guinned

[guinned]

I didn’t read the Pazyryk article, but I find it interesting that it is important for them to consider riding a horse as an act of “doing with the horse” rather than “doing to the horse”. Similarly, in the Whitridge article he critiques an analysis of Stonehenge that spoke positively of placemaking in regards to ancient festivals but negatively in regards to modern treatments. He said, “scientist and technocrats are also individuals and members of society, and everyone’s place-making articulates with a common (and limited) material reality” (Whitridge 215). In the same way that riding is collaborative, he describes place-making as not a singular act, but an ongoing interaction between the space and every person who perceives and affects it.

i swear i'm not a horse girl (but the pazyryks were) - argent's "inked"

Humans will really bond with anything. People get super attached to their houseplants, own pet rocks, mourn the loss of their broken-down old cars, and think the Starships around campus are really cute (who would even think that?? haha ha hah…). It only makes sense that bonds will form between humans and horses, who spend years collaboratively learning and adapting to one another. Argent utilizes her own personal experience with horses, stating that "riding is a 'joint action' (Sanders, 2007) between rider and horse, where both must move in synchrony together, anticipating and predicting the other's actions in order to remain safe" (180).

Horses served a multitude of practical, cultural, and spiritual purposes for the Pazyryk people, making them an undeniably important feature in their lives. Yet overall, "smaller-scale, embodied, emotional interspecies interactions fed into larger social structures and cosmological meanings" (190). Argent points out that these individual interactions are important for archaeologists to consider, especially considering the impact that these interspecies relationships have on human societies as a whole.

[guinned]

I was fascinated by the ways that Inuit language shapes places. The quote I starred was “some speakers make a terminological distinction between places that are part of their -miut inheritance, and those that properly belong to neighboring -miut groups, through a suffix marking a place as one of which one has only heard reports” (Whitridge 221). Reading this sentence made me quite indignant that English has relatively boring suffixes. Considering such level of detail, I was somewhat surprised when finding the word ilumiulerpaa “can mean impregnating a woman, entering a house, or loading a boat” (Whitridge 239). This made me think about how culturally important it must have been to be able to talk about the land with such specificity, and how powerful language can be in describing places in terms and designations relative to the speaker. 

While relative place seems to have been mostly supplanted by GPS data in modern navigation, I think the emotional need to be connected to place lives on. The example that jumps to mind is star maps, which seem to be a popular gift, whether it be the star map of the day you were born, the day you met someone, or the day of another significant event. 

[guinned]

The Tombs of Atuan

[guinned]

I imagine watching a dragon lose words is like watching your mom cry.

In terms of losing words, I definitely agree for the dragons and wizards of Earthsea, it is much like losing power/agency. Like you mentioned, minority groups might be able to say as much as they want, but if their words have no impact, they have no real power. For example, with something like the #MeToo movement, men claim to be losing words because they are unable to talk to women without the fear of being accused of sexual assault. However, the overwhelming majority of assaulted and rapists never face any consequences even when victims do share their experiences. Thus, we might consider the victims to be the ones who have lost words - like when Arren’s father tells him, “I said the words, but I do not know if they had meaning” (Le Guin 5).

Losing Words

      In this chapter, we get to learn more about the Dragons, and specifically, what happens to them when their speech gets taken away.  Sparrowhawk, after they pass a dying dragon comments, “’They have been driven mad. Their speech has been taken from them. They who spoke before men spoke, they who are older than any living thing, the Children of Segoy -they have been driven to the dumb terror of the beasts,’” (Guin). I think in this context that the Dragons not only had their voices taken away, but possibly part of their sanity as well, maybe as a result of their speech taken away. Without the ability to freely express themselves and communicate, they end up killing each other and acting out of fear. Beyond just losing the expression of themselves, they actually start to lose a bit of themselves as well. I think this makes them unhappy because there is such a close connection between you and your words, or methods of expression. What you create, do and say is often synonymous with who you are and the legacy you leave behind. If you lose self-expression, then how can you be sure of who you are? We see this all across the world where people don’t have the same freedom of speech that we have in the states. There are limitations in creativity, what you say out loud about certain people or even online, and even limitations in the ability to read and write to those deemed unworthy. In the U.S., losing words might not be as obvious as the oppression in other countries, but it is still unfortunately there. I think that for us, this is mostly represented in power; those that have power have more of a voice, which really goes against everything the founding fathers wanted. Those people that are in minorities or poorer might have a political voice on paper, but there are much more inequalities and obstacles that are in their way compared to those that are in a rich majority. Not being able to have that freedom of expression and influence in the real world makes people unhappy, just like the dragons in Earthsea. Those are just a few of my ideas regarding what it means to lose words and how that connects to our current world.

