#tl;dr open a history book

[talesinfallacies]

the whole argument of “there was no official Palestine state” falls flat when you read history and realize the middle east was split into emirates (not uae) or kaza; each with its own emir ruling it, prior to the fall of the ottoman empire. each emir ruled over their designated emirate that consisted of cities and villages; and the residents of these villages have been there for millennials; some of them are descendants of nomadic tribes (who are also indigenous to the land) that settled down in these villages at some point in history.

[queerfables]

Taking away the glass?

Oh gosh I'm actually so keen to talk about this so thank you for the opening!

Context: Responding to akaitsukicat's artwork of Crowley and Aziraphale separated by a glass wall, I said that the reason we're all such wrecks over their kiss is because after 6000 years in canon and 33 years in real life, that kiss was "taking away the glass".

The glass is a metaphor that media scholar Henry Jenkins uses to explain the appeal of slash, originally published in 1993. Here, "slash" refers to queer re-interpretation of heterosexual media, including transformative works exploring those readings.

This is what Jenkins says about the glass:

When I try to explain slash to non-fans, I often reference that moment in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan where Spock is dying and Kirk stands there, a wall of glass separating the two longtime buddies. Both of them are reaching out towards each other, their hands pressed hard against the glass, trying to establish physical contact. They both have so much they want to say and so little time to say it. Spock calls Kirk his friend, the fullest expression of their feelings anywhere in the series. Almost everyone who watches the scene feels the passion the two men share, the hunger for something more than what they are allowed. And, I tell my nonfan listeners, slash is what happens when you take away the glass. The glass, for me, is often more social than physical; the glass represents those aspects of traditional masculinity which prevent emotional expressiveness or physical intimacy between men, which block the possibility of true male friendship. Slash is what happens when you take away those barriers and imagine what a new kind of male friendship might look like. One of the most exciting things about slash is that it teaches us how to recognize the signs of emotional caring beneath all the masks by which traditional male culture seeks to repress or hide those feelings.

The vid I refer to, inspired by Jenkin's comments, is The Glass by thingswithwings. It's a beautiful vid, sad and hopeful and empowering, with a very moving commentary on fandom history. It was originally published in 2008, which is relevant to understanding the position it takes in the dialogue around queer relationships in media.

Here's thingswithwings' summary of the vid, as it appears on YouTube:

Henry Jenkins, speaking of the Spock death scene from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, said, "slash is what happens when you take away the glass." It has been said, in response, that death also happens when you take away the glass. ie, if you took away the glass Kirk would die of radiation poisoning too; the barrier between desiring men cannot be removed on pain of death. Homosexuality, or just loving touch between two people of the same gender, is equivalent to death in this media narrative. One of the interesting things about slash is the way it takes away the glass, then puts it back, then takes it away, then puts it back, often pleasurably. I think this is both problematic and powerful. It is problematic because it reasserts the impossibility of the touch (it fetishizes oppression in a negative manner); it is powerful - and good - because it dwells on and thinks about and removes the glass (it fetishizes oppression in a transformative manner). One of the interesting things about mainstream media is that it continues to put the glass back up, no matter how hard we try to tear it down. Queer desiring touches have been, and remain, imaginable but impossible. TL;DR ALTERNATE SUMMARY: THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME KIND OF INVISIBLE BARRIER IDK WHAT IT MIGHT BE

In regards to Good Omens, it's relevant that this entire conversation about homosocial relationships in media takes place within the 29 year period between the publication of Good Omens the book and the adaptation of the story to screen. The vid was created 15 years ago - which is to say 18 years after the book was published and 11 years before season 1 was released - and it talks about realised queer desire in mainstream media as being so impossible that it is equivalent to death. That is the kind of resistance that queer representation in pop culture has been up against, these last three decades.

Crowley/Aziraphale, as depicted in the book, is such a classic example of slash. I've seen some people who read the book in a contemporary context saying they didn't necessarily pick up on any subtext between the characters, and I suspect this is a mark of cultural expectations. Firstly, because the cultural references that the intentional subtext relies on have become obscured over time - see Neil Gaiman's explanation of the "consenting cycle repairmen" line. But more importantly because the audience's frame of reference for unintentional subtext has shifted, too. What is unsayable and which silences are emotionally loaded has changed over time. Even if you are intentionally using a queer lens in your reading, you might not see subtext in the same places that someone would even 10 years ago.

For example, take this passage from the book:

On the whole, neither [Aziraphale] nor Crowley would have chosen each other's company, but they were both men, or at least men-shaped creatures, of the world, and the Arrangement had worked to their advantage all this time. Besides, you grew accustomed to the only other face that had been around more or less consistently for six millennia.

On it's face, this line suggests that the relationship between the two of them is a matter of convenience more than desire. Maybe that's the intended reading and maybe that's how it started or how they justify their association to themselves, but taken together with how deeply they know each other and how they are always each other's first thought in a crisis, suddenly "neither would have chosen the other's company" sounds like an extremely British way to say they care about each other far more than they were supposed to. Plus, this is Aziraphale's take on their relationship, and it plays rather beautifully against Crowley's much simpler expression of the exact same sentiment:

Aziraphale. The Enemy, of course. But an enemy for six thousand years now, which made him a sort of friend.

To go back to Henry Jenkin's wise words, what we're seeing here is Aziraphale thinking about Crowley through the glass - through the "aspects of traditional masculinity which prevent emotional expressiveness or physical intimacy between men". If you came up in slash fandom at a time when seeing queer relationships in canon was unthinkable, you probably find it easier to identify the gap between how Aziraphale thinks about his relationship with Crowley and how their relationship actually functions. That gap was where a lot of slash lived.

You might say that the book shows Crowley and Aziraphale watching each other through the glass, and season 1 is them pressing up against it. They're still prevented from showing the full depth of feeling between them, they still hunger for more than they're allowed, but they are reaching for it. We see the history of their relationship developing through the ages. The unsayable is still left unsaid, but we feel the weight of it in everything they do. They come so very close but they still can't cross that threshold.

And then there's season 2. Within the text, Crowley and Aziraphale are not just pressing against the glass, they're actively trying to dismantle it. They're searching for a door to the other side. They're inspecting for weak points where they could cut their way through. And then suddenly they're out of time and out of options and the glass is still between them, and there's nothing they can do.

As the audience, you feel that desperation. You feel that grief. And if you're someone who's been watching the glass go back up on every relationship you thought might stand a chance of tearing it down, it hits hard. You're longing vicariously with the characters, but you're longing for yourself too, to see queer desire made possible. To see queer touch made not just imaginable but real.

And then, with all hope lost, Crowley throws himself through the glass. It doesn't matter that it doesn't save them. They kiss and it changes everything. Queer desire is no longer up for debate. Queer touch is no longer impossible. They kiss and the glass shatters, entirely and irrevocably.

This is why it matters so much that they did kiss, even though the love between them was already undeniable. For thirty years, Crowley and Aziraphale were part of a media landscape that relentlessly reinforced the glass at every turn and flooded fatal radiation through any crack they couldn't fix. In a different context, that kiss would be less vital to affirming their relationship. But in the world we live in, with the specific history that this story has, I don't think anything else could have done what it did. The glass between these characters had been reinforced over decades, in a culture that made the barriers to open intimacy between men inescapable. Their kiss was what it took to break it.

And by shattering the glass, this story has fundamentally rewritten what is possible. It proves the rules preventing true affection between people of the same gender can be defied. Queer people are already becoming more visible in pop culture; we're no longer reliant on slash reimagining queer longing between heterosexual leads. But Crowley and Aziraphale's kiss is cathartic and vindicating in an entirely different way. It turns slash into intentional queerness. It takes a fetishisation of oppression vacillating between problematic and transformative, and finally stands up on the side of powerful, empowering transformation. It confronts the barriers that once rendered this desiring touch impossible, and breaks through them once and for all.

That's what taking away the glass means. That's what Good Omens did.

[ollywander]

Dutch Jewish Snape

I’ve been headcanon-ing Snape as Dutch, which sounds random, but hear me out.

Jewish!Snape is a very common headcanon; however, British Jews are not very common because they were purged from the U.K. multiple times throughout history. That being said, Jews were pretty common in the Netherlands before the Holocaust (many were Sephardic because the Netherlands was previously under Spanish control. If Snape is any kind of Jewish, it’s probably Sephardic. He doesn’t have traditional Ashkenazi features).

Snape’s hypothetical Jewish family:

Father:

Tobias being the Jewish one makes the most sense to me. Eileen attended Hogwarts in the fifties, meaning she was born in the forties or very late thirties. Tobias probably was also born in the forties. This could be the result of a Jewish mother moving to the U.K. before World War II as tensions and violence against Jews rose. Snape is an English location name, meaning Tobias’ hypothetical Jewish mother would have married an Englishman. Having fled the Netherlands, she might have been poor, down on her luck, which would make sense with the poverty of Snape’s childhood. After seeking asylum in the U.K., she would have had Tobias probably between 1935 and 1940, given that Snape was born in 1960 and in the Harry Potter universe, characters inexplicably almost always have kids around the age of twenty and the man is always at least a little older. She would have named this child Tobias, a very common name in the Netherlands; less so in the U.K. (though still normal). Tobias is also a Jewish name, symbolizing (the) goodness (of G-d). A reminder of home. Tobias, having Jewish ancestry, might have been more open that your average Church of England man to marry a witch because Jews are more closely connected with magic (the Kabbalah, for example, is an important book of magic in Judaism). Also, Judaism passes from the mother to the child. If Tobias were Jewish, his son would only practice Judaism if Eileen was also Jewish.

