#'how can it call itself christian fiction if it only mentions god at the end?'

[fictionadventurer]

The worst part about reading in a genre where you have low expectations (in this case, Christian historical fiction) is that when a book impresses you, you have no idea if it's actually good or if you're just overly impressed because it was a fraction of a degree better than the usual garbage.

[whatisonthemoon]

The Most Fraudulent Book in History

Article written by a Sanctuary Church member

In the original Cheon Seong Gyeong, Father left it in a form that can be easily studied. After each segment of Father’s words, you will see the sources underneath that paragraph, so people can look up the original speeches, where they came from. In the “new” Cheon Seong Gyeong that Hak Ja Han and the FFWPU leaders produced, there are no references in the book itself. There is a separate small booklet called a reference guide. This contains numbers and speech dates that are supposed to refer to the chapters in the book, but because Father’s words have been redacted it is virtually impossible to trace what the corresponding speeches are! Hak Ja Han and the FFWPU leaders chose the method of redacting Father’s words, which means they shortened the phrases and combined them in a book with other sections of Father’s words, making it virtually impossible to identify which part comes from which speech This then becomes a “new” creation, what they call “true parents words”. It is nonsensical, because Hak Ja Han doesn’t have her own words, she just twists Father’s words to her own advantage. For example, Father said that the 2000 year Christian history was a foundation for his birth as the Second Coming of Christ. Hak Ja Han, then says the 2000 year Christian history was a foundation for HER BIRTH as the Only Begotten Daughter. (3.16.18). So, we end up with something completely different “true parents words” which is a perverted form of Father’s words, which in reality are no longer Father’s words, because they were changed to fit Hak Ja Han’s “new” false theology. For example, I looked at page 77 in Hak Ja Han’s new Cheon Seng Gyeong and I saw the phrase with ‘love, life, and hope’ mentioned on that page five times. I thought it was odd for the same phrase repeated so much on one page. Anyway, because it was similar to what Father often ‘love, life, and lineage’, I tried to trace the source speech using the reference guide, and I could not trace it! Hak Ja Han and the FFWPU leaders decided to redact Father’s words for that very reason, you will not be able to trace where Father’s words come from. It makes it easy for them to airbrush out Father’s words that Hak Ja Han doesn’t like, and it is virtually impossible to identify what speech corresponds to the content in the “new” Cheon Seong Gyeong! It was made deliberately this way, so people would not be able to study it. It has been made like the Kiran a book just to recite not study! Biblical scholars would never accept the Bible to be redacted like that, they respect the words to be God’s words, so because of their love and respect for the Bible over hundreds of years, we still have it today intact! I noticed one section myself that was left out from the original Cheon Seong Gyeong, pages 117 to 125, but I discovered this myself, the FFWPU leaders never admitted to removing content, so there is a lot more left out for sure! Page 1179 was left out because Father explained on that page, that if his first wife Sun Kil Choi kept faith, she would be True Mother and not Hak Ja Han. Hak Ja Han left this out because it doesn’t fit with her “new” teaching that ONLY SHE WAS MEANT TO BE TRUE MOTHER! Page 1141 was left out, because this also doesn’t fit with Hak Ja Han’s “new” teaching, as Father explained on that page that if Adam reached perfection, he would be the incarnation of God. And if Eve reached perfection, she would be the wife of God. In her “new” teaching she holds that the mother is the subject. She even states that the beginning of the lineage is not the father but the mother. 3.16.2018. If you remove content from any person’s book whether fiction or nonfiction, you change the story or the theory, and Hak Ja Han and the FFWPU leaders dishonestly removed Father’s words to create a false teaching, and a fraudulent book! Here’s what Father said about his words and how the Cheon Seong Gyeong was to be left as it is without even changing a syllable: "Cheon Seong Gyeong has to be kept for tens of thousands of years for your descendants. If Christianity had the Bible which Jesus left, would they have sectarian fights? Because of this (Cheon Seong Gyeong), you cannot have sectarian fights." (4/19/05) "If someone reads even one syllable incorrectly during Hoon Dok Hae, I correct them. The denomination should not arise in the Unification Church because we leave behind this kind of mistake. If you’ve read it five times, then don’t criticize it and don’t touch it! Sun Jo Hwang, do you understand?! “Yes.” Just because you are the head of the History Compilation Committee and even if you were to memorize all the records of all the historical events, you still don’t have the authority to modify [the content]. Until I look at it and explain it, then there’s a reason why I’m leaving it the way it is." (477-187, 2004. 11. 26) "Also, I don’t want anyone newly changing [or editing] anything among the things I wrote. They don’t know why the content is the way it is. If they change the content without knowing, then they will be judged by everyone when they go to the other world. They will be charged for it. That’s why nobody should touch it without [my] permission." (493-287, 2005. 4. 26) "The reason why we are having this time is because [I’m worried that I] might leave behind affirmations that could be criticized after I leave to Spirit World. We have to make it very clear. The word Cheon Seong Gyeong is a very dreadful word. Any person, a third person, regardless of how great they may be, even if they have several Nobel prizes under their belt, nobody can touch [or change] the Cheon Seong Gyeong. That’s why new denominations will not arise." (447-187, 2004. 11. 26) What Hak Ja Han and the FFWPU leaders have done is a disgrace, they have been deleting, changing, and redacting Father’s words to fit a “new” and false teaching that Father never believed in. The original Cheon Seong Gyeong book was made exactly how Father wanted it. Hak Ja Han had no right to make a “new” fake Cheon Seong Gyeong for her own corrupt purposes! Thank God for Hyung Jin Nim, Father’s true heir and successor who created Sanctuary church for the purpose of preserving Father’s words and traditions and to lead the providence.

[evanescentjasmine]

Writing Egypt and Egyptian Characters: Rusty Quill Gaming Edition

I’ve finally caught up with the Cairo arc of Rusty Quill Gaming, which I was anticipating and dreading both. Fiction set in my country usually reduces it to a caricature of itself, especially when it takes place in the Victorian era, but considering everything they’ve said in their metacasts I was hoping Rusty Quill Gaming was the exception.

It wasn’t. 

I’m aware the game world plays fast and loose with history and setting, but the problems in this case are more than just inaccuracies. However, because I want to help fic writers and artists be able to portray Hamid and his family well, this resource will be split into two parts. The first part will tackle details I’ve been asked about with regard to the setting; it may touch on things RQG went wrong, but I’m writing it primarily as a resource for artists and writers. The second part will be my criticism of RQG, and why I found the Cairo arc actively harmful. This includes discussions of Orientalism and some racist text.

I should also preface this by saying I’m not a historian. Everything I say in this resource is a combination of what I grew up with and what I remember from school, supplemented by Google and guesswork. I’ll be explaining my thought process throughout, which can help you see what’s actual history and what’s my extrapolation.

Part One: On Egypt

Historical Context:

Figuring out the history of Egypt in RQG terms is a bit complicated, so bear with me because this will take a while. 

In real-world history, Egypt was a Roman then Byzantine province from 30 BC to around the mid 600s AD, at which point the Arab conquest swept through and Egypt became Muslim. 

What this means is that when the Meritocrats took down Rome and took over the world, Egypt was still a Roman province. That gives us a several hundred year gap before the Arabs that may have maintained the same culture? Or morphed a little back to some pre-Ptolemaic Ancient Egyptian, given their Meritocrat, Apophis, is named after a great Pharaonic serpent?

Either way, given Hamid’s name and the fact they live in Cairo, the city built by the Arabs, we can assume the Arab conquest still happened somehow, despite having a Meritocrat in Egypt. Maybe a Meritocrat out there is Arab and settled in Egypt for a bit with or before Apophis? Maybe it took a couple-hundred years for the Meritocrats to get all the previous Roman areas under control? Maybe there was a whole war and the Arabs won and settled and eventually they got to a truce or got absorbed into Meritocratic lands?

Many Muslim dynasties ruled throughout the period from the mid 600s to the 1500s. Given the lack of Islam in this world, probably the Arabs were unified by some Pre-Islamic deity/deities and brought them over as well, because I refuse to just sweep everything under the broad Greek God rug. 

In the 1500s, another Muslim dynasty took over--this time, from outside of the country, which is why it’s considered separate from all the rest. At this point, Egypt became part of the Ottoman Empire until the 1800s, which is when the Mohammed Ali dynasty started to try and secede and rule independently. And there was a brief blip of the French occupation for two years around then as well.

And, of course, we can’t forget about British colonisation, which started in the late 1800s with a veiled protectorate.

Presumably, since France and Britain are also Meritocratic and it seems like Apophis is currently ruling, we can disregard everything from the Ottomans onward. This changes, or should change, a ton, because Ottoman rule informed a lot of things from fashion to slang to nobility and so on. 

What we’re left with is most likely a Cairo that is still Arab but with much more Pharaonic influence, as Apophis is in charge, as well as continuing Greek influence due to the Gods. I am not a Coptic Christian, so I cannot speak to how these changes in history and religions would affect the Coptic language and culture, but no doubt it would still be around.

There would also be a bigger, more long-standing connection to other Meritocratic countries. This explains why Hamid was British-educated and so many people speak such good English without a British occupation to create the power disparity that would make that necessary to rise in Egypt and such a mark of status. 

However, this presents several confusing and contradictory aspects of the world building:

Why doesn’t this go both ways? Why aren’t there people in England and France who know Arabic or are influenced by Egypt? All we get is that the Tahan family are big. That’s it. If these countries are equals, it sure doesn’t look like it.

If Apophis is pharaonic and Ancient Egyptian culture and knowledge are so ubiquitous...why would they hollow out a pyramid to put a bank inside? It’s a tomb. It’s made to bury dead kings in a way that follows possibly still-existing cultural and religious beliefs. It’s the equivalent of someone building a bank inside a mausoleum. It’s bizarre.

Relatedly, if Ancient Egyptian culture and knowledge are so ubiquitous, why is Carter mentioning the Rosetta Stone? Why would the knowledge necessary to translate hieroglyphics have been lost? 

I mention these questions so fic writers can keep them in mind while writing and, of course, it’s entirely possible to create a workaround. For example, maybe the Rosetta Stone is supposed to be translating something else, like an ancient hidden magic?

Describing Cairo:

I want to make one thing very clear: Cairo is not, despite Alex’s description, like Vegas. While we do certainly have hotels and casinos, to reduce the city to only that is very harmful for reasons I’ll go into at the end of this resource.

Cairo is a very old city with a mix of architectural styles and is very heavily Muslim in real life. In Arabic, its tagline is often “city of a thousand minarets,” so clearly RQG Cairo will be fairly different. Given Apophis’ influence, Ancient Egyptian styles might be more prevalent in Cairo, but very likely not in the form of pyramids unless those pyramids were for the dead. In real life, some buildings do incorporate Ancient Egyptian flavour, usually just in the form of lotus columns or hieroglyphs. These would only be found in public institutions, however,  or, frankly, tourist-bait. 

Residential buildings tend to be clustered very close together and, since it’s an old city, streets are crowded and winding as the city keeps building on itself and spilling out of its previous bounds. Estates do, of course, exist, but I’d suggest against using Bryn’s example of Alhambra as a setting for the Tahan home. Alhambra is a palace fortress in Spain and, although it’s Andalusian and therefore influenced by Muslim architecture, it’s very different than anything in Egypt. It’s as absurd as saying a posh British character lives in a house that’s basically Versailles and leaving it there. I’ve included images of some Egyptian residential estates below, all from the 1800s to early 1900s.

And here are some photos of Cairo in the 1800s:

As you can see, not quite Vegas.

A fic set in Cairo can certainly still have the Cairo strip with all the casinos, since that’s an aspect of canon, but a place like that would probably be geared more to tourists and foreigners than locals. So long you’re aware of this while writing, and that Cairo would exist beyond it, you should be fine. It might also be worth having characters explore the actual city.

Weather:

The stereotype is that Egypt is just hot and sand year-round. It isn’t. The further south you go, the hotter it will get, so that Upper Egypt (which is in the south, yeah), is hotter than Lower Egypt, which is where Cairo and Alexandria are. Alexandria, by virtue of being on the Mediterranean, has fairly cold (for us) and rainy winters and mild, humid summers. Cairo gets very occasional rain and has harsher summers but is also dryer.

And, of course, a thing to remember is that even in the depths of the desert, the morning might be quite warm but the night will be quite cold as well.

Sandstorm season (called khamaseen) takes place from April - May but in the middle of Cairo it’s more of an annoyance than anything else.

Language:

Since they speak Arabic, it’s important to note that spoken Egyptian Arabic is very different from written Classical Arabic. Egyptian is a mishmash of Arabic, Coptic, a bit of Greek, and a bit of French (and, in the real world, some Turkish too) all smashed together. Accents differ from city to city, and Cairene Arabic is best known for the fact we pronounce the letter jeem as geem (so all soft Gs are turned into hard Gs) and tend to replace the letter qaf with a glottal stop.

This means that a Cairene wouldn’t be called Jamal, they’d be Gamal. A Cairene would pronounce burqa as bur’a.

Since religion plays a big part in language, RQG Egyptian Arabic may be a bit different. For instance, the greeting most people associate with Arabic is “Assalam alaykum” but that’s very specifically Muslim or at least associated with Islam, and might not have been as wide-spread given...y’know, that Islam doesn’t exist. I’m not saying it’s incorrect to use, just explaining the context.

Alternatives could include “Sabah/masa’ el-kheir” which means “Good morning/evening,” and “Naharak/Naharik saeed” which is, “May you have a good day.”

Fashion:

Although this didn’t really feature in RQG, I’ve received a lot of questions about the period’s fashion and honestly it’s my favourite thing ever so I probably would have touched on it anyway. I’ll only go into broad strokes, as there are plenty of regional variations and, again, I’m no expert 

Women

Egyptian women covered their heads and sometimes their faces not out of religiosity but out of a cultural expectation of modesty. This may well have come about as a result of the Arab/Muslim cultural majority, as to my knowledge this wasn’t the case in the Greek and Roman periods, but women of all religions covered their heads so that would likely still be the case in RQG’s Arab Egypt.

This isn’t with the hijab we know today. It may have been a cloth or kerchief tied over their heads and then the melaya laf (which is larger cloth, almost a sheet) that they wrap around themselves and over their head, as follows: 

The black face-covering was called a burqa or bur’a (not the same as a Muslim burqa, which serves similar modesty functions but is a separate thing) or a yashmak and may have been opaque black, white, or netted, such as in this picture:

Underneath the melaya they would be wearing a long, loose, patterned dress:

Upper class Egyptian women tended to wear Western dresses with a white yashmak that covered their faces and heads. A yashmak is Turkish, however, and without Ottoman influence this style and name might not have caught on in Egypt.

Men

While the melaya laf and yashmak have disappeared from Egypt, the traditional men’s gallabeya and ammama, or turban, are still seen widely today. The gallabeya (or jellabiya, outside of Cairene Arabic) is a long, loose garment with wide sleeves and no collar. It’s in muted, neutral colours, usually lighter ones like white or beige in the summer and navy blue or grey in the winter. You’ll have seen examples of it in the pictures of Cairo above, and here’s another one: 

Middle to upper class men and civil servants, however, tended to wear English suits with a tarboosh, or fez. Since fezzes were also a result of Ottoman rule, RQG Egyptians might not wear them.

And yes, impressive moustaches were also very much the fashion.

Names:

The running joke is that Hamid’s name is unnecessarily long, but my name is longer, and I don’t think that’s particularly unusual. We don’t usually go around introducing ourselves with all of them, admittedly, and I’m not sure whether Hamid does this as a way to indicate he’s overly fancy or because Bryn doesn’t realise it, but four names is not long. My ID boasts five, and I know of at least one more.

Arabic naming conventions use patronymics for all children, regardless of gender. What this means is that my name and my brother’s name is identical except for our first. 

Mine is Jasmine + Dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name

And my brother is also First name + Dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name.

Egyptians do not typically have last names, but an important family may all choose to identify under a name and use that as their last, such as the Tahans. In my case, I use my fifth name as my last name and introduce myself in everyday life as Jasmine Fifth Name. Notably, my brother does not, and goes by First name + Dad’s name instead. This isn’t unusual. On paperwork, however, we still have the same name.

Additionally, Egyptian women do not take their husbands’ last names in marriage, nor do children take any of her names. 

I’m not sure why, according to the wiki, Hamid’s sisters seem to have taken their mother’s name. Following Arabic naming conventions, they would all be First Name Saleh Haroun al Tahan, and their father would be Saleh Haroun al Tahan. A possible workaround might be that halflings have their own naming conventions that mean daughters have matronymics and sons patronymics. 

A note to podficcers: please google name pronunciations beforehand because Alex and Bryn’s are actually often wrong. Ishak, for instance, is not pronounced Ee-shak. It’s Iss-haaq or Iss-haa’, because of quirks of the Egyptian accent I mentioned earlier.

Part Two: Criticism

I understand it can be difficult to portray a country different from yours with accuracy. I understand the RQG crew will not have had the perspective on Egypt and Cairo that I do by virtue of living here. I do also acknowledge that I’m sure none of this was actively malicious or on purpose.

