#the lying down part is actually canon in the odyssey. by the way

[distant-screaming]

'miserable cringe little guy who could outsmart you into signing over your life and lies down and wonders if he should kill himself because they're not home yet' is my favorite description of odysseus, personally

[dreadfuldevotee]

Thank you for this last post. The discourse on this fandom can often be so annoying. I hate it when people are like "this is a Gothic horror, let them be toxic and problematic!!!!11!!!1" because it's not take they think it is? At the end of the day, they still want us to root for these characters and relationships, right? So how can we do that if they're stereotyped vampires, who is dark, cold, just hurt each other and don't have an ounce of growth, development, empathy and humanity? And this is such a dismissive opinion of the show and even the books, because their conflict with humanity and vampirism is a central aspect of the plot. That said, if you reduce them to the abuse alone, you're also missing the point of the story? I mean, you can totally have your opinion, you can see them as unforgivable even on this fictional universe, you can hate and root against them... But this show isn't about punitivism, it is about them navigating immortality. There are consequences for their actions, as there should be, but the goal is for them to find a way to make this work. You don't need to agree (idgaf about the British monarchy and still watched a few episodes of The Crown for the acting, for example), but if you expect otherwise, you're just playing yourself? But this fandom seems to have a problem with finding a good balance. Not to mention the hypocrisy of never forgiving certain characters and reducing them to their problematic actions, but treating their faves very different lol. And I'm like, okay, you don't need to love everyone, it's okay to have a favorite, but at least don't be contradictory? Your fave does the exact same thing or worse? Anyways. Thanks again for putting it so well. It's refreshing to see posts like that here.

Thank you! I'm glad that other people get anything out of my ranting and raving, as I am a chronic yapper and really only talk for my own health LOL.

But yeah, there is a lot of selective hearing in any fandom, really; but it pisses me off a lot here because of all the "Gothic Horror" handwaving going on. Interacting with the fandom, reading the books and seeing clips & bits of personal writings from Anne Rice, the image it paints for me is a profound unwillingness to engage with contents of the story if they're not fun and sexy. Shit, even my own odyssey into the books is spurred on in one part, to be able to form my own opinion and critique on the writing and secondly, realizing that book readers were straight up lying at times about how things went down.

And there is this persistent idea I've seen on here and twitter of "If you have issue with XYZ then this series isn't for you" and like, okay if you don't wanna see gay people who have everything-but-the-bagel of mental illnesses then, yeah, sure. But when someone goes "Hey there is like,,, a ton of casual pedophilia and CSA in these stories that is framed as cute n' casual and/or deeply romantic, I wonder what that's all about" and then people crawl out the woodwork trying to convince you its not weird or that you're weird or weak for think its kinda fucked up- then at that point, I think maybe there is actually a different issue occurring here, you know?

Anyway, I think where I'm going with this is- TVC is a cultural phenomenon and has a tangible impact on Vampire and Gothic Horror canon and that's good and fun. But if we can recognize something like H.P Lovecraft's racism/classism/general fear of change having a profound effect on his writing and the spark of the entire Cosmic Horror Genre, then I think we can interrogate how AR as a Rich White Woman who grew up in mid-21st century New Orleans has an effect on the kind of stories she writes and how she does it.

[mauserfrau]

Mau's Very Silly Headcanon Post

Since I have two pieces of fiction going live this weekend and they’re both going to be late due to butting into each other XD.

I did another one here and there’s going to be some overlap, but less bodily function stuff in this one (mostly spit) (also some vague references to medical trauma).

A lot of this is small potatoes because I didn’t want to spoil anything.  How Phaseleech actually works ends up being a plot point in what I have pending, so I actually can’t just come out and say what’s going on.  That said, I’m sure there are people here who want to know what’s on my mind, but who don’t want to sit through 50K words with half a dozen squick warnings.

That said: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Mauser_Frau

Questions welcome, about this, anything else I think about Borderlands, what exactly is in Chapter 13 of Satellite, if it’s true the one flashback actually happened to Mom... 

Both

-Look, the only thing I did that’s appreciably off-canon is let them have emotions.  Maybe I drove into left field with what those emotions were, but that’s really all anybody’s got to do to fix this situation.  Go with the deity of your choice.  

-If I was headed for a Gearbox ending, it would be for the scrapped one, not the one we got.  See this and this other thing.

>>>I would still have written the twins as having something resembling a meaningful relationship regardless of whether that turned out romantic or not.  As things went and are, them as a couple was something I knew how to write and my mom shipped them (no, I’m not kidding).  

-I’m not going for a canon ending.  Mercy, did I find a thread I could snap and take the whole sweater out.  

-Both had blue siren markings when they were born; Troy’s turned red after they were separated.

--Which was a complicated mess-- they were upside-down verses each other and had several secondary adhesions, the most notable of which was Tyreen’s face to Troy’s thigh.

---Leda never 100% recovered from the emotional or physical trauma, but she put on a brave face for the last sevenish years of her life.  

---Troy’s tissue loss was severe and left him with a notable pit in his upper right side.

---Tyreen also has heavy scarring running from her right armpit to her right hip.  It’s not as complex, but it is very visible.  Missing a fair amount of intestine compared to the average human, but this has apparently never bothered her beyond the fact that visiting the toilet when you don’t eat is not fun.

-Semi-identical twins. Have 82.5% of their genes in common.  LSS, neither one is a parasite.  They’re two sperm plus one egg and they didn’t divide right.

--Ms. Phaseleech* didn’t know any better.  #oops  

--If you get them relaxed enough, they will indeed curl up together in their “fish” position.

-Tyreen is the one who would wail first if separated from her brother when they were very small, but they don’t like being apart even as adults.  

-Both very well-read, used to recite The Odyssey to congregants instead of scripture (‘cause they didn’t have any scripture). 

-Good to excellent hunters. Depends what they’re hunting and if they’re together.  Prefer to go barefoot if there’s no one else around.