Mother:

Eileen Snape née Prince is less likely to be Jewish, in my opinion. She came from a pureblood family, probably well established already in England. Given the expungement and number of Jews in England, a well established Jewish family, let alone a wizarding one, is unlikely. She has dark hair, dark eyes, and thick brows. These features are stereotypically Jewish, but also stereotypically Scottish and/or Welsh. The name Eileen is Scottish. The surname “Prince” is common in Scotland. She probably has Scottish and/or Welsh ancestry; likely both given the long-standing history of magic within Wales, and the fictional town of Cokesworth’s location proximity to Wales (Cokesworth is right under Wales in south-west England. Lily Potter née Evans is from Cokesworth. Evans is a Welsh surname. There is probably a good sized Welsh diaspora in Cokesworth. Also, Eileen is not shown to have had a Scottish accent).

Side note: Tobias being Jewish rather than Eileen also makes sense because Judaism is passed from mother to child. Severus Snape does not practice Judaism. Tobias (and obviously, we don’t know whether he would have practiced or not) might not have practiced it because when he was born, there was a mass genocide of Jews and it would have been frightening and unwise to reveal that about himself. Also, British father, probably Christian, agnostic, or atheist — not Jewish.

TL;DR:

I think Tobias Snape’s mother was a Jewish woman from Amsterdam.

EDIT: OH MY GOD I forgot to add that Latin names are common in the Netherlands! A regular Englishman might have had some objection to naming his kid Severus, but in the Netherlands, though still pretty strange, it wouldn’t have been as weird. I wouldn’t blink an eye if I ran into a Dutch guy called Severus Tobias Something-or-Other.

EDIT II: Another thing. The parish of Snape, England is right across the channel from the Netherlands.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA for asking my spouse to open up our relationship?

Tl;dr: He said no years ago but our sex life is non-existent and I'm climbing the walls.

Full story:

Me (early 30s, NB) and my partner (late 30s, M) have been together for over a decade. We have a kid, a mortgage and enough interests in common to keep each other entertained. He's a genuinely good person and the last thing I want to do is hurt him. BUT.

We met before I hit 20, and he was my first ever serious relationship. Our sex life tanked about two years in, but we both had other things going on, and over time I blamed many different factors: living conditions, shift work, my weight gain, health issues, differences in upbringing, levels of queerness - you name it. In the last few years I helped him through a serious medical condition (think two surgeries and a long recovery), but once he was nominally in the clear my mental health went down the drain and I haven't really been back to normal since.

For a while, I had a really good counsellor and for once got to talk about some of the less savoury shit going on in my noggin. It all ended up on a Realisation that we only had sex while sober on a laughably small number of occasions, and any and all attempts on my part to spice things up ended at best with affectionately confounded denial or just a straight up brick wall. I got sober a few years before he did (I'm talking 'uh oh maybe we're having too many too often' rather than 'out of control alcoholism'), which effectively ended our sex life altogether. At this point I'm looking at a solid year since my husband last touched me, and even then it was after he came home from a pub in a silly mood so neither of us ended up getting much out of it. And it's not even the longest stretch.

I floated this as an issue a number of times, and every time he agreed it's something to work on then did precisely zilch. I told him point blank once that I wouldn't be opposed to an open relationship, but he was vehemently against, because that's the first step to a break up in his mind. I suggested he might be ace (there are several clues to that, not just my increasingly unhinged internet history), bought the book as a way to start a discussion - he put it on a shelf and never looked at it again.

After my Big Bad Breakdown earlier this year we ended up in family counselling. It quickly became clear that there are so many things he just Didn't Consider that the sex thing didn't even get mentioned, then we ran out of slots and he hasn't followed up on any of his revelations from the sessions, so I feel like digging in is a lost cause.

I love him, don't want to leave him and quite frankly couldn't even if I did because the UK is a financial ruin. I also have some extremely unfulfilled needs, and can't even rub one out in peace because he finds it weird (???). Even if I didn't find cheating morally Too Far it sounds exhausting and I already have too much going on. I haven't been the easiest person to be around for the last few months, but this has been a years-long issue. So, WBITA to start the conversation on the open relationship again, despite the negative feedback I had previously?

(If it helps, we both have different flavours of neurodivergence, although mine is under treatment and his largely ignored.)

What are these acronyms?

[keydekyie]

𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕄𝕠𝕥𝕙 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔹𝕖𝕒𝕣

~Frequently asked questions~

Wondering what the hell that human-faced bear monster was that you saw on your dash? Can't figure out whether it's supposed to be scary or cute? Confused deeply?

Well do I have the solution for you: All your questions answered, and more!

First of all: what am I looking at?

The creature you've seen is called a Kanai. They're basically a sphinx, a creature with a human face, but instead of the body of a lion, it's a bear! It's not that weird! (right?) Oh, and they're also the size of a house. Don't worry about it, it's fine. It's fine.

What is this setting?

The story is set in my headworld, which is a sort of an alternate-reality Earth, and specifically in a country called Kellabor. Here's a big worldbuilding dump if you're curious, but there's no need to read it all before diving into the books. You'll discover everything important along the way.

So there are books?

Yes! I've written three books in the series, and am working on the fourth and final book. I have a masterpost explaining them with content warnings here.

Okay but what is the story about? What happens?

It's a very PG (maybe edging on PG-13 in the fourth book) slow-burn fantasy romance adventure story with a dash of horror.

Oh, so there's romance?

Yep! It's been planned that way since the first words I put down. If you get through the first two books and are wondering where the hell the romance happens, just remember: it's a slow burn. A sloooow burn. We'll get there.

How many books are there going to be?

So far, I'm planning on four. Originally, I had three planned, but the second one was getting too long and I had to split it in half. That's why book II: The Crossing ends on a cliffhanger. Don't worry, it's not going to take four books to get to the cute parts.

Is there going to be a happy ending?

Yes! Yes, I promise there will be a happy ending. Might not, uh... seem very likely, at times, but yes.

What's the inspiration behind this story?

If you want a long, somewhat-spoilery answer, you can read this, but the tl;dr non-spoilery version is:

I wanted to write a story about a monster and a human where the monster is the one facing the ethical dilemma, and they come to be friends and care about each other. And go on adventures. And love each other.

Wait, so... are the giant bear monsters the good guys?

Um... yes and no. There really aren't clear good guys or bad guys in this story. I'm going to have to ask you to have a bit of an open mind, here.

Okay, but I swear I saw a gif of one of these monsters eating someone. Was that from this?

Yeah, that gif is from a side-project set in the same world. It's a little more explicit than anything that happens on screen in TMatB, but let's just say it's not... uncharacteristic. That's the dash of horror I mentioned.

Listen... it's the dash of horror that makes the cute stuff that much cuter. The horror is the flavor. Trust me on this one.

Wait so if the bear monsters eat people, how are they not obviously the bad guys?

It's complicated! You'll find nothing is black and white here in Kellabor. The country has a long, mysterious, complex history, and so do each of my characters.

Okay but... what happens, though? Who's this girl I keep seeing in these drawings? Why does it sometimes seem like they are enemies and sometimes not?

The protagonists start out in conflict in book I due to ✨circumstances✨. They have a lot of issues to work out. Depending on where they are in the story, drawings of them might show them being more antagonistic or more sweet. It'll all make sense with context.

I'm still confused...

Ask box is always open! ♥️

You can get the books on my webbed site: graceohare.com

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

(I’m popping a extra disclaimer here because I don’t know if I worded this very well, and I understand if this isnt the kind if question you feel comfortable answering, but this is a genuine question made in good faith. I also apologise if this sounds really stupid)

I read one of your recent asks about inclusivism and it reminded me of something that always sat in the back of my mind with this train of thought.

If we say that everyone regardless of religion, or absence of it, gets into heaven, doesn’t that seem disrespectful to their faith. By saying that people of other religions get into christian heaven, is that not inadvertently telling them that their religion or their gods are fake, and that when they die it’ll be okay because they’ll learn the real truth? I hope this doesn’t come across as blunt or disrespectful to anyone, I’ve just never be able to come to a conclusion that isn’t exclusive (which is kind of a depressing thought), but is also respectful. Because it’s a beautiful idea that god loves us all regardless of who we are or what we believe, but what about people who have the kind of faith we do in a completely different god, or multiple gods, do they have the same thoughts about us? that their god loves us even though we dont believe?

I feel like I’m asking questions I’m not supposed to but I’m just really curious about your perspective if this is something you’re comfortable answering.