But it doesn’t have to be on purpose to hurt, frankly, and given how often the RQG crew have talked about their responsibility with a game that’s intended for an audience, I expected better. Bryn has spoken about not wanting to fall into stereotypes for Hamid and, to be fair, by being a non-religious fancyboy Hamid does neatly avoid the religious zealot and the noble (or ignoble) savage routes. Unfortunately, he falls into another, which was hammered home by the portrayal of Cairo and the Tahans as a whole.

Our first glimpse of Cairo, after the sandstorm clears, describes it as “basically Vegas,” with hotels and garish casinos catering to the rich all along the “Cairo strip.” From then on, our only other images of Cairo are vast estates and a pyramid in the desert. 

The only named Egyptians we meet are the Tahan family, who are introduced through an absurdly lavish estate compared to the palace fortress of Alhambra, a gambling problem that apparently runs in the family, murder, and corruption, as the head of the family who has already covered up a crime for one son then turns himself in to protect the other.

Then, to top it all off, Hamid is apparently utterly incapable of understanding why letting his brother get away with murder is an issue until the paladins point it out.

Do you see the pattern, here?

I understand this was aiming to be a criticism of the rich and powerful, but the fact remains that the Tahans are the only representation of Egyptians we get. While this may not be harems and hand-chopping levels of Orientalism, the image presented is of Cairo as a den of excessive wealth and vice, and Egyptians as corrupt and immoral.

This isn’t new.

The Middle East and North Africa (as well as India and China and everywhere else considered “the Orient”) has often been tied to images of wealth and overt splendour, usually hand-in-hand with the Oriental despot and corruption. This view went beyond just fiction and influenced the policies with which we were ruled. 

Cromer, Consul-General of Egypt, wrote books called Modern Egypt. He had this to say about us:

“The mind of the Oriental, on the other hand, like his picturesque streets, is eminently wanting in symmetry. His reasoning is of the most slipshod description. . . . They are often incapable of drawing the most obvious conclusions from any simple premises of which they may admit the truth.”

In his opinion, our inability to follow logical reason led to us being inherently untruthful and, therefore, immoral. Similarly, British statesman Balfour was of the belief that:

 “Lord Cromer’s services during the past quarter of a century have raised Egypt from the lowest pitch of social and economic degradation until it now stands among Oriental nations, I believe, absolutely alone in its prosperity, financial and moral.”

Egypt was under British colonial rule from 1882 - 1952.

You can see, I hope, why a storyline focused on an Egyptian family’s corruption in an Egypt characterised almost entirely by its casinos and one lavish mansion was very uncomfortable. The fact Azu was one of the people trying to explain morality to Hamid keeps it from sliding into a clear East vs West dichotomy, but the fact remains this is a British show featuring British players and this is the story they chose to tell. 

The rest was just salt in the wound, really. 

I expect mispronounced names and pyramids and jokes about camels in most media, but rarely do the makers of said media then go on to pat themselves on the back for doing their “due diligence” on a metacast about sensitivity.

I see weird naming conventions and mispronounced names and “basically Vegas” and “crocodile steak” and “camel’s milk froyo” and I do not see due diligence.  

I see a setting that barely looked past Cleopatra and I do not see due diligence.

I see a storyline that shows only excess and immorality and corruption and I do not see due diligence.

I see a disregard for me and mine, and I do not appreciate it. 

Literature I’ve referred to in writing this criticism:

Orientalism (1978), by Edward W. Said

Orientalism in the Victorian Era (2017), a paper by Valerie Kennedy

Orientalism in American Cinema: Providing an Historical and Geographical Context for PostColonial Theory (2010), a thesis by Samuel Scurry 

Popular Culture, Orientalism, and Edward Said (2012), an article by Robert Irwin

[fishmongeringstudies]

six: wandering the city while waiting for a train that'll never come, you stop to wave at a dog on the street only to realize you have mistaken a crumpled bag of mcdonald's for a chihuahua

i almost slipped and died in the shower today. luckily i didn't, because i read somewhere that slipping and dying in the shower makes it a little hard for you to finish writing a manuscript for a novel fictionalizing the events of your freshman spring semester that's definitely going to become a new york times bestseller in about four years' time, but i came pretty close. for a moment i had my hand on the wall and my legs splayed like a barbie doll stuck to a stripper pole and the matchbox world behind the shower curtain was slipping steadily south and heading lower still. and then i caught myself.

several minutes later i heard scuffling beyond the pale, soapy shower curtain and thought there might be someone creeping on me. if someone was creeping on me i had an idea of who it might be, which made the prospect all the more likely and infinitely more convincing inside the grapefruit-sized thing i called my brain. then i heard the clap of god's hands in an ashen sky, and i knew. this was no man made disaster-in-waiting. it had begun to rain.

it didn't rain for long. five minutes at best, two if my grasp on the spatial-temporal continuum is worse than i'd imagined (this is very likely; the stars pass me by faster than i can count them these days), but long enough that anyone who happened to be outside when that first teardrop fell from the sky got a little wet. a little fucked up, if you will, which, hey. good for him. he deserves to get a little fucked up.

but i get carried away. please excuse my personal grievances. this is not a lament, it is a swimming pool. full of tiny colorful fish which flit around at its bottom, chasing strands of sunlight like children on a playground.

the weather forecast says it'll rain again tomorrow, and maybe the day after, too, if the world stays sad enough to let it happen. it makes me nostalgic. when i left in february monsoon season was in full swing, tearing trees from their roots with big meaty hands and making every fleeting boring moment into the kind of gray sunday afternoon on which i imagine the directors of romantic dramas like to shoot break-ups. rain in singapore looks different. it's not a bucket full of water, it's a room. a blue room against a silver sky. your socks stuck to your ankles with the kind of grim determination that makes you almost a little sad to peel them off, to toss them in the washing machine behind the kitchen. there's a little balcony behind the kitchen in the house you left in february, with a washing machine and a ledge for sitting on and a dryer that doesn't work. you used to go there when you wanted to check on the restaurant across the street. from here you can make out the round, blue-rimmed tables that attract students, biking enthusiasts, three am brawls between red-faced european men and their red-faced european friends. if there's noise on this side of the street, it's probably coming from there.

summer. summer reminds me of home. so far i've been telling people that the association is a bad one, and it certainly isn't a lie, but it's not a whole truth either, if one believes in the matter of whole truths to begin with. i'm starting to think maybe there are only skim-milk truths, clotted cream truths, 0% fat yogurt truths. truths that change shape when you aren't looking. we aren't looking most of the time, after all. we're very busy people. all of us. we're trying to change the world.

and for what? who are we trying to save? do you want to live forever? that's the goal, isn't it. i mean it's definitely mine. i won't blame you if the concept of death sits on your shoulder like a fourth generation ipod touch with a broken home button, whispering really fucked up shit into your ear when you're alone. i mean it definitely does for me.

puzzle-girl is in new york now, last i checked. good for her. i hear new york is full of lights and electricity and car exhaust. maybe one day she will learn that friendship isn't an emergency help-line. probably not. my friend thinks she will, thinks we'll come back around in our junior year and everyone will see us stuck to each other again like two grotesque modern art pieces drilled back-to-back into a museum exhibit wall only with a firm mutual understanding of what boundaries are, but i have my doubts.

once someone told me with the kind of half-fake half-genuine smile that makes you wonder if AI technology has advanced far enough to mimic the complexities of stupid hormonal teenagers with really bad interpersonal issues after all that i was blooming. coincidentally all the flowers on campus had suddenly decided to poke their heads out of the dirt like babies busting their way out of refrigerators, guns blazing, hearts shot to pieces, so it's not like he was completely bullshitting me. he was only ninety-eight percent bullshitting me. the two percent is why he comes up in my writing as often as he does, all this time later. like i think he was ninety-eight percent clown but two percent circus, two percent red-nosed reindeer trying to unionize behind a striped curtain, two percent something real. or at least i like to think that way. i'm a writer. we have to pretend there's something to write about. or else what will we write about?

so yeah. one time someone told me i was blooming. at the time i was embarrassed. and then after the story put an abrupt end to itself i was madly obsessed with the idea of flowers jutting out of cracks in the earth, gold pouring forth from blood-wounds, poinsettia eyes, whatever, whatever, and then the flowers started wilting. standing on the path outside my dorm i was like what the fuck? why the hell is everything dying? it's been like three days, god, what are you guys made of, tissue paper?

i was talking to the flowers. which died in spite of my indignation, so that's one for nature, zero for me. good for them. see you next spring, when things will, hopefully, be different. i don't have a plan as much as i have a dream i'd like to see walk into reality on three legs and a pitchfork. but it's a good dream. i promise.

the sky's clear as glass now. it's so bright i could probably stick my hand up there and stir vigorously and then an angel would emerge from the ether, rubbing her eye sleepily with the back of her hand. that's the kind of clarity i'm talking about. making metaphors about christianity-clarity. i am lonely and my dreams are full of beautiful people-clarity.

that's a lie-clarity. loneliness is, as mentioned in a previous installment of the meandering car accident i call this blog, a choice, and i'm too lazy and full of my own slew of interpersonal issues to commit to something like that. but summer is new, and it's like i'm getting used to the body in my basement all over again. how do i step around it, how do i make sure i don't look at its face? and its eyes, oh, those eyes. how terrible. how full of absence.

there will be exactly two hundred students on campus when summer move-ins are finished next week. this school has a population of nearly sixteen hundred. what are we doing?

research. academia. learning a new language. road trips. plane trips. horse riding lessons. research. academia. learning a new language. relationships. spaceships. building a ladder to the moon.

it feels like the sun never sets sometimes. the hours slide into one another like tectonic plates beneath the surface of the world and yet the sky remains just as it looked this afternoon, milk-white and pale as death. a hot summer wind blows and sends the clouds careening sideways into each other, and yet from this distance nothing changes. drop a body in a bathtub and nothing changes. beat someone up and nothing changes. survive thirteen weeks of bad mistakes and then worse ones, midnight mistakes, thursday evening mistakes, the kind of mistake you don't think you'll ever be able to write about, and still nothing changes.

they say there's always a silver lining but what if i want fur instead? let's say i want a fur-lined sky with fur-lined clouds and a little heart-shaped toy that makes a sound when you step on it. let's say i want to be fifteen again. the sky doesn't care. it still looks like a damn sky. the sky doesn't do things out of sentimentality.

it's just kind of there. today i'm just kind of here. today we're all alive. good for you. good for me. good thing my hand was on the wall when i slipped in the shower, so i could get out and dry my hair and then sit down in this shitty weird-smelling lounge with my laptop with the cracked touchpad and my cool elmo slippers, and tell you about this solitary life on mars.

05.26.2021

[justhewayfaringstranger]

So, I've wanted to address this topic for a while and this post I read this morning while having breakfast is a sort of response from the universe.

I would say to start by explaining a simple concept.

Demons and spirits are not the same thing, but rather, they vary from each other. Likewise, spirits and ghosts are not the same.

• Creatures understood as "demons" exist in all religions; they are supernatural beings, typically associated with the evil, historically prevalent in religions, occultism, literature, fiction, mythology and folklore;

• "spirits" are instead organized energy with at least a certain level of sensitivity that has an energy body and in most cases also an astral body. The Latin word is a translation of the Greek prneuma ("breath", "air", "vital breath") and to some extent it can be seen in the apeiron of the Presocratic Anaximander, who had to some extent dematerialized the archè (Greek: ἀρχή ) of the other Ionian naturalists, the original principle of the universe and of every part of it, impalpable and invisible but still material, as shown by another void that, blowing inside it, fills with air matter. With the Stoics, the term begins to be compared to today's one of spirit. The pneuma belongs to the god who gives life to things and guides them according to his wishes. The pneuma is a force that manifests itself not only in the individual man but is present in all things as the "soul of the world". They are ancient entities like the world itself, part of the primordial chaos and consequently neutral in themselves;

• the term “ghost” refers instead to any incorporeal entity. The term ghost comes from the Greek φάντασμα phàntasma, which in turn derives from φαντάζω (phantàzo, "to show"; from the root φαν-, which expresses the idea of ​​"appearing" and "showing"), and had the meaning of apparition (understood as a supernatural manifestation) and only with time has its meaning been restricted to indicating the apparition of a deceased.

In 1800, with the birth of the practice of spiritism in France, it ended up rendering in the common imagination "spirits" and "ghosts" similar entities, if not true synonyms.

The French pedagogue Allan Kardec after observing a series of phenomena, formulated the hypothesis that such phenomena could only be attributed to incorporeal intelligences (spirits). Spiritual communications took place "thanks to the intervention of a medium", that is a person with particular skills who acted as mediator between spirits and living beings, during the so-called séance. This became a busines for many and most of the spiritualists were actually charlatans who swore to the victims that they could talk to the dead. In most cases, those who could afford to turn to a medium, were economically wealthy and of high rank lost and therefore for the scammer it was certainly not difficult to obtain information (even intimate) about the deceased and those around him, if at this was added some well-orchestrated play of smoke and lights, here is the "grandmother's ghost".

Having understood this, one wonders what it is then what we understand as a "ghost of a person". It is a trace left by the living. On a scientific level, death doesn't exist. From the chemical-physical point of view we are isolated systems that receive energy and produce it. But the universe itself is a closed system. So our energy is the energy of the universe. We are universe. What happens when we die? Our energy returns to the universe system. But as we know, energy is neither created nor destroyed, but it changes. So our energy is energy that has been changed in the past by others, and will be changed by others when we are gone. Death doesn't exist because energy is immortal. The energy that I am using now to tap on my laptop keyboard is the same energy that Gaius Julius Caesar used to pull the reins of his horse and to cross the Rhine. And it will be the energy that in the future a scientist will use to to be able to travel between the various space-time dimensions. Death doesn't exist, and the life of one is the life of all.

To simplify then, what we mean as the ghost of Marilyn Monroe for example, is nothing more than a sort of energetic gif of Marilyn Monroe.

I'll give you another example. Anne Boleyn died by beheading, therefore by a violent and unjust death. In this situation, she is likely to have felt strong emotions and released a huge and consistent huge amount of energy as a result. Let's say that Henry VIII was present at the execution along with a bunch of other people, let's also say that he went back to that place (or others where Anne felt strong emotions and therefore released large amounts of energy) and thought about her, let's say that Elizabeth I also thought of her mother and so many other people. All these emotions have turned into energy. If we saw energy as a palette of colors, it would be as if: the more consistent the emotions, the more intense the color, therefore, the more energy we send (even unconsciously) to the energetic image of Anne Boleyn (the energetic gif), the clearer this will be where most of the energy is concentrated (eg the Tower of London, a room in the building, etc.).

So when we go to a "haunted" place, what we see is not the "person", but a kind of still image. And according to the speech above, it is therefore normal to find this type of freeze frame in places such as castles, hospitals, etc. then if these are found on natural energy centers or lines… bingo!

Speaking instead of spirits, as mentioned before, there are no good or bad spirits. Good and bad as well as light and dark, like day and night, are a contrast present in many traditions, including native ones. This duality can also be referred to the human being and represent a moment of acting or thinking of a person. You can think and act towards the light or towards the darkness and this can also happen to shamans.

Just think of the ego and when it takes over, or when you try to manipulate, at that moment you are not in the light. But it can happen and that doesn't mean being good or bad. Acting, in fact, can also be connected with a person's karma and precisely follow what is required by this spiritual law.

Light and darkness, as in the human world, are also reflected in the world of spirits and even in this case they do not absolutely determine the condition of goodness or badness. Spirits, who in the light can be protectors, guides or allies, can also move in the dark dimension.

And if we think like the natives that everything has a spirit and that it can move between light and darkness, we can understand how there can be spirits that are particularly powerful and able to move very strong energies such as to create an effect in ordinary reality.

It is important to know the distinction between light and shadow because, from an early age, we were educated to separate the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, but for this we have become very sensitive when it comes to going to work on our shadows. As I told you, light and shadow are states of being that we all have within us. Working with shadows doesn't mean black magic, witchcraft or whatever. Simply observe the aspects of light and be able to deal with those of shadow as well. Light and darkness are two sides of the same coin that it is important to integrate.

Being half Latin, therefore leaning towards a culture extremely linked to its roots and above all to the relationship with mental spirits, it isn't difficult for me to understand this concept, and therefore despite being a Christian, I have no problem in defining myself as a witch. Of course, coming to this awareness wasn't easy, as I am partly European and therefore I grew up in a society in a Western society that is scared of what it cannot control. After years of researching my origins, my culture and theological studies, I have come to find my balance.

Returning, however, to the main reason for this post, having made the necessary explanations (and given the tools for a critical analysis of the matter), here are the points on which I personally disagree and why:

Reading books about witchcraft: Knowledge for educational purposes is by no means negative, quite the opposite. The question is whether the aforementioned "about witchcraft" book is a "spell book" or some sort of "sacred book". For example, if I find the Necronomicon tomorrow and start reading it without knowing what it is, it is likely that I will find myself living the remake of The Conjuring in the real life.

Casting most types of spells, including hexes: Same speech made in the previous point. One of the first rules of witchcraft is "know your practice". You must be aware that what you are doing is not a game and every action has consequences, even if you don't believe in the rule of 3 (everything you do comes back to you 3 times). In the specific case of curse and hexes spells, they are the most treacherous and dangerous, because you are working with dark and malevolent energies. This type of practice in particular is a double-edged weapon, which is why many witches advise against them and propose alternative methods if possible.

