one has gotten any sort of benefit out of that arrangement.

We have to have some suffering and pleasure just to keep the bodies going, but it should be spread out. That's where the dialectic comes in. Somebody said, "Go back to Marxism." I'm sorry, but this moment made me realize that these are nesting series of thoughts, ideologies, and structures, and guess what? Nesting in here is dialectical materialism. Maybe Gnosticism or Buddhism or something or The Dark Tower or I was talking about Infinite Jest the other day and maybe Ulysses, those things help structure your thoughts and make it easier for you to behave in a way that reduces suffering. But then you need structures within other people, amongst people in the social realm of economic production and political economy, that need to serve those ends as well. Dialectical materialism is the drive toward that. It is the drive toward a world where everyone is free of the bodily temptations and distractions to reach full enlightenment. When people talk about "fully automated luxury space communism," there's a lot wrong with that notion. But the truth thing that's reckoning with is that the only way for universal human enlightenment—which, if enlightenment is the individual goal, as it well should be, then presumably it is the universal goal for all humans—then you need some sort of taming and instrumentalizing of technology toward the goal of human enlightenment as opposed to the dark singularity we're moving toward, where the machine takes over and totally annihilates human spirituality and turns us into machines. We don't want that. It requires a lack until you get to the top, and you don't get there and stay there. It's a process. You go back, and you come back. And you go back and you come back. It's pushing the fucking boulder up the hill. That's why it's compatible. If we want that version, universal enlightenment, then it requires, in my view (and I am wrong, at some point in time in the future I am wrong. I think I'm right now. I have enough history around me and I think I'm smart enough and compassionate enough together to figure out broadly what's right. More specifically, as it gets drilled down, I don't have the information or the intelligence to specifically answer technological questions, social questions, whatever. Broadly, I think I'm right, but I'm not right forever. At some point in the future, at some point in space time, everything I think is going to be wrong. Every single thing, and that's true of you too. Every human being. Every single thing you have ever thought, every decision you've ever made, has been wrong. We are all, in fact, the sum total of our wrong choices. This is all a way of saying you can enjoy Better Caul Saul. To enjoy Better Call Saul, of course, it doesn't make sense to watch it if you're not going to enjoy it. Watching it to get made at it, you're getting pleasure somewhere else. And at the end of the day, the pleasure's at others' expense because what are you going to do? You're going to go online like I have a million times and kick people in the dick and say, "Ha! Fuck you. This show is stupid, and you're dumb for liking it." That's the pleasure I get out of it, and that's at someone else's expense as all pleasure is.

What makes a decision right or wrong? It's not defined until afterwards. It's only retrospectively known because all time has already happened. Everything has already happened. Everything has already happened. And when I say everything, I mean not just in your life, I mean the lives of all beings to exist or ever will exist. So you can enjoy Better Call Saul, but you see the way people are defensive about the show and see the way they get mad about it—and even if they're not mad, the way they insist on its greatness. It's because they have decided that instead of acknowledging the lack at the heart of prestige as a concept, instead of saying, "Aw, this is sad that now we have to get our real artistic nourishment from something this banalized"—It's banalized! It has to be, because it's commercial. It has to be banalized—"I have to try so hard to squeeze meaning out of it not for my enjoyment of the show but to convince other people and myself that watching this is actually good." It's not necessarily bad. It's not going to doom you to like it in that way. But it implies attachment to something that is degraded without acknowledging and recognizing the degradation. And without the ability to recognize the degradation, you cannot act in a way in your life to move away from degradation in your interpersonal relationships, in your preferences, what you do with your time, and what you think politics should be and how you should act on political beliefs. If prestige TV is good enough, then why do you need to change anything?

So commercial art is bad?

No. No art is bad. Every individual's relationship to a piece of art is completely individualized, and it's a result of translations. All art is translation. All existence is translation—your brain literally translating to you through language what is happening to it, first in senses, then in symbols, then in words: words to yourself and then words to others. At every level, the translation breaks down. There is loss between every level of translation. By the time you're trying to express an idea through art, you're way down here. You're so degraded. But if you're talented enough and enough people see it and you're collaborating with others and you make something together, because collaboration, depending on the art form and the project, helps signal boost and bring together individual insights and individual talents, and it creates something.

There's something to it. There's a spark to all art. It's just either the talent was not there to express it fully, or it was a piece of cynical dogshit. But even the cynical dogshit will have things in it that might be enjoyable. You can watch a piece of cynical dogshit with the right frame of mind and enjoy it. The danger is when you mistake the shadows for the figures, and that is what prestige television does. If we just accepted, "Yeah, TV, it's the idiot box," the shows could be the same, have the same stuff, and it would be fine. But a culture that requires television to be good is one that has not acknowledged its barriers . . . .

Plato's stuff, I never really got until now. Now I get it. Gnosticism, I never really got. I feel like I get it. And of course I get it less now than I did yesterday, and I will get it less tomorrow than I do today. My task is to get back, to remember that moment, remember what I knew then, and try to find it again. The way to do that is by daily acts by the Eightfold Path, by the Path of the Beam. What that really means is not just I'm going to say, "Epic path of the beam," when I see a fucking Stephen King reference. It means my every action informed by the knowledge of what is there—the imminence behind reality, the real universe beyond the demiurgical one—and then trying to get there. That means these reading projects are not about learning something. It's about re-learning something, because you don't know anything. You only have echoing, clanging notions in your head. A lot of them contradict each other. The only way to thread them together in a way to make them useful is to sit with them. And that is not something that anything we do encourages. Not something anything in our culture encourages, is sitting with these questions. Existential materialism, whatever you want to call it. Gnosticism, whatever you guys want to say . . . .

Gnosticism says this is a degraded shadow realm. It is. It's a degraded shadow realm of material reality, but we have to work with it. How do we work with it? How do we thread it? How do we push it in a direction that leads toward the chance for as many people as possible to achieve transcendence and direct it back to themselves in the future and to everyone else who can hear them in their lives and people around them? It's by resolving contradiction, because contradiction is at the heart of existence. No and yes. The universe is yes, and it's always there. It is outside of space and time. The world is no, and we are all—every person, every being in the universe, every photon, every chain of chemicals, anything—those things are all no's. Those are different levels of rejecting. And the thing is, there aren't that many of them. But there doesn't need to be, because yes exists outside of space and time. It is the accumulation of no's over this endless expanse, they are accumulated in actual reality, this world. And you've gotta get back to yes.

I say that and you hear it, and it's like, "What does that mean?" And for me, these words, "getting back to yes," they're freighted with my memory of this experience. You are only hearing my words retell it, which is fraudulence, as Nietzsche points out. All language is a lie. All I can do is use my talents—to such extent that they exist—and my will, my morality, my intellect, to try to push in the direction of the good.

So that's Better Call Saul.

#matt christman #better call saul #diamat #dialectical materialism #prestige TV #capitalism #marxism #LSD #chapo #chapo trap house

4 notes · View notes

anniekoh · 5 years ago

Text

elsewhere on the internet: talking about racism

This set of articles has been languishing at the back of the queue for three years!

Political Correctness Wanted Dead or Alive: A Rhetorical Witch-Hunt in the US, Russia, and Europe

Anna Szilagyi (2016, Talk Decoded)

Possibly the most common way of attacking political correctness, is to label it “tyrannical”. Covert speech strategies may also support this construction. For instance, anti-PC politicians often utilize adjectives for fear (including “afraid”, “frightened”, “scared”, “terrified”) to describe how PC affects the behavior and feelings of people. The former leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage claimed: “I think actually what’s been happening with this whole politically correct agenda is lots of decent ordinary people are losing their jobs and paying the price for us being terrified of causing offence.” Suggesting that the British are “terrified” because of political correctness, Farage urged his listeners to think of PC in terms of intimidation.

At the same time, the fearsome vocabulary provides a background for anti-PC populists to present themselves as “brave” and “courageous” “saviors” of their “victimized” societies. The next quote by Nigel Farage exemplifies this trend: “I think the people see us as actually standing up and saying what we think, not being constrained or scared by political correctness.” In a similar fashion, Geert Wilders declared: “I will not allow anyone to shut me up.”

Why White People Freak Out When They’re Called Out About Race

Sam Adler-Bell (2015, Alternet) @SamAdlerBell

Sam Adler-Bell: How did you come to write about "white fragility"?

Robin DiAngelo: To be honest, I wanted to take it on because it’s a frustrating dynamic that I encounter a lot. I don’t have a lot of patience for it. And I wanted to put a mirror to it.

I do atypical work for a white person, which is that I lead primarily white audiences in discussions on race every day, in workshops all over the country. That has allowed me to observe very predictable patterns. And one of those patterns is this inability to tolerate any kind of challenge to our racial reality. We shut down or lash out or in whatever way possible block any reflection from taking place.

Of course, it functions as means of resistance, but I think it’s also useful to think about it as fragility, as inability to handle the stress of conversations about race and racism

Sometimes it’s strategic, a very intentional push back and rebuttal. But a lot of the time, the person simply cannot function. They regress into an emotional state that prevents anybody from moving forward.

...

RD: I think we get tired of certain terms. What I do used to be called "diversity training," then "cultural competency" and now, "anti-racism." These terms are really useful for periods of time, but then they get coopted, and people build all this baggage around them, and you have to come up with new terms or else people won’t engage.

And I think "white privilege" has reached that point. It rocked my world when I first really got it, when I came across Peggy McIntosh. It’s a really powerful start for people. But unfortunately it's been played so much now that it turns people off.