-The circumstances surrounding Leda’s death are appreciably worse than fanon baseline to the point I don’t think I ought to leave them lying around in a Tumblr post.  

-Both have wavy hair if they don’t iron the daylights out of it.

-Prefer to be on the road and around people, even if a fair amount of those people are going to end up dinner.

-Get weirdly soft-hearted around kids, especially little boys with a similar complexion to their own.

-Do they have any concept that they’re horrible people? Yes, but it’s very academic and not something that motivates them.  You’d be way more likely to hear them frame themselves as hedonists, which also explains their worldview to a certain extent.  

~*~

Troy

-Skinnier than most other Troys.  You could put him in a room with every fandom Troy and sort them by muscle mass, you’d find him at the bottom end, partying like this was an accomplishment.  

-Has an X-linked connective tissue disorder which is more extensive than he lets on.  He really should not do about 90% of the stunts he does because of the vascular involvement.

-Made a categorical decision to treat the associated pain with a lot of cannabis and massage.  Has a distinct resin and honey body butter smell because of this.

--Also, if you get him off-hours, there’s going to be a fair amount of “but why are we here, man?” discussion.

-Has a kink in his upper back.  His spine tilts to his right.  Not super noticeable, but if you were on massage duty, you’d realize something felt out of place.  

-Used to get catastrophic nosebleeds, though these have lessened in frequency and severity over the years.  

-After a certain point, has a permanent latching socket port installed on his right side, allowing him to switch arms out as he likes.

--Because he has a selection of eccentric ones.  What? It’s a challenge to learn to use non-human aspects like claws or feathers or forty joints in a tentacle.  

--Still flounces around without one if nobody of consequence is watching and generally won’t sleep with one in.

-The insides of his ear gauges are messy and don’t even get him started on changing the jewelry on any, erm, other piercings he might have.  (Nipples and one off-center PA.  That was QUITE enough after what it took for his tattoos to cooperate.) 

-Will frame any illness or off-day as a migraine, which he does get.

-Had really bad teeth before his mouth mods.  After that, has none of his natural teeth remaining.  Primarily uses his exceptional bite radius to annoy others, show off, eat sandwiches in a disturbing fashion and do unspeakable things in bed.  They’re for show.  They’re not functional in any serious way.  

-Doesn’t have great control of said mouth mods in the heat of passion or if you get him laughing hard enough.  Hope you like spit!

-Still has rather heinous-looking feet, but he’s concerned about losing his calluses if he has them fixed.  You’d be more likely to see him open on an operating table than barefoot in public.  

-Always wants to be the little spoon.  You’re a tink? You’re a third his size? So what.  He wants to be the little spoon.  Just give in.

-Genuinely likes tea, especially flower-based tea.  Favorite foods include grits, polenta, tamales, campfire beefy rice, beef and broccoli layered onto somebody else’s leftover noodles, beef curry, beef sandwiches soaked in jus, steak tips on day-old fries and look just give him a sloppy plate of starch and dead cow if you need him to shut up.  

-Drinks vodka so cold and over-filtered it tastes like water, then follows it up with extra greasy, burnt-to-hell texas toast while talking about his mother.

-Lactose intolerant.  Please do not feed the rat child pizza. Or chipped beef on toast.  No, not even if he begs.  

~*~

Tyreen

-Abnormally acute senses, especially hearing/smell and including a form of intuition which targets where things she can leech exist nearby.  She’s only aware of any of this in the context of it being different from how Troy’s senses work.  She knows where to get food.  Don’t most people?

-Doesn’t perceive herself as 100% human.  The Leech is part of her and she likes herself.  Mama said she was perfect.  The details are whatever.  You got a problem here? Well, that’s easy to fix… 

-Would have been sorted as a tomboy growing up, but had no companions to do so.  As is, prefers the company of masculine individuals, loves showing people up in a boyish fashion and is absolutely going to tune you out if you start talking to her about the topic.  

-Reeks.  You might smell something “off” with her around in a meeting room, but get her sweaty or worked up and forget it.  It’s not even a human smell.  Petrichor and spray paint, menstrual blood and chlorine, dead leaves and solvent.  It’s chemical, it’s uncannily biological.  It’s really not OK.  She can’t smell it and Troy’s used to it.  

-Doesn’t shave.  Has fluffy armpits that don’t match her dye job and a rather spectacular bush that extends onto her upper thighs.  Does pluck here brows and the witch hairs on her chin, but otherwise, you know what, nah.

-Heavily tattooed, but this is limited to her torso.  The viewing of said tattoos, as well as her scars, is a ritual in her particular CoV.  

--Not that she cares about being naked.  A body is a body.  You people are so uptight.  

-Will reflexively guard her lower stomach before anything else and sometimes in error.  Do not call her on this.  You will piss her off.  

-Has an eye-shaped siren marking, but it’s on her left shoulder blade and she tends to forget it’s there.  More aware of the “pointer mark” underneath her navel.

-Poor tolerance for any drugs.

-Can only ingest salt, sucrose and 80 proof or better clear alcohol without retching.

--Which is to say she doesn’t eat “people food”.  

--Fatty or high-fiber foods tend to make her ill faster.  She could possibly keep tofu or chicken breast down for an hour or more, but it’s still not going to end well.  

--Can and does eat cinder toffee because it’s one of the few things she can chew and digest.  Konpeito is nice too, but sometimes the dye upsets her stomach.  

--Milk, maybe.  Human works better.

-Enjoys swimming or long baths.

-Ambidextrous.  Was either born that way or picked up doing certain things left-handed because that’s what her brother had to work with and she had to show him how to do stuff somehow.

-Good with a forearm-mounted crossbow.  Either hand is fine.

-Used to drool precipitously when she leeched something “good”.  Mostly has a handle on this by the time the CoV gets to be a thing.  Mostly.  

-Deeply immature love language which might include her actually asking to play with her prospective partner and a good bit of bullying.