Hey anon, this is an important question, so thanks for asking it! You don't sound "stupid"; you're thinking like a theologian :) I'm probably not going to do it justice, I'm afraid, but maybe folks will hop on with more ideas or resources?

This got really long, so the TL;DR: I agree with you, and so do a lot of theologians and other thinkers!

In a religiously diverse world, it makes sense that people of various religions ponder where people outside their religions "fit" in their understanding of both the present world and whatever form of afterlife they have.

If someone has a firm personal belief in certain things taking place after death (from heaven to reincarnation), I don't think it's inherently wrong to imagine all kinds of people joining them in that experience, when it points to how that person recognizes the inherent holiness and value of all kinds of people, and shows that they long for continued community with & flourishing for those people.

However, this contemplation should be done with great care — especially when your religion is the dominant one in your culture; especially if your religion has a long history (and/or present) of colonialism and coerced conversions.

Ultimately, humility and openness are key! It's fine to have your own beliefs about humanity's place in this life and after death, but make yourself mindful of your own limited perspective. Accept you might be wrong in part or in whole! And be open to learning from others' ideas, and truly listening to them if they say something in your ideas has caused them or their community tangible harm.

In the rest of this post, I'll focus on a Christian perspective and keep grappling with how to consider these questions while honoring both one's personal faith and people all religions...without coming to any solid conclusions (sorry, but I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all or fully satisfying answer!).

I'll talk a bit about inclusivism and how it fails pretty miserably in this regard, and point towards religious pluralism as a possibly better (tho still imperfect) option.

And as usual I'll say I highly recommend Barbara Brown Taylor's book Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others to any Christians / cultural Christians who want to learn more about entering into mutual relationship with people of other religions.

In previous posts, I brought up the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism without digging into their academic definitions and histories — partially because it's A Lot for a tumblr post, but also because it's by no means in my sphere of expertise. I worried about misrepresenting any viewpoint if I tried to get all academic, so I just stuck to my own personal opinions instead — but looking back at some posts, I see I didn't do a great job of clarifying that's what I was doing!

So now I'll go into what scholars mean when talking about these different viewpoints, with a huge caveat that I'm not an expert; I'm just drawing from notes and foggy memories from old seminary classes + this article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), and anyone interested in learning more should find scholarly articles or books rather than relying on some guy on tumblr!

Defining exclusivism, inclusivism, & religious pluralism

When we encounter traditions that offer differing and often conflicting "accounts of the nature of both mundane and supramundane reality, of the ultimate ends of human beings, and of the ways to achieve those ends" (IEP), how do we respond? Do we focus on difference and reject any truth in their views that conflicts with our views? Do we avoid looking too closely at the places we differ? try to find common ground? try to make their views fit ours?

Exclusivism, inclusivism, and religious pluralism are three categories into which we can place various responses to the reality of religious diversity.

It's important to note that this is only one categorization system one can use, and that these categories were developed within a Western, Christian context (by a guy named Alan Race in 1983). They are meant to be usable by persons of any religion — all sorts of people ask these questions about how their beliefs relate to others' beliefs — but largely do skew towards a Western, Christian way of understanding religion. (For one thing, there's a strong focus on salvation / afterlife and not all religions emphasize that stuff very much, if at all!)

Drawing primarily from this article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), here are basic definitions of each:

Exclusivist positions maintain that "only one set of belief claims or practices can ultimately be true or correct (in most cases, those of the one holding the position). A Christian exclusivist would therefore hold that the beliefs of non-Christians (and perhaps even Christians of other denominations) are in some way flawed, if not wholly false..." . (From my old class notes — Exclusivist Christians believe 3 things are non-negotiable: the unique authority of Jesus Christ as the apex of revelation; Jesus as normative; salvation exclusively through repentance and faith in Christ's work on the cross. Some will allow that God does provide some truths about Godself and humanity through general revelation, including truths found in other religious traditions, but the Biggest most Important revelation is still Jesus.) .

Inclusivist positions "recognize the possibility that more than one religious tradition can contain elements that are true or efficacious, while at the same time hold that only one tradition expresses ultimate religious truth most completely." . Christian inclusivists tend to focus on salvation, claiming that non-Christians can still achieve salvation — still through Jesus Christ. Sometimes they hold that any non-Christian whose life happens to fit Jesus's call to love God and neighbor, etc., will be saved. Other times they hold that only non-Christians who never had the chance to learn about Jesus can be saved; if you know about Christianity and reject it, it doesn't matter how "good"you are, you're doomed. .

Pluralist positions hold that "more than one set of beliefs or practices can be, at least partially and perhaps wholly, true or correct simultaneously." For Christian pluralists, that means believing that Jesus is not the one Way to God / to heaven/salvation; Christianity is one way of many, usually conceived of as all being on equal footing, to connect to the Divine. .

(These three categories are not all encompassing; the IEP article also brings up relativism and skepticism.)

Issues with Exclusivism & Inclusivism

I hope the issues with exclusivism are clear, but to name a few:

Christians who are taught that all non-Christians (or even the "wrong kind" of Christians) are doomed to hell are taught to see those people as Projects more than people — there's a perceived urgent need to convert them asap in order to "save them." The only kind of relationship you'd form with one of them is centered in efforts to convert them, rather than to live and learn alongside them as they are.

Doesn't matter if they are already happily committed to a different religion. In your eyes, they're wrong about feeling fulfilled and connected to the Divine.

Doesn't matter if you have to resort to violent and coercive practices like wiping out all signs of non-Christian culture or kidnapping non-Christian children to raise Christian — the ends justify the means because you're looking out for their "immortal souls."

...But what about inclusivism? If you're a Christian inclusivist, you aren't forcing anyone to convert to Christianity right now! You acknowledge that non-Christians can live holy and fulfilling lives! You even acknowledge that there's scraps of value in their valid-but-not-as-valid-as-Christianity religions! So what's the problem?

Turns out that this is a major case of one's good intentions not being nearly as important as one's impact.

You may be pushing back against exclusivism's outright refusal that non-Christians have any connection to the divine at all, which is nice and all — but by saying that non-Christians will basically become Christian after they die, you are still perpetuating our long history of coercive conversions.

There's a reason some scholars argue that inclusivism isn't actually a separate category from, but a sub-category of, exclusivism: you're still saying everyone has to be Christian, "so luckily you'll See The Light and become Christian after you die :)"

This is very reasonably offensive to many non-Christians. If nothing else, it's ludicrously smug and paternalistic! I won't get into it here but it only gets worse when some inclusivist positions try to get all Darwinian and start arranging religions from lower to higher, with Christianity as the "evolutionary" apex of religion ://

For now, I'll only go into detail about Catholic Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner's particular version of inclusivism, because it's quite common and really highlights the paternalism:

Rahner's Anonymous Christians:

A question that Catholics and other Christians struggled with in the 20th century was this: If non-Christians cannot be saved (because they held firm in believing that salvation must be in and through Christ), what happens if someone never even had the chance to learn about Christianity? Surely a loving God wouldn't write them an automatic ticket to hell when they're non-Christian through no fault of their own, right?

German Jesuit Karl Rahner's response was to conceive of a sort of abstract version of Christianity for non-Christians who lived good, faithful lives outside of official (what he called "constituted") Christianity:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity. ...Let us say, a Buddhist monk…who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." - Karl Rahner in Dialogue (1986), p. 135.

So someone who has intentionally devoted themselves to another religion, someone who does good work in that religion's name, is...secretly, unbeknownst to them, actually Christian?

I hope the offensiveness of that is clear — the condescension in implying these people are ignorant of what religion they "really" belong to! the assumption that Good deeds & virtues are always inherently Christian deeds & virtues! the arrogance of being so sure your own religion is The One Right Way that you have to construct a "back door" (as Hans Küng describes it) into it to shove in all these poor people who for whatever reason can't or don't choose to join it!

One theologian who criticized the paternalism of "anonymous Christianity" is John Hick, who was one of the big advocates for religious pluralism as a more respectful way of understanding non-Christian religions. So let's finally talk some more about pluralism!

Religious Pluralism!

As defined earlier, religious pluralist positions hold that there are many paths to the divine, and that all religions have access to some truths about the divine.

For Christians, this means rejecting those 3 non-negotiables of exclusionists about Christianity being the one true religion and Jesus being the one path to salvation. Instead of claiming that Christianity is the "most advanced" religion, pluralism claims that Christianity is just one religion among many, with no unique claim on the truth.

Some other pluralist points:

Pluralism resists antisemitic claims that Christianity is the "fulfillment" of (or that it "supercedes") Judaism.

Various religions provide independent access to salvation rather than everyone's salvation relying on Christ. (Note the still very Christian-skewed lens here in emphasizing salvation at all though!)

When we notice how different religions' truth claims conflict with one another, pluralists reconcile this by talking about how one's experience of truth is subjective.