Practicing divination: It isn't always negative, but in some types of divination the help and guidance of spirits and divinities is sought. For example, I often do bibliomancy with the bible and even if I first ask for God's guidance, in front of each answer I ask for confirmation, because the devil was the most beautiful angel in heaven and just as darkness does not allow us to see. where we go, even a dazzling light can deceive us.

Playing with Ouija or other talking boards: Ouija is not a game and it is an extremely dangerous tool, precisely because what you do is contact spirits and entities and you cannot know who will answer the other side. Nothing good anyway.

Putting up fantasy or non-Christian artwork: Have you ever seen Annabel? Here, the principle is the same. Be careful what you bring into your home, as home is a sacred space, and nothing can enter without you giving it permission. So if you not only invite it, but rather you bring it inside and give it a space, don't come and complain to me if it is difficult to send it away.

Celebrating pagan holidays: If it's a holiday of a closed religion, avoid ruining your life. Holidays basically consist of performing rituals that often involve spirits. Learn about the history of that holiday you want to celebrate, the symbols, the rituals, and why it is celebrated in that particular way.

Celebrating Halloween: The same as the previous point, except that we all (or almost all) know that samahin is the day when the space where the veil falls and the two worlds come into contact.

Watching scary movies and TV shows: I'm not saying that if you watch The Exorcist you will be possessed, but I can't assure you otherwise either. I took The Exorcist as an example because it is known that a real ritual is performed in the movie and a lot of "disturbing" things have happened on the set of the film and to the actors. When you watch a movie, even if it is fictional, if for example it performs an evocation or a ritual you are not only witnessing, you are participating in all respects. Be careful, every person is different.

Reading (horror novels, fantasy books, comics and graphic novels). Playing (tabletop RPGs, LARP games, video games): Same as the previous point.

Listening to heavy metal music, dancing: It goes for any kind of music actually. Do you know how many pop songs I use as a spell?

Dyeing your hair: I'm not saying you'll invoke a demon, but for many cultures cutting your hair makes you more vulnerable to spiritual attack and color is an essential aspect of witchcraft.

Swearing: Wishing someone who has crossed your path death is considered a curse in all respects. Even if done unconsciously.

Drinking: Drinking, smoking… shamans have used alcohol and drugs for centuries to connect with in the spiritual world.

Having tattoos and piercings: As long as you don't tattoo Aramaic words that you don't know the meaning of, everything is fine. Before getting a tattoo in a symbol you saw in a temple in Mexico, find out the meaning of it. I'll give you an example: my cousin once bought a T-shirt with the words "puta madre" (mother whore). He had bought it only because he liked it, without knowing the meaning of the word.

Now, most of these points are mainly related to intention. As I said before, I often use music in my spells, but if for example, I use "can't be touch by Roy jones" for a protection and encouragement spell (eg a manifestation) and a few months later I listen to the same song on the radio doesn't mean it will work like a spell again. In many cases it is a question of intention. Yhat's why it is important to educate yourself.

[beardycarrot]

I, lying awake in bed because that’s how it always is the day before you have something important to do... am going to try to guess what the plot of Bioshock Infinite is, based on what I’ve seen in the first few hours and with knowledge of the other two (and a half?) games. Spoilers for the entire Bioshock series, except maybe Infinite, but I intend to knock it out of the park.

So. The first Bioshock is set in a futuristic (by 1950’s standards) city at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, created by a hardcore libertarian named Andrew Ryan as a way to once and for all live in a society free of government regulation. I won’t get into all the “sea slugs that produce a gene-altering wonder drug” and “child slaves brainwashed to drink corpse blood” stuff; very interesting, very important to the plot, but if I tried to explain the world of Bioshock I’d be lying here typing on my phone until the sun comes up. That stuff aside, the major plot points are that you’re not actually a guy who just happened to crash-land near the entrance to the city but are, in fact, Andrew Ryan’s son, and the guy who’s been guiding you through the city was actually using a Manchurian Candidate-style activation phrase to manipulate you into doing whatever he wanted. It’s a big, mind-blowing reveal (as is the realization that your character is actually about four years old... science fiction, man).

Bioshock 2 didn’t really have any big plot twists... or plot, for that matter ...but it was developed by an entirely different team, while the original’s team also did Infinite, so I’m expecting a return to form. Just as an aside, Bioshock 2 had a short DLC campaign called Minerva’s Den, which had a fantastic story, and a twist that the player can figure out on their own if they’re paying attention. Your goal is to get a very smart computer (for 1968) out of the underwater city and back to the surface so you can use it to cure all the victims of the slug-borne gene manipulation, and you’re guided over radio by the computer’s creator. At the end, you learn that the one guiding you was actually the computer itself, and that you’re its creator, slowly recovering from brainwashing. For the record, the endings to all three of these have made me cry.

So! With those kinds of twists in mind, what am I expecting from Bioshock Infinite? Well, I went into the game only knowing the names of the protagonists, that rather than underwater it was set in a floating sky city, and that there was some kind of religious theming but also a lot of old-timey Americana. As it turns out, the people of this city worship— no, have DEIFIED the founding fathers, and are lead by a man called Father Comstock. I’m pretty sure that name is a reference to the Comstock Act, similar to Andrew Ryan being named after Ayn Rand... but he could actually be called Father Cornstalk and I just haven’t been paying attention.

Anyway. Just a few minutes into the game, I noticed that a statue of Comstock looked suspiciously similar to my character... before deciding that I didn’t actually have that clear of a mental image of my character, they wouldn’t pull the “secret son” thing twice, and as much as I love it there probably isn’t going to be any time travel. Le sigh.

UNTIL!

So, your goal is to get a girl named Elizabeth out of the city, and there is some legitimately weird stuff going on with her prison. Like, they have some of her personal possessions from various points in her life in containment: a teddy bear, a diary, and a bloody cloth labeled “menarche”. Gross. Why would you keep that. Well, when an electric current (or something visually similar) is applied, the bear and diary change color, and the blood disappears from the cloth. The reason I’m not sure if it’s electricity is that there’s some kind of siphon system set up, it looks like a bunch of subwoofers, and it’s absorbing... something? When she sings, maybe? Is the energy being siphoned what changed the quantum states of those objects, or whatever was happening? There was also a chart showing that when she hit puberty... something, really spiked, which is what forced them to build the siphon. I can’t claim to know what’s happening here, but when I finally saw her she was day dreaming about Paris, and.. I guess opened some kind of portal, TO Paris? But then a bus or something barreled towards her, so she quickly closed it. In the couple seconds that the portal was open, I saw the marquee on a movie theater that... well, was in French, but I’M PRETTY SURE said “Return of the Jedi”. I should probably mention that this game is set in 1912. That smells like time travel to me, baby!

So, this is where it gets interesting, and confusing, and complicated. I think Elizabeth is Comstock’s daughter, from various signs and posters about Comstock’s seed being their salvation, and The Lamb of God being locked in the tower, and such... and signs about a “false shepherd” who would try to take her away (again, lots of weird divergent Christian sect stuff). One sign showered the false shepherd’s hand as having the initials AD branded on the back, which the protagonist Booker does indeed have. Before rescuing Elizabeth, Comstock confronts you, and seems to know all about Booker’s past, including his wife Anna (who died in childbirth), and claims to know his future as well. Being a prophet and such. Thing is, the way it’s presented, that whole thing could’ve all been in Booker’s head...? Shortly after rescuing Elizabeth, you run into someone who mistakes her for someone named Annabelle. Hmm HMMM. I’ve also run into a diary by someone named Rosalind Lutece (I think she’s one of the creepy twins who keep popping up everywhere) talking about physics and what sounded like the concept of quantum superpositioning, as well as a little informational kiosk in which she claims quantum mechanics are what enable the city to float. There were also a couple diaries that seemed to imply Elizabeth came from... somewhere else, and a part of her might still be there, or something?

SO. Finally, we get to the part where I theorize on what’s going on. In short... iunno.

Okay, well, I feel like my idea should be obvious by now. I think Comstock might be a future, or ALTERNATE REALITY FUTURE, version of Booker, and Elizabeth is... either a past version of his wife, before she went back in time and married him, or an alternate-reality version of his daughter? But then who is the Annabelle that the girl thought Elizabeth was? Did Booker’s child not die along with his wife, and was secretly wisked away to skytown? Comstock’s wife is consistently referred to as Lady Comstock, but what if her name is Annabelle too? Maybe it’s the same concept as the Heinlein story By His Bootstraps, with the protagonist only realizing that he IS now the old man from the beginning, and has to get his younger self into this weird time loop in order to live the life he’s lead?

I might be going a little off the rails; I mean, I’m pretty sure that the statue of Comstock I saw earlier actually reminded me of Handsome Jack, a character from another game I haven’t played who happens to wear an outfit similar to Booker’s. That said, there’s DEFINITELY some kind of time travel or dimension-hopping shenanigans going on here. There are good writers on this game, and I refuse to believe the Annabelle/Anna thing is a Batman v Superman-level coincidence.

The weird part is that in the tower where they were keeping Elizabeth, they have documentation of her dating back to one year old, so she was clearly exhibiting... something, unusual, even as a baby. The game also has yet to explain Vigors, its versions of the Plasmids from the first two Bioshock games, which were basically superpowers granted by the substance produced by those sea slugs. If I had to guess, Vigors are... a result of some kind of quantum something-or-other, which they made from whatever it is they were siphoning off of Elizabeth? Maybe it’s a Scarlet Witch kind of thing... you don’t actually change yourself, you just find yourself in an alternate reality where everything else is 100% the same, except you’re a version of yourself who can shoot crows out of your hands.

Right, so. My... official theory is... that... I have no idea what’s going on. Yeah, sorry, something in that mess up there is bound to be close, but when you get into time travel and/or dimension-hopping, all bets are off the table. Or all bets, a literally infinite number of bets, are on the table. Which is a lot to try to comprehend.

[gryfon-spanish-werewolf]

Uuh dunno if you would like this prompt : Anna and Elsa as a mythical creatures.

Would love too see what you will write them as ^^

@like-redhead-probably I sat thinking about this ask for a long time, because while I IMMEDIATELY thought of one for Elsa, Anna’s absolutely eluded me. And I know you were probably looking for a story, but I am unable to stop myself from first EXPLAINING my choices xD

I was already thinking about the myth of the Hulder (or huldra if we’re speaking of the creature in general instead of the specific Norwegian myth) for other story-related reasons, and as I did more research, I felt like the Hulder REALLY shared similarities with Elsa.

Generally speaking the huldra is a Scandinavian myth of a pale skinned, blonde or brown haired, attractive young woman who lives in the wilderness, often luring men away with song or dance to be killed or misled, stuck wandering forever. Sometimes she’s connected strongly to water, and instead of making men lost, she drowns them. Sometimes she is described as similar to an elf or fey-like creature, with characteristics related to other Huldufolk (we’ll get to them later) such as living in a parallel world, or a world Underground, and therefore preferring caves or appearing and disappearing suddenly. Sometimes she is depicted as having a hollow back, or a cow’s tail, which she hides out of embarrassment or to conceal her true identity. Which… how cute is that?

Before the 11th century, the myths were focussed more around the Huldufolk, which literally means “Hidden Folk”. There are lots of stories as to why and how the Huldufolk came to exist, but for the purpose of Elsa I think it most appropriate to look at the Christianization of the myths. Why?:

Frozen and Frozen 2 are modern movies made by an American company and Christianity is nigh untanglable with American culture, they take place in ~1840s Norway, F1 has a dedicated place of Christian congregation depicted in said movie, an official royal crowning overseen by a Christian faith leader, and the adaptation of Frozen generally comes from author Hans Christian Anderson and therefore should take his life and society into account, etc.

The Christianized myth says that one day Eve was washing her children (presumably after Cain, Abel, and Seth) in the river, when she heard God approaching. Ashamed that He would see her kids unclean, she hid the half she wasn’t done bathing, and when God asked, “Where are the other children?” Eve claimed that she had all of them present, indicating the clean ones. This gave God pause, but in the end He said, “Then let all that is Hidden, remain Hidden.” The children that Eve lied about became the Huldufolk, unable to live among humans. These people would eventually become characterized as dwarves, elves, fairies, etc., as time and interpretations rolled on, the huldra being just one of many mythical “species”.

So. Who is Elsa? She’s a:

fictional, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned young woman who led thousands of men wlw to wander helplessly into the dark caves and wildlands of social media with a power ballad and a jaw-dropping transformation sequence

Okay I’m joking… mostly…

In fact my interest in choosing the Hulder for Elsa lies purely outside of any romantic or sexual appeal, especially since Elsa as a character exhibits next to 0 romantic or sexual interest across two whole movies and an additional two shorts. Indeed, there’s a reason people headcanon her as either asexual, aromantic, or both! No, the reasons I chose the Hulder are:

Elsa’s name

Her upbringing

Her duty as queen, and

Her general behavior, specifically in regards to Frozen 1, as Frozen 2 Elsa is, at times, an almost completely different character

Elsa’s name was chosen very specifically by the filmmakers because it means “God is my Oath”. Oaths are binding, heavy, and invoke the maker’s or subject’s actions and personhood in the future. In Elsa’s case specifically, it invokes divine witness: perfect for a queen, someone born to rule. A promise to be fair, to uphold, to protect, to lead, to be a dignified and honorable face for the country. And Elsa was so ready to be that… except for the powers of course. Or at least, when they became something other than a magical gift of wonder and joy. When they became dangerous. Then there comes another oath, spoken to powerful creatures of magic, the Trolls, and born from parental fear: “She can learn to control it.”

Binding, heavy, invoking of Elsa’s future. As she grows, Elsa becomes closed off, quiet, hiding in her own home. She still takes her duties seriously, but now that she has been Other’d, taught to hide herself and her curse, she is just as much shadow as person. To young Anna, Elsa must have been almost ghostlike, disappearing right when Anna thought she’d cornered her, only to reappear sometime later down the hall, out of arm’s reach.

God promised Adam and Eve that their children would inherit the earth, even after leaving the Garden of Eden. Then suddenly that changed, due to Eve’s fear and shame of her unwashed children, and some would now inherit Underground, or somewhere else entirely. The lost children of Eve had become Other’d, needing to hide, disappear, and resort to inhuman tactics just to exist. Maybe they’re jealous, maybe they're just tricksters. But it’s not their fault. And it wasn’t Elsa’s either. Another reason they are similar.

Now, it’s not all doom and gloom for the Hulder, or for Elsa. While the Hulder is generally known for her more chaotic and negative attributes - just like our favorite snow queen, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. There are a few myths that say burning a charcoal fire -instead of a coal or gas one- is most pleasing to the Hulder, that she’ll even watch over it during the night, and wake the sleepers in case something happens. If a traveler leaves supplies behind with a note or offering for the Hulder, they will travel safely. In fact, some people leave caches for her, as though to cater to specific requests. Coming across the Hulder by chance can have a multitude of outcomes, but if an astute observer spots her cow tail and mentions it, she may become shy and run away. Don’t mention the empty back though, that’s almost certain death.

Basically my point is… trade out the word “traveler” for the name “Anna” and we can draw all the similarities we want. Anna did all of those things, in a way. Anna gave Elsa a little gift of their favorite snowman every Christmas. Anna knocked on Elsa’s door and spoke to her, treated her kindly despite the distance between them, literal and metaphorical. It’s not hard to imagine that Anna left little notes around the castle, hoping Elsa would find them, read them, and know that Anna still loved her, still missed her. And, well, hopefully Anna wasn’t setting any fires and falling asleep next to them - but Anna always kept a light on for Elsa, in her heart. And it flickered and wavered sometimes, but it was a strong fire most days. And we know Elsa was always drawn to it, drawn to Anna because she loved her right back. Loved her first, even. And because it was a warmth that pleased Elsa, she tended it, quietly, carefully, warmly. Like putting a blanket over an Anna that had fallen asleep in the painting room, refusing that slice of chocolate cake so Anna could have two desserts, and listening, for hours and hours, days and days, for the sound of Anna’s glorious bonfire-like soul outside her bedroom door. Even when her secret was revealed, Elsa believed that the best way to protect Anna’s life, her flame, was to distance herself, running to a secret, special place all her own - much like the Hulder might run away back to the Underground.

And this last part’s just me, but I’d like to think that if the Hulder was treated kindly, respected, and given dignity, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if someone came across her accidentally. That instead of being instantly drowned, or the Hulder becoming sheepish and attempting to run, it would feel recognized. It could be called by name. And instead of feeling the need to hide it’s Otherness, it could be treated as part of it, and cared for just the same. I don’t even need to be subtle here: Anna called Elsa by Name, really saw her, and reframed her darkness into light. Anna hasn’t fought God yet, but she did walk through hell and back for a sister that everyone else saw as a threat, monster, and sorcerer. A category 9 Other. Too bad for them, Anna’s got a Category 10 heart.

Speaking of. We finally got to Anna.

Anna was difficult to pin down because to me, Anna is so very, very human. That’s what makes her special! Yes, yes, you could throw any mythical creature at Anna and the fun part would be trying to make it work within her personality and characterization BUT since the question was Anna AS a mythical creature, that changes the game! The word ‘creature’ itself tends to conjure something distinctly INhuman. So I…. tried, and cheated maybe a little. Because I picked for Anna the Norse Valkyrie.

