#. don't mind me as i post translations out of order from my own intended order because i still haven't finished sebeks new years story

[mysteryshoptls]

SSR Floyd Leech Bloom Birthday Personal Story: Part 1

"Happy Birthday"

Part 1 (Part 2) (Part 3)

[Octavinelle Dorm – Birthday Party Venue]

Floyd: So, it's almost time for the birthday interview, huh. I wonder what they'll ask this year.

Floyd: And 'sides, who did the "Magical Pendulum" even choose to be my presenter?

???: Excuse me!

Ortho: Happy birthday, Floyd Leech-san! Let's have a good time today.

Floyd: Oooh, so you're the one who's gonna get this show on the road, Clione-chan? Make it entertaining for me, 'kay?

Ortho: I'll do my best. So then, I'll get the interview going right away.

Ortho: "Are you good or bad at flying?"

Floyd: Flying? Sure, I like it, but I don't know if I'm good at it, or nothing.

Floyd: Sometimes I can clear a set task in one go, but when I can't, I just suuuck.

Floyd: Stuff like having to fly at a specific height in a straight line's super boring, too.

Ortho: I understand. So you're the type whose flying skills can change greatly depending on your current emotions.

Floyd: Isn't that how everyone is?

Floyd: If something looks fun, I totally feel like trying it, but if it's boring, it's a pain to even lift one finger to do it.

Floyd: But meh, even on days I'm not really feeling up to doing anything, I can still fly higher than Jade or Azul, so.

Ortho: Oh, that reminds me, I've seen statistics that says merfolk tend to dislike flying.

Floyd: Hrrrrm, there's data like that? I bet whoever researched that must've been real bored.

Floyd: I mean, I guess Jade and Azul don't really like flying from the get go, anyway.

Floyd: Back when I first started learning how to fly, it didn't matter how into it I was, I still messed up a ton.

Floyd: It's a totally different sensation than being in the water, so I had a hard time just trying to balance on top of the broom.

Ortho: That does indeed sound like an issue that arises simply by default of being merfolk.

Floyd: Oh yeah, way back when, I remember I had a total epic fail.

Floyd: I couldn't control the broom at all, and ended up slamming into the bushes. Ahaha,

Ortho: Eehh!? Did you get hurt?

Floyd: Uhh, just got scraped up here and there, I guess? But it was so fast compared to how we move in the ocean, so it startled me a bit.

Floyd: But, I just couldn't get over that thrill I felt, y'know～? I wanted to feel it again, so…

Floyd: I'd watch videos and try to copy what I saw, trying all sorts of different stuff. Eventually, I was able to fly better.

Floyd: Lobster-sensei even told me that out of all the merfolk he's ever taught here, that I was one of the fastest to pick it up, too.

Ortho: Wow, that's amazing!

Ortho: I wonder why your improvement was much faster compared to the other merfolk?

Floyd: How should I know? Lobster-sensei just said that it's important to not be afraid of flying, though.

Ortho: If I were to compile everything you've explained here… I guess that means what's most important is to have the proper spirit, right?

Floyd: Maybe?

Floyd: It's also just a waste of time to just be zoning out thinking of other things, or just doing nothing like a sea anemone, anyway.

Ortho: Ehe, you're right. I want to be able to learn new things without fear just like that, too.

Floyd: 'Kay, I think that wraps it up nicely, don'tcha? Clione-chan, get on with the next question.

Part 1 (Part 2) (Part 3)

Requested by @sadinasaphrite.

[thegodcyclecomic]

Hello again! Thank you for your post that covered my question on what sources of inspiration you used for Athena. It was super enlightening!

I know this is a tall order because the myths are broad, but could you discuss what aspects of characterization and dimensions you feel are often ignored about Athena? This is me practically begging for a meta post, but I genuinely love hearing your thoughts on her because I agree with your assessment that roughly most media tend to lean to simplistic aspects of Athena. I like hearing from your inspiration notes that you thought of Athena’s childhood with Pallas and how she is more of a pragmatic character that has agency.

I have a lot of thoughts on this so this post won't be as comprehensive as I originally intended, I will be briefly covering the points I want to list out. I try my best to base my writing of Athena on the canon source material, but there will be aspects that veer into my own interpretation/headcanon territory. All Iliad passages here are from the Robert Fitzgerald translation.

Anyway, here are the aspects of characterization I think are normally ignored when authors write Athena.

Her calculating nature / intelligence

This one sounds weird because it's paradoxically the first thing that comes to mind when writing Athena. The issue with this is the same issue when amateur authors try to write characters who are smarter than them: They resort to cheap shortcuts and stereotypes to show a character is "smart".

Examples of this would be the overusage of chess imagery. It's a game that wouldn't exist in Ancient Greece anyway, and it's a measure of spatial memorization rather than strategy. In real warfare, everything is variable to change. Chess pieces don't have motivations or biases that could influence their actions. Opening moves in chess have their counters, but real-life tactics allow you more freedom on how to engage with it.