The Language of “Privilege” Doesn’t Work

Stephen Aguilar (2016, Inside Higher Ed) @stephenaguilar

I believe that “privilege” is a sterile word that does not grapple with the core of the problem. If you are white, you do not have “white” privilege. If you are male, you do not have “male” privilege. If you are straight, you do not have “straight” privilege. What you have is advantage. The language of advantage, I propose, is a much cleaner and more precise way to frame discussions about racism (or sexism, or most systems of oppression).

... does giving up a “privilege” seem incoherent? It might, because generally privileges are given and taken by someone else. They are earned, and are seldom bad things to have.

Now try shifting your language to that of advantages. Ask yourself, “What advantages do I have over that person over there?” That question is much easier to answer and yields more nuanced responses.

Kimberlé Crenshaw on intersectionality

Bim Adewunmi (2014, New Statesman) @bimadewunmi

“I wanted to come up with an everyday metaphor that anyone could use”

“Class is not new and race is not new. And we still continue to contest and talk about it, so what’s so unusual about intersectionality not being new and therefore that’s not a reason to talk about it? Intersectionality draws attention to invisibilities that exist in feminism, in anti-racism, in class politics, so obviously it takes a lot of work to consistently challenge ourselves to be attentive to aspects of power that we don’t ourselves experience.”

...

“Sometimes it feels like those in power frame themselves as being tremendously disempowered by critique. A critique of one’s voice isn’t taking it away. If the underlying assumption behind the category ‘women’ or ‘feminist’ is that we are a coalition then there have to be coalitional practices and some form of accountability.”

The Persecution of Amy Schumer: Political Correctness and Comedy

Teo Bugbee (2015, Daily Beast)

We have developed highly advanced ways of recognizing and articulating when we feel offended, but very few ways of making something productive out of our own hurt feelings.

I’ve questioned if my choice to overlook what’s hurtful in Schumer’s comedy for the sake of what’s insightful is a sign that I’m complicit in the faults of white feminism, not valuing the importance of others’ feelings on this matter enough. This argument of apathy gets used often on social media to raise awareness around issues of race, sex, gender, and other topics surrounding justice and a need for change, and it is often useful, but it can also be a blunt instrument. Where I’ve landed for the moment is that not all marginalized people feel the same way about every issue—even on social media, but especially outside it—and asking everyone to respond in the same way to the same joke takes a simplistic view that flattens the complexity of marginalized communities just as much as it does the white, cisgender mainstream.

However, if we’re going to ask audiences to keep in mind the multiplicity of responses that a person might have to a work of art before they attempt to control someone else’s opinion, then it’s only fair that comedians follow the same rule.

What’s Wrong (and Right) in Jonathan Chait’s Anti-P.C. Screed

J. Bryan Lowder (2015, Slate)

One of the main problems with the constellation of leftist ideas he bemoans is that many of the people who use them most loudly do so out of context. Concepts like “microaggressions,” “trigger warnings,” and “mansplaining” originally had specific meanings and limited uses, often within the academy. They described or were meant to address specific situations or phenomena, and more important, they were intended to function as diagnostic tools of analysis, not be used as blunt, conversation-ending instruments. Believe it or not, most of these “PC buzzwords” are actually useful from time to time: “Straightsplaining” is a real (and very annoying) thing, and it’s often a productive way of thinking about an interaction. But it’s also not always a useful or fair way to characterize a disagreement between a queer person and a straight interlocutor. Precision is what’s needed.

Additionally, though it is impossible to say this without sounding condescending myself, a lot of the abuse of PC rhetoric comes from young college students who have not yet grasped the difference between a measuring tape and a sledgehammer. Of course, given that contemporary mainstream politics offers little for those hopeful souls who want to make truly radical change in the world, you can’t really blame them for gravitating toward a mode of critique that at least feels somewhat empowering. Here, first-year, is a framework by which you can reveal the (screwed-up) hidden structures of the world and use your newly honed textual close-reading skills to mount offenses against those structures—go for it. What works on a novel doesn’t necessary translate to a complicated, changeable human being, though, so it’s no surprise that the deployment of microaggression and cissexism and other social justice lingo can sometimes come off as strident and simplistic. It often is.

But then, so is crying that only Reason can save us from the illiberal wolves waiting in the wings of our great system, which has a “glorious” history on social justice, by the way.

Want To Help End Systemic Racism? First Step: Drop the White Guilt

Sincere Kirabo (2015, thehumanist)

The point of identifying and exposing inconsistencies within the social systems and cultural norms of the United States isn’t to make whites feel guilty, but to garner greater empathy that will inspire change. The main problem with white guilt is that it attempts to diminish the spotlight aimed at issues germane to marginalized groups and redirects the focus to a wasteful plane of apologetics and ineffective assessment.

This is why some don’t like discussing racism, as those more sensitive to these matters sometimes allow guilt to creep into their thought processes, effectively evoking pangs of discomfort. This can lead to avoidance of the primary issues altogether, as well as the manifestation of defense mechanisms, including denial, projection, intellectualization, and rationalization.

Many are acquainted with the concept of Catholic guilt. Catholic doctrine emphasizes the inherent sinfulness of all people. These accentuated notions of fault lead to varied degrees of enhanced self-loathing. I liken white guilt to Catholic guilt: both relate to a sense of inadequacy emanating from misguided notions. Though the latter is anchored in an imagined source, they both speak to feelings of remorse and internal conflict that does the individual having them no good.

Keep in mind that the call to “recognize your privilege” does not translate to “bear the blame.”

#racism #intersectionality #political correctness #social justice #linguistics

3 notes · View notes

rootfauna · 6 years ago

Text

A Handmaiden’s Tale. Specifically, Mine.

I’e been debating on whether or not to make this post for a while now, and I’ve decided that the benefits of saying my piece outweigh any hate I’ll get for this. It’s really long but I have no more fucks to give.

I am so, so, sick of the trend in radical feminism of calling women who aren’t radical feminists “cocksuckers” “wastes of time” “dick riders” “sellouts” “cowards” and “handmaidens”. Anti feminist women and liberal feminist women can be incredibly annoying and have made me want to put my head through a wall, and I honestly can’t blame anyone for making a snide remark about them here or there. But I absolutely cannot wrap my mind around the fact that a group of women who supposedly A) understands the misogyny of using a woman’s (real of hypothetical) sexual interactions with a man as an insult against her, B) acknowledges the realities of female socialization in a patriarchal society and C) understands the potential dangerous outcomes of a woman speaking up against misogyny, can go around unabashedly talking about women this way. Every time I scroll through my dash I’ll come across at least one post lamenting how young girls are indoctrinated into believing their worth lies in their beauty, femininity, and (hetero)sexuality. Why then, do I see so much vitriol directed at the ones who believed it?

The last time I spoke about this I was accused of ‘making it all about myself’ because I shared a snippet of my personal experience. Well, I’m about to share more than a snippet. Yet this isn’t about me, and I will be the first one to tell you that I am nowhere near unique in this sense. So I guess this is actually the experience of thousands and thousands of women, this is just how it happened to me:

To start with, y’all need to understand where I grew up. If the ‘y’all’ wasn’t a big enough clue, I grew up in bumfuck nowhere USA. Here’s another fact that’s vital to my story: I was born in 1991. That fact, coupled with my geographic location, meant that when I started school in 1996, corporal punishment was still legal (to be carried out by the principal) and up until around that time my mother could still legally sign documents as “mrs” *insert my father’s name*.

Growing up in this environment meant that gender roles were highly enforced around me and that at an early age I saw deviance from them met with hatred and scorn. I could name plenty of examples, but really, haven’t we all seen that? Even the respectable women who dared not be housewives never rose to a more prominent position than a teacher, bank clerk, or selling Mary Kay. Before the age of about 10 I have absolutely no memory of seeing a woman in a position of skill and power beyond these things except for Terry Irwin on tv. It might be noted that I grew up wanting to be a zookeeper. I don’t remember the first time I heard the word “feminist” but from my earliest recollection it was not a good word. Then, as today in my neck of the woods, “feminist” is an insult. I can remember sitting in the back seat of the car listening to my father and his friend ranting about something they heard on the radio about how “the feminists” (word spat out like tobacco juice) were ruining something or other. It was clear to me that whatever these feminists were, they were bad.

Things really kicked into gear once I got into middle school. What had been a vague concept in the back of my mind was now pulled to the front of the classroom. I distinctly remember sitting in 7th grade biology and learning about the inherent differences between male and female brains. The teacher explained how our brains were wired differently, and that male brains were designed so that logical and analytical thought came naturally to them, but expressing emotion and communicating did not. This, the teacher said, is why men often erupt into fits of anger rather than say how they feel. On the other hand, female brains were designed to have ease of communication, and to be more aware of our own emotions and those of others. They were not designed for quick, logical, rational thinking. Don’t get me wrong; it was never taught to me that women were incapable of logical, rational, thinking, just that we were biologically at a disadvantage to men in that regard. I tried (like other girls in the class) to have some pride in my lady-brain. I’m wired to be better at something than a boy! Ha! Though it was around this time I began to shift my focus away from scientific pursuits and towards the arts. 7th grade was also the beginning of outright public sexual harassment that no adult seemed to give a shit about. There was “thong Thursday”, for example. We 12-13 year old girls were encouraged by the boys to wear thongs and lean over so that they could see the tops of them, or to wear our jeans low enough for them to peek over. This happened openly in the halls, but never once addressed by the adults. And woe to any girl who spoke out about it. That much feared “feminist!” accusation could be hurled at her, and she’d be publicly humiliated and mocked, and no one would dare help her lest they be feminist by association. There was also ‘grab-ass Wednesday’ which makes absolutely no sense but is exactly what you’re thinking.