[guinned]

No matter how long he disappears, or how mysteriously unhelpful he seems to be, Aragorn and the Fellowship never lose faith in Gandalf. Even when he dies in the Mines of Moria, they mourn him but do not blame him. Conversely, Arren does not always trust Ged. Although he initially loves him, on their journey he becomes frustrated with his evasiveness and at one point even believes him to be the “mutual enemy” (Le Guin 130). Part of this distrust seems to be constructed by Arren’s experience with mages in general - his doubt creeps in most heavily once they leave Lorbanery, where the wizards are all mad. Arren thinks, “Which is maddest, the lunatic or I, for coming with him? The two of them may understand each other; it’s the wizards who are mad now…that’s wizard’s talk, making things seem great by great words” (Le Guin 122). Arren’s faith is restored in Ged once they are rescued by the raftspeople, but it requires Ged to explain himself more.

Although we understand sooner than Arren that Ged is keeping his destiny vague because Arren is the next King of Havnor, Gandalf and Aragorn are more equal in their understanding. Aragorn seems to have known his identity his entire life. Gandalf provides counsel and magical help, but when he vanishes, Aragorn is both willing and able to step up and lead the Fellowship. On the other hand, when Ged is injured, Arren admits, “I did nothing. The boat drifted, and I let her drift. You were in pain, and I did nothing for you” (Le Guin 153). Aragorn’s experience as a Ranger equips him well for their quest, so Gandalf is more of an advisor than a guide, as Ged is to Arren.

[guinned]

I found it interesting that Dickson points out how most rituals of human sacrifice and punishment throughout history are designed to maximize the size of their audiences. Whether it is the “gentle slopes [that] would easily have accommodated crowds numbering in the hundreds” surrounding the sacrificial pits in Ur or the executionees that “‘urinated, defecated, screamed, kicked, fainted, and choked as they died’ all under the gaze of thousands of willing and excited spectators”  in early modern Europe, or the 4000 or more times annually a “victim’s body was then rolled back down the staircase to the plaza, where, Bernal Diaz asserts, butchers waited to cut off the victim’s limbs for later consumption” in Tenochtitlan, the public nature of sacrifice was just as, if not more, central to the ritual than the killing itself (Dickson 135, 137). By contrast, in the Tombs of Atuan, sacrificial killing is relatively private. When Arha is presented with three prisoners, Kossil tells her “I and the wardens brought them in through the Prisoner's Door” and urges her to sentence them to a slow death by dehydration/starvation (Le Guin 38). Neither the death nor entombment of the prisoners is really acknowledged by anyone other than Kossil, Arha, and their eunuchs.

Likewise, Arha must engage with a number of theatrical rituals (dances, goat sacrifices, Nine Chants) that ultimately seem to have little to no impact on the Nameless Ones. Although the priestesses have constructed an elaborate system of rules to please the Nameless Ones, neither the performance of nor violation of these rules has much effect. For example, Arha is led to believe that any man or any light entering the Undertomb would drive the person mad and the Nameless Ones would strike them down. However, when she sees Ged with his light, she is shocked that he is not struck down (Le Guin 70). The Nameless Ones are demonstrably real, as Ged feels their influence on his mind and they cause the earthquake and collapse of the tombs. It seems, rather, that this system of rules and rituals is a performance for the people as opposed to what the Nameless Ones actually want. It is not even clear if the ritual of letting the Nameless Ones eat the reborn First Priestess’ soul has any result - although the Nameless Ones do eat souls, Tenar seems to still have quite the spirit. Thus, it seems like over time the worship of the Nameless Ones has diverged from their actual demands (if they ever had any in the first place) to be a performance for the people. With the rule of the Godkings, it is possible that the rituals have been diminished to performatively appease those who still believe in the Nameless Ones, while slowly shifting attention towards the Temple of the Godking. 

It reminds me of an excellent quote by Arundhati Roy:

Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no audience? 