The next writing shortcut people resort to re: Athena's intelligence is how they use her reading books to show she is "smart" but don't really elaborate on what kind of books she reads of what topics she specializes in which is already in the mythos that can give you lots of ideas.

I mentioned this before but when I started TGC I had a hard time characterizing Athena at first because I didn't understand her domains too well. So you know what I did? I picked up books about military history, Ancient Greek laws, political theory, philosophy, and similar. Learning about these things gave me a perspective of "how would the personification of the state act if they were a person?". Ancient Greece was big on the Social Contract, as exemplified in Socrates's speech in Plato's Apology.

There's a lot more to it, I'm not doing it justice at all in this post. But that's the idea. In the Oresteia, Athena created the practice of cross-examination for murder trials, and then immediately proceeded to undermine the entire justice process by attempting to bribe the prosecution (the Furies). In the Iliad Book 4, she disguises herself as a Trojan soldier to trick Laodokos to shoot Menelaus to break the ceasefire-- essentially enacting what we in modern day would call a False Flag Operation. It's so quintessentially Politician(tm) of her to do.

Athena's intelligence comes from how she seeks to improve and make efficient current systems, like her strategy to Ares's warfare. Or her various inventions in mythos. Another one would be her ability to manipulate people and situations to push for the outcomes she wants. You can see this in her various dialogues in the Epic Cycle:

Athena grifting in the Odyssey in a speech she makes to Zeus about why she should be allowed to assist Odysseus.

520: Athena kept the pace behind them, bearing her shield of storm, immortal and august, whose hundred golden-plaited tassles, worth a hekatomb each one, floated in air. So down the ranks that dazzling goddess went to stir the attack, and each man in his heart grew strong to fight and never quit the melee, for at her passage war itself became lovelier than return, lovelier than sailing in the decked ships to their own native land -Iliad Book 4

and this

100: “Son of Lykaon, I have in mind an exploit that may tempt you, tempt a fighting heart. Have you the gall to send an arrow like a fork of lightning home against Menelaus? Every Trojan heart would rise, and every man would praise you, especially Paris, the prince— you would be sure to come by glittering gifts if he could see the warrior, Menelaus, the son of Atreus, brought down by your bow, then bedded on a dolorous pyre! Come now, brace yourself for a shot at Menelaus. engage to pay Apollo, the bright archer, a perfect hekatomb of firstling lambs when you go home to your old town, Zeleia.” That was Athena’s way, leading him on, the foolish man, to folly. -Iliad Book 4

from what I can understand, Athena's domain of wisdom is not just limited to giving insight to people-- but also in obscuring the truth and leading others to their ruin. Which is in line with one of Athena's epithets which is Απατουρια (Apaturia) "Deciever".

Often times in other adaptations, they relegate Athena's intelligence to spouting random facts or a "nerdy" personality. Or they nerf it so that she doesn't solve these braindead plots in 2 seconds. Take Athena from Lore Olympus for example, the Athena of canon would've never allowed any of this shit with Persephone and Apollo undermining Zeus to happen TT_TT if you have to make your characters stupid for the story to work, then it is a bad story hands down.

2. Interpretations regarding Athena's relationship with heroes

This is something I see a lot where Athena is written to have a personal investment in her heroes like they are "her blorbos" (actual words I've seen people on this hellsite use for this). I'd like to direct your attention to this passage from of Athena speaking in Iliad book 8.

My father, now, is full of a black madness, evil and perverse. All that I strive for he brings to nothing: He will not remember how many times I intervened to save his son, worn out in trials set by Eurystheus. How Heracles would cry to heaven! And Zeus Would send me out of heaven to be his shield. Had I forseen this day that time he went down, bidden by Eurystheus, between Death’s narrow gates to bring from Erebos the watchdog of the Lord of Undergloom, he never would have left the gorge of Styx!

The way I understand this passage is that Athena does a lot of "NPC questgiver" tasks for Zeus in an attempt to curry favor from him. It's a calculated choice on her part and not something she does out of the kindness of her heart. A similar situation occurs when Orestes asks Athena for aid, she helps him on the insistence of Apollo.

Regarding Odysseus, I'm sure there is some fondness she has for him-- but that doesn't stop her from allowing him to be struck by storm (as collateral damage for the crimes of Ajax the lesser for raping Cassandra in Athena's temple). Or from her setting up the suitor problem so she could convince him to murder them all.

If you've noticed, all of Athena's champions are some kind of high-ranking warriors. A king or general or prince. You would think that the goddess of wisdom would favor the philosophers more, or would choose more often to avoid violence. But Athena is very quick to choose violence, it's who she is. And she needs a tool that she can use as a blade.

(these are my interpretations, if you disagree thats fine) 3. Athena as a "peaceful" goddess

This one makes me laugh and also drives me insane.