-SHE IS NOT SHY ABOUT HER NEEDS AND KINKS.  THE HELL WITH YOU.  YOU’RE MAKING SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING.  HOW DARE YOU.  DO YOU WANT TO BE SKAG BAIT ON THE NEXT LIVESCREAM.  UGH. #nottsundereatall

~*~

* The Leech IDed herself as, erm, herself in some stuff I’m not sure I’ll ever post but ANYWAY.

[dying-suffering-french-stalkers]

Katabasis Patterns in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

Or, in which I make use of my official Classics minor (and my unofficial film nerd minor) while ignoring my French major altogether.

Howdy, everyone, and welcome to this week’s episode of Extremely On My Bullshit!  Today we’re going to talk at length about how the trip to Davy Jones’ Locker in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End borrows elements from various classical narratives containing a katabasis, or a trip to the Underworld.  This will be a slightly Tumblr-ified version of an actual paper I wrote for my Classical Antiquity On Screen final.

Shoutout to this post by @charlesdances, which allowed me to infodump about Hades/Persephone parallels in Barbossa and Elizabeth’s relationship across the trilogy, and to @aye-tortuga for requesting this longer post, which I teased at the end of the aforementioned meta.

Right then, let’s get started!  Under a cut to spare your dashes from long post made longer still by screencaps and works cited (yep, it’s that kind of meta).  For the purposes of this meta, only the first three Pirates films will be considered canon as the later sequels contradicted elements of the established lore.

I touched on this in the first paragraph, but I’ll begin by defining two words which will appear throughout this meta: katabasis and anabasis.  Katabasis and anabasis are Ancient Greek terms which refer to “that narrative . . . that portrays the hero’s descent into, and ascent from, the underworld—the journey to hell” (Holtsmark 25).  (If you want to get etymological about it, kata is down, ana is up, and baino comes from the verb meaning “to go [on foot].”)

This katabasis narrative takes place in the first act of At World’s End.  If you’ll recall, Dead Man’s Chest ended with Elizabeth chaining Jack to the Black Pearl’s mast: she knew the Kraken was only interested in Jack, so she sacrificed him to give herself and the others a chance to escape.  However, at the very end of the film, Elizabeth and the crew of the Pearl pledge to retrieve Jack from his resting place in Davy Jones’ Locker (the Underworld), and Tia Dalma offers both herself and Barbossa as guides to those “weird and haunted shores.”

So, after the cinematic fucking masterpiece that is the opening “Hoist the Colours” sequence (I also wrote a paper on that lol), we find ourselves in Singapore, where Elizabeth, Barbossa, and co. meet with the pirate lord Sao Feng in hopes of obtaining a map to the Locker.  The Singapore segment opens with Elizabeth piloting a lone craft along a murky river, evoking images of Charon with his ferryman’s pole:

As she poles the boat along, she sings a pirate tune with decidedly death-centric lyrics, tuning us in to the symbolism and themes at play: “Some men have died and some are alive / Others sail on the sea / With the keys to the cage and the Devil to pay / We lay to Fiddler’s Green.* / The bell has been raised from its watery grave / Hear its sepulchral tone . . .” (*A form of afterlife from maritime folklore)

At the end of this scene, we see something odd: Tia Dalma dressed as a blind organ grinder.

Plot-wise, this serves to divert the colonial soldiers’ attention from the pirates’ activity, but metaphorically, here she represents the blind seer Tiresias, whom Odysseus encounters when he first enters the realm of Hades (Odyssey 11.187-149).

When the pirates meet Sao Feng, the imagery starts to mix a little.  The filmmakers present Sao Feng in a somewhat Hades-esque (Hadean?) manner (steam, flames, and warm tones, with a skylight to imply subterranean depths):

However, while he is a powerful figure, he does not keep the Underworld itself (that duty falls to Jones); he merely keeps the knowledge of its entrance.  Barbossa attempts to gain this knowledge by presenting Sao Feng with a silver coin: a reminder of his duty as Pirate Lord as well as another Charon parallel.  Barbossa’s tactic does not work, but like in the previous scene, the imagery prepares viewers for the descent to come.

After getting Sao Feng’s navigational charts another way, the pirates’ journey to the underworld continues in earnest.  When Will expresses doubt about their path, Barbossa nearly quotes the Aeneid outright: “Trust me, young Master Turner: it’s not gettin’ to the Land of the Dead that’s the problem; it’s gettin’ back.”  This echoes the Cumaean Sibyl’s famous words to Aeneas: “Easy is the descent to [the Underworld]: night and day the door of gloomy Dis stands open; but to recall one’s steps and pass out to the upper air, this is the task, this the toil!” (Aeneid 6.126-129, tr. H.R. Fairclough).  Aeneas, guided by the Sibyl, passes through the mouth of a cave as part of his descent (“A deep cave there was, yawning wide and vast, of jagged rock” (Aeneid 6.237-238, cf. 6.262-263, tr. Fairclough)); likewise the pirates, guided by Barbossa and the charts, pass through a cave as they travel into stranger climes:

(Buuuut to be fair, this one is possibly just incidental or else more of a reference to Gustave Doré’s art for Rime of the Ancient Mariner rather than a reference to any specific classical text.  Doré’s artwork is used elsewhere in PotC, so it’s prolly just aesthetic.  Also caves are cool and the ultimate symbolic doorway.)

Next they come to a distant, shadowy realm with a misty sky and a sea tranquil enough to reflect starlight:

Again, this could also be incidental (and/or just a really cool homage to the sailing-to-the-moon scene in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)), but it does have a classical counterpart: “The ship took us to the deep, outermost Ocean / And the land of the Cimmerians, a people / Shrouded in mist.  The sun never shines there [...] Nor bathes them in the glow of its last golden rays; / Their wretched sky is always racked with night’s gloom” (Odyssey 11.14-19).