Pluralism tends to give more authority to human experience than sacred texts

John Hicks' pluralist position

I mentioned before that Hicks is one of the big names in the religious pluralism scene. The IEP article I drew from earlier goes into much greater detail about his views and responses to it in the section titled "c. John Hick: the Pluralistic Hypothesis," but for a brief overview:

His central claim is that "diverse religious traditions have emerged as various finite, historical responses to a single transcendent, ultimate, divine reality. The diversity of traditions (and the belief claims they contain) is a product of the diversity of religious experiences among individuals and groups throughout history, and the various interpretations given to these experiences."

"As for the content of particular belief claims, Hick understands the personal deities of those traditions that posit them...as personae of the Real, explicitly invoking the connotation of a theatrical mask in the Latin word persona."

"Hick claims that all religious understandings of the Real are on equal footing insofar as they can only offer limited, phenomenal representations of transcendent truth."

We must accept that world religions are fundamentally different from each other, rather than falling into platitudes about how "we're all the same deep down"

Each religion has its own particular and comprehensive framework for understanding the world and human experience (i.e. we shouldn't use the normative Christian framework to describe other faiths)

Another angle: hospitality

As various philosophers and theologians have responded to and expanded upon pluralist frameworks, one big concept that some emphasize is hospitality: that all of us regardless of religion have an obligation to welcome others to all that is ours, if and when they have need of it — especially when they are of different cultures or religions from us.

Hospitality requires respect for those under our care, honoring and protecting their differences.

When we are the ones in need of hospitality, we should be able to expect the same.

Hospitality implies being able to anticipate our guest's needs, but we need to accept the impossibility of being able to guess every need, so communication is key!

Liberation theology & Pluralism

I also appreciate what liberation theologians have brought into the discussion. Here's from the IEP article:

"Liberation theology, which advocates a religious duty to aid those who are poor or suffering other forms of inequality and oppression, has had a significant influence on recent discussions of pluralism. The struggle against oppression can be seen as providing an enterprise in which members of diverse religious traditions can come together in solidarity.

"Paul F. Knitter, whose work serves as a prominent theological synthesis of liberation and pluralist perspectives, argues that engaging in interreligious dialogue is part and parcel of the ethical responsibility at the heart of liberation theology. He maintains not only that any liberation theology ought to be pluralistic, but also that any adequate theory of religious pluralism ought to include an ethical dimension oriented toward the goal of resisting injustice and oppression.

"Knitter claims that, if members of diverse religions are interested (as they should be) in encountering each other in dialogue and resolving their conflicts, this can only be done on the basis of some common ground. ..."

Knitter sees suffering as that common ground: "Suffering provides a common cause with which diverse religious traditions are concerned and towards which they can come together to craft a common agenda. Particular instances of suffering will, of course, differ from each other in their causes and effects; likewise, the practical details of work to alleviate suffering will almost necessarily be fleshed out differently by different religions, at different times and in different places. Nevertheless, Knitter maintains that suffering itself is a cross-cultural and universal phenomenon and should thus serve as the reference point for a practical religious pluralism. Confronting suffering will naturally give rise to solidarity, and pluralist respect and understanding can emerge from there."

Knitter also sees the planet as a source of literal common ground for us all: "Earth not only serves as a common physical location for all religious traditions, but it also provides these traditions with what Knitter calls a 'common cosmological story' (1995, p. 119). ...Knitter makes a case that different religious traditions share an ecological responsibility and that awareness of this shared responsibility, as it continues to emerge, can also serve as a basis for mutual understanding."

When Knitter and other liberation theologians speak of suffering or earth care as rallying points for interreligious solidarity, it's important to point out that such solidarity doesn't happen automatically: it is something we have to choose to commit to. We have to be courageous about challenging those who would pin suffering on another religious or cultural group. We have to be courageous about having difficult conversations, again and again. We have to learn how to work together for common goals even while accepting where we differ.

How to end this long ass post?

My hope is that as you read (or skimmed) all this, you were thinking about your own personal beliefs: where, if anywhere, do they fit among all these ideas? where would you like them to fit?

And, in the end, did I really address anon's question about whether it's disrespectful to people of other religions to assert that everyone is loved by God, or gets into heaven? Not really, because I don't know. I think it probably depends on context, and how one puts it, and how certain one acts about their ideas about God and heaven.

For me, it always comes down to humility about my own limited perspective, even while asserting that we all have a right to our personal beliefs, including ideas about what comes after this life.

When I imagine all human beings together in whatever comes next, I hope I do so not out of a desire for assimilation into my religion, but a desire to continue to learn from and alongside all kinds of people and beliefs. I hope I remain open to learning about how other people envision both what comes after death, and more importantly, what they think about life here and now. What can I learn from them about truth, kindness, justice? How can we work together to achieve those things for all creation, despite and in and through our differences?

I'll end with Eboo Patel's description of religious pluralism, which sums up much of how I feel, from his memoir Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim:

"Religious pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus. It is a form of proactive cooperation that affirms the identities of the constituent communities while emphasizing that the wellbeing of each and all depends on the health of the whole. It is the belief that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its unique contribution."

___

Further resources:

Explore my #religious pluralism tag for more thoughts and quotes

You might also enjoy wandering through my #interfaith tag

Two podcast episodes that draw from Eboo Patel, Barbara Brown Taylor, and other wonderful people: "No One Owns God: Readying yourself for respectful interfaith encounters" and "It's good to have wings, but you have to have roots too: Cultivating your own faith while embracing religious pluralism"

My tag with excerpts from Holy Envy

Post that includes links to various questions about heaven

Here’s a post where I talk about why I don’t believe in hell

My evangelism tag (tl;dr: I’m staunchly against prosletyzing to anyone who doesn’t explicitly request more info about Christianity)

[beguilingcorpse]

Does Harrow even love Gideon? Harrow probably loves Alecto more than Gideon

anon i love you. i love you for asking me this. i love you for opening this can of worms. i'm giving you a little kiss rn

DOES harrow love gideon? does she feel the same way that gideon feels about her? this is the central question driving the entire series, and tazmuir has done a fantastic job of using narration and point of view to conceal it. we get gideon's third person limited perspective in gtn; we get gideon's pov AGAIN in htn, even though we don't find out until the last act; and we see the world as nona in ntn, and nona (respectfully) doesn't know jack shit. the final scene in ntn is the first time that gideon and harrow have SEEN EACH OTHER since the end of the first book, and they don't interact - and we don't really know what either of them are feeling in that moment, since the narration is mostly from alecto's point of view. (we do know that gideon is still tits over ass for harrow tho. "get in line, thou big slut" can really only mean one thing)

we, as the audience, can piece together that yes, harrow loves gideon. or at least, that harrow loves gideon ENOUGH to lobotomize herself rather than remember that she's in a world where she had gideon and now doesn't. harrow loves gideon enough to stop the lyctoral process and completely fuck up her own body because the grief of losing gideon is too much for her to handle. harrow loves gideon enough that she's undone without her.

but is she in love with gideon? listen. i'm biased. i absolutely think that she is. the issue - and the reason that this question is so hard to answer - is that she won't fuckin admit it to anyone, least of all herself. harrow has convinced herself that she's in love with The Body, not even knowing alecto's whole insane deal, and has sworn herself completely to alecto. can harrow be in love with an earth popsicle? does she know alecto? does that even matter to her? does 'one flesh, one end' override a nun's vow to the hot corpse of the holy spirit? we don't know.

alecto the ninth is going to answer a LOT of questions. i assume based on the trends of the other books that it'll be from alecto's point of view, which means that we still won't see things from harrow's perspective - which is really, really interesting. it means that for us as the audience to know what the fuck is going on with her mental and emotional state, harrow needs to (1) admit it to herself, (2) tell another character directly, or (3) telegraph it indirectly with her words and actions - which she's rarely done in the history of the series. whether or not harrow loves alecto more than she loves gideon will be entirely dependent on her interactions with both of them in atn.

tl;dr: does harrow even love gideon? yes, i firmly believe that she does. it's just that she doesn't know it yet.

[choicesficwriterscreations]

CFWC Writer of the Month: Jamespotterthefirst

Each month CFWC highlights one of our talented fanfic writers, and this month’s writer of the month is��@jamespotterthefirst! We hope you will enjoy learning more about her and her work below! The writer is selected at random. More info can be found on the navigation page.

Quick Links:

Tumblr Blog: Jamespotterthefirst Blog Masterlist

1- When did you start playing Choices? What's the first book you played? 

I started playing back in 2018. I kept seeing this thing called “playchoices” trending as number 1 on Tumblr (lol remember those days?). This would happen, without fail, almost every week! When I clicked on it, the posts were all about the finale of a royal story (The Royal Romance!). People made the most hilarious posts, complete with memes. I had no idea what it was, but I gathered it was an app. I downloaded it, and the rest is history. 

The first book I played was Desire and Decorum. It was absolute torture because it wasn’t completed yet. So I binged the available chapters. Yes, I spent real money on keys and diamonds, telling myself at least I wasn't spending that money on drugs. It was so much fun waiting for a new chapter every week, even if I’m an impatient mess. 