There are two Homeric hymns that directly and clearly contradict this idea.

(HOMERIC HYMNS 5 - 33, TRANSLATED BY H. G. EVELYN-WHITE) a. The Homeric Hymn to Athena

Of Pallas Athene, guardian of the city, I begin to sing. Dread is she, and with Ares she loves deeds of war, the sack of cities and the shouting and the battle. It is she who saves the people as they go out to war and come back. Hail, goddess, and give us good fortune with happiness!

b. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite

...Yet there are three hearts that she cannot bend nor yet ensnare. First is the daughter of Zeus who holds the aegis, bright-eyed Athene; for she has no pleasure in the deeds of golden Aphrodite, but delights in wars and in the work of Ares, in strifes and battles and in preparing famous crafts. 

What I find insightful about the second one is that it gives a specific reason for why Athena cannot be moved by romantic love. It's because war occupies the space in her heart that love would normally be. Both hymns specifically name drop Ares, so the idea that Athena finds Ares's violence to be repulsive is just blatantly untrue. If anything, she adores it. The time it would become an issue for her is when his rampages act against her greater interests, which is the source of all their duels in canon.

Other proof for Athena being generally violent can be inferred from her characterization in the Iliad, the instances of which are too numerous to list here.

4. Athena's personality defined by her lack of childhood.

I mentioned this in another post, but Athena was born from Zeus as an adult (though in TGC I changed this to being born as a pre-teen. This is intentional and serves a purpose). What we know about psychology today is that for normal social and emotional development, young children need to form an attachment with at least one primary caregiver. Athena being born as an adult means that she would've missed out on important development milestones that other gods would've gone through.

I will preemptively say that before you bring up the "theyre Gods they're not like humans" that as far as mythos is concerned, the way that gods behave and think is almost exactly identical to that of humans. They experience the same range of emotions humans do, as well as grief and trauma. So I will consider that their psychology is also the same with the difference being that they might experience mental degradation not typically seen in humans because of cumulative negative experiences over a long period.

Back to Athena, the only framework she would have to start from literally being born yesterday would be the fragments of memories she gleaned from being inside of Zeus's head. I think this would be confusing for her, as these are from the first-person perspective of Zeus, so using his memories but lacking context for those experiences might lead to an early identity crisis. Athena would then have to play catchup in learning extremely fast everything to fill those blanks.

This is why I think Athena has a hard time forming personal connections. She doesn't have a true equal. Athena's relationships are defined by power imbalances and transactions, and that is how she understands relationships in general to work.

5. Athena's humanity.

I think what bothers me the most about Athena in adaptations is the lack of humanity given to her character. I know I just went over why she's a manipulative machiavellian character, but what I see is that Athena often gets relegated to the Unfun Stick in the Mud character. She exists to ruin the fun of the Fun Chaotic Dudes Dionysus, Hermes, and Apollo. She doesn't have anything going to her except being a snitch and a daddy's girl, or worse, she exists to be "put in her place" by other male gods. This is why I really dislike Fedini's and "incorrect greek gods" take on Athena. I think there's this underlying biases that an ace-coded goddess can't have anything interesting about her, because all media on tumblr and fandom these days are broken down to fucking shipping instead of seriously engaging with the source material. I've seen people call her a Mary Sue or act like she is an annoying bitch for exhibiting personality traits that would be praised in a male character (the traits of a Byronic Hero).

Portrayals of Athena go one extreme or another, either she is a wholly Good goddess or she is a Villain/mere annoyance. It's a real shame to see, because I hope I can show you now that she is a wonderfully complex and morally grey character. I want to see Athena's curiosity and how she tries to understand the world from her own perspective. I want to explore her relationships with Zeus and her siblings like Ares and Apollo outside of the Meme'fication of Greek mythology.

Anyway, that's all I can think of for now, I hope this answers your question. If you have any point you'd like me to explain more, I'd be glad to make another post in greater detail.

[lettalady]

20 Questions for Writers

Felt a little like rambling through some answers about writing and AO3. Feel free to play if you're up for it!

How many works do you have on AO3?

200 at the moment, though of those there are a few that are prompt challenge works because they were hardly enough to be considered a full story on their own.

2. What’s your total AO3 word count?

985,325 words and counting, which makes me want to pull the word counts from the various WIPs that haven't made it to AO3 yet but ♫ patience is a virtue ♫ (that I'm clearly struggling with at the moment).

3. What fandoms do you write for?

I've written for the Hiddleston, Evans, Brühl, Mikkelsen fandoms - and have a few WIPs that haven't made it to the point of being posted yet but are in development. (And always am open to prompts though I haven't posted anything about the word prompt challenge in awhile... hmm)

4. What are your top five fics by kudos?

You've Only Just Arrived (actor!TWH) Unsettled (actor!TWH au) The Long Journey Home (TFATWS Baron Zemo/Sokovian reader/Bucky Barnes) A Turn of the Knife (Ransom Drysdale/ Knives Out prequel) Close Quarters (actor!TWH)

5. Do you respond to comments? Why or why not?

Yes. Nearly always and likely far too soon after they're posted. Comments are fantastic for learning what pieces of the work really resonated, or what needs to be amended going forward because it didn't land the way that was intended.