Both of these qualities—the cave and the darkness—fit Holtsmark’s observations on katabatic patterns: “The entryway to the other world is often conceived as lying in caves or grottoes or other openings in the earth’s crust into the nether regions, such as chasms or clefts. . . . The lower world is generally dank and dark, and the journey usually takes place at dusk or during the night” (Holtsmark 25).

At last, the pirates’ ship goes over the edge of an enormous waterfall and the screen fades to black.  Voices from the original Pirates of the Caribbean theme park ride echo over the dark screen, ending with the ominous phrase “Dead men tell no tales.”  However, we shall soon see this proved very wrong, for the pirates encounter several souls with tales to tell.  As for these nameless voices, they may represent multitudes of ���bloodless shades” (Metamorphoses 10.42) left to languish in other parts of the Locker/Underworld.

At this point, the narrative cuts from the pirate band to Jack in Davy Jones’ Locker.  Jack warrants special punishment from Jones for disobeying the rules of a bargain they’d once struck (*yells forever about the good parts of The Price of Freedom and the crimes wrought by the DMTNT retcons*).  Jack’s own special hell, recalling the punishments of Tantalus and Sisyphus (Odyssey 11.611-629), does include his beloved Black Pearl (explicitly stated, by Jack himself, to be a symbol of personal freedom), but now it rests completely beached upon an endless, windless salt flat.  Jack is utterly alone in this wasteland, save for a crew of his own imaginary doppelgängers.

(I’m gonna be real with y’all: I don’t care for this scene at all and it brings the narrative to a screeching halt, so let’s just take a moment to angstily reflect on how profoundly this affects Jack-the-character’s psyche/mental state for the rest of the film and move on to better things.  God bless RPers and fic writers who deal with this scene and its effects in a deliciously Watsonian way.)

Tia Dalma/Calypso’s crabs eventually come to bear both captain and ship back to the sea.  This could be seen as classical-type divine aid/favoritism (a semi-literal deus ex machina) or as awkward, oh-no-what-do-we-do-now screenwriting, take your pick.  The crabs take Jack and the Pearl directly to the rest of the pirates, who have washed up on the Locker’s desolate shore.  In a twist on the classical formula, Jack initially thinks his rescuers the dead ones as they recount their past experiences.  Additionally, Jack represents a sort of Eurydice figure as the dead-in-need-of-rescuing, while his Orpheus, Elizabeth, is ironically the one who “killed” him in the first place.  All the pirates (Jack included) finally set sail in the freed Black Pearl and attempt to escape this Underworld: the anabasis has begun.

On their way out, when the sky grows dark, the crew encounter scores upon scores of shades floating aimlessly upon the sea:

This parallels Odysseus’ experience (“Then out of Erebus / The souls of the dead gathered / . . . They drifted up to the pit from all sides / With an eerie cry, and pale fear seized me” (Odyssey 11.34-35, 40-41)) as well as that of Aeneas (“Hither rushed all the [ghostly] throng, streaming to the banks . . . They stood, pleading to be the first ferried across, and stretched out hands in yearning for the farther shore” (Aeneid 6.305, 313-314)).  Tia Dalma reveals that long ago, Calypso had charged Davy Jones “to ferry those who died at sea to the Other Side,” but he has since abandoned his duty, hence his current eldritch appearance.  This explicitly posits Jones as a failed psychopomp who has now left these souls stranded like the unburied men of the Odyssey and Aeneid.

The crew leave these shades in peace until Elizabeth spots a familiar face: her father.

At this point I must ask you to rewatch this scene so you can fully appreciate the parallels without me including a lengthy transcript in this already long post.

This scene comes directly from classical literature, as both Odysseus and Aeneas encountered dead parents in the Underworld.  Odysseus saw his mother: “. . . At once / She knew me, and her words reached me on wings: / ‘My child, how did you come to the undergloom / While you are still alive?  It is hard for the living / To reach these shores.  There are many rivers to cross, / Great bodies of water, nightmarish streams, / And Ocean itself, which cannot be crossed on foot / But only in a well-built ship’” (Odyssey 11.151-158).  Like Elizabeth, Odysseus had no prior knowledge of his mother’s passing (11.170).  His mother warned him of the dangerous situation which had sprung up during his absence, just as Weatherby Swann warned the pirates of the dangers of Davy Jones’ Heart.  Aeneas likewise encountered the spirit of his father, Anchises: “‘Have you come at last[?] . . . Over what lands, what wide seas have you journeyed to my welcome! What dangers have beset you, my son!’” (Aeneid 6.687-693).  Anchises, too, offers some advice for the future, for he “tells of the wars that the hero next must wage . . . [and] how to face or flee each peril” (6.890-892).  Having Elizabeth be the one to encounter a dead parent in the Underworld confirms her as the series’ protagonist, in case that wasn’t patently obvious from the rest of the trilogy (and the failure of Pirates 4 and 5).  Weatherby Swann’s warning also serves to remind the audience of the stakes.

Finally, the pirates make their way out of the Locker.  While the remainder of their journey takes more inspiration from Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Western European folklore than classical literature, the latter’s influence on the film remains quite clear.  When the pirates return to the land of the living, it is daybreak:

(*Lawrence of Arabia theme, but on a cello*)

So, too, does Odysseus emerge from the Underworld into a new dawn: “Our ship left the River Ocean / And came to the swell of the open sea / . . . Where Dawn has her dancing grounds / And the Sun his risings” (Odyssey 12.1-5).  The pirates thus complete their katabasis/anabasis, and with rather more luck than Orpheus.

In review: The pirates begin their katabasis in Singapore, which boasts a plethora of Underworld symbolism, including a death-centric song and images of Charon, Tiresias, and Hades.  They cross various waters in their descent, mirroring locations from Homer and Vergil, and Barbossa quotes the Cumaean Sibyl.  Elizabeth and the pirates retrieve Jack from the Locker’s punishments in a twist on the Orpheus and Eurydice myth.  Like Odysseus and Aeneas, Elizabeth sees her dead parent in the Underworld, who warns her of things to come.  In the end, the pirates emerge from the Underworld into the light of dawn, signalling their return to life.  By borrowing from Homer, Vergil, and Ovid, At World’s End presents an Underworld narrative which is familiar in structure and yet easily incorporated into a new mythology: “Same story, different versions.”