2- When and why did you join Choices fandom?

I joined the fandom almost immediately after downloading the app. 

As I sat in my living room, tapping my foot and waiting for the new D&D chapter to drop, I went back into the playchoices tag for content. It felt good to find other people who loved the story as much as I did. There were other users out there who were also waiting impatiently for the new chapter, writing fics and discussing theories in the meantime. There were also some of the funniest memes I have ever seen in my life. At first, I would quietly read and reblog. Then, I slowly started posting my own thoughts and theories (which were not very good lol but hey, this is tumblr after all).

3- How did you pick your url name? 

My life is one hyperfixation after another… The one before Choices was Harry Potter. More specifically, the Marauders era. I used to write for the pairing called “Jily”, composed of Harry Potter’s (dead) parents. Kelsey (@takeharryandgo) is a witness of just how much I love James Potter, Harry’s (dead) dad. In fact, our shared love for the pairing and character is one of the things that brought us together. 

In short, this URL is a reference to James Potter the first, Harry’s (dead) dad. Not James Sirius Potter the second, Harry Potter’s (living?) son. 

I saved it as a sideblog, meant only for writing resources for me to use at a later time. One day, I decided I didn’t want the followers on my main page to see all the Choices spam I was posting, so I resurrected the JP blog. 

4- Go back to your archive and tell us about the first post on your Choices blog. 

My first Choices post was a shitty theory about Desire & Decorum: 

5- How long have you been writing fanfiction?

I’ve been writing fanfiction since I was a literal child. I used to write in a notebook and my friends would read during recess. It was awful but they were into it. One day, I used up the whole notebook and my friend was desperate for the next part of the story. I told her I needed to wait until my mom took me to the store (literal child) to get a new one. My friend got me a new one by the end of the day lol.

TL;DR that puts me at about 20+ years of writing. 

6- What is your favorite Choices book to write about?

Without a doubt, Open Heart! 

7- Share the first fanfic you wrote with us. Do you still like it or would you change anything about it?

Oh god, the first fanfic I wrote was Lily Evans and James Potter from the Harry Potter universe. I forgot the exact title, but it was named after an Avril Lavigne lyric. Again, I was a child, don’t judge me lol. It’s handwritten in a notebook I still have somewhere, but I will never open it again lest I die of cringe. 

My first Choices fic, on the other hand, was a Desire and Decorum fic called “A Wedding Gift” that only like 5 people read at the time. 

8- What is your favorite fic that you’ve written?

Oof. This answer changes depending on the day you ask me. I always overthink it and end up saying picking a favorite fic is like picking a favorite child. To avoid being here all day, however, I’m going to say: Fake Husband, She Walks in Beauty, and Lovely.

9- Do you have a fic that you didn’t expect to be well received, but it was? What about one you expected to be but could use a little more love?

Definitely, the fic I didn’t expect to do well at all if my first Open Heart fic: Lovely. 

I was so naive back then, knowing nothing about the Open Heart writing fandom. I had no idea what format or tags to use when posting. I was afraid there would be no readers out there who wanted to read a silly little story about my MC posting a thirst trap. All I knew was that the latest chapter of Open Heart Year 2 inspired an idea that wouldn’t leave me alone until I wrote it. 

I posted it and I was so incredibly lucky to receive so much support. Words cannot explain how special that was. To this day, I cannot verbalize how grateful I am for that. 

There isn’t really a fic I can think of that could use more love. It always amazes me that anyone gives my fics their time. So any feedback my fics get will always be valued and treasured by me. 

10- If you could write only angst, fluff, or smut for the rest of your writing life, which would it be and why? 

Oh no. 

If forced to choose, I’d say fluff. 

11- Do you ever recognize yourself in any of your MCs or in your writing?

Absolutely! While I try to make every MC different, I often pull from experience when I write. My Open Heart MC and I have a lot of things in common (heritage, hometown, astrological sign, etc.) But I also wanted her to be her own character with life choices that are different from mine. Since I'm very boring, it definitely makes for better fiction that way. 

12- What element of writing do you struggle with most?

It depends on the day. Some days I struggle the most with dialogue. Others, my biggest struggle is descriptions. It's rare when I feel confident in both when I write. 

13- Do you have any neglected work you really want to finish?

*laughs nervously in unfinished series*

There are a few series I have yet to finish. Once again, I apologize for leaving them untouched for so long! I plan to get my shit together soon! 

14- If someone you know in real life (who isn’t involved in fandoms) asked to read your work, would you let them? If yes, what would you recommend they read first? 

No! 

I don't think I could look anyone in the eye if they read some of the stuff I've written, especially for Choices. 

15 - Are there any writers (published authors and/or fanfic writers) who influenced your writing?

I strongly believe that one of the best ways to learn as a writer is reading. As such, I believe I've learned from most pieces I've read, particularly published rom com novels. In the fanfiction world, I admire my lovely friend @takeharryandgo. I've had the absolute joy of following her writing for over a decade. And with every work, I am still amazed by her masterful way with words! And her characterization is always spot-on. I simply love to read her spellbinding work and learn from the master! 

Other writers/creators I admire are:

@heauxplesslydevoted- one of the first OH writers I've ever read! Her smut is top-tier!

@jerzwriter - her stories, dialogue, and characterization are a delight to read. Her angst is painful. Her smut is sizzling hot! 

@liaromancewriter - a true master at romance! Her writing style is magical and synonymous with the best of rom-coms! 

@genevievemd - I bow down because the amount of love and care she puts into every piece truly makes her work special! 

 @lucy-268 - I have always respected the amount of research she puts into every piece. She pours so much care into it so that the narrative flows seamlessly! 

@a-crepusculo - her writing is so vivid and immersive. Reading her work is like listening to the most beautiful of symphonies!

@writer-ish - she is such a master at the craft! Her characterization is so vivid that the reader will fall in love no matter the format. Her text edits are legendary! 

@bex-la-get - such a talented and dedicated writer! She also pours hours of research into her work, ensuring every detail makes sense! 

@potionsprefect - she's such a creative and talented writer. She develops writing ideas like no one else I've ever seen! 

@headoverheelsforramsey- I love her storytelling and characterization! She's created a beautiful, inspiring, and intelligent MC for all of us to adore!

@gryffindordaughterofathena - her writing style is one of the most original I've ever seen. Reading her work feels like reading the loveliest of poetry! 

@coffeeheartaddict2- the dedication she puts into her work blows me away! She's daring when exploring themes in her writing, and she's not afraid to pull from personal experience. 

@lsvdw-blog - the person I'm sending my therapy bill to. Just kidding! Her writing is beautiful, even when it's the most painful angst. 

@trappedinfanfiction - she is such a lovely writer. The amount of detail she's given both of her MC's back stories has my absolute respect! 

@quixoticdreamer16 - I adore her MC and the wholesome, beautiful background she's given her! 

@mysticalgalaxysstuff - Another MC that has stolen my heart. I am so happy she started writing this past year because she's a real talent! 

@peonierose - love her beautiful MC and the beautiful love story she built for her with Bryce! 

@cariantha - a brilliant writer with talent for days! 

16- Which one of your stories would you most like to see as a movie/series? 

I would love to see She Walks in Beauty along with its series (1800s AU) in live action. Imagine Ana de Armas and David Gandy in period costumes? That alone would be worth it! 

17- Do you write original stories? 

I've crafted and outlined original stories before but I've never actually written them. One of my biggest goals for the new year is to finally start. Wish me luck! 

18 -  What other hobbies do you have?

I love reading, hiking, and dancing! 

Yes, I picked the most “impressive” of my hobbies to seem cool. On most days, you'll catch me cuddling with my dog or bf watching YouTube/TikTok/Hell's Kitchen reruns lol. 

19 - What’s your favorite emoji? 

I used the orange 🧡 and purple 💜 hearts a lot because they're my favorite colors!

20: BONUS - tell us anything you’d like (if you want to).

For the record, I am also contractually obligated to read anything Kelsey writes 😘 

Thank you so much to every single reader who has given my work a chance these past three years!

Thank you to the wonderful mods of CFWC for all you do to support writers in the Fandom! 

[bunnies-and-blues]

─꒰ᐢ. .ᐢ꒱─ slam dunk : megane-kun !