The sacrifices to the Nameless Ones are rendered less meaningful by their lack of audience, potentially a deliberate concealment by the Godking administration. By shifting fear away from the sacrifices to the Nameless Ones, the Godking might shift the allegiance of the people towards himself.

[guinned]

“The throne on its platform seemed to be curtained on each side with great webs of blackness dropping from the gloom of the roof; whether these were curtains, or only denser shadows, the eye could not make certain. The throne itself was black, with a dull glimmer of precious stones or gold on the arms and back, and it was huge. A man sitting in it would have been dwarfed; it was not of human dimensions. It was empty. Nothing sat in it but shadows.”

-

The Hall of the Throne, from Ursula Le Guin’s The Tombs of Atuan

[guinned]

I really like the comparison to the Vestal Virgins. Although the priestesses of the Tombs don’t seem to have as much legal significance as the VV (possibly because of their more remote location ), Arha does play a role in condemning prisoners. The protesters also seem to be serving for life rather than for only thirty years.

The Tombs of Atuan and the Roots of Holy Order

After reading these chapters, I cannot say that I agree with the notion that the Kargs are analogous to Vikings; while the way they interacted with the outside world as shown in the 1st chapter of the 1st book is similar to how a real-world Nordic raiding party would, the Tombs of Atuan make it seem as if most of the similarities end there.  I would, instead, relate them to being more similar to two other Northern European civilizations: the traditional and Holy Roman Empires.

Traditionally, while Vikings where definitely organized into their own groups and clans, a set-in-stone ruling power was never a large factor within their society as a whole.   Karg, however, follows a very rigid ruling system that forms their empire.   Additionally, the way many of their religious events are structured and most likely visually designed is very similar to how the Vestal Virgins of Rome would conduct their ceremonies.  Not only is the dress attire similar, with all black and white robes adorning all women involved, but the locations of said ceremonies being in both ancient tombs and bordering on underground caverns.  The women themselves also live very secluded lives far away from anyone else, only to be called upon by the empire on highest authority.

The Holy Roman Empire, while sharing very little similarities with its original form, also bares relation to the Karg Empire.  Though the political formation of the societies involved is not nearly as connected as the previous example. the religious structure is even more so.  While many ruled their bubbles as they pleased, the Church holds kingdom and court over all, no one more so than the speaker of the heavens himself, the Pope.  Karg, similarly, holds the Eaten One above all other mortals, even if their emperor may not want to admit so.  Even the formation of the modern ruling ideals of the empire reminds me of much of the middle period of the HRE, with Manan stating that, “…’there were a lot of lesser kings, princes, chiefs. They were always quarreling with each other. And they’d come here to settle their quarrels. That was how it was, they’d come from our land Atuan, and from Karego-At, and Atnini, and even from Hur-at-Hur, all the chiefs and princes with their servants and their armies. And they’d ask you what to do’” (Guin 25).  This rings shockingly close to how much of Western Europe was structured and interacted with each other as well as the function and importance of the Pope during the 11th to 13th centuries.

[guinned]

The Kargish Empire works overtime to keep its people in submission via ignorance. They spread the propaganda that “[the existence of magic] is contrary to the teachings of the Priest Kings” and reading is “one of the black arts” (Le Guin 136). Not only is the populace controlled via the dual threat of the Godking and the Nameless Ones, but they are prevented from learning about any other system than the one they live under. The control seems also economic and cultural: Manan tells Tenar that “poor folk, you know, are often glad to get rid of girl-babies” (Le Guin 9). Historically, girl babies are less valuable in heavily patriarchal societies where their futures are limited and they are just another mouth to feed. If I remember correctly, female infanticide was a significant problem in China with the one child policy. 

Another development is a clue into the purpose of the Kargish raid on Ten Alders: the warriors who attacked the village are the same kind as the warriors that Tenar saw “escorting offerings of slaves or money to the Godking’s temple” (Le Guin 164). It is possible the Godking demanded sacrifices of a certain amount, and the Kargs that raided Ten Alders were unable to meet the quota on their own. On the other hand, it’s also possible they were seeking sacrifices to curry favor for a specific goal. The fact that the Kargs brought so many warriors to such a small town also could suggest that they expected to raid their way across the entire island of Gont afterwards, or that they had heard that it produced many wizards and were afraid. 