(Please message me if you’d like to quote/reference this post in a paper and I can give you my name + details on the official version!  Plagiarism is shitty and unnecessary!)

WORKS CITED

Crispin, A.C.  Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom.  Disney Editions, 2011.

Fairclough, H.R., translator.  The Aeneid.  1916.  By Vergil.  Theoi Project, www.theoi.com/Text/VirgilAeneid6.html.  Accessed 4 May 2019.

Holtsmark, Erling B.  “The Katabasis Theme in Modern Cinema.”  Classical Myth & Culture in Modern Cinema, edited by Martin M. Winkler, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 23-50.

Homer.  The Odyssey.  The Essential Homer, translated and edited by Stanley Lombardo, Hackett Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 241-482.

Ovid.  Metamorphoses.  Translated by Stanley Lombardo, Hackett Publishing Company, 2010.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.  Directed by Gore Verbinski, performances by Keira Knightley, Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Bill Nighy, Chow Yun-Fat, Geoffrey Rush, Tom Hollander, Jack Davenport, and Jonathan Pryce, Walt Disney Pictures, 2007.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.  Directed by Gore Verbinski, performances by Keira Knightley, Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Bill Nighy, Tom Hollander, Jack Davenport, and Jonathan Pryce, Walt Disney Pictures, 2005.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.  Directed by Gore Verbinski, performances by Keira Knightley, Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Geoffrey Rush, Jack Davenport, and Jonathan Pryce, Walt Disney Pictures, 2003.

[skeptic42]

Breaking this off the original thread.

Me:

This is what happens when people are given a little bit of knowledge, yet not taught to think critically.

When @ace-pervert says something like:

Yeah as long as you have things which can test them

He’s right in that not everyone has a LHC lying around the garage to just fire up and test for the Higgs Boson.  However, it is possible to get an education specializing in the right field and get access to a particle accelerator.  And run some tests.

But then you get worried when he says,

You almost never get the same result twice when testing something

This shows a complete and total lack of understanding in science and how it works.  If nature was as chaotic as he implies, then we could never know anything.  And before he whips out with the whole quantum universe thing, there are tests that we can conduct and repeat experiments.  Plus the quantum universe thing is only applicable below the atomic level.

What we can know can change.  Science doesn’t collapse and all knowledge disappear when we discover something knew.  Theories (that is not guesses or speculation, but testable, repeatable ideas supported by evidence through getting the same results no just twice, but hundreds of times) are adjusted.  It’s only when they are totally proven false, like cold fusion, that they get scrapped.  Relativity supplanted Newtionian physics, but we still use it because it works for things here on earth.

But you have to be worried when you read,

it took so long for us to succesfully [sic] prove that the sun revolved around the earth

I’m hoping this is a typo.

provided you can demonstrate it exists to begin with which is impossible when it comes to things like intelligence which cant be tested directly but are assumed to exist but in truth are only hypothetic in nature and therefore not demonstratable.

First, there’s a difference between the abstract, like the mind, and the physical, like the brain.  Now, we know intelligence exists, we are currently using devices that result from using intelligence.  It also helps to actually define intelligence.  Being smart like Einstein and being a con artist like Trump.  Not the same thing, but some people can’t tell the difference.

We might not understand something, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  Consciousness is a good place to start.  It does exist.  It can be tested.  It’s as immaterial as intelligence.

Next we have @chillimanjaro:

“There are dozens of aspects of reality we don’t understand, including other dimensions. We don’t fully understand things like quantum mechanics or even physics. Not fully.”

Other dimensions may exist, but so far only in mathematical formulas on paper.  We understand quite a bit about quantum mechanics and physics.  We don’t know everything, sure, if we did, we wouldn’t study it.  Our knowledge is expanding all the time.  We’re developing new tools and building more powerful ones.

As for “something beyond this reality,” it makes for great fiction and fun speculation, but if it can interact with nature then there would be a way to test it.  Just because there are wavelengths of energy that can’t be seen doesn’t prove that every other thing we can conceive of could exist.  We can conceive of a wizarding boy that goes to a magical school, but I think lending it credence instead of relegating it to fiction isn’t the best way to go about thinking about things.

That’s the great thing about curiosity and science, we keep looking for more answers.

Response:

chillimanjaro:

I’m not saying lack of understanding is proof of God existing. I’m saying that you cannot reasonably dismiss the concept of a diety just because you personally have not observed him. That regardless of what you or I say about a god has no impact on whether a god exists.

It’s not a matter of not observing or feeling a god, but understanding that all gods were created in the minds of men.

I could sit here and say I have felt the presence of God in my life. I could do that, but I know me saying that I believe I have felt God, that I’ve heard his voice, that I’ve had a religious experience is my anecdotal evidence and will be dismissed as such.

Very true.  People have felt a lot of stuff and been entirely wrong.

But I’d rather say that the dismissive nature of saying well I can’t see it, I’ve never felt it, I’ve never had that experience is not a proper way to address the question of Gods existence.

Again, it’s not a matter of not seeing.  I did give an example of something we can’t see, yet we know it exists.

You lack any faith in God existing because you’ve never seen anything to attribute that to the world and that’s all well and fine but that still wouldn’t determine the existence of God.

Nor would feelings or being able to conceive of a god.  Just look at history, all the gods were human or animal or hybrid, things people have seen, yet none existed.  The box you open has your god in it, yet no other gods.  Why?  Why is your god the one true god, but none of the other gods?  There may very be some super powerful being, but the idea is pointless.  god needs to be relegated to mythology, with the rest of them.  In the other box where you put all the gods.

To dismiss the possibility is just simply not reasonable.

