jimbo-clyde

[jimbo-clyde]

Characterization of Adults in the Time Quintet

I have been reading through the Time Quintet (beginning with A Wrinkle in Time) by Madeleine L'Engle recently, and the final two novels have been quite interesting, to say the least. Many Waters, while being the fourth book, appears to take place chronologically before the third book, A Swiftly Tilting Planet, and yet Sandy and Dennys do not show evidence of their experiences (which, I admit, makes sense if Many Waters was written after A Swiftly Tilting Planet).

In any case, the biggest shift that I have seen is in the way that Mr. and Mrs. Murry (Meg's parents) (as well as the other adults) support or do not support the experiences of the children with whom they share a household. In A Wrinkle in Time and even A Wind in the Door, Mr. and Mrs. Murry are supportive and engaged in the goings-on of the children. In the first novel, Mr. Murry literally experiences much of what the children do, to such an extent that moving through space-time should not be news to him. In the second, Mrs. Murry (and, to a lesser extent, Dr. Louise) is actively studying the problems that the children are called to solve. The fantastical adventures of the Murry children should not be unknown and have been supported by Mr. and Mrs. Murry.

However, in An Acceptable Time, not only do Mr. and Mrs. Murry fail to believe in the fantastical tales that Polly (the main character) is telling them, they are actively pushing against such ideas. While there is mention of Mr. Murry's experience moving through space-time, he is also the main person pushing back at the idea that someone can move through time without moving through space (an idea that Charles Wallace explored quite heavily in A Swiftly Tilting Planet, but about which did not speak with his parents). Mr. and Mrs. Murry also discuss how Polly's parents (Calvin and Meg, who both went through many a fantastical adventure together as children) would react severely to their daughter going on similar adventures. I know of no other way to react to this than with confusion and abhorrence. The idea that these children who had these incredibly formative experiences would grow up to be totally and wholly against their children experiencing any of what they did growing up is- well frankly to dunk on J.K. Rowling for a moment- like writing a character that watched "the system" fail them over and over to such an extent that society crumbled due to the inaction of "the system" grow up and go on to join and re-form "the system" back into its' original state. It feels like poor writing.

In my humble opinion, based on the characterization of the adults in the earlier novels within the Time Quintet by Madeleine L'Engle, Polly O'Keefe should not have to fight them at what feels like every step of the way as she begins her fantastical adventures, just as her mother and father did before her.

[jimbo-clyde]

Why Boats Have Been Given She/Her Pronouns

Before we begin, a disclaimer: I am not a professional folklorist, and by no means do I want to claim that I will contain within these few paragraphs the wealth of maritime history and tradition pertaining to the use of feminine pronouns for sailing vessels and other watercraft.

That being said, I do have some both academic and professional experience in this field, I've spent 3+ years learning and sailing historic vessels as well as some academic courses on maritime folklore back in college.

I want to also say that, to the best of my knowledge and experience, the use of she/her pronouns for vessels is used unilaterally by people of all genders across the history of western maritime travel and trade, and is not some weird obsession that only men of recent time periods have just done for misogynist reasons.

Alright, let us begin in earnest.

When you are at sea, you are at the mercy of nature. Full stop. If there is some outside higher being out there that wants you dead, and you are on a boat away from shore, you are dead. Full stop. This helplessness and lack of control has impacted a lot of maritime folklore. I, a person who does not see themselves as particularly superstitious, do not fuck around when it comes to holding to traditions such as knocking on wood or throwing salt over my shoulder, hell, I talk to a painting on the off chance that there's a ghost inhabiting it. Do I genuinely think that whether or not I knock on wood after jinxing myself has a real impact on whether or not the boat I am on encounters a storm? No, I have a Bachelors of Science in an physical science field and an understanding that the atmosphere does not care whether I participated in an old tradition. Do I still knock on wood because laughing at fate still makes me feel icky and gross? Yes, but also knowing the traditions and not holding to them will put doubt into your mind, and when your life is sometimes literally being held in your hands, you don't want any doubt whatsoever.

The only thing, for the majority of maritime history, between sailors and death, in every way you can think of and more, was the boat that was their livelihood, that was their transportation, that was their home. The sailors cared for their boat, and in turn, the boat cared for the sailors. If you stayed on top of maintenance and protected your boat from wear and tear, the boat would in turn be able to be trustworthy and steadfast in harsh weather, and so a relationship and a personification developed formed where you care for your boat, and the boat, in turn, cares for you. This care was seen as motherly most often, and as such, the she/her pronouns developed.