The official school lesson on male and female brains resurfaced again, this time in 10th grade sociology class. This time in addition to the physical differences in the brains, we learned about inherent differences in behavior and societal roles. It was honestly something taken straight from some MRA’s drivel; men evolved to be the Strong Hunter Protector of the species, brain different, this why big words make man ANGRY he hit you because his brain can’t make his mouth talk feelings he want to BREED. Woman want BABY lots of emotions need man to protec blah blah blah. To us at this point, all of this was objective fact. Also at this point, the effects and impact of female socialization were starting to become disgustingly apparent. Around this time the security officer at the school was fired for ‘having sex’ with a fourteen year old freshman. It was so SCANDALOUS because...what a SLUT! It would not occur to me until YEARS later that maybe sex between a 14 year old girl and the adult male security officer hired to protect her was...uh, rape. As high school continued, so did the development of our female anti-feminism. I’ve seen radfems on here discuss how men are socialized to think that their thoughts and emotions are objective fact, but I’ve never seen it pointed out that women are socialized to believe so, too. As interactions with boys became more frequent their attention became more and more prized. When a boy said “you’re beautiful” or “you’re not like the other girls” or “you’re smart” it was seen as a pure and shining compliment, a shining nugget of truth. If a girl said the same thing? You never knew, she could just be two-faced, she would change her mind in a matter of seconds, or just be on her period. Of course, we began to strive to receive more compliments from boys because what teenager DOESN’T want to be respected and valued by their peers?

By the end of high school several of my peers were married and/or had a baby already. I had intended to go to school for journalism, but in a sudden fit of either teenage rebellion or wisdom, I took the plunge into working with animals. This saw me moving about a thousand miles away from my home town, my parents, friends, and all forms of social support. As it turns out, animal training and handling, particularly dog training and handling, is an incredibly male dominated field. Even compared to my previous life experience, it was extremely misogynistic. I found myself working long shifts at night, often with only male coworkers who were near universally older, larger, and stronger than I was. Here, I was expected to laugh it off when one of them said that if the world were about to end, the first thing he’d do was rape me. Or when my boss joked about raping me. Or when one of them (more or less out of nowhere) said that he didn’t think there would ever be a female president because “when I think “president” I think “man””. I did what I was supposed to do and took some satisfaction in their approval despite my first, suppressed, twinge of discomfort. In a strange city, in a strange area of the country, sleeping during the day and working long hours, I had little elsewhere to look for friendship and social interaction. So I made friends. Long night shifts with no one else to talk to and little else to do will do that to people. Of course, I wasn’t the ONLY woman at my place of work. I was friendly with the other women but the lifelong effects of being socialized to view women as inferior kept any of us from growing too close to each other. After all, despite growing up elsewhere they had similar upbringings. When they weren’t present the men openly chatted about who they thought the woman had slept with, how smelly her vagina must be, what her nipples probably looked like, and I held my tongue still under the delusion that if I was Good and Not Like the Other Girls, they wouldn’t speak like that about me behind my back. Feminism was only mentioned to mock women, or, more importantly, to bring up how the the country was sexist against men. The men lamented about how “in this country a man can’t be raped I guess” and “female special privileges” and “the DRAFT” and I believed them, because I didn’t have much of a reason or incentive not to. Women were viewed and treated as walking cries of rape unless they laughed when groped.

I called one of these male friends one night, in tears. My kitten, a tiny little thing named Ginkgo, had escaped from my apartment and I pleaded with him to help me search for her. He came over and we searched in vain for her. I was heartbroken, sobbing, and desperate for comfort and when the hug I was given became lustful I tried to refuse. He argued that I had woken him up in the middle of the night to come all the way to my home to look for a lost kitten; I owed it to him. That it wasn’t fair for me to refuse him and that it was selfish of me to expect compassion and company for nothing in return. And at that time in my life, I believed him. It was only fair. Afterwards, alone in my apartment, I was confronted with the reality that the only reason anyone would ever show me compassion, love, or kindness was because I was female and therefore potential sex. At the time, I was beginning to realize I was asexual (though it would be many years before I had a word for it). It was like I had been shown that my worth, my worthiness of love and life, and all my achievements were housed in my sensuality and sexuality. And I didn’t posses either. Dark times, I tell ya. Of course, there was no chance of me seeking sympathy from any female friends or acquaintances for what took place. Years later when a man in a bar shoved his finger inside me and I smashed a beer mug over his head I was berated by my female companions for overreacting and ruining the night. Further blows to any sense of being anything other than “woman” came in the form, ironically, of my achievements. I excelled at dog handling, particularly scent detection and received many an award for it, each time being told by my male peers that the only reason I received it was because I was a woman. I took my awards with a pinch of shame, believing I had taken it from a more deserving man.

It was around this time I first dipped my toes in the shallow end of feminism. I got a Tumblr! I was about 23. The internet wasn’t too big a thing when I was growing up and I got my first social media account when I was 17, the year I moved out. Until I logged onto the blue hell site, I didn’t use the internet outside of facebook (with only my irl friends there to form an echo chamber) and looking up definitions of words. Now, for the first time, I discovered that feminism wasn’t taboo everywhere. Fascinating! Of course, the “feminism” I found was pretty much identical to the patriarchal world I lived in, just with more lipstick. But it was a step. Secret radfem blog? Shit, I had a secret libfem blog and was still terrified of being found out by people I knew. I had good reason, too. When I tried to, very tentatively, voice some opinions that were not male-approved, I was met with swift and immediate backlash. I mentioned to a male coworker that I didn’t want children, which ended with him screaming at me to go out and have a hysterectomy right now if I really didn’t want any because I was being stupid and of course I wasn’t serious otherwise I’d just rip my uterus out. Or when I voiced concern over that one politician that said women should be forced to deliver stillbirths naturally because that’s what happened on his farm and was publicly berated for being a crybaby and a little girl, freaking out over ‘one weird fluke’. Still, I grew more and more interested in feminism. I spent a year deeeep in the libbiest-of libfem glitter-choked hells until one fateful day: I saw a study that proved there was no such thing as brainsex.

My entire perception of reality was irreparably shattered. Over the course of a few days, I was forced to realize that I had been lied to my entire life. I had been lied to by my teachers and the adults in my life as a kid, I was forced to realize how deeply sexist and inappropriate the boys at schools were being, that I was taught in school to excuse male violence as not their fault, that no one ever owed anyone sex, that what my coworkers and ‘friends’ were saying was blatantly false and not ok, that I was just as capable of pursuing a scientific field as a man, to realize just how much the most important people in my life really hated me. And I was forced to confront the fact that I had backed myself into a corner, cut off any escape routes, and that I relied on the acceptance of these men for my safety and job security. That made the next few years......uncomfortable. And yet, bit by bit, little by little, I’ve pulled myself away from that world and set up a new life for myself. I’ve said goodbye to a lot of people. I’ve hurt a lot. I’ve cringed a lot. The antifeminist keyboard smashing seen on radfem posts is something I could have (and probably would have) typed myself back then, safe in the conviction that I was right.

“No one held a gun to your head and forced you to be an antifeminist” I’ve been told. That’s true, I guess. At nine, after riding my bike to the one small library in town I could have checked out a book by Dworkin (whom I’d never heard of) from the feminist section (which may or may not have existed) instead of Animorphs. I could have walked around shouting “hey, anyone want to be a feminist so I can see how it’s done?” to try and find someone to look up to. I could have, upon getting internet in my late teens, immediately googled “how to be a feminist”, but I didn’t so my bad. Certainly there were girls who grew up in similar circumstances who were always feminists, and certainly there are women who grew up with outlets for feminism that are antifeminist, but I feel my story is a much more common one and in the end at least I made it. I think most radfems have had a libfem phase and I think most of us would cringe at it, but in so many ways I’m grateful for it. Not only did it introduce me to the movement that would change my life, but it was inviting and welcoming. I cannot, and DO NOT want to imagine what would have happened if, seeking to find voice for my discomfort, I had come across radical feminism first and saw the words that were beginning to cut so deeply echoed by the women who claimed to be for women. Cocksucker. Waste of time. Stupid. Coward. Being told I ‘lapped it all up’. The thought of it really makes me uncomfortable, and I think the only message it all would have sent was “Your entire world is against you and hates you but also you wanted it and it’s your fault.”.

I see radfems speak often about non western women and how they face and view sexism. It’s quite universally accepted that non western women are acutely aware of biological sex and wouldn’t stand for this gemgender floridesexual nonsense and that’s lauded as a sort of....kinship I guess. When I see radfems speak about non western women in this way, I feel they have a sense of kinship with them, like they’re one of the radfem crowd. I wonder, however, what the women who grew up and lived in those environments would really think about everything radical feminism stands for? Surely some would agree completely, but how often do you see women in these situations agree that rape is sometimes (or always) the girl’s fault? Or that women should not be educated? Are they still our sisters, or cock sucking cowards? And is the extension of sisterhood dependent on their hypothetical ability to, if they hold these beliefs, listen to what feminists have to say and change their minds to agree? Let’s say the woman in your gifsets is presented with these resources and never changes her mind. What then? Even still I've seen it said that anti feminist women will never change so there’s no point in trying. I see libfems pointing to non western cultures with ‘other’ genders and saying ‘see? see? THEY agree with me! They’d agree with liberal feminism!’ and I see radfems pointing to non western women and saying ‘see? see? THEY agree with me! They’d agree with radical feminism!’ and I can’t help but see these cultures and women within them being pressed into an ideal of one argument or the other purely for internet posturing.