Most people know what Valkyries are so this one takes significantly less explaining. Valkyries are women that are warriors, shieldmaidens, and the hands of Odin, and they choose who lives and who dies during battle. Their chosen dead ride with them to Valhalla, while those they choose to live are usually granted honors in life. There are the darker sides of Valkyries that paint them as blood hungry maidens waiting on the sidelines before a war, singing the names of who will die with glee… but generally speaking the version of Valkyries that most people know and admire today are accurate! And thank goodness because attempting to depict Anna the other way would probably give me an ulcer.

Anna, much like the Valkyries, is a woman of valor and strength, who is perceptive, guides others, sees into people’s hearts and reveals their goodness. Valkyries are also warriors of prowess themselves, and Anna in Frozen 2 with that ice sword? We all know she was ready to use that for real. She also exemplifies traits that Valkyries both look for and have! Bravery in the face of danger: hello Marshmallow, Elsa’s own blizzard, Hans’ lethal sword strike, LIVING MOUNTAINS, and a damn collapsing.... dam. She also defends those who cannot do it themselves: saying publicly that, “My sister is not a monster… she was scared, she didn’t mean any of this,” even if that cast suspicion or doubt on herself, and the crown, as a whole. Anna knew and believed in Elsa, despite all the years and heartbreak and anger. Despite the impossible magic that literally just happened before her very eyes. Belief in character, despite appearances. And once they were reunited, Anna made every effort to stay by Elsa’s side because she STILL had that faith in her. Anna’s name means “Grace” or “of Grace”, and damn if she didn’t extend that to the person others found most unworthy, even to Elsa herself. Valkyries see what others don’t, and their decisions are final.

[Deep breath] SO! You asked for Anna and Elsa as mythical creatures. You got… a small academic paper, by social media standards xD. I intend to write a little piece about a Valkyrie who encounters the Hulder on the edges of a battlefield and… realizes she never made a choice about this particular woman. And wonders why she can’t ;). BUT I didn’t wanna leave you hanging any longer. Hope you like my choices!

Oh also, nobody asked, but Kristoff is a werebear. No research required

[kira-ani-mcgrath]

I've little interest in Frozen stuff but I've seen bits and pieces of this Hans stuff you've mentioned on and off and I'm curious about something. When you say someone is acting un-Christlike by saying a character is irredeemable, what is it you exactly mean? Because sometimes yea, it can be narratively unsatisfying to randomly redeem a character in a story. Example: People debating if it would be narratively satisfying if Azula got redeemed. It's got nothing to do with worldview imo.

For context, this ask comes in the wake of this post.

I’m posting this reply publicly so I can refer back to it if needed in the future. I received a similar ask [hopefully that link works] on the heels of this post, which I answered privately without saving a copy of my response, and it would have been useful if I’d saved and/or posted it. Thus, here we are.

I want to make something 100% unquestionably clear to anyone who follows me or reads my posts: whenever I criticize someone labeling Hans “unredeemable”/“irredeemable” it is ALWAYS in the context of someone declaring him un/irredeemable because of what he has done.

It is NEVER people saying they don’t think Disney should redeem him because they’re worried WDAS will do a terrible job of it. It is NEVER people saying they don’t want him redeemed in an unsatisfying manner (i.e.: “BTW he’s good now, he changed off-screen and now he’s back like nothing bad happened.”). It is NEVER people saying that his redemption may not fit well into a particular scenario. It confuses me that people are interpreting my words this way, because if I were to express concern about the way a character’s actual or potential redemption were handled, I would never do it by labeling the character irredeemable or saying the character shouldn’t be redeemed at all, full stop. I would include the nuances I am referring to, such as “The character shouldn’t be redeemed off-screen,” or “The character shouldn’t be redeemed in this movie.” Therefore, if I am saying people shouldn’t call a character irredeemable, I’m not referring to specific cases such as “The character shouldn’t be redeemed by this creative team,” or, “The character shouldn’t be redeemed in this manner.” I am referring to a much larger picture.

I am criticizing people who say Hans is evil, malicious, unfeeling, manipulative, abusive, a villain, a sociopath, and/or a murder, and therefore he can never and should never be redeemed. I am criticizing people who don’t want Hans redeemed because they have a personal grudge against the character. I am criticizing people who think that once a character crosses a particular line (and apparently this line is unique for Hans, based on what he actually did compared to every other “bad guy” in fictional history), the character is now 100% bad and can never be good in any way ever again.

A Christian should never think this way. There is no unforgivable sin (besides attributing works of the Holy Spirit to Satan, as some of the Pharisees did). We are to love our enemies and desire what is best for them - to be saved, redeemed - and yet I see people with the word “Christian” in their bio bragging about how much they hate Hans because he was so terrible to Anna and Elsa, rejoicing that Hans remains unredeemed in canon, cheering when Anna punches Hans in Frozen, laughing when the Frozen Fever snowball crashes into him, agreeing with Elsa calling him an “unredeemable monster” and approving of her destroying his snow-figure in Frozen II. I see those who say they belong to Christ - the Savior who took on every sin imaginable - saying that Hans is simply too mean, too horrible, too evil to be redeemed. I hope this is obvious, but there should be no such thing as “too [x] for redemption” to the Christian. There is never anyone, real or fictional, beyond salvation and redemption. [The only exception I could think of would be a fictional world where the rules are the antithesis to Christianity - then you could say a character is irredeemable because the very nature of that universe doesn’t allow for the character’s redemption. But that certainly doesn’t apply to Frozen.]

Now to address the Azula example brought up at the end. I’m not an A:TLA fan, but I did watch the entire show and I see the occasional meta cross my dash now and then. I’m not familiar with any debates as you have referenced, so I’m just going to give my own examples to hopefully add some extra clarity to my position.

First, I fail to see how a well-done redemption arc could ever be “narratively unsatisfying,” particularly for the Christian. If it’s well-written and you see the steps the character takes, their failings and their successes, I would think that'd be quite a satisfying story. So what is the actual issue when debating characters’ redemptions? I believe it’s concerns of quality, characterization, and actions.

Given where we see Azula at the end of her fight with Zuko in the finale, it would certainly be unsatisfying if she was chilling in Iroh’s tea shop with everyone in the final moments of the series. Likewise, I would not want to see a Hans redemption where we are re-introduced to Hans and he’s completely apologetic and ready to right any wrongs. In fact, I am put-off by fanfics that start with Hans having already repented, changed, etc., from his canon actions and self. I want to see the process of change, so that it is satisfying when he finally makes the right decision.

Given the existing three seasons of A:TLA, people are free to debate on whether or not room could have been made for an Azula redemption arc. Given the current Frozen material, people are free to debate on whether or not room could have been made for a Hans redemption arc.

Had there been further canon A:TLA material, and there was an Azula redemption arc done as well as Zuko’s (such as described in this Twitter thread), I would have found that very narratively satisfying. Now, others may not like how that theoretical redemption was handled, plotted, etc. That’s perfectly fine. Likewise, people may have certain ways they don’t want a theoretical Hans redemption handled, plotted, etc. Again, perfectly fine. One can disagree on the way a redemption arc was/might be handled without dismissing the redemption altogether.

People may want Azula to remain unredeemed because they believe she would choose to be so. That’s fine (though others are allowed to disagree). For example, if she were to maintain that she did nothing wrong and reject any help Zuko and Iroh offered, then she would remain unredeemed. Alternatively, she could realize that what she did was wrong, but then go the opposite direction and believe she doesn’t deserve anything good, so she would reject love and help at every turn for the rest of her life, and thus remain unredeemed. However, I have never seen anyone call a character “irredeemable” and mean that they believe the character would actively choose to reject offers of redemption.

People may say Azula or Hans shouldn’t be redeemed because it would be out-of-character. From an unbeliever’s perspective, that may be correct, as they think certain traits as immutable. However, that’s wrong from a Christian perspective, as anyone can change if enabled by the grace of God. In fictional worlds that don’t have any Christianity, you simply use an imperfect archetype to play a pivotal role in the character’s transformation (i.e., Uncle Iroh to Zuko).

People may not be against an Azula or Hans redemption in and of itself, but think it makes the most narrative sense to leave the characters unredeemed - whether it be because there wasn’t enough time in canon, or there’s other characters to focus on, or some other behind-the-fourth-wall reason. That doesn’t make the characters irredeemable, it just means that’s the way the story currently stands. There’s no reason that story can’t change in the future.

However, if people are saying Azula shouldn’t be redeemed at all because what she did was too wrong, then that is un-Christ-like. Likewise, saying Hans is irredeemable because what he did was too wrong is indisputably un-Christ-like. Now, of course, I can’t expect unbelievers to act Christ-like, so it doesn’t surprise me when I see them express such sentiments. However, when a Christian argues against redemption on these grounds, I absolutely question why. You claim to stand on the Word of God, but declare there are actions too heinous to be forgiven and characters that don’t deserve redemption? God rebuked a man for his desire to see people punished instead of forgiven [Jonah], forgave adultery and murder [David], and transformed a man from persecuting to teaching the Church [Saul/Paul]. Yet you put your stamp of approval on a lack of redemption for a character because of the actions of that character? Further sanctification is needed, whether in love for the lost or in fully surrendering all to Christ. A lack of redemption should only serve as a warning of what happens to those who reject truth, love, and forgiveness - because, as we know, not everyone will be saved. A Christian should never be against redemption because they personally hate the character, or think the character is unforgivable, or believe the character doesn’t “deserve” it, or any other reason antithetical to who Christ is and what He has done.

[goodshipsherlollipop]

Self-interview (but not really)

When I heard about @sherlollyappreciationweek hosting a self-interview event, I thought it would be fun to participate, so people could get to know me better as an author.  But, instead of doing a self-interview, I approached some of my readers and asked them to pose questions for me to answer.

I’m not aiming at making this about me personally.  It’s all about me as an author.  If you want to know about who I really am outside of my writing, feel free to chat with me privately.

The name of the person asking the questions will precede each section. As this interview is rather long, I will do it in two parts.

MossRose10

Q: What personal experiences or skills (in broad strokes), besides your faith, have influenced what you write about for your characters?

A: I know I see Molly differently than most people, in a more wholesome way.  When I look at her character on the show, she doesn't seem the type to have a long sexual history, but instead, seems to be someone who has devoted her life to becoming the best pathologist she can be.  I adore her character, and to be honest, I put a lot of my own traits into her - including her love of singing and faith.  My post TFP Sherlock has had his true nature restored by the events of Sherrinford.  Thus, he is emotionally stable and able to love Molly deeply. I can write him that way because I happen to have a romantic, loving husband (lucky me!). A lot of times in my married stories, I draw on experiences I've had that I have fictionalized for the characters.  I usually refer to these in author’s notes.  I also love writing about their children, and put a lot of thought and personal experience into writing for them from watching my own daughters grow.

As for the other characters, I just write them the way I feel reflects their personalities best from what I’ve observed in the show, working on fleshing out their characters more as I’ve continued 3 years worth of storyline beyond TFP. For example, my version of Mycroft has mellowed a lot and married Lady Smallwodd, and John has also become a Christian and is remarried with a son.

Q: What kinds of characters do you find most challenging to write, and what strategies do you use to write them?

A: I don’t think I necessarily have a lot of issues in writing the canon characters because I have watched the show so many times I feel I know them personally.  Probably the most challenging thing is writing for OC’s or peripheral characters I may have brought into a story that we haven't seen a lot of (like Billy Wiggins or Philip Anderson).  I must admit, I have written very little about Moriarty, because most of my stories take place after his death.

dmollyc

Q: What character is hardest to write?

A:  I kind of  addressed this one in the above answer, but I do think I'd find it difficult to write for Moriarty because I'm not sure how well I could get into the psyche of a deranged madman!

Q: Do you get any nasty reviews?

A: Thankfully, not many. Most of the negative ones are people reacting to a story out of context.  They will read a story in the middle of my chronological timeline and then complain that the characters are OOC.  When I write my continuing stories, I assume that people are familiar with the characters as I’ve written them already, so this can cause confusion.

Because of the Christian themes, I have lost readers who object to the theology I present through my characters. Obviously, I will not please everybody.

But generally speaking, people are very kind about my work when they review it, and I especially love the reviewers who immerse themselves into my world of Sherlock and Molly and embrace my post-TFP version of them.

Q: What do you like best about your stories?

A: Probably what I like best is that I've found a unique niche in the fandom in creating a whole Christian theme, and writing a lot of different stories with the same theme.  I've not seen anyone else doing that (although I'd love to see it done by others).

I enjoy writing my own continuing post-TFP happy ending for Sherlock and Molly, expanding their universe and that of the other characters from Sherlock as well.

Also, I enjoy showing Molly as someone with a belief in saving herself for marriage.  It's not going to be a popular idea for the general population, but I know many Christians can relate to that desire to keep sex for that special someone rather than experimenting with every boyfriend they date.  

I also think I do a pretty good job in writing love scenes that are steamy, but still clean, although I’m aware that some readers are more sensitive who find them too steamy.  I write using my own inner guide for how far to take things in the bedroom.  Some stories are definitely steamier than others, but there are certain graphic terms I will never use in my writing because I feel they cross the line of my own comfort zone.

Chelseamh98

Q: How have you overcome the challenges of your vision impairment?

A: This is definitely an ongoing process for me.  When I began writing, my proofreading would just consist of looking over the chapter a couple times to try to errors. I have issues when typing on my iPad because of the flat keyboard surface.  That means I often type a word incorrectly.  To help compensate for that, I have hundreds of words in my “text replacement” section, so that certain words I often mis-type automatically correct to the right word.  I have a bad tendency to hit the M instead of N or vice versa, for example.  A few months after I began publishing, someone suggested I use a text-to-speech app to help me identify incorrectly spelled words.  That did help.  I copy a chapter into the text-to-speech app and watch my chapter in a split screen as I listen to the words.  That has been a big help.  Then, this year, I discovered a free website called prowritingaid, which I now use as another editing tool, and it identifies even more spelling and grammar errors.  So now I find myself writing, proofreading as I go along several times as I write.  When the chapter is finished and I am ready to publish, I do another visual read.  Then I use the prowritingaid site as another editing step. After that, I use the text-to-speech app and listen as I read.  Finally, I copy the whole thing into Google Docs, add italics and bold type and glance through the chapter again to see if Google Docs has discovered any more errors.  It's a very long process, believe me, and it takes so much longer to do the editing and proofreading than to write! For me, the writing part is easy!

Q: Does it (visual impairment) affect the way you write?

A:  Physically, yes.  I cannot use a computer, because I need to be inches away from the screen to see what I am doing.  Sometimes I will sit at a table and write, but usually, I put three cushions on my lap and sit my iPad on top.  Over time, that method has caused me to have pretty severe tendonitis, but I have no other way to write, and it's worth the pain to keep writing! Currently, I am also dealing with frozen shoulder as part of the physical issues.

Also, I have to enlarge my text to write.  I use the Colored Note app for my chapters, set to the maximum size of 36, and when I go into Google Docs, I set the size to 25 so I can read it.

Q: What part about writing do you find the most challenging? What’s the easiest?

A:  As I mentioned above, the most difficult part is definitely the editing/proofreading process because I have to work so much harder than a normally sighted person, and it takes up a huge chunk of time.

Also, I am very particular in trying to write realistic fiction whenever possible.  That means a ton of research. For example, in my story where Molly was shot, Confronting Evil and the Truth, I researched a lot about gunshot wounds and how to care for them.  In A Honeymoon Journey, my characters went to Stratford-upon-Avon, and I researched that location thoroughly for many of the chapters.  In my latest COVID-19 series, I have followed the pandemic closely in the UK and have added many real situations that have happened there.  Research, research, research!

The easiest part is definitely writing the story itself, especially dialogue.  I can hear the characters in my head telling me what to write.  I rarely suffer from writer’s block, unless I am trying to think about how to write a mystery or crime and how to resolve it.

Aslan's Princess

Q: Where do you find inspiration? Is it something specific? Or multiple things?

A: I find inspiration mainly in two areas.  First, from watching episodes over and over and analyzing them. Second, I also find inspiration in my own life, in bringing in real experiences I am familiar with (such as pregnancy and childbirth).  Occasionally I will read a story or a review where someone tells me something that sparks my imagination. My current WIP, The Good Book, was actually inspired by a gif-set one of my readers, Penelope Chestnut showed me.  It got me wondering what would happen if Sherlock suddenly discovered the Bible (shown in TBB) in his bookcase and decided he wanted some answers about the meaning of life.

Justwritebritt

Q: What drives you to keep writing?

A: Certainly, one of the most motivating factors is hearing from readers who enjoy my work.  Readers generally have no clue what kind of power they possess when it comes to encouraging a writer to keep going.  A pat on the back is always a good thing. I wish more people could understand that.

Aside from that, though, I feel a calling from God to keep writing. I like sharing my faith through Molly (and Sherlock). My hope is that people will find my stories inspiring and encouraging.

Q: What/Who can you absolutely not write without?

A:  I cannot write without my iPad.  I use it not only to write, but to research and to watch Sherlock on Netflix.  it's my all-in-one resource!

Q: What is your favorite story you've published so far?

A: I will always love A Journey to Love, Faith and Marriage, because it is the ��mothership” from which all my other stories spring, but my writing technique was not great at the beginning; there’s an obvious improvement in later chapters.  But, I am also very fond of Sherlock’s Dream of What Might Have Been.  That one tells a story of Sherlock and Molly meeting in uni, and then jumps to the canon, inserting a secret relationship (and child) throughout the series canon. I put a lot of thought into filling in Season 4 backstory as well.