6. What’s the fic you wrote with the angstiest ending?

Where we've left off in Unsettled probably allows that story to claim the title (which arguably that story wins angstiest anyway), but standing alone I'd say there's a fair few oneshots that could qualify. If you consider snippets of What If, there's one from the LJH world that would win hands down, but I don't consider those snippets as full fics...

7. What’s the fic you wrote with the happiest ending?

Completed works - probably Lakeside or The Journalist (proper). Where we've left off in You've Only Just Arrived is setting us up for the happy ending that will inevitably occur.

8. Do you get hate on your fic?

I've had a couple comments that stemmed more from misunderstanding than seemed grounded in hate. It was easily clarified and the issue remedied (at least for the first thing that springs to mind).

9. Do you write smut?

Yup.

10. Do you write crossovers?

Haven't had the opportunity yet, but never say never.

11. Have you ever had a fic stolen?

Yes. Quite a shitty feeling when your work is posted without your consent. Please don't do that.

12. Have you ever had a fic translated?

Not to my knowledge.

13. Have you ever co-written a fic?

The Heart of a Villain (jaguar-villain!TWH)

14. What‘s your all-time favorite ship?

I very much enjoy creating [insert character here]/ reader (or original character) ships within various fandoms. My current favorite ship I'm working on isn't even posted yet, but head over heels for villain!Brühl. In terms of a ship I'll always love, though I haven't written for it, is Evelyn & Rick O'Connell from The Mummy (1999)/ The Mummy franchise.

15. What’s the WIP you want to finish but doubt you ever will?

Never say never. I've had a few peter out from my attention being drawn elsewhere, but fully intend on going back and finishing out what I started.

16. What’re your writing strengths?

I'd estimate that when the dialogue flows it flows really well? When I reread that's what I tend to enjoy the most, along with the emotional connection to the characters. Then again, having lived in those worlds in order to write them... biased opinion. So very biased.

17. What’s your writing weaknesses?

It varies fic to fic honestly. Sometimes the scene doesn't want to be described and it's like pulling teeth to get anything in there. I'd classify the umpteen ongoing WIPs as a weakness as well. The urge to chase the other characters, the other story, and let the ones active/in progress languish... it's something I'd like to improve on, at least.

18. Thoughts on writing dialogue in another language for a fic?

I've used it as a storytelling element in a few works at this point. I tend towards including the translation in { brackets } for clarification - so long as the characters know the language they're speaking or overhearing. (And please please if you spot anything that's not correct I'm always open to amending the errors!)

19. First fandom you wrote for?

First ever isn't posted here, or to AO3 either. I doubt I'll ever pull the docs and notebooks together to transcribe the Backstreet Boys works - but I suppose never say never holds in that situation too. First that is here and AO3, after I gave myself permission to start writing again, is You've Only Just Arrived.

20. Favorite fic you’ve ever written?

Too difficult a question. There's too much of me in the words, in the characters. I love each of them for varying reasons.

[blue-flare10]

thanks for answering my ask, was very helpful and insightful!

i think i've seen some people just blow it out too much from proportion because Leon was "touching" and holding hands at one point with Ashley when she came to. and immediately thought that these are purely romantic gestures. Then proceeded to claim how this is the right way to read it as it's what canon shows? i mean it's not it, it's just reading too much into it and overanalyzing every single detail that probably even Capcom hasn't thought about in the first place.

I don't care what people wanna ship, but to constantly diminish others that disagree there was anything remotely romantic here is alarming to me, especially when they accuse people of alabama and incestious behaviour because "Leon was obviously flirting with Ashley" like c'mon. AND to add how they reject what the devs intended. Another thing comes to mind is when someone was convinced that Leon was hitting on Ashley because he said "seems like it's not your first time running from creeps" as his poor attempt to flirt and call her hot, like what?? or the "Good company" line from him.

I dunno, i generally don't ship characters either and it is clear to me that you need to have some sort of rose tinted glasses in order to twist the actual narrative but i digress.

I completely agree with you, anon. I’ve been saying this for years, haha. The truth is, if people want to see a relationship as romantic then they will do everything in their power to see it as romantic. They look for things that confirm their own views, even if it means twisting the narrative. Two characters physically touching each other? They’re in love. Two characters looking at each other? They’re in love. Hell, even when two characters despise each other people will still try to claim that there’s sexual tension between them. As someone who was never really into romance, I can’t say I understand the appeal. I don’t understand why every single character absolutely needs to be in a relationship.