⸝⸝ tl;dr : headcanons for kiminobu kogure ! there's no specific topics that i was going for in here, just general headcanons as a whole !

his study playlist consists mostly of soft jazz, bossa nova, or lofi tracks. Occasionally he listens to ambience audios (specifically cafe ones), or calming video game music ! I also have a feeling he turns the volume all the way down low ? It helps him focus more on what he's studying and helps him not get carried away with the music. And in addition to turning the volume down, if he doesn't want to wear earphones, he just plays it on his phone and tucks it somewhere that he can't see nor reach easily .

he and Akagi are really smart, and I feel like they study together for exams and help each other with their homework . Kogure's average at physics, but he has a bit of trouble with it so Akagi helps him out there; Akagi struggles a bit with English, so Kogure helps him in that subject; you know the drill .

instead of having seperate notebooks for each subject, he just has this massive binder for all of his notes . All organized by subject and topic, of course !

his notes are GODLY . It's really minimalistic, but he makes sure to make a header for the subject and topic, and color-codes said headers, too ! He also just uses really light colors for highlighting ; he thinks the bright neon colors most highlighters have distracts him from the text itself .

kogure's not really "shy", per se, but I feel like he'd rather stay in his comfort zone than put himself out there right off the bat . He wouldn't mind doing so if he's with friends, though ! He's pretty open to trying out new stuff if it means he and his friends have a great time .

dog? cat? nope, bunny ! I like to imagine that Kogure's parents got him a bunny when he was in middle school and he's made it his entire personality since (affectionate) .

he likes building stuff ! Like, those lego sets and gundams that you put together. He's not opposed to spending three hours putting together a 1000+ piece lego set, if anything he finds it really calming .

i don't know what it is about him, but I get "guitarist" vibes from him. Both electric and acoustic; he plays in his spare time, and he's pretty good at it ! He'd be the first person people seek out when there's a group project and it involves a guitar of any kind .

and while we're at it .. he can sing 😈

like,, he can really sing . He'd sweep everyone off their feet on karaoke night because he's so good at it . Funny thing is, when you first ask him to sing, he'd be really shy and modest about it, but when he gets riled up .. oh boy . Someone get Akagi because at that point he's the only one who can wrestle the mic from him -

enjoys historical fiction books ! And on the topic of it ,, his favorite subject is history ! He finds learning about what happened in the past and the events that led to now so interesting .

and speaking of books .. I feel like he'd buy Akagi the soppiest and cheesiest romance book as a joke gift, but after seeing that Akagi actually enjoyed it (yes, I headcanon that Akagi secretly enjoys romance novels), he'd recommend him titles that he thinks Akagi would like whenever he pops by the bookshop for some window shopping .

bottom line : live laugh love kiminobu kogure

[woodswolf]

🌿🏜️🔪🪲?

writer's truth or dare ask game

🌿 ⇢ give some advice on writer's block and low creativity

honestly? just don't be afraid to step away. sometimes you're not in the right headspace for a project and that's okay. work with your brain, not against it - whether that's on a different WIP or just taking a break for a while. sometimes this means the WIP sits for a little while. sometimes this means you abandon it. roll with the punches, don't dodge into them.

like for example, i've been having One Of The Weeks Of My Life at my job recently and just feeling really burned out and depressed on the Major Fucking Crunch Time this project is getting into. i didn't feel like working on chapter 5 when i was feeling that terrible, but i was able to channel some of that energy into a side story. i've barely started it as of yet, but it's got a lot of potential, has required a lot of research, and just. it's helped burn off a lot of the negative emotion (because it involves a very similar kind of negative emotion and focuses on a kind of burnout recovery. lol)

🏜️ ⇢ what's your favourite type of comment to receive on your work?

long analysis comments are like the #1 kind of comment to get in my good books. i get an excuse to talk about Fun Details whether intentional or not and just generally feed information to someone who isn't fully aware of all of the complexities of a project yet (usually my partner lol)

however.

i personally consider that the highest honor i could ever receive would be recursive fanfiction. fanart as well, yes, but fanfiction in particular. it's more or less a reflection of my own process in a way; i write a lot of recursive fanfiction relative to my output, but i only write recursive fanfiction about fanfiction that really, really resonated with me, or that often were incredibly formative to me in their own specific ways. it's not enough for it to be a good story - it has to change something about me, alter my perspective or open my eyes to an entirely new world. often these end up feeling like (or just being) treatises on a particular subject; there are fics on hope, on grief, on forgetting, on becoming monsters. and it's just.... it's powerful.

i could link all of these if anyone is curious.

🔪 ⇢ what's the weirdest topic you researched for a writing project?

honestly all of the research i've done for DLD and other fics in the DLDCM (Dogs Leading Dogs Cinematic Multiverse) qualifies as really weird. outside of the semi-standard fanfiction-writer fare (e.g. symptoms of various injuries, or how to identify certain types of injuries like with that shoulder test), there are two broad categories of "what the fuck" research that i've gone into very extensively.

the first category, which i keep coming back to over and over, is all of the speculative biology shit. basically NONE of it is going to come up until more than halfway through catch/cradle at minimum, but at this point ive probably put close to ten hours of research into figuring out what the fuck is wrong with these things. (and that's just the research, not the processing that shit afterward.) i know what this guy breathes. i don't know exactly how his metabolism works, but i do have a general outline that seems approximately sound, and have a general principle for how it interacts with other metabolisms. i don't just know HIS metabolism by the way, i know like three other components' metabolic interactions and life cycles and to some extent their histories. and then we get into all of the other lore shit that is Very Present and Very Real and Very Probably Isn't Going To Be Written Down In Any Fics and also isn't strictly research based as much as vibes based but it doesn't have to be research based because my source is i made it the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but tl;dr there's a CRAZY amount of various kinds of biology lore and 90% of it is never going to see the light of day most likely

the second category which has generally come about more recently is primitive / historical technology. generally just a lot of how you would do certain things - such as making paper, or refining clay, or working metal or glass - if you were starting from (almost) nothing.

additional shoutout to when i did some brief research on akkadian for one of my recurive fic projects, that was fun but really overwhelming and i ended up not finishing it myself lol

🪲 ⇢ add 50 words to your current wip and share the paragraph here

from chapter 5:

The ship doesn’t need any additional explanation. “I’ll set the course,” it says. Brief and to the point. He can’t help but appreciate that right now. The controls shift ever-so-slightly under his hands as they start following a slightly different autopilot route. It’ll set them up for the approach path they discovered on the second day — one that doesn’t cut through as many of the giant trees.

thanks for the ask!! :D

[huntingorbits]

Review: The Door to Witchcraft, by Tonya Brown

I just finished reading this book earlier this year, and thought I'd write a review on it. This is also going to help me determine how I want to review other texts going forward. So without further ado, let's get started.

TL;DR:

I highly recommend this book for both beginners and more experienced witches who are looking to expand their practices or gain additional resources. Brown takes a practical approach and breaks things down beautifully in a way that's easy to understand and follow. (Such as steps to creating a spell, steps to spellcasting, etc.) The second half is spells that may take a different approach to what we're used to seeing in other books, which in and of itself is very useful.

What's Inside (Contents)

PART I: Witchcraft and Practical Magic

1. Understanding Witchcraft 2. Core Beliefs and Values 3. How to Tap into Your Powers 4. How to Practice Witchcraft

PART II: Spells (Begins on page 87)

5. Love 6. Health and Healing (in Yourself and Others) 7. Career 8. Friends and Family Matters 9. Spiritual Work 10. Protection

Glossary Resources References Index

Summary

Part I: Witchcraft and Practical Magic spans 86 pages and includes a lot of information.

"Understanding Witchcraft" is your fairly standard introductory chapter, addressing questions such as, "What is Witchcraft?" and, "Are you a Witch?", before diving into a brief history of witchcraft.

"Core Beliefs and Values" is a high-level tour of the most common tenets of witchcraft among witches of all varieties, not just Wiccans.

"How to Tap into Your Powers" and "How to Practice Witchcraft" are more instructional than educational, but Brown includes a lot of education in those chapters nonetheless, including a handy breakdown of the structures of rituals and spells, sabbats, and some basic correspondences.

Part II: Spells is approximately 90 pages in length (some pages are just illustrations). Brown prefaces these pages with a few notes, including:

"Some of these spells may not align with the stereotype of spellcasting that you've seen in the media. They may seem too simple or they may seem too complicated. I implore you to come to these spells with an open mind..." (pg.89)

The spells that follow offer a variety of complexities, though most of them take less than half an hour to cast.

Provided Resources & References

Following the Spells section of the book is 3 pages of Glossary, 2 pages of Resources that appear to be reading recommendations, and 3 pages of References - titles cited or referenced throughout the book. Going over these materials, the book appears to have been written using carefully curated resources, which is very encouraging.

About the Author

From Amazon:

TONYA A. BROWN is a current resident of Florida, where she is the editor-in-chief of Witch Way Magazine as well as writer and host of the podcast The Witch Daily Show.* Tonya is a Lenormand reader, medium, and magical guide for other witches.

*Formerly The Daily Witch.

Her other titles include Evolution of a Witch: 150 Journal Prompts for Witches; (Witch Way's Book of) 100 Love Spells; a children's book titled Tutty Learns About Witches; and The Hectic Witch's Planner (currently only for 2022 and 2023).

I'm already a fan of both her magazine and podcast (which I started listening to last year), though I have yet to check out her other works. It's encouraging to see a witch-positive children's book in the lineup, though.

As for the podcast, Brown does briefly recommend Lilith as a goddess that could be followed in the "Badass Goddesses" episode on January 17, 2023. This is, of course, problematic, but I haven't listened to each episode since then to see if she has recanted that statement or revised her perspective on the subject.