Q: What (in vague terms) story are you looking forward to telling next?

A: I have a few stories in the pipeline that I am looking forward to sharing.  One that steps away from the overt Christian themes is a Pretty Woman AU.  I haven't seen anyone attempt an AU for that movie, and I look forward to sharing it.  Perhaps it will spark interest with a few more readers because it isn't heavily weighted on the Christian theme scale, but is merely one of my more whimsical, creative story ideas. It is the first story I have written that combines elements from both a movie and the Sherlock narrative.

I also have a couple of one-shots that I will publish in the timeline of my WIP Journey to a New Home, one,that deals with the topic of divorce using a Biblical perspective, plus one that sheds light on the subject of depression.

End of Padt 1.

[first-son-of-finwe]

So this is my “leaving the fold” essay, which I mentioned some time ago. I wrote this mostly for myself because writing things down always helps me make sense of them, but quite a few people expressed interest in it, so here it is. 

I was raised as quite a strict Orthodox Christian, and the religion is a huge part of my mum’s life. This is mostly my experience of its ideas and processes, and how and why I ultimately decided to leave. It’s a bit rambling, all over the place and very long, but I kinda wanted to post it somewhere, so 🤷

TW for mentions of abortion, alcoholism and general conflict.

When I was twelve or thirteen, my parents and I set off on one of our regular trips to Russia. We used to do this every year before time and money became restricted, and one of our compulsory stops was always a large, sprawling monastery on the outskirts of the city of Nizhny Novgorod.

It’s a place of smiling nuns but very strict rules, where God forms a part of every sentence and church is mandatory for both mornings and evenings. It’s a place of communal meals, harvesting vegetables and milking cows, ringing bells, and lots and lots of praying. For me, it was a taste of pure rural life. I loved running through the fields, swimming in the pond and helping out with the manual tasks of running a communal settlement. I gasped in delight when I saw the lone horse in the field. Deep down I was never meant to be a city kid, and being at the monastery fuelled my dream of living the simple life.

But the fact that we were there purely for religious reasons? That was only an afterthought. An obligatory thing I had to go along with, because the adults expected it. Perhaps I tried to feel the same spirituality they seemed to experience, but I never quite got there.

I put on the headscarf, held the candle, wrote the names of my loved ones on prayer notes for the living. I bowed to the icons, made the sign of the cross when everyone else did. But I never truly connected.

One year on the day of a particularly significant celebration, a huge icon was carried over a horde of kneeling worshippers, and my mum told me to kneel down and pray for my dad to recover from his alcoholism. And so I did.

This is something I’d been praying for for a long time. It’s something I was told to pray for at every holy site, and before every relic. And no, he’s never quit drinking.

But I already knew that he wouldn’t, even as I knelt, closed my eyes and begged whichever saint was on that icon to help my dad quit drinking. I simply knew that it didn’t work that way.

I knew it the same way I knew that Santa wasn’t real. Every child seems to have experienced a shock-horror moment upon learning that they’d been deceived, but I recognised him for what he was right from the start - a story. For someone who’s always thrown themselves wholeheartedly into stories and fantasy, I’ve always had a very clear distinction between fact and fiction - though I’ve also not been so close-minded as to think that there isn’t a grey area in between.

No matter how hard I tried to convince myself, I don’t think I ever truly believed in their version of what was supposed to be happening.

But I think my moving away from Orthodoxy truly began the day I heard my mum on the phone to her friend, who was at the beginning of a difficult pregnancy and was considering an abortion. She and her husband were on different pages with regards to this, though I don’t quite remember who wanted what. My mother’s advice was this: “Well you should really listen to your husband, because you know that a husband’s word is God’s word.”

Even being the believer that I was then, my immediate reaction was complete shock, followed by a thought process that went something like “Are you joking?? SERIOUSLY?”

And of course, it was hard not to think of my own father in his worst moments of drunkenness. So it seems “God’s word” is actually a whole lot of slurred, barely comprehensible nonsense occasionally sprinkled with some insults. That’s really the logic we’re going with here? And beyond that, how can you hand such a deeply personal decision to someone else??

When I went away to university for three years and spent considerable chunks of time away from my mother’s influence, my skepticism only deepened with every day. I couldn’t reconcile the science-driven environment I saw around me with the ideas being propounded in church. Sincerely believing in the Adam and Eve story, in this day and age? It didn’t compute.

Having said that, I would certainly not call myself an atheist even now. I think it is just as presumptuous to assume your absolute knowledge of the infinite universe and declare it contains nothing, as it is to declare that your religion is the only correct one. I find many things about the Christian God to be extremely convenient (just so happens to be an old white bearded man, oh fancy that), but I am certainly not convinced that there are no intelligent forces in the world, whatever shape they take. We are simply not in a position to know these things, and I’m okay with that. 

In turn, I treat anyone who claims to know them with intense suspicion.

Ultimately, leaving Orthodox Christianity was a long and painful process (I say ‘was’ in the past tense, but the truth is that it is still ongoing) filled with guilt, second-guessing, deliberate habit breaking and an extremely distressed and persistent mother. But my reasons for it boil down to four key things.

Their ideas did not match my ideas. I will never believe that women are obliged to be submissive to men. I will never believe that being gay (or in any way not straight) is a sin. I will never believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is the one true faith among all the other hundreds and thousands of faiths that exist on this planet. Living with your partner without being married is not a sin. Eating some chicken on a lent day is not a sin. A woman on her period is not “unclean.” Their ideas of good and bad, right and wrong seemed so incredibly outdated and arbitrary that it became hard to take anything they said seriously. And I felt so uncomfortable standing there, surrounded by people who I knew believed in all of this wholeheartedly.

Despite the religion branding itself as ‘Christian’, I don’t think I’ve ever heard any of the priests or worshippers talk about helping others. It is not on the agenda. People walk into church and think that because they’ve said their prayers, abstained from meat and dairy and then said their prayers some more, they’re now good people. But what have they done to make anyone’s life better? Who have they helped? Who have they listened to, cared for, understood? It’s not about that. It’s about making yourself feel good because you recited the Lord’s Prayer before eating your lunch.

The process of participating is extremely rigid, and trying to remember all those rules and traditions is honestly just stressful. Which hand do I kiss? How many times do I have to make the sign of the cross before approaching that super special icon? Do I have to touch the floor, or is that optional? Oh, everyone is kneeling...I guess I should kneel too. Once, I accidentally addressed the Archbishop as ‘Father’ and got a slew of disapproving looks from everyone around me. I think perhaps people find a certain kind of comfort and stability in routine, but having one imposed on you when you’re constantly unsure of the rules is not a pleasant experience.

Sometimes there is a very thin line between a religion and a cult, and Orthodoxy is toeing it a little too closely for comfort. I’ve seen it overpower people’s rational thinking and tap into their most powerful emotions in a way that’s honestly quite frightening.

The first step to leaving was progressively going to church less and less. I’d only ever really gone because my mum demanded it, but now, I put up a bit more resistance. I got screamed and yelled and cried at, and at first, of course I gave in. But little by little, I began to get the message across that I was simply not interested anymore.

Then, I deliberately made the choice to break certain habits. We always faced a row of icons on the wall and made a sign of the cross before leaving the house, and coming back in. It was such an ingrained habit that I did it automatically, and for the first few months, I had to physically catch myself in order to stop. That came with its own sense of guilt and hesitancy, and with the feeling that hey, now God is mad at you - hope a brick doesn’t fall on your head when you’re out there without his blessing.

The next step was removing the cross I’d worn around my neck ever since I’d been christened as a baby. Even now I can’t not wear something around my neck, so I have a little key necklace there in its place. Having a bare neck just looks too weird to me.

That cross came off and went back on at least three times. Each time I’d be persuaded, guilted, given the simple but effective phrase of “just do it for me.” I’ve removed it for what I hope will be the last time, and “just do it for me” won’t cut it anymore. If I converted to Islam tomorrow, would it be okay for me to ask someone to wear a hijab “for me”, even though they don’t share my faith? No, it wouldn’t. Religion and expression of religion is a personal choice, and not something you can strong-arm your adult children into.

Now, I’m in a fairly comfortable place where I’ve shed most of that initial guilt and am happy with my choices. I’ve even been back into church a couple of times just to meet a family member, only catching the end of the service - and even then, I’ve been reminded of exactly why I left. My mindset is simply too far removed to find any spiritual value in Orthodoxy.

Does my mother still try to get me into church? Yes. Are the attempts extremely mild and infrequent, compared to what they used to be? Yes. On one hand, I’d like to have a deep conversation with her and explain all the reasons why I have no interest in the religion anymore, but on the other hand, I know it’ll likely make her extremely upset.

Perhaps it’s better to just let it be.

[sanguinarius-archive]

im not that familiar with treatsforbeats i watched like. a few videos but other than that i know nothing! but i would be glad to hear you info dump!

there is SO MUCH..... im gonna put a read more below because this turned out to be way longer than i expected. but you asked for me to infodump so here goes

okay so. treatsforbeasts, i dont know what the whole meaning behind the channel is. i cant specifically say what the goal of the channel’s content is because its all in my interpretation. but i do know that there are meanings behind each video as silly as it may seem and im just gonna list them off here (note that not all videos will be included since i may not be able to interpret every one, also this is going from earliest to most recent)

1. men with small hands carry very little treats to give to little girls with the sharpest little teethinterpretation of this video is csa/child sex trafficking. “little treats” refers to pills or some form of drug (small, makes u trip). however the “sharpest little teeth” could represent the little girl fighting back.

2. mom ordered ants for my birthdaychild abuse. mother forces son to watch and/or possibly engage in inappropriate activity with her husband.

3. i love jesusobviously a dark parody of christianity/catholicism. shows how blindly some fanatical christians/catholics will follow their beliefs, to the point where they no longer truly “follow” it as theyve warped the message to fit their own morbid desires (using christianity/the bible to excuse hatred and judgment upon others).

4. i me you love godanother dark parody of christianity/catholicism. i believe it mocks how fanatical christians/catholics focus only on the negative aspects of the bible instead of learning the true messages, as many of the words used are from the bible and are negative words.

5. behdsPROBABLY just a silly video but, i think it represents how people let negativity embed itself into their lives and complain about it even though it’s so easy to just let go of it.

6. jaffreymocking some sitcoms for how dumb and repetitive they can be.

7. kiss papa’s mustachepossibly child abuse, again.

8. storytimereferences/implies child abuse. storytime is also the name of one of treatsforbeasts’ songs on his Sanguinarius - Sin Nomine album.

9. hymns for him (1 + 2)just total parody albums of christian rock. vocals make you feel like youre dying but its actually kinda good to listen to in some parts

10. i screaming inside my headRoii (the character)’s first appearance. also probably symbolizes how depressing some kinds of music are

11. felines have nine livesnot sure but i feel like this is a warrior cats reference, in complete and total honesty (dont watch it if you dont like c/at d/eath though, its fictional but. yeah)

12. beastsreflection of society as a whole

then there’s. the two short films and sin nomine. so i’m gonna delve into that now and be warned, it’s fuckin long

treatsforbeasts is the self-titled short film and the first longest video on the treatsforbeasts channel. basically what i get from this is that treatsforbeasts, the channel itself, symbolizes an actual channel that chauncy (the child character in the short film, who is portrayed as a literal oral fleshlight with a body) watches. he consumes these concepts, such as internalizing misogyny (claw-paw skit), toxic masculinity (can i like balloons skit) and being exposed to a normalization of christianity (heaven and hell skit). there’s also a skit in which a spider binge eats and then proceeds to throw it up, which chauncy actually mimicks when his father brings him food.his father very much disapproves of these messages being shown on tv. he tells chauncy in regards to the claw-paw skit, when chauncy belittles the female character, “that’s not very nice, now is it”, and says “you can like ballons, you can love balloons if you want to”. his father goes on long tangents about how many institutions have normalized and inherited the concepts of christianity, and that it is one of the contributing factors of violence in the world. he references colonization, the holocaust, and in general mentions minorities.we learn that the father actually ended up being a father to chauncy in the first place due to (nsfw tw) masturbating in a sock to a picture of robert smith, and 9 months later chauncy was born. so technically there is no mother. the father talks about the meaning of life, and how everyone on the inside is a little bit of a freak, but there’s only two real ways you can accept that: 1) realize that your freakishness gives you a special lense through with you see the world and aid it in the ways the sane and happy ones probably cant, and 2) realize that real way number 1 is just lying to itself and that youre still a somewhat integral part of the lives of those you care for so deeply. he says that choosing which way to live really reverts back to the meaning of life, that you cannot live day by day believing there’s no reason to. “but whatever reason you give yourself to live, [...] you do it, because it is correct to live.”

sin nomine comes after the first short film, but i’ll delve into that after because really it touches on many many of the points and interpretations here.

the second short film, the beast is dead, was released just this year on valentines day! i think the main focus of the short film ranges from relationships to just once again a mockery of christianity/catholicism. once again it starts off with a father and his son. there is no mother figure present though she’s said to have left, due to the father watching too much “birdies”, a show, which i think is a metaphor for porn addiction. the father is implied to being prone to neglecting the son’s wants and not really caring for him, being disappointed in him, etc. etc..something important about the beast is dead is that it uses masks to portray those who are “followers” and those who are not. the father, interestingly enough, does not wear a mask. he seems to acknowledge what his son is saying when he goes on philosophical rants as well, but disregards them as nonsense and ends up leaving after bonking him with the stupid spike (metaphor for how parents will shut their children up by giving them a phone or toy to play with).the three other characters who don’t use masks in the beast is dead are Roii, Tom, and Doctor Zoughth (pronounced Zoth). Roii makes a comeback, finally! but this time he’s singing a song called “i love the sound of screaming babies”. it symbolizes how men will impregnate women and then run off, whether or not because they fantasize about pregnant women. it could also be a want of seeing a hurt child (hence the line “i know that all of you watching must think i’m insane, for loving when something so innocent is in so much pain”).however another interesting factor is that, the characters who don’t have masks, aside from Tom and the father, have red eyes at some point. this is a metaphor for how they’ve lost their humanity. Roii, at some point in the music video scene, only has one red eye whereas his other is normal. this hints at how part of him has lost his humanity while the other is still in tact.the other character that has red eyes is Dr Zoughth, but instead of him having only one red eye, both his eyes are red. this doesnt show until later though when he’s taken Tom away from the masked characters (followers). Dr Zoughth is very much self-aware. he is not blind, but simply has lost his humanity. Tom tries to reach out to him, to get him to think differently, that maybe resorting to coping with emotional struggles by worshipping something simple like flesh or something more higher than himself and forgetting his own mortality isn’t the healthiest way to live. but Dr Zoughth, having been long gone already, does not accept this and executes Tom.his own personal disciples grow tired of his tyranny and kill him and perform a ritual of some kind, disposing of his body (in the river i think, not sure). this entire ending of the film is basically the title, the beast is dead. but, i believe the beast is not dead, personally, because someone like Zoughth will always live on in other people, other beasts.there’s also a scene called grandma hespar and i think it implies how little people focus on sexual abuse towards men (when it’s from women).

anyways, with that being said, it’s time for sin nomine.

so now that i’ve explained pretty much all of treatsforbeasts to you, and whoever else is reading, it’s clear that the person behind this has issues with christianity (or catholicism), and child abuse. the person behind treatsforbeasts is Jordan Diniz, as he is also the person behind sanguinarius.

sin nomine is a very personal reflection of jordan’s life from what i gather. it depicts his struggles with how he views the world around him, whether that be due to personal experiences or not. at first i interpreted most of sin nomine to be the story of someone who is lgbt, but with jordan himself coming to me and telling me he is straight (POLITELY), it’s clear that is not the case.

so it most likely has to do with trauma. either religious or not, or both. it even says in the song storytime (remember i mentioned it earlier?), “fast hand, white hot trauma, reverberates inside the skull. innocence and intellect raped, reveals a view of a darker world. flesh on flesh, the bonds of affection - confused for the bonds of submission and fear. self-hatred and mistrust repel all beauty that comes near.” i don’t like to say that this solidifies a personal experience, but it’s highly possible.

a lot of sin nomine kind of goes over the same points in different ways, but it makes you think. i definitely feel like something happened to jordan at some point in his life but that is his story and it’s not my place to truly tell, since i don’t know him personally.

there’s also the other channel, adrianturcher. it has videos with seemingly no real purpose except for there being two videos with the same names of two songs on sin nomine, “nex memoria” and “a fetish for psychos”. nex memoria is just a compilation of clips that seem to symbolize the process of death (nex memoria is a latin phrase which very roughly translates to “memory’s death”). a fetish for psychos is a bunch of old clips from parties and shows that possibly jordan himself attended. they’re from 2002 judging by the date in the video. the lyrics in the song “a fetish for psychos” also seem to hint at these events, so it’s possibly that it’s like looking back on happy memories that make you feel sad instead or something. the song also might possibly reference a mother at the beginning.

sanguinarius also has its own channel simply called sanguinarius. there’s the music video for divine comedy (one of the songs on sin nomine) and a cover of because you’re young by david bowie, posted on his birthday a year after his death.

anyway, that’s. pretty much all i have to say. jordan diniz is a fuckin’ mastermind, he’s really good and cool and he’s very kind from my experience talking with him a couple times. he supports the gays as well!

sooooo, treatsforbeasts does have some very creepy/unsettling moments in its content but its EXTREMELY good and i recommend getting into it if you can. 100/10

[clarabosswald]

okay so someone on twitter dug up this absolutely outstanding uhhh “”article”” on his dark materials in general and the golden compass movie specifically by one david j stewart and i just. i HAVE to break down at least some of it because it’s an absolute gem

(this is a bit long - there is a LOT of stupidity to cover here)

first of all, the url

i could honestly just end the post here because that line right there is a masterpiece by itself. screw eurovision, hellivision is the next hot thing

There is no movie any more evil than THE GOLDEN COMPASS.

that’s the first line of the article. what a first line. the most amazing thing is that in an entirely different context i can kind of agree with this claim

Philip Pullman is a sinfully proud, God-hating, militant atheist.

militant! oh wow. is the hdm fandom actually pullman’s secret army? like dumbledore’s army in hp? do we have secret meetings? i want in

The movie has been dumbed down

yet again i find myself agreeing with mr stewart

in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please.

people having free will? good lord, the horror. 