I’m very disheartened to see the movement which once seemed so academic and helpful to me seeming to become a ‘cool girls’ club. Sisterhood, compassion, and help, but only for women who think the way we do. Others are there to be mocked. It’s eerily similar to the way we laughed at the ‘other’ girls in high school, completely full of ourselves and thinking we were so much better.

When I think of anti feminist women, I see the little girl being told men were prone to violence instead of talking because that’s how they were built, I see the girl being called a whore for being raped by someone she was told to trust, and I see the women pitted against each other, who have never had a feminist role model, and the girls who harbor a strange feeling of discontent and isolation they can’t articulate. I don’t see wastes of time.

If you’re still reading, thank you.

#hooooooboy #that was long

514 notes · View notes

jaywhitecotton · 6 years ago

Text

Fuck Elvis

I used to play this terrible game with some monstrous friends at karaoke shows. It was all based on how Michael Jackson died at the right time and if he molested just one more kid we’d be screwed out of decades of music and nostalgia.

We’d then apply other artists to this molestation scale. Like if MJ set the standard at say 7 known kids we’re pretty sure he finger banged, how many could say Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler get away with?

Turns out - it’s one. One for sure, but I’m pretty sure there would have to be at least three before we as a society are willing to let go of Dream On or Bruce Willis’s meteor sacrifice.

Bob Dylan? So hard. Old white NPR people would blame the motorcycle accident and give up everything after to protect his earlier legacy, but comparing Michael Jackson to Bob Dylan’s importance? He’s got to be able to molest as many - if not three more kids - than the King of Pop, right? I mean Jewish or not, he is still white so that has to give him the edge over Jacko in what he can get away with.

Anyhoo

Comics have been acting like comedy has been bringing “truth to power!” and patting themselves on the back, but thirty years of Michael Jackson jokes couldn’t do what one documentary has done.

Proving if you really want any justice these days, you need to first invest in some production value and an editor who knows how to make criminal acts look especially bad.

The reactions are pouring in and people are very conflicted. Many questioning whether or not it’s ok to like an artist because of their lurid personal life.

Look, can we come to a consensus on just one thing?

Human beings have been giant flesh bags of hot garbage since the very beginning of our upright existence. We started out so bad, we’re not even sure of what are real beginnings were actually like.

And its not even people that are the worst either. Look at life itself.

Nature is gruesome and horrifying! Every nature documentary is inherently a horror movie missing the scary cello mood music. If you knew how much ducks gang-raped in real life you would burn any remanence of all those duck-themed shows from the 90’s.

Even the creation of space and time was the result of a destructive explosion that shit us out into the nothingness of space.

Disagree? Thinks humans are great? Cool. Keep in mind a lot of people watched a movie about a guy who sexually abused children and their first thought was “Can I still grab my dick and effeminately scream ‘ohhhhh’ whenever it gets super windy? Because I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t do that!”

To me anytime a person does something exceptional - THAT should be the thing that is celebrated. Like “Wow, you overcame being a piece of shit and had a moment of triumph for our species, well done ya piece of shit!”

Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, Gandhi and Civil Disobedience, Beethoven’s 9th have all stood the test of time and those acts are worthy of praise.

Are we going to really miss Ignition (remix)?

I’m not saying any of these people’s flaws should be ignored, but seriously - there were plenty of slave fuckers, wife abusers, and piss-on-tweeners out there who not only did that shit - but didn’t even have the decency to form an experimental democratic republic placing power in the hands of the people, much less write a catchy tune.

We have got to start holding a higher standard for what we consider legit and meaningful art.

Is Trapped in the Closet really an achievement for humanity? Is the cinematic legacy of Space Jam ruined by the tainting of I Believe I Can Fly?

Was American Beauty and House of Cards our civilization’s finest cinematic moments? Has there been nothing else to watch?

Can we no longer backwards slide dance at house parties because a guy who dressed like a sequined private eye slept with kids?

I’m not saying you can’t still enjoy those things, or even question your feelings about them. I’m saying don’t make those things more important than they actually are. You can both think an actor should be castrated and get lost in visualized fiction.

Just as easily as you can decide to never watch again. It’s all disposable.

To me the real crime is needing a movie like American Beauty to be the pinnacle of human achievement because you got your first handy in the theater when it came out or whatever.

Not that anyone is exactly saying that, but you big bad wolves get my straw house point.

What is the value of achievement? How do we measure what’s important? I’m not sure. Maybe it’s what the consensus decides should stay. Maybe it’s the individual.

Sometimes it feels like a lot of our general arguments are between the perspectives of group thinking socialists versus self-motivated libertarians. Maybe they’re both right, I guess it depends on the situation.

Personally I think most the arguments about entertainers matters most to the people who have a vested interest in brands and making it in the ‘look at me’ industry.

I don’t know if it’s because I’m in the thick of it having done music and standup most of my life and have the same guttural need for a stranger’s approval, but sometimes I feel surrounded by people who treat every moment of their lives like a biopic. Selling themselves on social media as if they’re the subject of their own Rolling Stone exposé.

People who define themselves by the most disposable of expressions and since trying to be good and known is so difficult, decided it’s easier to just simulate success instead of working harder on the mediums.

You know, frauds.

I’m surrounded by a generation of ‘fake it til you make it’ personalities who thrive on all the shit I find utterly useless, meaningless and the worst crime - boring.

Entrepreneurs in narcissism who communicate through gossip and trade in brand expression, littering the artistic landscape with recycled lateral thinking dog turds.

It’s exhausting,debilitating, and absolutely the future as AI replaces our normal careers, forcing all of us into becoming Instagram models and Influencers.

And everyday I have to have deep sobering introspection trying to figure out if I’m not equally culpable in this terrible trap of meaningless thinking.

Not that there’s anything wrong with meaningless. Not everything has to have as everlasting an impact as Ode to Joy.

I mean really, what actually matters if we all die and whatever impact we had becomes erased regardless of whether or not it takes years, months, days or even minutes after we are laid into the ground?

Most of everyone who has been born has meant nothing and left no trace or measurement that they even existed at all. Think of all the stillborn babies who didn’t even get the chance.

Nature the cold hearted bitch strikes again!

People call me jaded and bitter for these thoughts, but I promise you - I hold no anger or selfish need to compensate my own lacking by exclaiming ‘people are mostly shit and none of this will stand the test of time’. I’m very fun at parties.

It’s just the people desperate to matter that think reality is inherently mean.

Celebrate the achievement not the person, but also - let’s not over inflate the achievement to validate our own petty need for someone to hear our folk song about getting a handy while watching American Beauty or whatever.

A quick story.

One of the most talented people I ever met was a dude from Philly named Perone.

Perone played bass and was known across the city as being this incredible player who for some reason just never found a project he clicked with.

I met him when I was 18 and homeless, living in a 24 hour diner he waited tables at. Everyone loved this dude and for some reason he took care of me. Hooking up free salads, sodas, bread. He was the coolest dude I ever met.

I was learning guitar and we both loved 70’s soul and blues music so we’d jam together which in hindsight was wild.

I had no fucking idea what I was doing and yet here was this genius jamming patiently along.

Teaching me without putting in a show that he was actually teaching me, if that makes sense?

Was he perfect? No. Not at all. He was charismatic as fuck, but obviously weighted down with some demons.

The weirdest thing I could say about him - and I don’t know how to even properly frame this was - he used to draw on bed sheets.

For years he had a dream about a woman he never met and would paint her face on the bed sheets and attach lyrics to songs he was writing next to her face. These sheets hung all over his walls.

Keep in mind he was living with a girl at the time. He had a kid, yet here were all these sheets dedicated to a fictional white woman he was obsessed with, hung like championship banners across his entire two bedroom apartment.

My last conversation with Perone was perfect. I sat strumming his guitar while he smoked meth out of a can of Pepsi, telling me how Michael Jackson was the King.

Every click of the lighter, every inhale and exhale would punctuate just how much Michael Jackson meant to the world and music.

How Motown celebrated their 25th anniversary with a tv special and Michael Jackson came out and destroyed with the moonwalk.

“Dude, (click) black people loved Michael (inhale). White people loved Michael. (exhale)Young people loved Michael. (cough) Old people loved Michael. (click) None of this race or generation shit mattered. (inhale) It was because of the music and HE did that. (exhale) He bridged everything together in that one moment. (violent cough) Michael Jackson is and will always be the King. (click) Fuck Elvis.”

That was twenty years ago. I have no idea if he’s still alive, earned a living with his music or met the woman he’d dreamt and painted for years. Or if instead he succumbed to meth, took his own life and or manages an Olive Garden.

I don’t know and I don’t have to. I miss him and appreciate the things we shared that mattered and helped me grow as a person, but that’s all it ever will be.

Let justice be done and handled by those involved in their situation and value only the things and constructs that have some permanence or growth in your own life.

Either way you will still die, and wether it’s alone and forgotten or if it takes centuries for people to forget you were a miserable deaf cunt who wrote some sweet jams - you’ll eventually be nothing.

Fuck Elvis.

3 notes · View notes

wordsworkweekly · 6 years ago

Text

BITTER NOSTALGIA: Modernism in the Now, the evils of Social Media, And how to recapture the modes of Mental and Physical Production

Note: this essay was included in a little book I made by hand for a class I took a few years ago.