To dismiss evidence is unreasonable.  To believe is unreasonable.  The possibility is not worth the effort or the time, except in fiction.

It’s as just as unreasonable as seeing the infinitely expanding universe and saying the only place with life on it must be our planet.

This is actually a very reasonable statement.  Is there life elsewhere in the universe?  Possibly.  Given the law of large numbers, it’s very likely.  Where the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe and the possibility of a deity existing differ is in one single point:

We know life exists in the universe.

And since it exists here, it is actually very probably it exists somewhere else in the universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of thousands of stars with trillions of planets.  It like the lottery, the chance of one ticket winning is microscopic.  The chance of a ticket winning is extremely likely.

I’m not saying that you must believe God exist because the chance is there that God does exist.

The greater chance is that god was created in the minds of men, like the 5,000 some odd other gods.

I’m saying very simply that that you can’t just say, nope not possible at all.

The possibility is a moot point, nor does it increase the likelihood.

All I can really say is that if you seek God, not to prove existence of God for yourself, but if you SEEK GOD TO FIND GOD you will find God.

Yes. When you really want something to be true, it is all the easier to believe it’s true when you don’t and can’t prove or disprove it concisely.  It’s even easier when that god is invisible, untestable, unobservable. unprovable, and exactly what you conceive.

Also comparing the Bible, and more specifically the gospel of Jesus Christ, to Harry Potter is not a valid comparison.

They’re both fiction, and mention real places.  

Harry Potter has been stated by its author to be fictional and is not that old.

Yes, we know it’s fiction.   However, the Iliad and the Odyssey are much older, yet we don’t believe they are real.  The Sumerian flood myth is even older then the bible, yet we know that wasn’t real either.

Something that has stood the test of thousands of years,

What test?  People being forced to believe it?

has the most original copies of any documents in the ancient world

Do you mean the thousands and thousands of fragments?  You do realize that copy means not original.   Some of which prove they’ve been altered (like the addition of the last several verses of Mark).  

 (and I’m talking ancient documents dated around the time that it is claimed Jesus did what he did) especially when it was widely persecuted with crucifixtion, prison, and being burned alive at the time it began and still faces persecution in many parts of the world has a bit more value than that.

This seems a little odd, like you’re running at least two ideas together.  I’ll try to pull them apart.

The only documents about the existence of jesus are the gospels.  Everything else was derived from that or from the people who believed it.  There are no original accounts (and the gospels are full of contradictions, read Bart Ehrman).

We do know that crucifixions happened.  Doesn’t prove jesus existed.  It just proves the writers used that along with the OT to fabricate the jesus story.

I’m not sure how people being persecuted today proves the bible true.  I think your working toward the logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity (many people believe it, so it must be true).

If people did not believe Jesus came back from the dead then they would have renounced their faith in him under scrutiny especially when faced with his same type of death.

Called it.  People believe because they wanted to believe.  Belief in gods was rampant at that time.  Many religions sprang up and had instant followers.  christianity happened to survive the ages, not through fact, but belief.

If they didn’t believe in the miracles that they claimed to have seen and were just saying so then they would have given up, not given their life.

That doesn’t follow.  Just because people gave up their lives for their beliefs doesn’t prove anything except they gave up their life for their beliefs.

No one actually saw anything.  (Why are there 4 different accounts of jesus talking to Pontius Pilot that differ in almost every way and yet none of his followers actually witnessed any exchange?)  We have 4 canonical and numerous apocryphal accounts, all created at least 30 years after the supposed events.  Yet somehow, no one wrote down anything at the time, only 30+ years later, during an age of illiteracy, rife with supposed gods, with many wandering illiterate itinerant apocalyptic preachers.  Jesus was a common name, derived from Joshua, a Jewish hero. The practice of giving your children great names hasn’t changed.

No one is out there dying for Harry Potter (except JK Rowling lol) but people refuse to give up their faith in Jesus and die for it plenty to this day.

I hope not.  But if people were, that wouldn’t suddenly prove Harry Potter is real.  There however is a possibility that J.K. Rowling wrote about real events, but due to the magic protecting muggles and keeping them out of the wizarding world we are completely unaware of this unseen world around us.  Rowling may have even had these events transmitted to her mind so as to foster further disbelief in the wizarding world and protect it from discovery.

I’d really recommend looking into Lee Strobel if you’re interested for more answers. They actually have a movie based off his book on Netflix last time I checked. It’s called The Case For Christ.

Wow.  Talk about coincidence.  (But when I think about it, it’s actually a very likely coincidence.)  I just read about his book.  Now I’ll have to go back and reread that article again, so I won’t address it here.

I’d also recommend that you actually read the New Testament of the Bible, not necessarily the whole thing but the first 4 books give a clear understanding of Jesus Christ.

I have.  I used to go to church.  Been baptised, believed it because everyone else did.  But when I started to develop critical thinking, questioning things, I began to realize that I didn’t believe it.  

I recommend you read it as well, but read it in parallel.  Find the stories that overlap.  See how they are different.  Read Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus (I think that’s the names).  He’s a top NT scholar.  I don’t agree with everything he wrote, but he is good.

Another good one (though I will tell you that not everything between the pages of that book has the same value) is What Time Is Purple? It’s very short, shouldn’t take more than 45 minutes to read at max.

Maybe.  I have like 2,000 other books to read.

I recommend How to Think About Weird Things.  I’ve just started Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, it promises to be excellent.

[classicdaisycalico]

Princess Daisy of Sarasaland

give me a character and i’ll answer

Awww yiss now we’re getting into the good stuff

DO I LIKE THEM:IS WATER WET? IS THE SKY BLUE? IS THE POPE CATHOLIC?! THE ANSWER IS YES FUCK YES

5 GOOD QUALITIES:1. Daisy’s optimism is so boundless! She’s actually a ray of literal sunshine and it’s adorable.2. Also, she’s so full of energy and life all the time! It’s so! Contagious!!!3. She’s! So! Enthusiastic! About! All! The! Things!4. Daisy can be loud and spunky while still holding a royal title to her name. Yes, you can be a princess, but whoever says you can’t be loud and spunky while you are a princess is lying to you.5. She’s really extroverted and super friendly!