The movie is indescribably evil.

damn dude yet again you’re right but you’re kinda preaching to the choir here at this point

The word "demon" is repeated several dozen times throughout the movie, as each child has it's own lovable demon. 

this is the first time in the article that mr david j stewart stubbornly refuses to understand that there’s this thing called “concept” and “artistic license” and that in the context of the hdm world, pullman used his artistic license to change the common meaning of the word d(a)emon.  NOT TO MENTION that pullman hardly made up the concept of a daemon as a positive creature - “originally referred to a lesser deity or guiding spirit”, literally the first line in the wikipedia article about the classical concept of daemons. but yeah i’m unfairly expecting mr dave to do his research so i guess that’s kinda mean of me.

Witches by the hundreds are featured in the movie, and are portrayed as being good, helpful and rescuers.

for a moment i wondered what mr dave’s opinion on harry potter is like, but i can imagine it quite vividly.

The star character, a little girl named Lyra Belacqua, loves her demon (who takes various animal forms), and she has named him "Pan" (short for Pantalaimon)

somewhere inside of me, my inner hdm myth fanatic is screaming in rage at all the gross misunderstanding of the basic plot of hdm, but well we’ve got more serious problems here

Pan is the pagan god of sexual rape, lust and fertility.  Statues of Pan are often displayed showing him with an erection.

you know what’s EXTREMELY ironic here? pantalaimon isn’t named after that pan. he’s actually named after the greek saint pantaleon.  (mr dave now provides a link to his rage fest over narnia. good to know he’s against even blatantly pro-christian fiction.)

NOTE: Pullman uses the word "daemon." A "daemon" is just another term for "demon."

...no, honey, they really don’t, but we already know you didn’t do your research.

In the movie THE GOLDEN COMPASS, there are at least 50 references to a child's "DEMON."

imagine this grown up dude sitting in a movie theater watching a kids’ movie and counting the number of times the word “daemon” is said dkgsdaoighs

In one part of the movie, a missing boy (Roger Parslow) is found, but he is out of his mind and looks distraught because his DEMON has been taken away from him. Talk about twisting the truth around. The little girl who stars in the movie, Lyra, vows to find and return the boy's demon.

aslkdghsaodigho yeah this guy was definitely too busy to count “daemons” to actually pay attention to the plot

Pullman is hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to see the movie

no i actually think that at this point pullman didn’t want anything to do with the movie

The title for the trilogy comes from a line in John Milton’s Paradise Lost and Pullman views his trilogy as a re-telling of Milton’s poem (which means that His Dark Materials is in reality Pullman’s re-telling of the Genesis story in fantasy form)

no, not really, not as literal as that, but artistic subtleties seem to escape you quite frequently, my dear dave

In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious [extremely wicked] Church known as the "Magisterium."

iooisadhgosdiahgosa i LOVE how dave made the EFFORT to explain the meaning of “nefarious” to the reader

Pullman's books are a work of darkness that every Christian needs to diligently expose (Ephesians 5:11)

damn dude can you believe hdm got so popular it’s referenced in the bible

America was founded upon faith in God, and the Communists are trying to rob it from our children

kefhsaoidgsdoh COMMUNISM CONFIRMED 

at this point in the article mr dave finally decides it’s time to talk about the story of the golden compass in mere two paragraphs. spoiler: the first paragraph is yet again dedicated to anti-pullman ranting. so much for that plot summary.

In the books, Pullman represents God as a decrepit and perverse angel who captures the dead in a “prison camp” afterlife.

damn the dude says he’s gonna talk about the plot of the golden compass and then goes ahead and spoils the amber spyglass just like that. where are your internet manners, dave

The story centers on Lyra, a young girl living at Jordan College in the Oxford of an alternate world where everyone is accompanied by a daemon, a physical representation of their soul in animal form.

this is the ONE time dave refers to daemons as what they ACTUALLY are. but i suspect he just copy-pasted this bit without actually reading what is said in it. 

One morning, Lyra's school Master

yet again someone was too busy counting words then remembering the plot/characters

Lyra then finds herself in a world where she must fight against evil, and here lies the controversy. Lyra is the "chosen child" who must do battle with evil. But in this story, the things that are good are evil (the church is the Magisterium, the bad group trying to gain control of all) and evil is good (daemons and witches are allies.)

it’s almost...... as if......... it’s somewhat........... symbolic.......... you know, that artistic device? symbolism? yeah? no...?

our darling dave then links to this piece as the source of his info on the plot of tgc and god that’s a whole nest of wasps i can’t even begin to deal with here. but it’s p entertaining how in only briefly reading the thing i can already recognize whole sentences who got copy-pasted by dave for his own magnificent piece of critique

Satan's Bid for Your Child

oh, WHAT a title for the next segment of the article. i’m hooked

Even though the books are strongly anti-God and anti-church, they’re getting a strong push in the godless public school system as curriculum resources.  First the God-hating Communists introduced the lies of Evolution into the public school system.  Then they kicked God's Word and prayer out of the public schools in 1962 and 1963.  Now they want to teach our children homosexuality and witchcraft.

communism! evolution! homosexuality! witchcraft! god, i’m trembling

dave goes on for a while without mentioning the movie again, just ranting against the world in general. parts of it are still amusing, though:

Evolution is in fact a religion, as is humanism, witchcraft and Satanism.

yeah man i miss it when in school we used to pray to darwin every morning before class started :(

It requires faith to believe Evolution because there is NO proof, or even evidences to permit study. It is tragic that young people today are being taught a theory that has NO proof whatsoever.  In sharp contrast, the Word of God is supported by an overwhelming abundance of scientific, historical, archeological and astronomical evidence.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD. WOW!!!!!!!!!!

Public school children are being taught religion; but it's the religions of Humanism (i.e., man is his own god), Evolution, New Age and now Demonism.

are daemians aware that daemonism is being taught in public schools as a whole ass religion??? damn

With the rise of the New World Order since the 911 attacks

holy shit dude dave is diving deep into the waters of conspiracy at this point

Surely Satan is already panicking, knowing that he must accomplish much in a very short time frame.  This explains why we see a flood of demonism, witchcraft and apostasy sweeping the world in an effort to destroy Christianity.  Have you heard about the new FLY Pentop COMPUTER for kids, which features witchcraft?  Did you know that Toys-R-Us sells a VooDooz doll for children?  It comes complete with a spell book, and pins to stab your VooDooz doll with.  I was at Barnes and Noble bookstore and saw a Teenage Witchcraft Kit.

THIS DUDE IS FUCKING WILD i imagine he started yelling at some poor employee for having witchcraft in that store

Doesn't anyone love God anymore?

this is sad.

The Bible condemns all forms of witchcraft—Voodoo, charms, spells, divination, incantations, palm readings, Ouija boards, psychics, witchery, sorcery, wizards, magic, potions, good luck charms, astrology, necromancy, spiritism, magic candles, mesmerism, hypnosis, astral projection, levitation, and anything else that invokes the power of Satan.

he actually............went through the trouble of listing all of that. from memory, no doubt

WE’RE BACK TO THE GOLDEN COMPASS AT LAST LADS

Instead of presenting the trailer on the homepage, The Golden Compass website uses audio to introduce the characters of the film and their respective demons, and then provides a prompt to "Meet Your Demon."  Twenty questions are presented which promise to reveal "your true character and the form of your demon."  Once you complete the questionnaire, you can send your resulting demon to your friends, presumably to build a community of young demons who will all later commune at the theater.  This is pure Satanism and it's being directed at our children.  Satan wants your child.  The Golden Compass series glorifies demonism, witchcraft and divination; while blaspheming God Almighty.

Satan Wants Your Child

In the movie THE GOLDEN COMPASS, children are being kidnapped by a mysterious group called the Gobblers and taken "to the North" where they are tortured by having their daemons separated from them.  This is the Satanic garbage that film producers and book publishers are vomiting upon our children.  Towards the end of the film, the starring little girl deliberately destroys the machine that was robbing children of their daemons.  Literally, the movie portrays the little girl as a hero for ensuring that all the other children can continue to be daemon possessed.  This is one sick movie, straight out of the pits of Hell.

it’s fucking ASTOUNDING how this paragraph could straight up pass as magisterium propaganda

How about you?  Our time on earth is short my friend.  This life will be over before we know it.  Is your heart right with God?  Are you saved?  Have your sins been washed away by the precious blood of Jesus Christ?

this dude got so fucking emotional over one bad movie he grossly misunderstood i am INSPIRED

our dearly beloved dave now goes on to quote yet another highly reputable source on the evil of the golden compass

"His Dark Materials" by atheist Philip Pullman

is “atheist” a title at this point? now that pullman is a sir, do they call him “atheist sir pullman” or “sir atheist pullman”?

Unsaved Heathens and Apostates Praise Pullman's Works of Darkness

do i get to officially call myself “unsaved heathen and apostate” because that’s one rad fucking title

Satan truly is the god of this world (2nd Corinthians 4:4), and he has many servants.

this is such a confusing fucking statement. how can satan be the god of this world if there is only one god? or two, because there is god and there’s also jesus? god i don’t know christianity never made any sense so this statement isn’t actually that surprising

Why would any professed "Christian" support Pullman's works of darkness, which he admittedly calls HIS DARK MATERIALS?

esteemed article writer dave is unaware of the existence of the concept of “references”

Sadly, ChristianityToday magazine promotes this vile filth, giving it a rating of 2 1/2 out of a potential 4 stars.  I give the movie a ZERO rating, and so should you if you love the Lord Jesus Christ!

yeah guys! we must purify this dirty world by giving bad ratings to hollywood movies! this is the only way to show jesus our love and devotion! 

Movie writer-director Chris Weitz has said he wants to make the next films more "iconoclastic," so consider this bit of sacrilege a taste of what is yet to come.  The word "iconoclastic" means "Characterized by attack on established beliefs or institutions."  In other words, the sequels to The Golden Compass are going to blaspheme God and attack Christianity much worse than the first movie.

man.... chris had good intentions. too bad new line fucked him over with how bad they butchered the movie in post-prod.

If we don't complain, then who will... the atheists?

this line is so confusing and meaningless and yet so timeless and iconic. wow

The Golden Compass is a Sicko Movie

i can’t breathe this sounds like an early 2000s compliment coming from a middle school bad boy who does tubular tricks on his skateboard

For Pullman, sexual experience is an essential part of becoming a full-grown human, despite the confusion and pain it can cause.

HOW IN THE FUCK IS THIS CONTROVERSIAL OR WRONG FOR NON-ACE PEOPLE KADSH;GOIDAGSDKJG

Children Using Divination to Confirm Guidance from Demons? "Lyra tries to consult the alethiometer to see if the daemons are right.”

Things Taking Wildly Out Of Context Making No Sense?

Kill God?

after reading this torturous rant? yes absolutely. next

Of course the idea in a trilogy is to read the second and third books, and not just the first.  Naturally Scholastic is selling nicely packaged boxes of the trilogy.

i love how dave felt the need to explain to us how trilogies and bookselling work. what a sweetheart

Blasphemy!  Children are being taught that killing God is quite a desirable thing to do.

will anyone ever understand that WILL AND LYRA NEVER INTENDED TO KILL GOD, AND WHEN GOD DIED IT WAS BY MISTAKE AND MADE THEM UPSET AND SAD? i mean this guy won’t, but people who actually read the books???

God and the Church Are Awful and Pathetic?

dave at this point in reading your rant i hate the whole of christianity. yes. next

Summoning Witches? “Serafina and her witches decide that they need to summon other witch clans....”

Mr Dave Is Unaware That The Word “Summon” Has Got Several Meanings

“He is so weak and old that he blows to bits with the first breeze, but his dissolution comes as a relief. It is as though God does not want the burden of leadership. In the end, Will and Lyra don’t kill God. Instead, they free him, and he becomes one with the universe again. The fact that God dissolves just like the newly freed ghosts suggests that perhaps God is simply the spirit of the living.”

i love how dave quotes this whole bit - ACTUAL GOOD ANALYSIS OF GOD’S DEATH IN HDM - without absolving any of its meaning

Conclusion The Golden Compass is evil.

i love this

children today are being challenged to hate Christianity, and are being invited to join ranks with the Devil's army.

damn i totally missed that bit about joining satan’s army in hdm

All we hear about nowadays is how religion throughout the ages has caused wars and suppressed people's rights.

it’s almost as if it’s true!

Increasingly, children today are being brainwashed to view Christianity as a power-hungry "MAGISTERIUM" (i.e., the evil organization in The Golden Compass), which seeks to suppress the rights of homosexuals, Wiccan witches, Evolutionists, abortionists, feminists and other degenerates of society.

WHAT a sentence!!!!!

The grave danger of Harry Potter and The Golden Compass

that sounds like one hell of an au

Christians are commanded not to associate with any professed Christian who is a drunkard, chases women, lives for money or lives in unrepentant sin.

and yet donald trump is president of the united states! go figure, davey

Public school children are being taught that the sin of homosexuality should be accepted; BUT, God says "No."  Now you know why homosexuals hate God's Word so much.

we’re almost at the end of the rant and dave didn’t reference balthamos and baruch even once and i feel ROBBED

Women in the 1960's embraced feminism, because they were told (just as Eve) that the higher powers were trying to suppress their rights.  Satan lied to Eve, thus creating a sinful power-struggle between her and God.

damn why won’t women just understand that men are like god :\\\

Satan is recruiting.  Satan has a bid for your child mom and dad, and he will stop at nothing to recruit your child's soul.

gotta admire the determination there

Again, The Golden Compass is evil.  It is not just a fantasy for children.  The author of the series (Philip Pullman) is a militant, God-hating atheist who has openly stated that his goal is to "undermine the basis of Christian belief" in the mind's of children.

dave decided that the best way to end his rant is to quote a line that already appeared in the text at least 2 times before. man, if you ever think you’re a bad writer, remember that at least you’re not as bad as this dude.

moral of the story is: dave probably needs some sleep. and professional help

[mentiormusa-blog]

The Portrayal of Satanism and How it Affects the Youth of Today

Preface

Growing up, I always had a pretty decent idea of what was good and what was evil. I knew that cops were the good guys and the robbers were the bad guys and I knew that Batman was the hero and the Joker was the villain. But I guess the most prominent example I knew of regarding the power struggle of morality was the battle between God and the Devil, with God being the bringer of life and the Devil being the evil incarnate. But, in more recent times, with society becoming more open when it comes to one’s belief, the idea of Satan or, more appropriately, Lucifer, being a misunderstood bringer of justice has become a more accepted concept among the younger population. This is only because of how he is presented in works of fiction like the Fox television show Lucifer, which is, in turn, based off of the DC comic series of the same name. The show follows Lucifer, the archangel who was cast out of heaven for refusing to follow his father’s orders,  as he sets out to bring justice upon the criminals of L.A. This backstory can also be seen in the television show, Supernatural, where he is still a villain of the story but is given a sense of humanity for the pain he feels for being cast out by the father he loved. 

Background

The Church of Satan, which is one of more the commonly referenced branches of Satanism, was founded in 1960 by Anton Szandor Lavey in the United States.  Laveyan Satanism has the core belief of more humanistic values, which prioritizes the betterment of oneself. Satan, being the symbol of the religion, represents self assertion, rebellion against unjust authority, vital existence, and “undefiled wisdom.”

Lavey learned much about the occult and ritual-magic teachings during his time as a carnival worker and, in 1966, incorporated them in the tenants of the church he founded on the Walpurgisnacht, or April 30th (which is referred to as May eve). In 1969, he sat down and recorded these beliefs and teachings in the Satanic bible. They also participated in rituals designed to encourage members to develop their sense of self-importance and to cast away their past lives full of submissiveness.

But what appeals to people the most are the Satanic Commandments that Lavey conjured up within this bible. The 11 Satanic commandments are:

Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

Do not harm little children.

Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Not only do these promote a more open religion for the impressionable gen z, but it also appeals to a more open society as a whole. These commandments are comparable to the ideals that have been seen more frequently within this evolving society, especially with the obvious disdain for sexual assault, child abuse, animal abuse, and being an overall nuisance.