What does it mean to be modernist within the modern context? Like those who have called themselves (or have been called) Modernist, one must, to label oneself as such, engage with the convention of “the now” (or what has become the convention of “the now”), within the ticking-clock – second to second – context of one’s own lived life.

This is an interesting pursuit – to know what is “the now”, to engage with it, to kill it, and reincarnate it as “the new” – because it seems like movements of thought, of art, of politics (etc) in the modern context come and go quicker than the tides. To know what is “the now” and what is “the new” seems like an impossible task with how quickly ideas spew forth via digital means. Movements (and the thoughts that inspired them – political, artistic, or other) that once took years to coalesce and take root before being considered convention, now go through an unnatural life cycle and become convention within months of being planted (their life spans, in extreme cases, sometimes limited to weeks or even days due to the speed of our Internet connections and the other tools that service our naturally flighty attention spans). The coming and going of exciting thoughts (and movements) is “the now”, it has become the conventional norm.

To make something “the new” until it becomes old, until either you kill it or some other idea comes along to smother it in its sleep (i.e. death by becoming convention), is the paradoxical goal of the Modernist. In other words, to be a Modernist is to always be in a state of de-stabilization, in a state of active “Boredom Murder” (because what is more boring than the rotting remains of some old idea). The modern context has provided us with the weapons (of mass destruction) we need to kill boredom, but, I fear, that some of us aren’t discerning in how we use these (potentially) destructive tools. Instead, we find ourselves being used by the weapons we think we wield (to maintain and nourish their development and existence instead of our own). The big question I want to explore is how do we recapture the modes of production. The simple answer: do what Virginia Woolf would do.

The Digital Revolution as the Epitome of Modernist Thought

Something that was “the new” in recent memory and had a huge, destabilizing impact was the digital revolution. Technology is the rocket fuel to a (potentially nihilistic) fiery human instinct that was embodied and popularized by the likes of Pound and Woolf and their fellow travelers – “to make it new”. This, inherently, is a destructive force. It is a mode of thought that advocates the deconstruction of tradition and convention, but not necessarily in favor of a new structure or mode of thought (the deconstruction is its purpose). As Mimi Parent writes in her essay “The Poetics of the Manifesto”: “The spirit of modernism is characterized… by its refusal of description, for what it conceives of as its own form of reality; art, representing often simply itself.” (Caws xxviii). Modernist thought exists only for itself, but cannot exist without a tradition or convention that precedes it (it cannot exist without something to tear down and rebel against).

John Lehmann’s attempt at a late Modernist movement (via his New Writing) was a reaction to the destabilization Pound and Woolf et al. advocated and practiced. He wanted art to be a stabilizing force and, in someway, he saw the –isms that emerged in the early years of Modernism as destabilizing and destructive forces. Lehmann wanted New Writingto be “…a more coordinated interpretation of the world “ (Bort 670), and saw the artist as social agent (someone who might effect change not just in the world of his or her own art, but in the world at large – i.e. he wanted artists and their art to be a stabilizing force within broader society).

Even though I agree in general with Lehmann’s premise (that –isms are by nature a destabilizing force), I disagree with him that art and artists should be a stabilizing force. This was also my issue with Lehmann’s oft-published contemporary Louis MacNeice’s writing during World War II. MacNeice serviced the structure of society over the expression of his own art and his own mind (or as Woolf so brilliantly puts it, “If we use art to propagate political opinions, we must force the artist to clip and cabin his gift to do us a cheap and passing service.” [as cited in Mc 72]). MacNeice clipped and “cabin-ed” his own gift to be a stabilizing force within a mass of people and for a government body. This is an absurd and narcissistic pursuit – one, I fear, we’ve all embraced too heartily in the modern, digital context. We no longer look to destabilize convention, instead we look to bolster political discourse and ideology with our own 2 cents (yelling at Presidents and Prime Ministers and other elected officials online, repeating slogans and systemic thinking from other eras, and all the while doing this on publishing platforms we do not own or control with thoughts and content recycled by our interactions in the digital sphere).

The problem with Lehmann’s concept (that to make something “new” is to shake the foundation of existence as it is currently known – even if it is a minor, subjective crisis), is that his movement strives for stabilization and therefore is striving for convention ad infinitum (no revolution, only boredom). There is an intriguing thread that emerges when you look back at this particular intersection of public people known for the exploration of their private selves and how, strangely, this once revolutionary act has become the norm. The digital revolution has allowed us to gut our private lives for the consumption of others. We have clipped and cabin-ed our own gifts and do our thoughts and ourselves a cheap and passing service indeed.

Our thoughts now, in the digital age, once spewed into the ever-expanding digital sea evaporate like rubbing alcohol on skin. Even though there’s more thoughts and places to put them, spewed by infinite anonymous hordes (of all classes, creeds, racial and gender categories – a good thing, in concept, to be sure), these so-called democratic tools that have seemingly given the horde’s voice has simultaneously erased those voices by hiding them amongst the infinite others (amongst themselves). What at first shook the foundations of what was conventional (music, book publishing, newspapers, etc), now functions to stabilize itself – it has become the convention. But the barriers we now face have been made invisible (or, if not invisible, seemingly insurmountable). The revolution of digital publishing gives us a delusion of free speech, of control, and blinds us to the fact that we are throwing our thoughts, precious pebbles, into a vast sea. The advent of the internet and publishing platforms like Twitter or Wordpress or Tumblr or Facebook (etc) has at once democratized access (provided the ability) for anyone (despite their class, creed, racial, or gender categories) to build “intellectual capital” without, seemingly, the praise or approval or allowance of a Gatekeeper or a “Beadle” (ala Woolf’s “Beadle” from A Room of One’s Own). Yet what has really happened is that the Beadle has become the platform and our thoughts are its food (they exist for its sustenance and not our own).

One might argue that modern digital revolution has done for everyone exactly what Woolf advised other women writers to seek out: provided “money and a room of one’s own” (2) without acknowledging that the room and the money are made of 1s and Os (or, in other words, they’re made out of nothing or, perhaps, made out of a lie agreed upon). When we publish into the digital sphere via these platforms, we are not in control anymore – despite appearances.

But it is not all bad. Sometimes miracles do happen – pebbles do float! People find each other. Communities are made. Revolutions are turned. And awareness that the digital realm is a sledgehammer and not the one that wields it, can lead to new ways of destabilizing what has become convention (of thinking and being and interacting with the world that, ultimately, in even microscopic ways, shift the ground beneath our feet).

But the question becomes, if this is “the now” what is “the new”? My answer: the new is the old. It is to treat our thoughts as precious and to give them a fighting chance to be seen in a light that transcends convention, to access or create an audience looking for a way out of “the now” and to move all of us toward “the new”. My answer is to follow in the steps of Virginia Woolf and make my own little book.

This is not necessarily a profound idea – to make a book. But it does do something interesting – it reclaims the means of artistic production. Not only the physical, but also the mental. It treats the thought as precious and as a commodity that the individual (not the platform) gets to exploit as they so choose.

Virginia Woolf

In A Room of One’s Own, Woolf advocates a private reckoning with the self as “writer” and she advocates this for women in particular but also, by inference, all classes of people who identify themselves as human beings. Her self-printing methods, adopted and adapted into the Hogarth Press and its methodology, created a system that promoted content and conversation over aesthetic concerns of physical production (i.e. content and thought over pretty books). Her “cheap” publishing methods (meant to eradicate barriers) anticipate, a century later, a mode of publishing — the Internet — that, virtually, has no barriers (“virtually” being the operative word – because digital publishing, again, is still the domain of the privileged… those with a minimum of an internet connection and a device to connect to it, but also those who control platforms and social networking hubs).

The fact that we have the ability to self-publish hardcover books using almost identical methods to Virginia Woolf and her contemporaries (that all of us so privileged with an internet connection and a printer and access to paper and video tutorials can do this) is a tiny miracle. Virginia Woolf’s ability to exploit one aspect of her privilege (money and a room of one’s own – or, at least, a table in the stockroom of the Hogarth Press) and then use that to disrupt the convention of her Gatekeepers (in this instance: the male dominated publishing industry) by cutting them out of the publishing process was a revolutionary act. By doing this, she burst through the barriers of the context in which she lived (her “now”), but also added value to her own output (she created her own market without asking for permission to do so). Another way of thinking about it, Woolf’s decision to self-publish and then create her own publishing house, turned her (and Hogarth) into a Lighthouse on a craggy coastline, a beacon in the dark, where other like-minded ships would be drawn to and a community (and market) formed around this simple, revolutionary act (of seizing the means of production – figuratively and literally).

This, I think, is something we have forgotten (or, at least, neglected) in our modern context. We’ve moved on from Woolf’s revolution, perhaps in a way Virginia Woolf, at least at first, would support. We live on digital platforms and publish directly to our peers. The trade off, invisible to be sure, is that the platform is not “ours”, it is an illusion controlled by folks with their own interests and goals, with their own terms of service (that might not have anything to do with our thought or expression of it, who have agendas that do not align with our message, but who exploit our participation for their own profit motives). In their modes of commoditization – these Pavlovian algorithms that trigger dopamine responses i.e. the pleasure we get from getting “likes” and “favourites” etc. – they, at once, attract a mass of humans (creating a market to exploit) and, at the individual level, intentional or not, alter the individual’s thoughts and language to comply with its meager rewards (with their system). These social media platforms have become our modern day Beadles telling us where on the grass we can sit. But the magic trick that these modern platforms have pulled off, the sleight of hand, is that they do this without confrontation. They use positive reinforcement to alter human behavior and make themselves masters (or, at least, profiteers).