I will go out on a limb to say that, to the best of my knowledge, women in western history were tasked largely with the caring for the household, raising children, etc. and as such, the sailors who relied upon their boats and vessels to care for them and protect them associated these roles with the motherly role. (Author's Note: Personally, I do not agree with these gender roles, I think the parents of children should put in equal effort to raise and care for their children, but this post is not about my feelings on child-rearing, its about boats.)

That is not to say that mothers and caretakers and mistresses cannot have their quirks or be temperamental, and as such the quirks, oddities, and uniqueness of each vessel contributed to the personification of the vessels. Operation of each vessel was and is seen as a relationship between the sailor and the vessel, the sailor had to take the time to literally "learn the ropes" with each vessel, and learn how each vessel sailed, a process that is as much art and feel as it is science, if not more so.

This personification of vessels was taken very seriously in the western tradition, such that ships had rights and responsibilities. Vessels could enter contracts as a separate entity, and even commit torts, which are civil wrongs for which the ship would be liable. In my studies, the life stages of a ship were discussed and compared to human life stages, be they infancy, coming-of-age ceremonies, even formal rites and rituals for renaming vessels because, as is common in folklore, names have power and vessels are no exception. There is even a tradition of placing coins under the masts of sailing vessels because if the ship were to go down, the ship would need to pay the ferryman to cross into the afterlife. I will reiterate: this is not new, this is, as some might say, Old Magic.

Wrapping up, boats are personified for a variety of reasons, and the consequences of such personification are gendered pronouns and legal rights and responsibilities, among others. Hope you enjoyed this little rant!

[jimbo-clyde]

Biblical Scholarship

Admittedly, the whole Jesus thing isn't something I am fully committed to (don't tell my priest), but I am in a Bible study class because I love the idea of the Bible as storytelling and persuasiveness and I life figuring out why the authors wrote certain things a certain way. Right now we are starting to study the Gospel of John, which I think is a perfect example of this idea.

I would like to take a moment and say a couple things: 1) I am not a biblical scholar, I'm just a random person with ADHD and this is a hyperfixation, 2) I am infinitely grateful for the nerds (complimentary) who combed through the Bible because they wanted to know/study x in the Bible, as well as for the people who took the extent of academic study of the text and made it digestible for me to read and say "OMG this is so cool I want to think about this for like ever now."

The Gospel according to John (John) is rather significantly different in terms of style and thematic elements from the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the Synoptics). Mark is agreed to be the first written and is the most rushed in a "OMG this crazy thing just happened and I have to write it down like now so that it can be spread as much as possible" kind of way, but the authors of Matthew and Luke evidently used Mark as a pretty direct reference when writing their own, and as such all three offer a synopsis (thus the Synoptic Gospels) of the events of Jesus' birth, life, death, and (alleged) resurrection.

As John is pretty well established to be the last Gospel written, about 60-70 years after the death (and alleged resurrection) of Jesus, the author(s) of John had more time, and as such they could make choices within the text to achieve their rhetoric goals. One of which is the choice to include the use of exactly fourteen (14) "I am" statements from Jesus, but seven (7) of them are without a predicate (and thus call back to the way big God is referenced in the Jewish scripture), and seven (7) are with a predicate (which then tie into Jesus being grounded in humanity and daily life). Again, I am so grateful that some nerd noticed this, went through, and counted these so that we can talk about this. Another thing to note is that Jesus' "miracles" are not referred to as such in John, but are instead seven (7) "signs." These signs are used by the author(s) to, rather than prove that Jesus is divine, as in the Synoptics, but to use the signs to point to Jesus' greater connection to God, which is then itself a callback to the Jewish tradition where Moses performed "signs and wonders" to signify the power of God (Exodus 4.9, 17, 28, 30; Deuteronomy 34.11).

John opens with a rather famous prologue, wherein the author(s) tie Jesus to the story of creation, but also acts as a thesis statement where the author(s) create this idea that Jesus was God and one with God. John then goes on to support this thesis with the aforementioned seven (7) signs, Jesus' instructions for his followers as his death approaches, and then Jesus' death and (alleged) resurrection.

John differs significantly from the Synoptics in terms of Jesus' teaching style. In John, Jesus teaches often through long monologues instead of discussions and parables found in the Synoptics. When these discussions happen, they are often confrontational in nature, compelling the people Jesus encounters to make strong decisions whether or not to follow him, and use misunderstanding and double meanings to allow Jesus to go on the long monologues where Jesus explains his connection to God. The inclusion of the prologue establishing Jesus as divine allows the reader to consider an interaction and find humor in the misunderstanding and say "pfft, get a load of this guy, he doesn't understand that Jesus is of God, and so obviously Jesus means the alternate, spiritual definition of that word" (John 3.1-21).