Interview one (Axel Garcia, 17)

I was on the phone with my first subject, Axel Garcia, when the matter was brought up. Me and him have discussed both religion and the existence of an afterlife many times before this. Upon beginning the interview, I noticed that he was at ease and the topic itself did not bother him.  1

What is your Religious affiliation?

“I’m not a very religious person, I need evidence in order to believe in something so I’d say that I’m agnostic.”

When you hear the terms Satan and Satanism, what comes to mind?

“Evil and the flames of the hell for Satan and people who do not like God.”

How do you think media portrays Satan and Satanism?

“Some portray him as the king of darkness and the prince of all evil, while others portray him as this cool, chill guy who’s trying to become good.”

Would you say that this portrayal have affected the way you view them?

“As a kid, everytime he was mentioned, I thought, ‘Holy Crap, it’s the devil, he’s gonna punish me if I don’t behave,’ but as I got older, I started to think for myself and with shows like Lucifer and even kids shows sometimes painting him out to be just another person doing what he needs to do really impacted my views.” 

Interview two (Matthew Krug, 17)

The next person I interviewed was Matthew Krug. I asked him first if it was okay to interview him on the matter and, to my suprise, he was excited. The day of the interview, he kept texting me about how excited he was regarding it and how he could not wait to do it. 

What is your religious affiliation?

“I was born Roman Catholic but up until a couple years ago, I have not been as religious and I now recognize myself as agnostic.”

When you hear the term satanism, what comes to mind?

“When I was younger, Satanism was just...Satanism; they worship the devil, sacrifice babies and all that. But now, with the more that I have learned about them, I see them as more independent as anything else. The whole thing about Satanism is being independent from religion or God and that is really being a service to yourself than to a higher power.”

When you hear the term Satan, what comes to mind?

“Well, because of popular media and stuff like that, the term Satan and the Devil will obviously be coincided with evil and bad, but right now, Satan is just...Satan, I don’t really feel a certain way about the word or have any negative or positive connotations with it.”

How do you think media portray Satan and Satanism?

“Obviously, since the world is run by religion, Satan and Satanism are portrayed as the bad guys and evil.”

Would you say that this portrayal have affected the way you view them?

“No, because I know it’s just pop culture; it’s just media putting their two-cents in.”

If you had to stereotype a Satanist, how would you describe them?

“The stereotypical ones are the people who draw pentagrams in lambs blood and sacrifice virgins and babies. But, as I see them now, they’re just people trying to believe in and follow a certain ideological standpoint and deity just like everyone else. I’m not going to persecute them for that.

Interview three (Christopher Dellinger)

The next person I decided to interview was my father, who is active in the music scene. Having played in numerous rock and alternative bands for the past couple of decades, I decided to speak with him about the matter. When the topic was brought up, I noticed that he was passionate about it. The questions for this interview went more in depth than the other ones.

What is your religious affiliation?

“Christian.”

When you hear the term Satan, what comes to mind?

“The Devil, a two-horned man with red skin and a goatee. The father of evil, the one who crushes the universe.”

When you hear the term Satanism, what comes to mind?

“A group of impressionable people who made up their views based off of a fictitious book written by Anton Lavey (Satanic Bible) in the 1960 who don’t really have a clue on what goes on.” 

How would you say that Satan and Satanism is portrayed in media?

“It’s glorified, to make Satan seem like a superhero and is portrayed as something spooky, yet cool, which is not a good interpretation. Unfortunately, if there is a good and an evil, Hell is not going to be a party. If you go to Hell, you’re screwed; there is not this big rock and roll party in the streets where you get to hang out with your bros and jam out to Ozzy Osbourne and eat barbecue. So the portrayal is misguiding.”

Would you say that this portrayal has affected the way younger generations see him?

“Yes, because they blur the lines between good and evil and they glorify satan by thinking that Satan is actually good and could be something possible when it’s not.”

Would you say that this portrayal have affected the way you view them?

“Kind of, because it makes me dislike the fake Satanists, the people that believe in Anton Lavey, that do not have a good understanding of good and evil and think that they could have created a religion in the 1960’s. They claim that they are their own God and that they don’t believe in it while denouncing the bible.”

How do you feel about the younger generations viewing Satan as this anti-hero, in a way?

“Unfortunately, they’re just misguided, and don’t have a proper understanding of the religion or what Satanism actually is.”

Since you’re in the heavy metal scene and have been for awhile, how would you say that this portrayal has affected rock and roll?

“There’s a funness about it because there is rebellion such as ACDC’s Highway to Hell. Heavy metal has been associated with Satan. Members of Slayer have actually said that they’re catholics and it’s all for show. Marilyn Manson has had a career on being a priest at the Church of Satan and using Satan as a platform. But, in the end of the day, it’s all theatrics and, in that aspect, it’s fun for Halloween and shock rock. It’s fun as rebellion, but as long as the lines aren’t crossed and someone doesn’t commit an act of evil, then it’s fine. Partying with the devil seems like a great idea, but at the end of the day, as long as those lines aren’t blurred, it’s entertainment and shouldn’t be taken more than face value.”

Would you say that this portrayal is affecting the way kids see religion?

“Yes, it’s changing to an extent but there is always been young people that have rebelled against their parents. It’s just comes in different forms and now it might be more open, but it is what it is. Kids will always rebel against what their parents want for them until they are parents and the cycle just repeats itself.”

Conclusion

Going into this topic, I initially thought that Satanism and Satan were prime components of society that affected children but, the more research that I did, the more I realized that this issue could actually be viewed as an overlying theme and broken into a cluster of smaller pieces meant for a grander puzzle; glorification, societal acceptance, the change of religious importance, and rebellion.

With glorification and societal acceptance, which can both be tied into each other, one could infer that this type of response only happens when society allows for it. The idea of living in a society in which has become more accepting to unconventional practices, allows for this newer generation, who are leading members of this more liberal movement, to find an interest in a ideal that has previously been found as ludicrous and taboo. This, in turn, creates a worldwide mindset where people can, in a sense, exist in a moral purgatory; where life and, more specifically, morality, is not so black and white. Where something that should be inherently evil can have the possibility of being viewed as something else. And Laveyan Satanism caters to that by turning Satan into a symbol of acceptance.

As for teenage rebellion and religious importance, which can also be tied into each other, Satan is only an example of an outlet for children to rebel against an ‘unjust authoritarian figure,’ aka their parents (which correlates to the very symbolism this figure has within the religion). With Satan being such a prominent figure for being on the opposite end of the spectrum of conventional thinking and beliefs, teens are drawn to him for shock value. Plus, with how he is portrayed as this symbol of freedom, free thinking, and a live-for-yourself mentality, it is no surprise that teens wouldn’t see him as something entirely evil for they see a piece of themselves within the illusionary mask of the devil. And, if religion plays an important role within their upbringing, it is more likely for them to follow this path in order to spite their parents and drift away from family-set expectations.

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Acts of Sacrifice

by Dan H

Monday, 13 August 2007Dan H on Harry Potter, Aslan, and John Sheridan

I still, technically, have a weblog, although I haven't updated it in over a year.

One of the things I wrote about when I still did update it was the movie version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardobe. In particular, I felt that it was interesting that in movie!Narnia the Salvation of Narnia was supposed to come from the Pevensies, whereas in book!Narnia and BBCAdaptation!Narnia it was very much supposed to come from Aslan.

I don't think it was conscious, but this subtle change pretty much destroyed the underlying moral message, and the underlying emotional impact of the book. Incidentally it also undermines the original Christian message, but religion isn't really what I'm interested in for the purposes of this article.

In the movie, Aslan sacrifices himself to save Edmund, and the strong implication is that he does so because otherwise the Prophecy would not be fulfilled, and the Four Kings and Queens would not be able to Save Narnia and the White Witch would win. In the movie, Aslan makes a sensible strategic decision. His life for the lives of everybody else in Narnia.

In the book, however, the exact opposite is true. It is Aslan, not the four children, who is the key to driving back the White Witch. When Aslan dies on the round table he is not only sacrificing himself, he is sacrificing Narnia itself, and he is doing it purely for the sake of one rather horrible little boy. Again I should briefly mention that this is rather central to the Christian message: Jesus was not one man dying for many, he was God dying for You.

As you probably remember, I've just come from an epic slog through Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. One of the things that sat most awkwardly about that book was Harry's "sacrifice" at the end. Like movie!Aslan Harry makes a strictly Utilitarian decision: by his death he can weaken Lord Voldemort, and therefore achieve his goals (or, perhaps more precisely, the goals of that manipulative fucker Albus Dumbledore).

Perhaps I'm just selfish, but I genuinely don't see that as any kind of meaningful sacrifice. Both Aslan and Harry reach the decision that they can, by their deaths, further the goals they are working towards better than they can by remaining alive. It's just resource management. It certainly isn't heroism. It most definitely isn't Christ-like, despite Harry's miraculous resurrection and the revelation that his death broke the power of Lord Voldemort and redeemed Hogwarts.

There's an episode of Babylon Five, which I don't actually like very much (because it's very, very heavy handed) which actually highlights this point remarkably well. In the episode Comes the Inquisitor, the Vorlons send a man named Sebastian to B5, and Sebastian proceeds to torture the hell out of John Sheridan in an effort to get him to admit that he is unworthy of his destiny.

So Sheridan gets zapped, Delenn shows up, so the Inquisitor zaps both of them, and they do the traditional: "Wait! Don't kill my romantic interest! Kill me instead!" speech.

Here's where it gets interesting, where the distinction is drawn between the sacrifices of Movie!Aslan and Harry Potter, and the kind of sacrifice that actually has a meaning.

How do you know the chosen ones? No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his friend. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame... for one person. In the dark. Where no one will ever know or see. I've been in the service of the Vorlons for centuries, looking for you. Diogynes with his lamp looking for a man willing to die for all the wrong reasons.

Now okay, it's a bit preachy, it's a bit JMS, and ultimately I'm in no way convinced that Sheridan actually displays the qualities which Sebastian attributes to him, but I think it recognises something which both the Narnia movie and the Potter books failed to recognise. It is easy for a fictional character to sacrifice themselves for an objectively defined Greater Good. Defeating Voldemort or the White Witch are obviously big important endeavours and they require that people make sacrifices. But it's precisely because those tasks are so vast that the decision to sacrifice oneself in their service is ultimately meaningless. If your destiny (sorry, "Destiny") is to die, then dying is really your only option, whether you go to your doom with your head held high or blubbing like a little girl is ultimately meaningless. In the Potterverse the vaunted Gryffindor courage is little more than a good old British stiff upper lip: putting a brave face on it while you do whatever it is you were intending to do anyway.

I should probably take a step back here and say that I'm very much talking about fictional characters here. Real people have survival instincts, they have millennia of evolution telling them to save their own skins. In the real world, a soldier going into battle, a policeman tackling an armed criminal, or an aid worker working in a warzone are all showing tremendous courage, even heroism, just by going about their daily lives. A fictional hero, though, has to be more than that. A hero must, by definition, not just be doing his job. A hero who is also a solider must do things which the ordinary soldier is not called upon to do, and ordinary soldiers are regularly called upon to lay down their lives for a cause.

The test which Sebastian places before Sheridan is a simple one, but one which cuts to the heart of what "sacrifice" really means. He does not ask "what will you sacrifice for your destiny" he asks "what won't you sacrifice for your destiny" or to put it another way "what will you give up your destiny to protect."

I think it's actually a very important question for any "hero" to ask. A hero is generally working towards some higher goal, and they will often make tremendous sacrifices in pursuit of that goal. The greatest sacrifice a hero can make, therefore, is not their life, but the very goal towards which they have struggled for so long. When your entire live has been devoted to something, dying for it is a small step, giving it up is what takes real moral courage.

The death of a fictional character is meaningful only insofar as it affects the narrative afterwards. When a fictional character sacrifices their life, the sacrifice only has meaning if it does not directly further their wider goals. Otherwise it's just a play, a strategic manoeuvre. Being dead but getting your way is infinitely preferable for a fictional character than being alive and losing.

When Lily Potter sacrifices herself to protect baby Harry, that's heroic. But her sacrifice is meaningful precisely because it is futile. From the Utilitarian mindset which governs Harry's later sacrifice, or the sacrifice of movie!Aslan, it's a completely stupid thing to do. As far as Lily is concerned, Harry is going to die no matter what she does, so really she should have just cut her losses and saved herself. Her sacrifice had power because she wasn't trying to achieve anything by it, she was just making a moral stand: no matter what, she wasn't going to stand aside and let her son be murdered.

In fact, one might almost say that the sacrifice of a fictional hero (as opposed to a real person doing a difficult and thankless job) is powerful only if it is ultimately futile. Its meaning resides in its very meaninglessness. It has to have a purity of intent, a simple moral decision that this line cannot be crossed, that this injustice cannot be borne, and all the "greater good" can go hang. The sequence in Pan's Labyrinth, in which the doctor administers a fatal injection to a captured solider who would otherwise be tortured is a fine example of this. This single act of mercy costs him his life, and it costs the rebels their doctor, but achieves nothing except the end of one man's suffering.

So for me, the most resounding moment of heroism in Harry Potter is not when he goes off to let Voldemort kill him, thereby destroying the chunk of Plot which resides in Harry's very soul. Rather, Harry's one moment of redemption in my eyes was when he flew into the burning Room of Requirement to rescue Draco Malfoy. Here he risks not only his life but his entire Destiny in order to save his worst enemy.

Unfortunately, Harry's principles are not always so unwavering. He happily uses Unforgivable Curses at little or no provocation, whenever it becomes convenient to his Quest, and it is his devotion to the Quest we are expected to admire, not his loyalty to any actual people (which is, let's face it, negligible).

I don't mean to single Potter out here. I think there's a general tendency in modern fiction to praise those who put the "big picture" ahead of the troubles of individual people. It seems to be seen, nowadays, as worthier to be concerned with large scale issues like destroying the Dark Lord than with small scale issues, like how many lives you wreck along the way.

Were I in the mood to make a trite political point, I might be inclined to draw parallels between this modern brand of heroism, and the attitude of a number of modern governments to problems like - say - international terrorism. So long as you take down the Dark Lord it doesn't matter what methods you use to get to him.

go to latest

)

Wardog

at 10:38 on 2007-08-14Hmmm...interesting, very interesting. *strokes goatee* Actually, it occurs to me that Harry's Big Deal is that he supposedly understands LOVE unlike Lord V. And that his sacrifice is, you know, this amazing, jesus-like act of LOVE. But surely the point of love is that it's personal and small-scale. I mean, it's LOVE that inspires the Malfoys to say "fuck this war and everything else, we're saving our son." If I had a son and he was walking off to lay down his life before a nose-less super-villain (and by, super, in this context I mean inept) I'd probably be all "Son, son, run away to Australia, you can live with Hermione's parents, go, go now." I wouldn't be saying "Hey, kid, death is fun. You're being really brave." LOVE is another one of those weird double-thinks, it's the ultimate selfish emotion that, nevertheless, inspires selfless acts. Thus Lily Potter dying for her son. Not Lily Potter grinning happily that the son she *gave her life to protect* is about to *fling his own away*.

Similarly, you'd think LOVE would not gather around Harry

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 11:01 on 2007-08-14Also I have to wonder if the 7th book was trying to ship RAB/Kreacher, just because it occurs to me that drinking the Killing Juice himself was an insanely noble sacrifice, especially when Kreacher survived it and, in fact, had suffcieint dodgy plot-hole house elf magic to be able to get them both out of the cave again. Also to lay down your life for an attempt to kill your house elf strikes me as ... well ... is that LOVE do you think?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 12:28 on 2007-08-14I think the general rule with Harry Potter books is that "if the fans think they can discern a relationship between characters which is not specifically stated in the text to be a relationship, they are Wrong because they are trying to corrupt the Holy Writ of Rowling".

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 16:52 on 2007-08-14I don't know, I think there's definitely something going on between RAB and Kreacher... Greater love hath no man than he who is willing to lay down his life for house elf... Oh, sorry, we're talking about Rowling here so that should be LOVE.

permalink

-

go to top

Jen Spencer

at 14:46 on 2007-08-15My current favourite source of heroism: David Sumner in Straw Dogs. He is willing to fight the pack of maniac locals to the death because he will not stand by and let them lynch a slightly retarded murderer, and he certainly will not let them violate the sanctity of his home (again) to do it. You go dude!

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:36 on 2007-08-16I haven't seen Straw Dogs, I'm afraid it's another one of those movies that would upset me. I gotta comfort zone and I'm sticking in it, dammit.

[oscopelabs]

Evil in the Mirror: John Carpenter’s Revealing ‘Prince of Darkness’ by Joshua Rothkopf

[Last year, Musings paid homage to Produced and Abandoned: The Best Films You’ve Never Seen, a review anthology from the National Society of Film Critics that championed studio orphans from the ‘70s and ‘80s. In the days before the Internet, young cinephiles like myself relied on reference books and anthologies to lead us to films we might not have discovered otherwise. Released in 1990, Produced and Abandoned was a foundational piece of work, introducing me to such wonders as Cutter’s Way, Lost in America, High Tide, Choose Me, Housekeeping, and Fat City. (You can find the full list of entries here.) Our first round of Produced and Abandoned essays included Angelica Jade Bastién on By the Sea, Mike D’Angelo on The Counselor, Judy Berman on Velvet Goldmine, and Keith Phipps on O.C. and Stiggs. Over the next four weeks, Musings will continue with another round of essays about tarnished gems, in the hope they’ll get a second look. Or, more likely, a first. —Scott Tobias, editor.]