I remember seeing a post like that a little while ago. It’s probably the same exact one you’re referring to. Yeah, that whole thing is…a bit of a stretch. I don’t see how “Seems it’s not your first time running away from creeps” translates to “You must be used to people hounding you because you’re attractive”.

And sure, if people want to ship them then it’s whatever. Obviously they’re allowed to do so, but it is frustrating when people twist things to fit their own narrative and then act like you’re the one who’s in the wrong for not seeing the relationship as romantic and completely ignore you when you point out that the devs intended for the dynamic to be platonic. However, at the end of the day, regardless of what they choose to believe, the narrative doesn’t suddenly change just because they want it to. Canonically speaking, Leon and Ashley have a platonic relationship and nothing will change that.

[fluffyferalkacchan]

Kacchan & Deku: Win to Save and Save to Win - A circular path of parallels (part 2.1)

I mentioned it in part 1, but Bakugou and Midoriya's character development relies heavily on them working on their basics flaws but also on removing their own internal shackles. Only after doing so, would they be able to properly become the hero they thrived to be.

In addition to the Win to Save and Save to Win transition they need to go through.

Midoriya must also work on mastering his quirk so that he could use it without hurting himself, and he must get rid of his shackles that is his admiration and idolization of All Might.

Bakugou on the other hand must also work on not acting on his own, in other words cooperating with people, and he must get rid of his shackles which is the huge Deku-complex he's got.

This post is going to showcase how Midoriya's and Bakugou's progress were nearly always mirrored and paralleled throughout the different big arcs.

Actually this post got way longer than I expected and I reached the 10 pictures/video/gifs per posts limit pretty quickly, so this part will only go until the Stain arc.

(more under the cut)

USJ

The USJ arc is where we see Midoriya and Bakugou taking their very first step from their respective starting lines (albeit a very small and almost accidental one).

In the first part of the USJ attack, Midoriya and Bakugou are thrown into a situation where they are outnumbered and surrounded by enemies.

Midoriya quickly comes to the conclusion that if they wanted to go and save the others, they'd have no choice but to fight and win. What is interesting to note is that Midoriya thought that in order to win this he needed to act like Bakugou, which of course led to the goldmine moment where he was leaping from the side of the ship yelling "DIE" to the villains.

This is also the first time we see Midoriya actively trying not to hurt himself with the "egg in the microwave" image, instead of just trying to minimize the damage to one small area like he did during the quirk assessment test. Well he didn't really succeed there but at least he's trying.

Bakugou on the other hands is seen working with Kirishima in order to defeat the villains. There were no real teamwork or cooperating moves worth speaking of there, as they were basically both doing their own thing independently. But what I think is worth noting is that moment where we saw them fighting back to back. I don't think at that point in time Bakugou truly trusted Kirishima completely with his back, it's a little too soon for that. But it was more probably something along the lines of "I acknowledge that if you got into UA then it must be for a reason, so better not mess up".

This is also the first time we see that Bakugou isn't just blindly trying to fight people who pissed him off, but he also have quite a rational and strategic mind.

As an aside, I think it is very telling that Midoriya's next move plan was to go help Aizawa, while Bakugou's was to go fight Kurogiri. It was two very diametral mentality and strategy that nevertheless led both of them to the very same place. (Story of their lives amiright?)

Speaking of them being in the same place... What we witness next is their first success...even if it's an accidental one.

Accidental quirk use success | Accidental saving success.

He had intended to smash Shigaraki and his punch just happened to be intercepted by a Nomu with a shock absorption quirk, so it was purely accidental. But this was still the very first time Midoriya used his quirk against someone else and didn't break his bones or hurt himself in anyway.

On the other hand, we've got Bakugou who blasted in and neutralized Kurogiri and he 'just so happened' to save Midoriya who had been recklessly rushing toward the villain. It might not have been completely intentional (though that's debatable) but this is the very first time we see Bakugou intercepting an attack for someone else.

Sports Festival

The sports festival arc is touch and go in term of characters growth for both Midoriya and Bakugou. But, what I think is really interesting with this arc (which is one of my favorite btw) is that the narrative - directly or indirectly - rewards/punishes them for their growth/regression.

Successful use of his quirk against Todoroki | Successful Cooperation against Monoma

This is the very first time Midoriya is purposely using his quirk against another human being, in a friendly-fighting/training context and he doesn't break his bones in the process. This successful use of OfA allowed him to one up Todoroki and to steal his headband (reward).

But as Midoriya himself noted "It hurts, but it's not broken", because using the quirk this way still hurts him in some way, it cannot be considered a full success. Plus, Midoriya wasn't really fully trying to control his quirk since "It's not going to touch [Todoroki] either way". And so Midoriya fails to get the headband he was truly aiming for (punishment).

On the other hand, we see Bakugou fully cooperating with his teammates for the very first time. It's not some half-assed attempt or anything but a fully thought-of quirk combo that allows him to literally blast his way through Monoma's defenses and get his and several other headbands (reward).