3 BAD QUALITIES:1. There is so much more to her than just being “the sporty princess”, Nintendo…please remedy this2. Additionally, she needs to appear in more than just spin-offs, too…like, yeah, she’s finally coming to Super Mario Run but this is her first appearance in a main title for the first time SINCE HER DEBUT 28 WHOLE YEARS AGO. Nintendo, you’ve got some explaining to do.3. A lot of what we know about her is either inferred through spin-offs, or brought up once and never brought up again. I personally would love to see a 3D Sarasaland in that glorious HD for the Switch (if it doesn’t at least show up for Odyssey as DLC I’m gonna be really hecking upsetti). And I also want to see a main game where Daisy is a main character of some kind, because then we could get to see what kind of personality she has apart from what we see in spin-offs. Maybe there’s a whole other side to Daisy we’ve never seen before??? Nintendo, step your game up! (Pun totally unintended, btw)

FAVORITE EPISODE/ETC:I like her classic look more than her modern, to be honest, and one of my favorite moments is in Mario Party 3, when we are first introduced to her before we are whisked off to the Backtrack duel board. I kinda like the angle that Nintendo took on her, that she was a cutie who didn’t really know her own strength. It was pretty funny in that context and honestly super adorable. Nevertheless, her energy and cheeriness was still there and I’m glad that part of her personality carried over into her modern reboot. They still could have kept the former part, though; you can still be tomboy-ish and cute at the same time, right? RIGHT???

OTP:Luigi and Daisy, for sure. 10/10 will go down with the ship.

BroTP:Peach and Daisy. They’ve been friends forever, and they’re gonna stay that way, dammit.

OT3:Ummmm maybe Luigi, Daisy, and…shit, maybe Peasley?

NoTP:Daisy and Waluigi. Even though Waluigi does have a canon crush on Daisy, it’s been shown that she’s reacted quite negatively to said crush. Plus…something tells me she doesn’t really like his personality very much.

BEST QUOTE:“Hey, sweetie [Luigi]!(to audience): Thank you!(turns back to Luigi) I’ll take that ;)”~ Daisy, “Mario Power Tennis”This is such an adorable moment for Daisy. In this scene she’s literally rolling onto the scene in rollerblades to receive her trophy, greeting Luigi as “sweetie” (awww she likes him). By greeting the audience, it also lets us know she’s a little bit of a showboat (which is true; she does have her moments). And then there’s the rest of the cutscene where she impresses the fuck out of Luigi by catching the trophy after he loses his grip. (That slow-mo bit where she actually catches it in mid-air? Yeah, Luigi was definitely staring.)

HEADCANON:Daisy actually comes from a long line of female rulers with a very strong power over flora. Every firsborn daughter down the line has had that power, and as a result, her kingdom is matrilineal. She also has a natural knack for gardening. I guess having such a strong influence over plant life also gives you one hell of a green thumb.

[pinelife3]

What is a labyrinth for?

I've been reading House of Leaves for the last ~7 months. I'm interested, but not engaged: all those months of toil and I'm still only 300 pages in (it is really tempting to just read the Wikipedia summary). The book is about a house which is bigger on the inside than on the outside. People find a mysterious passage which leads to endless hallways, rooms leading to more rooms. An expedition is mounted and the group spend close to two weeks exploring the insides of the house's walls. It takes them four days to descend a staircase. They never find the outside, the house never ends. And as the story goes on the house becomes increasingly hostile and it’s driving people crazy, floors are spontaneously opening up and swallowing unsuspecting alcoholics down into bottomless pits.

Throughout the book (or, really, throughout the bit I've read so far - haha how many book reports have been authored by people who have only read a fraction of the book?) there are lots of references to labyrinths and their purpose. Such a cool word - what's the meaning of 'lab'? Labyrith = misspelt start to labia? That would be interesting. Fingers crossed that that's an upcoming twist in HoL. Okay: the etymology - Online Etymology Dictionary:

c. 1400, laberynthe (late 14c. in Latinate form laborintus) "labyrinth, maze, great building with many corridors and turns,"figuratively "bewildering arguments," from Latin labyrinthus, from Greek labyrinthos "maze, large building with intricate passages," especially the structure built by Daedelus to hold the Minotaur, near Knossos in Crete, a word of unknown origin.

A word of unknown origin... Spooky. They go on:

Apparently from a pre-Greek language; traditionally connected to Lydian labrys "double-edged axe," symbol of royal power, which fits with the theory that the original labyrinth was the royal Minoan palace on Crete. It thus would mean "palace of the double-axe." But Beekes finds this "speculative" and compares laura "narrow street, narrow passage, alley, quarter," also identified as a pre-Greek word. Used in English for "maze" early 15c., and in figurative sense of "confusing state of affairs" (1540s). As the name of a structure of the inner ear, the essential organ of hearing, from 1690s.

This is definitely irrelevant, but in Homer, Odysseus’ stock epithet is ‘cunning’ - the first lines of The Odyssey are: “Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns.” Is this twists and turns because he’s cunning and able to confound people with his ‘figuratively bewildering arguments’ - or is this twists and turns because he’s a terrible navigator and we’re about to hear all about his epic, decade-long journey home from Troy?

Anyway, kind of feels pointless to tell the story of the Minotaur and his labyrinth because you definitely already know it, but just briefly:

Tale as old as time, True as it can be, Blah blah blaaaah  Beauty and the beast

After some funny business between Poseidon and Minos (the king of Crete), the queen (Minos’ wife - and also the daughter of Helios, the sun) falls in love with a bull which was originally given to Minos by Poseidon under the proviso that he (Minos) would sacrifice it to honour Poseidon (sweet deal). Anyway, the queen is totally besotted with this bull and decides she wants to kick things up a gear sexually so she has Daedalus (of wax wings fame) make a hollow fake cow so she can get banged by the bull (what could go wrong?). She winds up pregnant and gives birth to the Minotaur - the queen tries to raise him right but he is savage. Because he’s a monstrosity, he had no natural food source and settles upon humans as his food of choice. 