[guinned]

Gont - Hut Designs

[guinned]

My finished painting of Yevaud, the dragon of Pendor from the Earthsea saga. I actually think, he wasn’t golden, but I like golden stuff and it fits the picture :> It was great fun drawing a dragon again, which isn’t as anthropomorphic as the usual stuff I get commissioned for.

I put the steps up here aswell (will delete the original posts tho).

Earthsea was and still is one of my favourite book series, because it has no epic fantasy war going on (this gets old tbh), I like the overall travelling theme - especially travelling the sea - the ‘magic system’ and the dragons (willing to do Kalessin aswell, the scene of him sitting in the mist after they had beaten Cob).

[guinned]

Been reading the earthsea books for the first time. There are so many short bits of prose that evoke huge, atmospheric settings or moods, I couldn’t help wanting to draw them.

[guinned]

Start work recently on a series of illustration based off the awesome Earthsea books by Ursula Le Guin. Amazing books, check em out! Heres the first two paintings. Check out the Hi-res versions on my art station: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/lnmqO

[guinned]

Environments from my Earthsea project for my school diploma that I totally forgot to upload here. So there you go! (they are starting to get a bit old, but heh)

I cannot explain how much I love Ursula K. LeGuin ‘s Earthsea cycle. Those books are amazing and once you’ve read them you are changed forever.

[guinned]

Ged also spoke low, to use his friend’s true name: “No matter, Estarriol. But this is myself, and I am glad to see you…”

[Estarriol] heard, perhaps, something more than simple gladness in his voice. He had not yet let go of Ged’s shoulder, and he said now, in the True Speech, “In trouble and from darkness you come, Ged, yet your coming is joy to me.”

🌬️✨❄️

I’m reading the Earthsea books for the first time… super recommend the first one to anyone in need of a heartfelt story of discovery and self acceptance… wow 😭

[guinned]

When Ged returns from the land of the dead, Vetch finally recognizes him as “a man: who, knowing his whole true self, cannot be used or possessed by any power other than himself, and whose life therefore is lived for life’s sake and never in the service of ruin, or pain, or hatred, or the dark” (Le Guin 214). I find this to be a convenient summary of a lot of ideas in the Tao Te Ching - among them, pacifism, knowledge, and simplicity. For example, Le Guin translates Chapter 26 to say “Heavy is the root of light. Still is the master of moving” (Lao Tzu 36). Ged can only find peace when he confronts his shadow and accepts it as part of himself. (Side note: on the same page as the above quote, Vetch calls the shadow “the shadow of his death” which is interesting in regards to our discussion on the nature of the shadow.) Without the evil shadow, the heavy, Ged loses his light. Furthermore, Le Guin translates Chapter 46 of the Tao Te Ching as “to know enough’s enough is enough to know” (Lao Tzu 61). I believe this is the most succinct expression in the TTC of living life for life’s sake. By accepting himself as he is, Ged fulfulls many of the qualities that Lao Tzu expresses.

[guinned]

I think that by approaching her rendition of the Tao Te Ching without presumption, Le Guin aptly embodies its principles. In particular, Chapter 24 which says, “self-satisfied people do no good, self-promoters never grow up” (33). By approaching the text with respect, levity, and humility, by interpreting it not to be right but simply for the sake of doing it, Le Guin demonstrates exactly what Lao Tzu describes.

Le Guin’s interpretation of the Dao de Jing

I approached reading Le Guin’s version of the Dao de Jing with a bit of apprehension, because I researched her background beforehand and learned that she indeed does not know Chinese. She does, however, provide a well-crafted afterward that explains her stance and humbly recognizes her place in this scholarship as a non-Chinese speaker. She also makes an incredible effort in recognizing scholars before her that have made her work possible. Overall Le Guin works not to situate her interpretation of one of the most important works in Chinese literary history as anything profound or “better” than her predecessors–she simply wanted to undertake the task, and so she did, and accordingly acknowledges how this decision may-or-may-not-be respected. On page 110 of the text, though, she illustrates a great honor and appreciation for the text and Lao Tzu: “by confusing [his] mysticism with imprecision, [other] such versions betray the spirit of the book and its marvelously pungent, laconic, beautiful language.” This statement, that mysticism should not be misconstrued as imprecision, is profound to me, and acknowledges the inherent flaws in non-native speakers attempting to translate or interpret works.