But, Bakugou only started to truly cooperate with his teammates at the very end. The rest of the times, he was seen jumping and attacking without really warning his own teammates. And so, Bakugou fails to get the first place position he was aiming for (punishment).

Successful hit against Todoroki | Successfully staying rational against Uraraka

So I mentioned above that Midoriya's use of OfA against Todoroki during the cavalry battle wasn't 100% successful because since he had no intention of touching/hitting Todoroki he didn't really bother to fully control his quirk. This is not the case here. In the Midoriya vs. Todoroki we see him truly hitting someone else. This is the first time his "egg in the microwave" imagery worked. And I guess that if Midoriya had not been recklessly breaking every single fingers of his, it might even not have hurt his arm. But well since he's a self-sacrificing dumbass who tried to punch someone with broken fingers *shrug*

As for Bakugou... I mentioned before that he has this huge, huge, Deku-complex. (It's this weird mixture of superiority and inferiority complex which atomically burst out whenever anything Deku-related is in proximity... so yeah. Deku-complex).

And here comes Uraraka, who was part of the Deku-Uravity combo winning against him in the training battle, who is Deku's friend, whose fighting strategy could be quite similar to Deku's at times. And as a reminder Bakugou went against her fully expecting that Deku might have given her some kind of secret strategy against him, so he went in fully expecting a Deku-proxy. (Which by the way is totally untrue 'cause Uraraka is a badass strategy queen who needs no Deku to think her battle for her thank you very much)

But regardless of all the deku-factor, Bakugou fought against Uraraka without underestimated her and being super focused from the beginning to the end. And more importantly he was 100% rational and had full control on his temper.

Midoriya vs. Todoroki | Bakugou vs. Todoroki

Okay so we can all agree that breaking and double-breaking one own fingers (and arm) in order to prove a point isn't really the epitome of self-care. So I don't think I need to comment on Midoriya's failure to control OfA here.

About Bakugou though... So of course Bakugou is pissed because he didn't manage to get the indisputable win he wanted, but raging and getting handsy at unconscious opponent like this? It's the first (and I think only time?) we see him so irrational and out of control with rage at someone who isn't Deku. But is it really unrelated to Deku though?

Bakugou was already pissed that at the beginning of the Sports Festival that Todoroki would recognize Deku as a threat and not Bakugou. Then the fact that Todoroki willingly used his fire against Deku despite his previous resolve not to use it, translated into Bakugou's mind as Todoroki recognizing Deku's strength. (Which as we know isn't really what it was about, but that's how Bakugou is interpreting it.) Bakugou even explicitly asked something along the lines of " Am I not strong enough to make you use it?" at Todoroki during the fight.

So his train of thought was probably something like this:

Half-and-half refused to use his fire quirk > Deku somehow managed to make the bastard use it > Deku is strong enough to force him to use it > the bastard won't use it against me > I am not strong enough to make him do it > Deku managed to do something I couldn't > I lost against Deku again

And well... is that really so surprising that his Deku-complex exploded after that? So yeah huge failure to control himself and deal appropriately with his complex Deku-related emotions here.

One of the reasons I absolutely love the Sports festival arc is the way the Bakugou-Todoroki and Midoriya-Todoroki dynamics really reflect the Win to Save and Save to Win situation.

Midoriya went into that fight fully intending on making Todoroki use his fire side in order to save him from his clearly traumatic issues (and if he managed to win the fight while doing so, it would be an amazing bonus).

On the other hand, Bakugou went into that fight fully intending on making Todoroki use is fire side in order to win against him (and if it somehow managed to save the half-and-half from his issues, well who the fuck cares).

They had the same task in mind, but they tried to solve it from two diametrically different directions of the spectrum. Why is why their results were diametrically different too.

Midoriya managed to reach and "save" Todoroki but he failed to win the fight, while Bakugou managed to win the fight but failed to "save" Todoroki and by extension failed to get his undisputed win.

Internship

During the internship/Stain arc, both Midoriya and Bakugou are confronted with a mentor figure who points out their flaws.

Gran Torino: You're stiff! And there's discord within your mind. [...] The way you used One For All in the cavalry battle and the tournament... You should already have realized it. But your admiration for All Might and your sense of duty are like shackles. You're thinking One For All is more special than it is.

Best Jeanist: I watched you at the sports festival. You were able to freely manipulate a Quirk with high potential, and had a good grasp of application as well. [...] However, you have a fatal flaw. You believe yourself to be the strongest, and you try to put in into practice not caring how that looks... you have a ferocious nature.

Here, their shackles are textually - and almost textually in Bakugou's case - laid out to them. (Best Jeanist has no way of knowing about the whole Deku thing so he went to address a tangential problem: Bakugou's "ferocious nature").