Woolf, of course, had some thoughts on how to break these invisible chains. She said, “I’m the only woman in England free to write what I like. The others must be thinking of series’ [sic] & editors.” (as cited in Mc 64). What gave Woolf this freedom, of course, was her taking control of the modes of production of her own thought (mental and physical). In ’Opening the Door’: The Hogarth Press as Virginia Woolf’s Outsiders’ Society”, McTaggart articulates Woolf’s epiphany, “[as] she sewed bindings and set type, she saw that literary communications were not ethereal, free-flowing conversations, but material interactions between physical and mental labor” (66). Like behind the scene documentaries of films, Woolf deconstructed and stripped the “magic” and “power” out of the book making process, making it accessible to all sorts of folks from all backgrounds and, in her way, diminished the power of any gatekeeper (or “Beadle”) who would stand in her way. By making her own little book, Woolf recognized the inherent absurdity of the concept of the “Gatekeeper”. Why should we ask permission to have private thoughts or to share those thoughts with whom we like? Even though women and people of certain backgrounds and classes had to face real world Beadles, where real doors were locked and controlled, I think Woolf acknowledges that these Beadles (and the one’s that reside in our minds) embody the mass’s demand for the individual to comply in some way with broader convention (even though the mass doesn’t really demand it, it is not a thinking creature, civilization does not have a brain). Instead, these demands come from a small minority of people (white men with a vote and some coin, perhaps – be it in the British parliament or on the board of Twitter). But also it comes from the individual writer’s or artist’s or thinker’s mental projection and personification of the Mass and its conventions and traditions. These mental projections can be just as intimidating as any real world “Beadle” with a stiff collar and can hinder and block the freedom of one’s thoughts from within.

Social Media publishing platforms and their “likes” and “favourites” and “retweets” have become the “editors” and “series” and imaginary “Beadles” of the modern era – something we have in mind as we compose our thoughts before we publish them (something that makes us mindful of where we step). By doing this, these digital publishing platforms subvert another freedom Woolf held dear – the ability for us to earn coin via the exploitation of our own minds. The design of self-publishing today creates a simulacrum of control (who needs to publish a book when you have a twitter account?). But to say Woolf would advocate our current state of publishing is perhaps a misreading of Woolf because if you examine her actions in regards to the mental production of literature vs. the physical production, in both instances she advocates the seizing of the modes of production – control over one’s own mind and selfhood and, also, over the mechanical tools and labor associated with the expression of one’s thoughts (to sell one’s thoughts via publishing, to earn the coin that allows one to have independence in this endless capitalist era, to “[e]arn 500 a year by your wits” and follow down that same path Aphra Behn and Austen and Bronte forged out of a history that did not look kindly on female or lower class writers [Woolf 76]).

A twitter account only provides the illusion of such publishing freedom because its very nature is not to service its users, but for its users (in the act of publishing) to service it. These places – twitter, facebook et al – like any system – have no value but the value we give them with our complicity and participation. McTaggart notes that Woolf had some things to say about complicity with popular tradition and convention (in this instance British masculine ideology) and how it “forces women not only to betray feminism but also participate in the violence of the empire.” (70-71). Complicity with the broader, pervasive ideology (of any time) should be a concern for any individual pursuing a critique of that problematic ideology. There needs to be an awareness of what is the controlling motive as we express our thoughts and where we express them (and be aware of what might couch and cabin them before they are put out into the world). Woolf, above all else, wanted people (women in particular) to acknowledge their own freedom of the mind, to find it any way they could, and be willing to pursue their thought as their own (not by satisfying some echo of tradition or convention for some “reward” or “treat” or “like” that, at best, has diminishing returns and, at worst, locks you in invisible chains).

Conclusion

So if “the now” is this illusion of control and we can acknowledge that Twitter (and platforms like it) are the Gatekeepers and Beadles, how can we defy them? How can we be free, like Woolf, to write what we like? The answer is simple: do not comply. Create a space for yourself (digital or physical). And attempt to pursue freedom on your own terms. For me, the answer was simple: seize the mode of production (do what Woolf did and create your own publishing platform). What is interesting about this simple act of seizing the physical mode of production is that it was its impact on my mental labor. It stripped away the awareness of the “Editors” and the “Series” (the “likes” and “favourites” and “retweets”), even the ambiguous concept of an “audience” or “followers” or “friends” and allowed me to engage with my own thought, to say what I was thinking and to say it without being complicit with some convention (or gatekeeper) of “the now”.

Woolf wrote, “Literature is no one’s private ground. It is not cut up into nations; there are no wars there. Let us trespass freely and fearlessly and find our own way ourselves.” (as cited in McTaggart 64). It is a good message. And if you look at our world now, the borders of literature have seemingly spilled open in the wake of the digital revolution. But new borders have formed, new nation-states have emerged and become powerful because we have mindlessly bolstered and supported them under the false pretense of freedom (and, by doing so, we have undercut our own positions in the market – we have shut off access to that “500 a year” and that room of one’s own… we’ve thrown it away for 1s and 0s).

If literature becomes too common, too ubiquitous, demonetized (or “re-monetized” to favor the platform over the contributor), there’s no way to set one thought apart from the next. We have become careless with our precious thoughts. They are pebbles (gems!) and what modern technology has given us in our ability to share these gems, it has also, by its nature, created a vast sea in which to throw them away. Some of our gems miraculously float, but not enough and never for too long. And this is where my little book comes in to play. It is to steal Woolf’s greatest advice (the self, the room, the money), recapture the mode of production (mental and physical) and in one simple act, undercut the Beadles of the modern era (digital publishing platforms). Instead of tossing my thought into the sea, I built it a little paper boat. It might get lost out there, caught in some storm that’s waves crash over the gunnels and sink it where it will rest amongst the millions of other pebbles long covered in sea weed and barnacles and bloated with the eggs of crabs, but at least it will have a chance to see the sun. Those few who can see it in this light (before sinking) might wonder why I have gone through the effort of building a boat for a tiny pebble in the first place. They might begin to wonder about the value of their own tiny pebbles and how they might give them the best chance to stay afloat on an infinite sea. Hand-making a book is only a tiny revolution, but if enough others were to join me in this pursuit, it too (like it once did in Woolf’s lifetime) would become the conventional now. And then we – like all good modernists – would have to respond and create “the new.”

Bibliography

Adams, Jr. Frederick B. “The Baltimore Exhibition of the History of Bookbinding.”

The Burlington Magazine. Vol. 100. No. 658 (Jan). pp. 22+24-25. 1958.

Black, David, Core Contributor. “Woodcut.” Letterpress Commons.

https://letterpresscommons.com/wood-cut/Accessed on 20 June 2017.

“Bookbinding.” The Art Journal (1875-1887).New Series. Vol. 6. P. 306. 1880.

Bort, Francoise. “A New Prose: John Lehmann and New Writing (1936-40).”

The Oxford Critical and Cultural History of Modernist Magazines: Volume I: Britain and Ireland 1880-1955 ed. Peter Brooker and Andrew Thacker. Oxford University Press. 2013.

Cambras, Josep. The Complete Book of Bookbinding.Lark Books, 2004.

Caws, Mary Ann, Editor.Manifesto: A Century of Isms. University of Nebraska Press,

2001.

Chivers, Cedric. “Bookbinding.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts.Vol. 73. No.3607

(November 6th). pp. 1077-1096. Royal Society for the Encouragement of

Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. 1925.

Cockerell, Douglas. Bookbinding, and the Care of Books: A Handbook for Amateurs,

Bookbinders & Librarians. Lyons & Burford, 1991.

Diehl, Edith. Bookbinding, Its Background and Technique. Rinehart, Inc., 1946.

Epp, Michael. “Full Contact: Robert McAlmon, Grtrude Stein, and Modernist Book

Making.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. Vol. 99. No. 2. (June). pp. 265-293. 2005.

Ikegami, Kōsanjin. Japanese Bookbinding:Instructions from a Master Craftsman.

Weatherhill, 1986.

McTaggart, Ursula. “’Opening the Door’: The Hogarth Press as Virginia Woolf’s

Outsiders’ Society.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature.Vol 29. No 1 (Spring) pp. 63-81. 2010.

Patton, Cynthia Ellen. Review of Manifesto: A Century of Ismsby Mary Ann Caws.

College Literature. Vol. 30. No. 1. (Winter). Pp. 188-190. 2003.

Richmond, Pamela. Bookbinding: A Manual of Techniques. Crowood Press, 1989.

Rosner, Victoria, Editor. The Cambridge Companion to the Bloomsbury Group.

Cambridge University Press, 2014

Walker, Thomas D. “The Cover Design.” The Library Quarterly: Information,

Community, Policy.Vol. 69. No. 3 (July). pp. 360-361. 1999.

Willis, J. H.Leonard and Virginia Woolf as Publishers: The Hogarth Press, 1917-41.

University Press of Virginia, 1992

Winckler, Paul A. “Materials and Sources for Teaching the History of Books and

Printing.” Journal of Education for Librarianship. Val. 13. No. 1. (Summer) pp.

43-77. 1972.

Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. Penguin Books. 2004.

#virginia woolf #twitter #facebook #modern #modernism #art #writing #books

1 note · View note

goddessdoeswitchery · 4 years ago

Text

Hellenic Polytheism 101: Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism, Kharis A Transcript

The episode can be found on various podcast platforms, including anchor, breaker, stitcher, spotify, google podcasts, overcast, pocket casts, radio public, and on YouTube.

Welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we will be discussing the Pillar of Hellenic Polytheism, Kharis. Again I want to remind you that the Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism were never actually a “thing”. Unlike the 10 commandments, the pillars were never taught as a set of rules that everyone knew by the name “Pillars of Hellenic Polytheism”, or any variation thereof. What modern day practitioners of Hellenic Polytheism call “The Pillars” were essentially religious and cultural practices that were taught by family and friends via every day practices. The pillars were an essential part of the culture of Ancient Greece, taught to them the same way customs like tipping, saying “bless you” at sneezing, and the now-common practice of wearing a mask everywhere are taught to us today. In recreating Hellenic Polytheism for the modern age, the Pillars grew out of a need for a set of guidelines to help us recreate a very old religion. Kharis is the reciprocity inherent in Hellenic Polytheism, a devotional act for the Theoi with hope a return favor in kind. It is also so much more than a transactional behavior. Its not bribery, its not a quid pro quo. At the same time, it is not the Christian act of praise worship.

Hopefully that explains what Kharis is a little better, so we can go a little deeper into what it means as a worshipper, as someone who calls themselves a Hellenic Polytheist.

#transcript #hellenic polytheism #hellenic polytheism 101 #pillars of hellenic polythiesm #kharis

2 notes · View notes

ssssssssssssss123 · 2 years ago

Text

The Faggots and Their Friends Between Revolutions

"Let's drink to the old faggots who were there and helped make this happen just by being there."

Written by Larry Mitchell and illustrated by Ned Astra, The Faggots and their Friends Between Revolutions is a poetic Queer fairytale and manifesto of love and survival. Mitchell and Astra were founding members of the Lavender Commune, outside of Ithaca, NY, during the 60's/70's and their friendship at the Commune helped to birth this manifesto. Their book was published in 1977 by Calamus Press, a publishing company they created after no one else was willing to publish their work.

This book is a mashup of a children's story and a deep piece of poetic fiction (that reminded me of Muriel Rukeysers novels and poems in that they are equally as hard for me to understand). Mitchell provides an in depth analysis of power - how it forms, how those in power maintain it, and what we would need to do to topple the current power structure.

He does this by splitting society into groups and defining them like so: the Men (those in power and who act to keep power and who are blind to beauty), Queers (those who pose as men but are gay), Faggots (those the men hate on and can not pose as Men and are beautiful), Fairies (the Friends of the Faggots), Women (those who the Men have sex with and who were in power before the Men), The Women who love Women (Those who live separately from the Men and share community with the Faggots and Fairies), and the Queens (probably the most hated by the Men and the most Harrased). All of these people live in Ramrod's Empire, an Empire in collapse "...as the men lose more and more things they never owned in the first place." pg 4

As a sad Queer who is still struggling with identity and community this book is also really powerful. Hearing the character Heavenly Blue struggle:

"It was the madness of looking inward and being afraid. There had never been enough love and warmth around him and he thought he had gradually dried up inside. He wanted out but he did not know where out was." pg 80

who then goes on to be held in his friends arms as he cries for days is incredibly powerful to read about when you are still in pain yourself.

It is also a reminder that even the deepest personal things are and can be inherently political when you live in a world that wants you to dictate all parts of who you are, not just what appears on the surface.

Admittedly the flowery language gave me a hard time. Parts of the book reminds me of how people talk about horoscopes (not a bad thing). I think its very worth a first read, and I think I will have to give it a second to truly understand the context and nuances. The only thing that really scratched my brain in a bad way was that this book tends to centers one form of Queerness, sure it mentions the Women, and the Queens, and the Women who love Women, but it centers gay men for the most part. (And I think I can go as far to say, in particular, a White 'Family Money Having' Gay-ness.) It also has an interesting take on Gender as it feels like there are more variants for what you can be (A Queen, A Faggot, A Fairy) for Men than there are for Women (A Woman and a Woman who loves Woman).

Which is fine, and a-okay, but personally bc of my identity I am really looking to pick up a book that is outrageously gay and see more than a few pages of someone like me reflected back. I might also be reading these gender defined line too strictly when they might not be meant to be.

Another important thing to note when discussing the narrative lenses of the Author is that the way you move through the world has a lot to do with how you see it and how you reflect it back in your art. So, while it is not a bad thing that this book centers mostly White Gay Men, it is important to note because a White Gay man is going to move through the world and understand power structures differently than a Black Gay Man and that is going to affect the narrative each individual tells. This book still has a lot to offer, but if you don't consider where the author came from you might miss things, or be led to believe some things are universal when they are in fact not.

I think it is important as a young Queer person to see how those before lived and were. This book is a great connector from the past to the present as 1977 was a few years before (google says) the AIDS crisis really swept over the United States and decimated our Queer elders. Considering our current situation and the ever growing tension of late stage capitalism's collapse (lol) maybe its a good time to read a book that can give you hope that there will be a revolution, and that in the in between still tells us Queers that we can survive and that we will be loved. What we need right now is a radical call of love and action, and that is what this book gives.

"The men's needs are strong and overwhelming. They need the faggots and their friends in order to know who they are not. But the faggots and their friends will no longer need the men. They can sit and produce high invisible love energy or they can do anything. But they will not need. And when the faggots and their friends cease being the faggots and their friends, the deathly dance of the men will begin to wane and a new dance will begin to emerge. Then the third revolutions will engulf us all." pg 110

Anyways, those are my thoughts. Stay Safe xx

1 note · View note

smallnico · 7 years ago

Note

Idk man. On a moral and ethical level heart of darkness is for sure a really gross book but I think it’s also undeniably impressive on a technical level. While it should and will always inform our absorption of media, I don’t think we can examine pieces of art from the past /only/ through our modern experiences and views. Books like hod display racist viewpoints which can’t be excused but racism wasn’t even a concept at that time. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t subjectively well written

...yeah! i mostly agree!

i actually had complaints with the conflicts of the two books, HoD and things fall apart, being likened in such a way. TFA is about how colonialism affected the nigerian people and their culture – it’s a tragic and compelling story about being forced to watch as the life you’ve known and made for yourself systematically crumbles to pieces around you, because there’s nothing you can do about it. HoD is way more about individualism and how delusional the idea of english theoretical inherent superiority really is, and the fact that it takes place in colonial africa has basically nothing to do with the actual story: this is even more evident when you consider that apocalypse now, the de facto film adaptation of HoD, takes place during the vietnam war, and virtually nothing about the core story changes.

i assure you, all this you’ve said is stuff i know. i’m not one to judge books exclusively from my modern perspective. just being totally honest with you, it kind of annoys me to have that assumption of ignorance made of me, given that i’ve spent many, many years of school having it hammered into me that some books are just a product of their time, and that I Get That. but i do, and always will, maintain that just because something is a product of its time, doesn’t mean i have to like it, nor does it mean that my modern opinion of it is invalid, or made without consideration for its historical significance. i promise that i know it’s historically significant, and therefore technically qualifies as classic literature. but all the same, that doesn’t make my personal issues with it irrelevant, since i’m allowed to have non-academic opinions about stuff.

i have a couple of things to point out before i begin the requested HoD rant, since i take issue with a couple of the things you’ve said, and i want to respond to them:

1) racism, as we know it today, has always existed conceptually. the fact that the term “racism” referred to something else back in the days of colonialism, before people were generally accepting that black people were human and that treating them like less than such was horrifying and disgusting, doesn’t mean people weren’t still racist. exhibit a, that previous sentence. the fact that western society had a different level of understanding of what was fundamentally Wrong with the way they saw africans, doesn’t excuse what they did in response to that understanding. it explains it, yes, but it hardly excuses it. just because critical race theory didn’t exist, doesn’t mean people weren’t still incredibly racist. and for the record, the fact that anyone has to excuse how disgusting the racism in HoD is in order to enjoy it… kind of emphasizes that part of why i hated reading it. like, it can theoretically be a groundbreaking piece of classical literature, but that doesn’t mean i have to enjoy having to slog through colonialist-era racism that makes me want to vom uncontrollably. this is about why i personally can’t stand the book, not why it’s not a classic.