Anyways I just really appreciate literature that is intentional in its structure, its composition, and message, and I think it is a good idea, when we see these things in ancient literature, to use it to remind ourselves that even though these people certainly didn't have the wealth of information and resources that we have today, they were still perfectly intelligent people who's ideas and arguments still have impacts today. Stylistic developments and growth, even from stories never written down, still echo to this day in the way that we communicate and write and think and live our lives.

Thank you for your time, you have my Love

[jimbo-clyde]

I saw, quite some time ago, a post in which a GM (I do mot remember your name etc. I am so sorry) talked about how they managed downtime in DnD. For them, downtime essentially became a currency to be used later. Very obviously, if there was something you wanted to do during any downtime, you were certainly free to do so, but if you found yourself saying “I don’t really know what I want at the moment,” you simply gained some downtime to be spent later. The idea goes that later on down the line, you realize “oh I should’ve bought more arrows,” etc. you spend the downtime having bought some arrows.

Notably, there were limitations, if you found yourself fighting a creature vulnerable to fire, you cannot just stop and say “oh in my downtime I bought a flaming sword,” etc. but if perhaps you find yourself needing a set of thieves tools they might be made available.

Anyways, I’ve been thinking about interactions between this mechanic and characters, most specifically the classic “hey does anyone have any skulls per chance” idea. It got me thinking about Rogues (and other thieving characters) just like.. spending their downtime thieving or teaching orphans to steal (I’ve read two book series in which the MC was in a gang of orphan thieves (The Lies of Locke Lamora and The First Binding), leave me alone) but then having access to the spoils from such activities basically upon a whim, as dictated by the rules of downtime set above. It would be important that this is a pattern, as in you as the thief establish that you do this from time to time, so you aren’t just pulling a flaming sword out of your ass to stab that which is vulnerable to fire.

Notably, I can see this being played out as follows:

[Magic Person]: “[Expletive], I don’t have [gem] for [very important spell]!”

[Thieving Person]: “Hey GM, can I use my [downtime currency] to have stolen/arranged for the theft of [gem].”

GM: “Because you have, in the past, established that you use your downtime to steal things/establish connections to the underground etc. I will allow you to do this super cool thing and have your character’s traits and non-combat actions come into play in combat for a super cool melding of the two sides of DnD and everyone is going to have a good time.”

Anyways, it was something that was on my mind, thanks for letting me share

[jimbo-clyde]

Aging in Fantasy

Hi, I don't post here, but I have thoughts and other places don't let me flow and write big thing, so here goes nothing.

Aging in Fantasy is weird.. because evidently [elves] experience time at the same rate as [humans] but don't learn and grow at the same rate? So in the same time that [humans] learn to read and write and love and hate and reach maturity (20 years or so), others just learn to.. not poop their pants.

It is strange to me to consider that beings of similar eventual intellectual capability at adulthood take hugely different time scales to reach that intellectual capability.. from entering elementary school, it took me 6 years to go from can't read at all to not only reading but also being expected to read and critically analyze novels in 7th grade English class, that would be equivalent to ~30 years for an [elf], assuming a 100 y/o [elf] is roughly equivalent to a 20 y/o [human].

To me that feels utterly incomprehensible. This idea that someone can take 5-6x the time to learn the same amount of material that [humans] do. Otherwise the implication is that because [elves] etc. take longer to mature than [humans] etc., they have more time to prepare themselves, especially at later stages of development, for the world, and so theoretically enter life more prepared than [humans].

Maybe that is why [humans] experience [elves] as these utterly incomprehensibly intelligent and experienced creatures, because they were just cooped up for so much longer before society said "Yeah, you're done cooking, have fun living life." Imagine having to spend that much time just learning, you learn to read critically by 60, and then you spend the next 40 years of your life waking up, going to school, doing whatever teenagers do. By the time you reach maturity at 100, you've read and reread all the classics, you've dedicated days if not weeks worth of hours to games, skills, anything. You have had the 10,000 hours (~1.15 years) to dedicate to literally anything to (supposedly) become a master.. and you're just now allowed to venture out on your own for the first time?

Yes, it takes time to grow up and learn how to feel things and mature both intellectually and emotionally... but at some point when does it become unreasonable. How long can you have the ability to read and consume media and experience your fellow person and be able to learn and grow emotionally and intellectually before your mind is ready to be an adult. Sure, your body can take 100 years to reach maturity.. but can your mind, can you stand to wait that long?

Anyways all [elves] should run away from home when they hit like 80