Minos commissions Daedalus to build a labyrinth (I presume the Cretan royalty had some kind of family discount plan) and they shove the Minotaur in there. Why didn’t Minos just kill the Minotaur? The oracle at Delphi said not to. Plus, I guess it might have upset his wife a bit. Why didn’t Minos just kill Daedalus? That’d be too easy. It seems like at the core of most myths there’s a kernel of morality tale:

For Daedalus: just because you can doesn’t mean you should - be more careful about the stuff you build. And don’t enable bestiality 

For Minos: don’t sass Poseidon

For the queen: typical Greek stuff - all women (even the daughters of the sun god) are depraved liars with bizzareo sexual leanings. Even though it was a curse from Poseidon that gave her those impulses, her shame echoes through eternity (which is weirdly her only cosmic punishment - besides, I guess, being separated from her one true love, the bull... actually, I’m not sure what happened there. One assumes that after the Minotaur thing she decided to hit the brakes on her relationship with the bull but maybe they grew old together, lying in the sun in grassy pastures for the rest of their lives)

If you were hoping that this was the only tale of lady/bull romance from ancient Greece, you are shit out of luck. In another story from Crete, ya boy Zeus takes a fancy to a woman named Europa. Rather than woo her using any of the conventional means, Zeus transforms into a huge white bull and abducts her, taking her to the island of Crete. She becomes Crete’s first queen and has some kids with Zeus - it’s unclear whether this goes down with Zeus in bull or human form. It transpires that one of the kids born from Europa’s affair with Zeus is Minos. So Minos’ mother and wife both had unsavoury relationships with bulls. 

That was a long detour - getting back to the Labyrinth: it was built in Crete to house the Minotaur. The idea was that the Minotaur would never be able to escape, and that anyone who entered the Labyrinth wouldn’t be able to escape either. Why not just lock the Minotaur in a prison? Doesn’t have the same ring to it, I guess. It’s a weird idea though, isn’t it - making a really complicated (but still solvable) puzzle and putting something you never want found or freed in it. Why not just make something actually unsolvable?  

So that’s the first/most famous labyrinth. Herodotus, a Greek historian who was kicking around in the 5th century BC also wrote about one in Egypt. He wrote a book called Histories which Wikipedia bills as the founding work of history in the Western literary canon (I initially misread this sentence and thought that they were saying it was the founding work overall and I was about to be all ‘ah, beaucoup problemo, Wikipedia.’ But a quick reread saves me from from making an embarrassing mistake). ANYWAY, in the second volume of Histories, Herodotus recounts his travels around the far flung and exotic land of Egypt. According to Herodotus:

This I have actually seen, a work beyond words. For if anyone put together the buildings of the Greeks and display of their labours, they would seem lesser in both effort and expense to this labyrinth… Even the pyramids are beyond words, and each was equal to many and mighty works of the Greeks. Yet the labyrinth surpasses even the pyramids.

Ancient Origins dot net says:

It was named ‘Labyrinth’ by the Greeks after the complex maze of corridors designed by Daedalus for King Minos of Crete, where the legendary Minotaur dwelt. Yet today, nothing remains of this supposedly grand temple complex – at least not on the surface. The mighty labyrinth became lost to the pages of history.

It was actually a mortuary temple, not a labyrinth in the traditional sense of looking like a maze, but it was sprawling, complex and difficult to navigate.The only other Greek historian to see it was Strabo. He was kicking around ~500 years after Herodotus but also reported that the labyrinth was pretty crazy, calling it a “great palace composed of many palaces.” He said:

[I]n front of the entrances are crypts, as it were, which are long and numerous and have winding passages communicating with one another, so that no stranger can find his way either into any court or out of it without a guide.

Apparently the temple was lost over time - Wikipedia is blaming Ptolemy II (who apparently married his sister so that gives you a sense of his respect for preserving the integrity of things like historical sites and the integrity of blood lines) for its ‘demolition’ but he died in 246 BCE so, if he’d destroyed it, how would Strabo have been able to see it in the 1st century CE? It may not have been completely destroyed - it sounds like they perhaps just removed a bunch of limestone columns and blocks.

Fast forward to 1888: a British archaeologist named Flinders Petrie is excavating the site - of his findings he writes: there was nothing but a “vast field of chipped stone, six feet deep... All over an immense area of dozens of acres, I found evidence of a grand building. From such very scanty remains it is hard to settle anything." Petrie also apparently found a bunch of papyrus scrolls - including some which contain parts of the Illiad!

So there was definitely something there. Imagine this though: people found Herodotus’ writings ages ago and are searching around in the sand based on 2,000+ year old testimony from a man who many of his contemporaries considered at best a gullible exaggerator and at worst a liar. 

There was an expedition in 2008 - they have a website talking up their geophysic surveys of the area but they might not have found much because the results page of their website was never completed.

There’s a really weirdly specific Wikipedia article dealing with the (figurative) presence of the Minotaur in HoL - obviously some HoL superfan wrote this article (and it is interesting) but I don’t know why it warrants its own stand alone article - it’s not unusual to have a separate article discussing the themes and motifs of a major text on Wikipedia, but this is a whole article discussing a single motif. ANYWAY I like the analysis in the article about how if the house is the labyrinth, the Minotaur is the awful thoughts that crowd around you as you explore the endless hallways - obviously these are different for everyone. SO the Cretan labyrinth was built because Minos didn’t want to kill the bull - that was its purpose. What is the purpose of the labyrinth in the house? (That’s really why I’m still reading.)

UPDATE: have given up on House of Leaves - it’s on the bookshelf and never coming off. I am a quitter. Feels amazing.