It’s generally accepted that John Carpenter wasn’t a personal filmmaker—not personal in the way that Martin Scorsese, only five years his senior and Italianamerican from the start, was. Carpenter grew up movie-crazy in the ’50s and ’60s. He wanted to make Westerns exactly at the moment when that became an unrealistic career goal. His heroes were Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles and, above all, Howard Hawks. It’s been nourishing to listen to Amy Nicholson’s wonderful eight-part podcast Halloween Unmasked, still in progress, and to hear Carpenter—usually oblique in interviews—open up about his boyhood in the Jim Crow–era South. He mentions visiting an insane asylum during a college psych trip and locking eyes with a prisoner who spooked him. That may be the basis for killer Michael Myers but, by and large, this was a guy who wrote what he dreamed up, not what he knew.

That’s not to suggest Carpenter didn’t develop his own signature style. When he arrived in Los Angeles in 1968 to attend film school at USC, he reinvented himself, transforming from a Max Fischer–like creative wunderkind (he was a rock guitarist and high-school class president) into a laconic, bell-bottomed cowboy who listened more than he spoke. He was too cool for nerdy Dan O’Bannon, who worked with him on Dark Star. He was too cool for Hollywood itself, even after he’d succeeded there, rarely mingling socially and turning down projects like Top Gun and Fatal Attraction.

But the cool act was a bit of smokescreen. I once asked Carpenter about it, and he owned up to a private sense of pain in regard to his work. “I take every failure hard,” he told me in 2008, singling out the audience’s abandonment of The Thing, a remake of his favorite film (one that actually improves on its source). “The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane. Even the original movie's director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me.”

Carpenter would rebound from that 1982 commercial disaster—as well the indignity of getting sacked from Firestarter—by playing the game even better. He directed Jeff Bridges to a Best Actor nomination on Starman (that’s as rare as a unicorn for a sci-fi performance) and, just as things were turning golden, blew all his capital again on 1986’s Big Trouble in Little China, which was rushed and subsequently buried in the massive shadow of Aliens. “You try to make a studio picture your own, but in the end, it’s their film,” Carpenter said in our interview, the Kentucky rascal turned bitter. “And they’re going to get what they want. After that experience, I had to stop playing for the studios for a while and go independent again.”

This is the pivotal moment in Carpenter’s career, the one that fascinates me the most. It should fascinate more people, given what the filmmaker did. Divorced and with a two-year-old son, Carpenter is, at that point, 38 years old. He’s already feeling like a Hollywood burnout, with a decade of ups and downs to prove it. The solution was a pay cut, a big one: Prince of Darkness, financed through “supermensch” Shep Gordon and Alive Films and released in 1987, would be made for a grand total of $3 million, the first title in a multi-picture deal that guaranteed Carpenter complete creative control.

Scrappy but never chintzy, Prince of Darkness is the most lovable of movies. On the surface, it has all the cool minimalism a JC fan could ask for: elegant anamorphic compositions (Gary Kibbe’s muscular cinematography adds millions more in production value), a seesawing synth score, a one-location “siege” structure akin to the director’s Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing. The movie also has Alice Cooper killing a grad student with a bicycle. It has a swirling canister of green Satanic goo in a church basement.

Critics, by and large, were unkind. In a representative review from the New York Times, Vincent Canby called it “surprisingly cheesy,” singling out first-time screenwriter Martin Quatermass for particular scorn (he “overloads the dialogue with scientific references and is stingy with the surprises”), not realizing that this was a pseudonym for Carpenter himself. Would it have mattered? Released days before Halloween, Prince got clobbered by the gig Carpenter turned down, Fatal Attraction, still surging in its sixth weekend.

But below the surface—and still a matter for wider appreciation—is the film that Carpenter dug himself out of his psychic hellhole to make: his most personal horror movie, starring a version of himself. Prince of Darkness is about watching and waiting. In a way, it’s a romantic view of the auteur’s own time at school. It’s a movie about the evil that stares out of the mirror (i.e., yourself). Like all of his films, it arrived under the possessive title John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness. In my mind, that apostrophe is actually a contraction: John Carpenter Is Prince of Darkness. And Prince of Darkness is him.

First, let’s understand what $3 million means in 1987. To compare it to some other movies of the same period, Blue Velvet’s budget is twice as large. Hannah and Her Sisters, largely shot in Mia Farrow’s apartment, was funded at $6.4 million. When Scorsese decided to go indie and make his audacious The Last Temptation of Christ, he had a $7 million allowance—and that’s for robes and sandals. Carpenter, on the other hand, would be doing practical special effects in camera. He’d be doing a movie with gore and supernatural nuttiness. In a now-quaint New York Times article from April 1987 titled “Independents Making It Big” (“The major studios have abandoned small, serious, risky films, the kind that often win prizes”), Merchant Ivory’s Oscar-winning A Room With A View gets prime positioning with a big photograph; that one has a $3 million budget, roughly. (Not coincidentally, Carpenter’s financiers, Alive Films, are name-checked in the piece as the producers of Alan Rudolph’s Trouble in Mind.)

Coming off Big Trouble in Little China’s estimated $20 million budget (it was probably more), Carpenter would be making a radical shift. But he agreed to Alive’s terms. He’d return to doing things fast and smart, to distilling his vision down to its cleanest, clearest grammar, to getting it done in 30 days (Halloween was shot in 20, over four weeks in May 1978). Even if you disregard the whole of Prince of Darkness’s content—and we won’t be doing that—Carpenter’s desire to work in total artistic freedom is breathtaking. He will do what it takes to move forward.

A little plot: In Prince of Darkness, scientists, theologians and academics plunge into a dilapidated church where they power up their equipment and study a mysterious genie in a bottle: an “anti-god.” The scenario has some of the pseudo-tech fizz of Poltergeist or, in a lighter vein, the Harold Ramis scenes in Ghostbusters. It’s not meant to hold up under scrutiny. Carpenter, who says he was reading books about quantum uncertainty at the time (maybe not the most comforting bedside material given his professional predicament), gives pages of chewy dialogue to the twin father figures of his oeuvre: Donald Pleasence, returning from Halloween and Escape from New York, plays an unnamed, worried priest; and Big Trouble’s wizened Victor Wong appears as an esteemed professor of metaphysical causality.

If the movie has a conventional hero (it doesn’t), it’s Brian, a student who splits the difference between creepy and generically handsome. He’s played by Jameson Parker, then a TV star on Simon & Simon. Or at least I think it’s Jameson Parker. Unlike his more famous San Diego private detective, Brian sports a robust, porn-star-worthy moustache. It makes him look swarthy, mysterious—a little like the lanky John Carpenter himself, who shoots these early scenes in classrooms and hallways at his alma mater, USC. “I spent many happy years at SC as a film student,” Carpenter says on Shout! Factory’s collector’s Blu-ray. “I really enjoyed myself. I learned everything about how to make movies there.”

Watching Prince of Darkness is as close as we’ll come to seeing the director’s formative years re-enacted, memoir-style. In getting back to basics, Carpenter decided to do it literally. Brian sits in class listening; he has a bit of a Laurie Strode moment looking out the window, distracted. Who is he? He’s a young scientist observing evil, almost flirting with it. He spies on a pretty girl in the courtyard (Lisa Blount). She’s got a boyfriend and it irks him, wordlessly. Later, Brian will woo her to bed and use some hard-core Howard Hawks dialogue on her: “Who was he? The one that gave you such a high opinion of men?” he says, straight out of Lauren Bacall’s playbook in To Have and Have Not. It works. She kisses him.

The movie isn’t all wish-fulfillment. In fact, it’s charming how fully the Carpenter surrogate recedes into the team; Brian isn’t even a factor in the final showdown. Maybe his job is to watch other people vanquish evil. That would make sense, since it’s his creator’s comfort zone. In the meantime, the offscreen Carpenter is building some of his grossest sequences, spraying unsuspecting people in the mouth with streams of ectoplasm (à la Rob Bottin’s landmark FX in The Thing), mounting parallel action and deploying beetles, maggots and ants where necessary.

Prince of Darkness has one moment that’s proven unforgettable, transcending even the horror genre. It’s an eerie transmission, the voice slowed down and distorted: “This is not a dream…not a dream…” DJ Shadow samples it a few times on his groundbreaking debut, 1996’s Endtroducing. (The voice is actually Carpenter’s, impossible not to notice once you’ve been made aware of it.) He’s supposed to be a future dude reaching backward in time—“from the year one, nine, nine, nine”—maybe to prevent a biblical apocalypse. All we see is a jittery handheld shot of a silhouetted robed figure slowly emerging from the church, the ominous end-of-the-world smoke gathering.

The economy of the shot is beautiful, Carpenter achieving the texture of a half-remembered nightmare using only a capture-video-off-a-TV-screen trick. (It’s very Inland Empire—and come to think of it, that basement cylinder of swirling green evil is a lot like the glass box from the first episode of the rebooted Twin Peaks: The Return.) So in a situation where Carpenter is facing his most prohibitive spending limits, he’s actually expanding his craft. Prince of Darkness signals his own creative rehabilitation after turning his heel on the studios. Or, to quote the film’s poster: “It is evil. It is real. It is awakening.”

What does it mean that Carpenter’s big payoff involves a mirror? These Cocteau-like shots were some of the most dangerous to pull off. One of them involved plunging a prosthetic hand into highly toxic liquid mercury (a substance the crew had to drain from their hydraulic cranes just to make the gag work). Then, to capture the action on the “other side” of the mirror, poor Lisa Blount had to swim submerged in a darkened swimming pool while an underwater camera shot upward at the glimmering surface. I include these technical details not only to express awe at Carpenter’s commitment (along with that of his collaborators), but also to stress the obvious: The mirror climax was really important to him. The movie’s final seconds are the whole of Prince of Darkness’s reflexivity in a single cut: Brian, woken from a double dream, approaches his bedroom mirror. We see from the perspective of the glass. He touches that porn ’stache tentatively, then reaches out. Cut to black.

It’s not easy to touch that mirror—to walk away from everything you’ve labored to achieve over years, to a place where it’s just you and your talent and what you can do. To me, that’s what Prince of Darkness expresses, subtly. Creatively, the experiment worked: It led directly to Carpenter’s 1988 stealth masterpiece They Live, his most confident political statement and a kindred project in its use of real L.A. locations. That film’s critical reputation has already been defended at large. But maybe it’s time to rally behind the moment slightly earlier, when the director had to rediscover who he was, and what he wanted—and when he found a way to turn everything around.

[elisaenglish]

All the Difference in the World

It seems almost contradictory to think of shining a light on dystopias. And there’s a certain element of “Why should we?” when history offers a damning surplus of cautionary tales and the future beckons with innovation yet too murky to fully judge. Here we are at the pivot. The pendulum swings without a concrete place to land and opinion drowns consideration. Meanwhile, the clock ticks on; we vacillate like a metronome as spectacle draws attention.

Thus, herein lies our quandary. We can speculate, but we can’t know. We can weigh, but far from settle. Literature presents some longed-for clues, except less discerning eyes are prone to over-simplify the essentials.

After all, non-literary figures frequently cite Orwell as science fiction’s most incisive voice and I agree that there’s grain of truth there. But I can’t help but feel somewhat sorry for poor old George, languishing in his premature grave, largely misread and far too easily utilised to justify all manner of dubious agendas. Quote-mining? Never a good idea. It’s like taking the moral high ground; there really is only one way to go. As for the ghost of the writer? There are two words you need to embrace: context and oeuvre. And in this case, I suspect he’d also like his name back. Because anyone of sober mind really would.

So if not Orwell, then who? If not a partial analogy, then where resides completion? And I hesitate at this juncture because parallelism is never an exact measure and variables come and go. Still, it feels safe – and by ‘safe’ I mean ‘absolutely fucking terrifying’ – to place our bets on Brave New World.

Not entirely original, I know. You could argue that it’s a bit mainstream, a bit staid, possibly a bit done to death. I could trawl obscurity to find something – well, obscure. But no, because what would be the point? Huxley, to use a technical term, knows his prophetic shit.

And ninety years later, here on the brink of some digital abyss, it looks a lot like we’re living it. Or at least we will be, before the next half-century’s done.

Of course, the world was negotiating its own horrifying pre-show in 1931. Lest we forget, communism and fascism were entrenched on the eastern and southern flanks of Europe. Meanwhile, Nazism was on the rise in the crumbling Weimar Republic and the Great Depression took its social and economic toll on the entire globe. In the midst, however, Huxley drew together a vision of a political model that had evolved civilisation beyond war, or famine, or plague, or suffering. A place of continuous peace, prosperity, where the government artificially, by means of advances in biotechnology and social manipulation, keeps everyone in a permanent state of contentment so that no one ever has any reason to rebel.

Control through love and pleasure, we see, is far more potent than that acquired through fear and violence. A whole population anaesthetised, and on and on they beg for another, and another hit. Familiar, isn’t it? And somehow under your skin because unlike 1984, it isn’t as easy to pinpoint what makes this scenario the worst of the worst, or even just one of them.

We turn, then, to the novel’s climactic moment. John the Savage, having lived all his life on a remote reservation in New Mexico and symbolic of the authentic and passionate mindset eliminated in the name of ‘benign’ tyranny, is brought before Mustapha Mond, the World Controller for Western Europe and the only other man in London to know anything of Shakespeare or God, or it must be said, freedom:

““My dear young friend,” said Mustapha Mond, “civilisation has absolutely no need of nobility or heroism. These things are symptoms of political inefficiency. In a properly organised society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise. Where there are wars, where there are divided allegiances, where there are temptations to be resisted, objects of love to be fought for or defended—there, obviously, nobility and heroism have some sense. But there aren’t any wars nowadays. The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too much. There’s no such thing as a divided allegiance; you’re so conditioned that you can’t help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren’t any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears—that’s what soma is.”

“But the tears are necessary. Don’t you remember what Othello said? ‘If after every tempest come such calms, may the winds blow till they have wakened death.’ There’s a story one of the old Indians used to tell us, about the Girl of Mátsaki. The young men who wanted to marry her had to do a morning’s hoeing in her garden. It seemed easy; but there were flies and mosquitoes, magic ones. Most of the young men simply couldn’t stand the biting and stinging. But the one that could—he got the girl.”

“Charming! But in civilised countries,” said the Controller, “you can have girls without hoeing for them; and there aren’t any flies or mosquitoes to sting you. We got rid of them all centuries ago.”

The Savage nodded, frowning. “You got rid of them. Yes, that’s just like you. Getting rid of everything unpleasant instead of learning to put up with it. Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them... But you don’t do either. Neither suffer nor oppose. You just abolish the slings and arrows. It’s too easy... What you need is something with tears for a change. Nothing costs enough here. Exposing what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death and danger dare, even for an egg-shell. Isn’t there something in that?”

[…]

“There's a great deal in it,” the Controller replied. “Men and women must have their adrenals stimulated from time to time.”

“What?” questioned the Savage, uncomprehending.

“It’s one of the conditions of perfect health. That's why we've made the V.P.S. treatments compulsory.”

“V.P.S.?”

“Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenin. It’s the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences.”

“But I like the inconveniences.”

“We don’t,” said the Controller. “We prefer to do things comfortably.”

“But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”

“In fact,” said Mustapha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“All right, then,” said the Savage defiantly, “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy. Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.”

There was a long silence.

“I claim them all,” said the Savage at last.”

So it is that he rejects the ‘blessings’ of modernity and retires to the wilderness to live out the rest of his days as a hermit. Having tried – and failed – to incite rebellion in those shackled by the system, he has learned from their apathy that they cannot be saved unless they possess inside them the will to liberate themselves. Such instincts are instilled in us through the multiplicity – not least of all, our stories, our art. Without them, we are husks of our generational selves, perhaps never to be salvaged.

True to form, as we see in these our days now, John is eventually hounded to death; his novelty of antiquated longings yet more fuel for a public driven rabid by consumerist lust. But so, his soul remains:

“He was digging in his garden—digging, too, in his own mind, laboriously turning up the substance of his thought. Death—and he drove in his spade once, and again, and yet again. And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. A convincing thunder rumbled through the words. He lifted another spadeful of earth. Why had Linda died? Why had she been allowed to become gradually less than human and at last... He shuddered. A good kissing carrion. He planted his foot on his spade and stamped it fiercely into the tough ground. As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. Thunder again; words that proclaimed themselves true—truer somehow than truth itself. And yet that same Gloucester had called them ever-gentle gods. Besides, thy best of rest is sleep, and that thou oft provok'st; yet grossly fear'st thy death which is no more. No more than sleep. Sleep. Perchance to dream. His spade struck against a stone; he stooped to pick it up. For in that sleep of death, what dreams?...”

What death? What purity? What dreams? And of course, what strength?

Choose your dystopias wisely, you could say. But nonetheless, choose. As Huxley writes in his essay Drugs That Shape Men’s Minds, “Generalised intelligence and mental alertness are the most powerful enemies of dictatorship.” We are the intuitive solution; we are the nuanced light. And for all of Miranda's mistaken claims, we might live to “see how beauteous mankind is.” Just be wary of the distractions.