By the way, I think it's very interesting that Gran Torino chose to make his point by beating the shit out of/fighting Midoriya, while Best Jeanist chose to restrain and lecture Bakugou on "hero nature and moral". It really emphasizes on what they think their "mentees" currently lack.

And so thanks to Gran Torino nudging him into the right direction (and Midoriya's obsession with everything Kacchan), Midoriya manages to come up with Full Cowling, which is like one of his first major breakthrough in term of quirk mastery and fighting style. His All Might-shaped shackles is still very much there and he is still at a stage where he is imitating other's (Kacchan's, the incarnation of flexibility and versatility as far as he is concerned) rather than truly having his own yet, but it's a very huge progress in the right direction.

And it shows Bakugou had listened to BJ's previous words... Even if he was missing the point by a whole a mile, seeing as what BJ meant by 'deal with them properly' was to calm the kids down but well, at least Bakugou is trying. *shrug*u did manage to internalize some things that Best Jeanist tried to teach him.

"Your hero name is supposed to inspire hope. You do not yet see the world in that context. Once you return to my agency next year, I will hear your name out."

This is what Best Jeanist told Bakugou in a flashback (chapter 293) and I think this is when Bakugou started to seriously think about what a hero -and by extension the hero name - should mean to the public and civilians. Bakugou took Best Jeanist to heart which is why he wanted BJ to be the first one to know about his Hero Name once he found it.

Another sign of Bakugou listening, was a anime only scene in S2E19, where BJ told him that patrolling was important because it gave "the public peace of mind" and it built "a sense of trust between those who protect and those who are being protected". And right after that Bakugou is called out by three kids.

Kid A: Oh, I've seen him on TV before!

Bakugou, exasperatedly thinking: Is this going to be about the sports festival again?

Kid A: He was caught by a villain and looked like he was about to cry, right?

Bakugou, yelling: What did you just say?!!!

Cue kids crying.

BJ: Did you already forget what I taught you? Deal with them properly.

Bakugou, to the kids: Listen here, I wasn't caught by the villain back then, I was thinking about how to defeat him. It wasn't that I lost. I'm the man who'll become the number one hero! There's no reason for kids like you to worry about me --

*Kids crying harder*

Okay so, on the surface layer it seems as if Bakugou has not learned anything at all and is unable or unwilling to change. And true, he didn't manage to calm down the kids and even made the situation worse, but he was trying in his own way.

According to what the kids were saying, Bakugou was remembered and depicted as a "victim", someone in "need of protection" which is the opposite image of what he is trying to instill: a "hero", someone "protecting others". (And let's not forget that for Bakugou, the very essence of a hero is someone who always wins.)

How can they "trust" Bakugou to protect them if they still see him as someone who needs to be rescued? So in his own way Bakugou was trying to reassure those kids and reaffirmed his identity as a future "hero", so that they'll be able to trust him to protect them properly.

And it shows Bakugou had listenned to BJ's previous words... Even if he was missing the point by a whole a mile, seeing as what BJ meant by 'deal with them properly' was to calm the kids down but well, at least Bakugou is trying. *shrug*

The "coming back to normal hair when angry" thing is 100% a comical effect... but like 85% of Bakugou's seemingly comical behavior shows a more emotional and vulnerable aspect of him if analyzed seriously, so I'm taking the "comical effect" with a grain of salt.

Anyway what is interesting is that Bakugou's hair got stuck that way even if he'd tried washing it after the internship and the only way for it to go back to normal is for Bakugou to be super pissed off. But if it changed back, then it stayed that way. So we can deduce from that, that whenever it exploded back to "normal", BJ would have needed to tame it back again.

And I don't know how many times BJ needed to do that, but if I had to bet, I'd say not as many as we might imagine. Because Bakugou said that his hair "got used to it" which meant he spent more time with his hair "tamed" than spiky. Which meant that apart from the kid scenes from ep19, Bakugou probably didn't have a lot of "ferocious moments" and mostly tried to hold his temper like BJ instructed him to.

Anyway....

Like I said above, i'm going to stop here, because I reached the pictures per post limit. OTL

So yeah tldr: Midoriya externalizes while Bakugou internalizes, both of them are showing growth and development but they still have a long way to go.

Part 2.2 will be about how their progresses are faring while directly confronted with their respective shackles (spoiler alert: not well) during the final exam and then it will (hopefully) go until the Deku vs Kacchan 2 where they'll finally manage to remove their shackles.

[mrs-tsunderemeitantei]

DISCLAIMER: HUGE, LONG RANT AHEAD!

ALSO SPOILERS IN CASE YOU'RE NOT UP TO DATE WITH THE MANGA OR WITH ZERO THE ENFORCER!

Soo in case you missed it, Gosho released the SDB Justice Plus some time last month:

The biggest shocker was the answer to Question number 4, shown below:

Basically this translates to:

Q4: On the Mystery Train, he (Amuro) said to Miyano Shiho that “My comrades who are tracking us have made arrangements in order to retrieve you”, but were those comrades from PSB? If that’s the case, I’m curious about how he planned to deceive Vermouth...!