2) i think you meant to say “objectively” when you said “subjectively”, because if you did mean subjectively, then you and i are on the exact same page. some people think HoD is undeniably technically impressive and well-written and enjoyable. i humbly disagree! and that’s totally fine. my goal here isn’t to convince you or anyone to hate HoD, my goal is to help people like my college professors and some classmates understand why i hated having to read it. also, if you meant objectively, then i have some fun news for you about how poorly and confusingly HoD is written. spoilers: it’s poorly and confusingly written. how it was written from a technical perspective is one of the things i feel is objectively Terrible about it, even disregarding my own experience.

all i mean to say is that i hated it for legitimate writing choices, what joseph conrad decided to include in his story and how he handled those inclusions, on top of my modern intolerance for racism, and said modern intolerance for racism isn’t an invalid reason to hate the book.

i promise i’m not attacking you as a person, and if that’s how this comes off, i’m truly sorry. i’m sure you’re fine, and i hope you know that i’m not trying to invalidate your opinions – you’re entitled to them, as am i to mine – i’m just using this as a springboard to leap dramatically into ranting about HoD and how i feel about it.

here we go! :D

heart of darkness, for those not in the know, is a short novel written by joseph conrad in 1899. it’s widely considered to be a classic meditation on the nature of humanity and how twisted and awful we all are deep inside, with themes of racial prejudice and the individual internal struggle between savagery and civilization. the plot can be summarized as such: an unnamed narrator is preparing for a seafaring voyage of some kind, but is trapped in the river thames with his shipmates by the low tide. they are forced to wait a few hours before they can get underway, so a strange and serene man, the main character charles marlow, begins telling everyone a story to pass the time, about the time he set out on an expedition to explore deepest africa along the congo river, an experience which fundamentally changed him.

in marlow’s story, he weaves a wild tale rife with symbolism about his journey, starting with his planning and arriving in the congo, the delays his expedition suffered due to a lack of rivets for his steamboat, and finally, the process of his expedition, all the “horrible savages” he encounters, and the thrilling conclusion. along the way, marlow describes his growing obsession with an ivory-trading legend named kurtz, who supposedly spends all of his time at the end of the river in the heart of the congo, and hasn’t been seen in a while. marlow keeps hearing great things about this guy, like how good he is at getting ivory, and communicating with the natives, and determines himself to find kurtz; however, he finds himself disappointed, as when he finds kurtz, the man’s hardly the paragon of european virtue described by the ivory traders – he’s very physically ill, and has long since been “made savage” by his experiences in the deepest congo, decorating his house with severed heads and demanding human sacrifices from the natives, who venerate him like a cruel god. marlow ends up taking kurtz back to the trade post at the mouth of the river congo, but kurtz dies along the way, and marlow ends the story on the boat in the thames by concluding that no person, english or otherwise, is above the base savagery innate to the human condition. hilariously, when he finishes his story, it turns out that everyone was so utterly enthralled by him that they missed high tide again, and now have to wait even longer for their next chance to leave.

reading a summary of the book and actually reading the book are two very, very different things. it is… bad. i don’t even know where to start.

from a technical standpoint, the writing is somehow both incredibly dense and all over the place. the beginning and end of the story, on the ship in the thames, are a poorly-thought-out framing device that could’ve been foregone altogether with no change to the story aside from an in-world audience to tell us how awesome and amazing marlow is and how deeply disturbed we should feel by his story. not only that, marlow’s whole story is told as dialogue in the framing device. meaning it’s written in such a way that mimics the character marlow’s oral tics, and it’s laid out in truly monolithic paragraphs, some of which take up several pages, with no breaks. as i read it, i also came to the conclusion that joseph conrad must be afraid of ending a sentence, because the innumerable run-on sentences are… a crime against readers. that’s not even touching on all the tangents he goes off on. and like, haha, i know there’s a certain amount of hypocrisy in me calling out others for going off on tangents, but at least i know not to leave lengthy and pace-breaking word vomit in my stories when i have a point to make. i tend to edit them out, because they’re distracting.

speaking of distracting, i have adhd. this isn’t a commentary on conrad’s writing (though i know many people without adhd who also suffered this problem with HoD), but it’s worth mentioning that HoD is so densely packed with irrelevant nonsense, formatted in giant walls of text, written like regular human speech, that there’s physically no way for me to decipher it without my brain making an audible sound like an overheating, lagging laptop with a very stressed fan, before breaking down entirely. now again, this is probably more of a personal problem, but like i said, it’s a problem a lot of other people had, and it directly crippled my own personal ability to enjoy any part of reading the book. besides – and this is a problem i have with a lot of philosophical texts as well – i’m a firm believer that writing is a form of communication. therefore, writing that is deliberately and aggressively incomprehensible to readers is bad writing. objectively. reading HoD felt like getting up at 8:00 and sitting in a lecture hall, listening to your old, old, incredibly racist professor speak in monotone and go off on endless tangents, because he didn’t bring notecards, and he didn’t prepare a powerpoint or any visual aid because he doesn’t believe in computers or whatever. and you can’t leave because you’re physically shackled to your desk. and after the lecture is finally, finally over (because it lasted longer than the appointed time), you have to listen to people compliment the professor’s lecture, calling it fascinating, and referring to his teaching style as brilliant and masterful like it wasn’t the most miserable, frustrating, and altogether screaming-rage inducing experience you’ve ever been forced to endure in a classroom setting.

but like, if you’re okay with that, then more power to you, i guess.

moving on to the racism, because there is a lot of it, and not just from a modern viewpoint. i stand by that something being subjectively good or bad to individual people is just as valid as something being objectively good or bad according to its placement in history. i would never write an academic essay about the former, but the latter isn’t strictly enough to change any individual’s personal experience with the book. i know, for instance, that the epic of gilgamesh is the oldest recorded written story that we know of, and that in and of itself is incredible, and speaks to its significance. but that’s not quite enough to affect my experience of having to read the repetitive writing style, or my opinion of the story itself (which is actually positive – it’s an interesting story, and it represents a change in the ancient sumerian perception of the place of humans in a world of powerful gods. i love that shit). the writing style is representative of how the unknown writer would have communicated using their language, to others who also speak their language; ergo, it’s not hard to read, just quirky and occasionally distracting, though the story itself is enough to make up for that.

(cw for Bad Racism)

the importance of something as a product of its time often isn’t enough to make up for a shitty reading experience. and with HoD, that experience is made all the more shitty (for me personally) by conrad’s compulsive inclusion of the mutilation of africans, cannibalism, graphic depictions of gore and severed heads, describing native africans as primitive and savage versions of english people (naturally made violent and savage by living in the congo, as he describes their skin as, to paraphrase, “indicative of how long they must’ve spent roasting in hell”, like the rainforest carbonized them or something), somehow still exotifying african women as demonic temptresses, and describing an african person on his own crew as “like a dog standing on its hind legs, dressed in its master’s clothes and performing a trick” (the “trick” in question being steering his damn ship). he doesn’t use the setting to comment on colonialism at all, really, aside from the conclusion that colonialism is bad because aren’t they just like us, if we were at our most savage state? don’t you just, somewhere deep inside, want to join in their Weird Horrifying Chanting And Drumming?

like, conrad doesn’t want to raise africans and black people to the same level of personhood as europeans and white people. he would rather insist that we, the readers, see the lives and culture of africans as a lesson – this could be you, if you’re not careful, because deep down we’re All Violent Savages.

(cw over)

i don’t particularly care that this is all historically accurate to how conrad, as a white european, would’ve perceived african folks. i don’t care that it might be groundbreaking in one sense or another because it describes white and black people as being inherently the same – i don’t like reading it. i find blatant disregard for the impact of taking a human life and committing horrifying violence unreadable. that’s just a personal taste of mine. i don’t like shock humour, i don’t like shock tragedy, i don’t like slasher movies, i don’t like visceral gory imagery, and, surprise, i don’t like racism. i don’t like when shock is used to make a point, and i dislike even more when that point is “ooh look how little people care about this terrible violence because it involves ______”.

to a lesser degree than the previous point, i don’t like that particular thesis on humanity, either – that deep down we’re all monsters. i like to think that most people, if not all people, are defined by their experiences and how they respond to them, not how they Just Innately Are. this isn’t a matter of me not wanting to admit that there’s a darker side of me that i don’t want to see, because there is one of those, but it’s not who i truly am. i’m more than just my flaws, and my flaws aren’t a monstrous core, around which all the rest of my personality is built to Hide it. negativity isn’t inherently more true than positivity, and there is no innate human condition. kurtz could have just as easily befriended the natives and attempted to understand them, rather than subjugating them and committing horrible violence against them. that’s just the story of colonialism on the whole, honestly – the violence and subjugation was unnecessary. the horrors were unnecessary. people could’ve kept their own land to themselves and developed trade, people could’ve done cultural exchanges, it didn’t have to be the way it was, and the way it was did not happen because All Humans Are Inherently Awful. colonialism, and all the smaller decisions made by european colonizers, were decisions made by people with power they unquestionably abused, and much as i dislike the notion that all humans are inherently Savage and Evil, i dislike the false equivalence between colonizers and the colonized even more. most of all, i loathe the abdication of responsibility. i loathe the attitude that every awful, violent decision made by colonizers can easily be attributed to Africa Just Done Got To Them that HoD feels determined to push.

so to recap, it’s a product of its time, yes, but it’s also bad, and i hate it. i hated reading it, i hated talking about it in class, i hated its message, i hated its shock value, i hated its disgusting racist overtones, i hated its writing style, i hated its walls and walls of texts, i hated its stupid framing device telling me how to feel, i hated marlow and thought he was a smug piece of shit, i hated the stupid plot device with the rivets (seriously i don’t know if it just wasn’t explained or if i couldn’t parse the explanation from the rest of the irrelevant tangents our oh-so-great narrator constantly went off on), i hated how long marlow spent in that fucking trade post because it made the story go on for longer than it had to just to stroke kurtz’s shaft a little more and depict that many more Nameless Irrelevant Africans be brutally abused, and i hated that kurtz, despite everything awful he did, somehow deserved a quiet and dignified offscreen death, while everyone else who died got to have their brutalization lovingly described. i hated the experience of trying to read it and having to give up after two hours of trying and trying to understand a single 3-page-long paragraph. i hated the word choices. i hated the sentence structure. i hated having to read it even though essentially the same message had been conveyed better in lord of the flies, which we’d read the previous year (LotF was published in the 50s, so that’s not conrad’s fault at all, but HoD truly felt like a way shittier repetition of something we’d already talked about). i hated how mockingly small the book was compared to the gargantuan steaming pile of torturous language that lay inside, waiting.

tl;dr: heart of darkness is the worst, and the terrible experience anyone had while reading it is not and never will be invalidated by its historic significance.

#heart of darkness rant #cw racism and violence #ask to tag #anon #the askbox

19 notes · View notes