My Overall Review

I really enjoyed reading this book. Though it was designed as an introduction to witchcraft, I learned several new things and gained resources I didn't have before. The breakdown of spell structure is especially appealing to me, as at the time of this writing, I've just started writing my own spells.

The language Brown uses is conversational and easy to follow, using accessible vocabulary and staying on track through each subject. I greatly appreciated this aspect because we've all read enough books that meander and tangent into unrelated thoughts and information. We don't see that with Brown; her writing stays on task and only "wanders" to provide necessary context.

Additionally, where she makes claims or presents facts, she always cites her sources in a way that isn't distracting. It was quite refreshing to see in an area of study where sources are often an afterthought.

Final Word: I will definitely be keeping this on my bookshelf and I look forward to seeing more from Brown in the future. I do sincerely hope she'll be more thoughtful on the subject of Lilith in her podcast going forward, as well.

Thank you for staying with me throughout this review. I hope it helps you to make an informed decision if you've been pondering this title.

[hottakehoulihan]

This week was M*A*S*H week.

I have the box set. There are eleven seasons and two movies. As I understand it, first someone published a book (I haven't read it) about what they then no-doubt spelled as "high-jinks" at a Mobile Army Surgery Hospital during the Korean War. The first M*A*S*H movie was based on the book, I think, and leaned into laffs about drinking and sex. Honestly, I had an okay time, even despite things I consider to be sexual assault, and a non-hateful use of the N-word and a few other problematic racial and gender things. The movie dates from 1970 and is about 1950.

Also, I love the theme song. The song was authored by a teen, allegedly, on behalf of teen's dad (who claims over and over that it's a hilariously silly song. I think he doth protest too much. It's got pith to it. Also I'm basing this off of half-remembered Wikipedia but I'm not risking opening that website right now I have things to do)

Anyway that's it for the initial movie; goofy and unkind-in-a-standard-way, but designed to make you feel like you're one of the people doing the laughing and that the victims are acceptable targets. I zoned out a bit during a football game in which some nonconsensual doping of opponents may or may not have occurred. I still love the recreation of "The Last Supper" and want to make a desktop wallpaper of it. Not bad. I had some wine with it, which helped.

The TV series has eleven seasons. I watched some of the final season and will, as time permits, watch more of other episodes on a whim, but for all that I've got this username I am affectionate towards the show in the same way I am affectionate towards raccoons; I have the love, but almost always at a distance. But yeah; pleasant stuff. Sometimes a bit blunt, but we're dealing with a show that started before Dragnet was a thing (probably), and it was good for its day. I cried at least twice.

The TV show was a lot more serious and--in the words of some people who are usually not folk I want as friends--preachy. Unlike most things I've seen on the telly, it was consistently an improvement on silence and meditation. Sincerely, I mean that as praise. Even at its most formula, it was good formula, IMHO.

The final movie is the point of what I was pursuing this project though. I've got at least one beloved mutual(tm) as a fan, and between that and also realizing the final episode/movie of MASH was super famous in early TV-watching history as the most-watched episode of all time multiple years running? And my somewhat retro username? I felt silly for not having seen it yet.

My vapid verdict? It's good. I was expecting a great deal and still I was surprised. There are elements that have been cribbed from it (and it's possible it cribbed from earlier art but I have no reason to think so) in later works; one of the most heartwrenching overheard conversations from the Mass Effect games, I think, borrows from the movie. I feel like they managed to cram, into whatever the run time was, three times the content and impact that they'd have accomplished if they broke it up into episode-length segments. Anyway, tears and stuff, and the damned guys need to hug more and they'd better have kept in touch.

I endorse watching the movie if you haven't seen it. If you've never watched any of the show (it was one of the few things available to me during a somewhat-controlled childhood in which I was often supposed to have zero TV or internet or video games) I actually think it would be worth your time to watch a random selection of episodes.

tl;dr: The final episode movie of MASH = worth watching a few MASH episodes to warm up for prior to watching it, then watching it, and then maybe having a bit of a break.

[intothedysphoria]

Dude, DUDE - you gotta listen to the WTYP episode on the Vulcan Bridge. Or else, look up the story of the Vulcan bridge in West Virginia.

TL, DR; Vulcan’s a remote rural community in WV. In the 70s a one lane bridge over the Tug Fork collapsed, cutting off the people on either side. Kids had to drop out of school bc there always no feasible way for them to attend anymore etc.

Bc of its position they had difficulty getting funding to replace it, and finally, the mayor got fed up and wrote a letter explaining the town’s predicament to the foreign office of the USSR. The soviet government weren’t interested, but it fell into the hands of a sympathetic Russian journalist who then travelled to Vulcan and brought international attention to the lack of a bridge.

With threat of international embarrassment looming, the US gov paid for the bridge to be built and Vulcan’s mayor and the soviet journalist toasted its opening with Vodka.

There’s more detail in the episode, including the coal mining in the area (and types of coal). You ever need a break from your studies it’s good one.

Oh my god that sounds so interesting

I may be doing my MA on American blue collar jobs in the late 20th century, particularly coal mining so 👀👀👀👀👀👀👀

I love a good history documentary/podcast/book so I will be running to listen to it in my free time, probably next week when I’m on holiday

[stackthedeck]

Can I ask what you thought of the flashbacks in the new Good Omens season? They felt narratively unnecessary to me and I don't fully understand why they were included- the latter two, anyway, I did very much like the Job flashback. But the Blitz and grave robbing flashbacks felt to me like they didn't do anything that wasn't already established somewhere else in the show. But I do recognize that I'm not particularly skilled at media analysis and could easily be missing something, and you're SO good at analysis, so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Can I tell y'all a secret? I did not want a season two of good omens and maybe it's because I'm a massive fan of the book, but I just felt like the story was complete and anything more would feel like fluff and filler. And season two did feel like fluff and filler, but that's not necessarily a bad thing because I enjoyed myself immensely and it did explore aspects of Aziraphale and Crowley I was curious about, but like it wasn't as good as season one

oh god, this got very long so I'm putting it under the cut. TL;DR, the flashbacks were fun, but not as interesting as the season one flashbacks and they felt a little redundant in establishing information that we already knew from season one.

And the flashbacks (to actually answer the question lol) were definitely the most fluffy and filler-y. Season one had that excellent cold open of Aziraphale and Crowley throughout history and that wasn't in the book so it's definitely possible to add really interesting things to the source material. And I agree with you anon, I really didn't love the addition to the blitz and the grave robbing, but I did like the other two so let's unpack why this might be

So first we have the before the beginning flashback. This is the flashback that's doing the most narratively. It is Chekov's gun for the ending. We are shown that Aziraphale remembers who Crowley was before the fall, how happy he was doing heaven's work, and as an extra bonus for fan service, we also get the confirmed headcanon that Crowley helped make the stars. This flashback sets up exactly why Aziraphale still believes in heaven and why he still thinks Crowley could be happy in heaven. But it also sets up how Crowley sauntered vaguely downwards, showing us exactly what was wrong with heaven to Crowley. To Aziraphale this time shows the miracle of creation but for Crowley, it's the oppression of obedience. To Aziraphale heaven is what you get to do, for Crowley heaven is what you can't be. (I also wrote a fanfic that's the reverse of this flashback, Crowley remembers Aziraphale from heaven, but Aziraphale doesn't remember him but I wrote it in 2019 so idk if it's still good)

I adore the Job flashback, but that might be because Job is my favorite story in the Tanakh, mostly for the wide variety of interpretations of the story. What I found really interesting about this season was that it was deeply uninterested in what God thought of anything, even more so than the previous season. Crowley takes the cynical approach that all the misery Job is cursed with is simply God trying to win a bet and we don't really get any confirmation if that's true one way or the other. Job's relationship with God is the background to Aziraphale finally experiencing doubt. What felt weird about this was that Job's kids were the catalyst to him doubting which I don't know, Aziraphale and Crowley never seemed to care about humans specifically, rather what they create. Like in the book and season one, I always thought Crowley and Aziraphale were saving Earth—meaning everything on it like books and wine and cars—but like specifically humanity. This flashback made me feel for the first time that Crowley and Aziraphale comprehend life enough to grieve it. Maybe for others, they always felt that way, but I really liked the idea of an Angel that is in love with the earth not because of the inherent beauty of humanity, but because of materialistic worldly things. But the role this flashback plays for the larger narrative is that it establishes the first time Aziraphale goes against the plan—or at least bends the rules—and gives into the "temptations" of Earth. This is when the angel becomes the person we're familiar with. And it also leads us to end because it establishes that Aziraphale does not want to be just a soldier, he wants to make decisions, to lead, to make things better. This looks like doubt to Crowley and to us the audience, a signal that the two of them are on their own sides. But it also doubles as Aziraphale having a very strong sense of justice that he wants to implement.

And then we have the continuation of the Blitz flashback. I'm of the opinion that less is more in storytelling so the fact this massive moment in Crowley and Aziraphale's lives was so short and concise gave it so much weight. The extended flashback was used to give more context to Aziraphale's fixation on magic and also to show that Crowley and Aziraphale can trust each other without the power of heaven and hell behind them. But I liked that the magician thing makes no sense and it's just a random detail, we don't need it explained. And like wasn't the agreement(tm), raising the (fake) anti-christ, and stopping the end of the world proof that Aziraphale and Crowley trust each other enough to lose their connection to heaven and hell? This flashback told me that they're really close and trust each other with their lives and like...I knew that already. Also, I didn't like that the nazis came back as zombies and then weren't tortured for all eternity. And like I guess there are zombies running around and it's just never come up or caused problems?? (I need to watch that episode again, maybe I missed how they handled that). The whole magic show was a fun and cute moment and I did enjoy it, but idk maybe they could have done it in a different time period like the 1920s?

And then there's the Victorian street urchin whose digging up bodies to sell. And again this was fun, I enjoyed it, but it felt like filler. So what Aziraphale learns from this adventure is that it's hard for poor people to be good because they're trying to survive and the web of morality is complicated because sometimes bad things have to happen in order for good things to happen. Which is the thesis of The Good Place, but nonetheless, it's interesting and more than one tv show can explore it. But this idea is really complicated and frankly they could have written the entire season around it, in my opinion, this revelation to Aziraphale felt and little rushed and a little clumsy. Like you're telling me in Aziraphale's thousands of years on Earth and hundreds of years of having the agreement with Crowley, he's just now realizing that actions have consequences. Like grave robbing is bad, but medical knowledge is good so therefore grave robbing also has to be good. But like Aziraphale, you watched the crucifixion, you know that bad things lead to good things, this is like a mandate from heaven. I think this flashback could have been more interesting if Aziraphale tried to make the urchin spend her money on more holy things or something and then like Aziraphale's hypocrisy around "temptation" could have been examined. I'm not saying this is what the show should have done, but it would have been funny if Crowley and Aziraphale tried to turn people into murderers so they could kill them for the urchin could sell the bodies guilt-free. But the meaningful part of this flashback was Crowley saving the girl from killing herself and then being punished by Hell. This explains why he wanted the holy water and gives it an extra layer of angst, but I'm not sure how much this changes about season 2. Crowley was already running from Hell after season 1's events what does Crowley being punished add to this? There is certainly something there but I think I need to rewatch the show to piece it together. (also this is 100% nitpicking and I think that's bad faith criticism, but Crowley gets swallowed up by the earth immediately after doing a good thing, but he keeps the holy water in a safe in his apartment, so like if the holy water was to stop that punishment from happening again, shouldn't Crowley keep the water on him?)

[xxhumancentipedexx]

my favorite thing abt the human centipede is that it can b abbreviated to THC. like WEED ! ! ! ! ! ! ! anyways can i ask a ww2 question how deep did nazis get into occult stuff ? i remember hearing abt them trying to do magic

IKR one time i got a thc ad and i was sitting there for fifteen minutes trying to dissect where the human centipede was before realising. Oh they're talking about The Weed. and YEUeuUS!!! !! i love discussing the history of the third reich

TL;DR of below: Himmler had strong neo-pagan beliefs that he incorporated into the SS through ritualistic ceremonies. He also sent teams across Europe in search of Thor's hammer and/or evidence regarding it because he believed it could be used as a weapon against the Allies. No, nothing came out of these expeditions. The spread of his occultist beliefs wasn't too successful because Himmler himself didn't think Germany was ready for such a shift into neo-paganism among other reasons

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

So Heinrich Himmler was the primary propagator of these occultist beliefs. He abandoned his Catholicism, finding its views on those he considered "subhuman" too merciful.

He sort of fused the ideas of pagan gods, pseudoscience, and Germanic myths into one religion he wanted the German race to follow. Thus began the neo-pagan doctrine established within the SS

There's a loooot to go over but Himmler believed in a Germanic god named Waralda, or The Ancient One. He organised ritualistic ceremonies for the SS, like solstice celebrations, SS weddings, and baby naming ceremonies. He sort of treated Mein Kampf like their holy book which is funny considering it's not even a well written piece of literature. Passages of the book were read during naming ceremonies and to open SS weddings

Himmler was also obsessed with Thor's hammer. Teams were sent across Europe in search of evidence and knowledge regarding it. He believed it was a war weapon, and that it could be used against the Allies. Here's his (translated, obviously) letter to the Ahnenberbe (a pseudoscientific organisation he was involved with) about the hammer:

“Have the following researched: Find all places in the northern Germanic Aryan cultural world where an understanding of the lightning bolt, the thunderbolt, Thor’s hammer, or the flying or thrown hammer exists, in addition to all the sculptures of the god depicted with a small hand axe emitting lightning. Please collect all of the pictorial, sculptural, written and mythological evidence of this. I am convinced that this is not based on natural thunder and lightning, but rather that it is an early, highly developed form of war weapon of our forefathers, which was only, of course, possessed by the Aesir, the gods, and that it implies an unheard of knowledge of electricity.”

The spread of Himmler's beliefs also didn't go very far because he himself didn't think that Germany was ready for a complete shift into neo-paganism

Also something pretty funny, Himmler recruited a man named Karl Maria Wiligut into the SS because he claimed to have access to knowledge of ancient Germanic tribes by going into a trance. Himmler was unaware he was schizophrenic

[aureliawindsor]

[ hailee steinfeld, she/her, cis woman ] — was that AURELIA WINDSOR? the TWENTY-TWO year old is the DUCHESS of YORK, how exciting to see her this season! rumors have it she is STUDIOUS and OPEN-MINDED, but i’ve heard she is REBELLIOUS and CLUMSY as well — maybe that’s why she's been called the ENIGMA. I have even heard that SHE SNEAKS INTO LECTURES UNCHAPERONED — only time will tell.

NAME: Aurelia ‘Riley’ Charlotte Windsor

PRONOUNS: She/Her

AGE: Twenty-Two

SEXUALITY: Lesbian

LANGUAGES: English, French, Latin

TITLE: Princess Aurelia Charlotte, Duchess of York

HISTORY (tl;dr at bottom):

For as long as Princess Aurelia ('Riley') Charlotte could remember, she had been Duchess of York. While it was very common for children to be raised without mothers, Aurelia was raised without a father. Her father, Prince Henry Arthur, Duke of York, was the younger brother to King George III and often trusted with military excursions on behalf of the Crown. Unfortunately, only two years after his first daughter was born, the Duke of York was involved in a military accident and passed away, leaving his estate to his only daughter. Given the family connection and the sacrifices of his brother, the King bestowed the title of Duchess of York to Aurelia.

Like any good Dowager Duchess, Aurelia’s mother managed the estate on her daughter’s behalf, maintaining the wealth and fortune of her husband, while embracing the independence that came from running an entire Duchy without a husband to stifle her. Aurelia was the apple of the Dowager Duchess’ eye and was heavily protected–their fortunes reliant completely on Aurelia’s continued survival in such a dangerous time. Aurelia grew up sheltered, her only freedom found in the many books of her father’s library. Regardless, she was happy, raised with the best tutors in the extreme comfort of their family’s country estate.

When Aurelia turned sixteen, her mother decided to move them to London during the season so that Aurelia could experience proper society for the first time and perhaps begin catching some eligible bachelors’ eyes. Gone were her freedoms to do whatever she wanted, replaced with constant balls and parties. Aurelia hated every moment of it. The only advantage of being in London was her ability to sneak her way into nearby lectures and exhibitions, the gatherings able to quell her forever curious mind. She always disguised herself as a mere gentleman, lest scandal befall her name.

When she turned twenty-one, Aurelia could no longer avoid her mother’s demands for her to debut. Being an eligible Duchess and niece to the King, if she weren’t the diamond of her season, she was at least a sapphire, and her callers formed lines longer than her massive estate could contain. The endless lines of suitors bored her and she found every excuse to end the calls as early as possible. As the close of the season got nearer, it was clear that the Duchess of York had made no progress towards securing a husband and the disappointment throughout the ton was palpable.

If only everyone knew that the Duchess had no interest in finding a husband at all–in fact, she was quite partial to women.

Now in the second year since her debut, Aurelia continues to dread the constant insanity that was the race for suitable marriages. She does her best to avoid the dance floor and continues to dissuade any young gentleman from pursuing her hand. All she truly cares about is the newest textbooks being printed and enjoying her freedom for as long as possible.

TL;DR:

Aurelia (’Riley’) is niece to King George III;

Her father was a military general but died in an accident when Aurelia was just two. As a way to honor his brother, his majesty passed the title to Aurelia;

Aurelia’s mother managed the estate in Aurelia’s name and kept her incredibly protected and sheltered since ownership of the title and estate is reliant on Aurelia’s continued survival;

Riley grew up being tutored by the best professors and had access to a ton of books;

Riley started going to London during the season at 16 so she could get used to everything;

Discovered local university lectures and sneaks into them dressed as a man to avoid detection;

Debuted at 21 (last year) and was super popular due to her title and wealth;

Rejected everyone and intends on continuing to reject everyone since she’s only interested in women, studying, and her freedom.