A: Those were comrades from the Black Organization, so there was no need to deceive them.

Ummmm...what??

Idk about y'all but when I read this, I was livid. It didn’t make any sense to me. And quite frankly, I didn't want it to. Maybe because I am one of those (very rare) people who thought Rei and Shiho could eventually end up together (Don't laugh, it would have made sense, and I'll write about that in a separate post).

Anywho, safe to say Gosho's latest confession left me in absolute confusion. Like why? Just why? Then I realised I'm more butt-hurt about this because I was fixated on a certain idea of Rei's character and chose to ignore his other sides, as if they didn't exist. It didn't help that his past is so freaking depressing which got me sympathizing with his character and led me to either ignore or make excuses for any red flags.

But now that I think about it, it sadly makes sense. It also explains why he didn't show any sadness or regret when he saw Shiho supposedly ‘die’ in the luggage cart in the Bell Tree Train Arc.

Now to let me wrap my head around this, I needed to breakdown his three "faces":

1. Amuro Tooru is a cheerful, friendly, generous, carefree, outgoing man.

2. Furuya Rei is a serious, law-abiding, calculating, patriotic police officer who is willing to die for Japan's security.

3. And Bourbon is a devious, manipulative, cunning, deadly agent.

Yet, ever since we found out he was in fact an NPA agent, we (or at least I), seem to have forgotten about those dark sides he possesses. Also with Zero's tea time showing us a softer side of his character it was easy to get caught up in "he's 100% one of the god guys" when in fact, he's a complex, grey character. 

He has shown on multiple occasions, just how far he is willing to go, to achieve whatever goal he’s set his mind on. Let's not forget how in Zero the Enforcer, he completely flipped the switch. (I know this isn't Canon but...) The man went as far as to create a suspect and jail the innocent Mori Kogoro so he can legally investigate the case and emotionally manipulate Conan into unkowningly help with the investigation.

Also, in the Detective Nocturne’s case he deliberately didn’t tell Ran as soon as he noticed Conan might have been kidnapped by the criminal because he hadn’t finished investigating the apartment.

And in the Scarlet Arc, he was willing to harm Jodie's teacher friend, so he can lure out the FBI and advance his investigation on Akai’s death. Let’s not forget once he figured out the truth, he was willing to expose Akai’s fake death (which I get it he's out for revenge), but by doing so, he would have also gotten Kir killed (even though I'm pretty sure he knew at that point, she was in fact a NOC).

As we can see, be it Bourbon, Furuya Rei or  Amuro Toru, he will stop at nothing to reach his goals, even if it means throwing innocent people under the bus. So, now when Gosho says his "partners" were in fact BO members and not the PSB, I'm no longer surprised.

I mean, why wouldn’t he sell Shiho back to the organisation? Because he knew she was Sensei’s daughter, and that should have meant something to him? Alright, let’s talk about that.

Did he love Shiho’s mum? Yes, he did, there’s no doubt about that (one of the reasons he joined the joined the police in the first place was to find her, so you can't convince me otherwise).

But what if he loved Japan even more? (It's not canon, but he did say in Zero the Enforcer that the safety of this country matters most to him, even if it means he’d end up paying with his own life).

So, I'm going to take a wild guess as to how he could have felt when he found out the woman he loved as his own mother, willingly joined the deadly organisation that threatened the safety of his country. Based on his memories, he remembered her encouraging her husband to join the Carasuma group.

So, if through his investigations, he was able to realise she is the same woman from his childhood, I’m pretty sure he would have been very disappointed.  I’m not sure the extent of his knowledge about the drug, but if he also found out their research created the poisonous APTX-4869, I reckon it would be more reason for him to be upset.

Now let's talk about Haibara/Shiho. To any outsider who's unaware of the truth of her past, she is a woman born into the organisation, then was groomed and taught from a young age by the syndicate and promoted to take on their research. A research that produced a poisonous drug, just like her parents did. Also, she only ran away after the organisation killed her sister. Before that, she was a high-ranking member. With all these facts, why would he think of her as anything but a criminal just like the rest of the BO members? It’d be rather foolish for him to not hand her back to the organisation just because she is the daughter of the woman he once thought so highly of. If anything, he’d be killing two birds with one stone, by executing a criminal, while also gaining higher standing in the organisation.

As fans of Haibara, we are rightfully upset by his intentions of returning her to the organisation because we know her truth. He doesn't. It wasn't until we learnt more about her painful past and kind and caring nature that we grew to love her. We know she never wanted to create a poisonous drug. That she already hated the organisation for using the drug as a poison. That she had to develop the drug to protect Akemi’s life.

There is no way Rei would have known about any of the bullying she or her family faced from the BO. By nature, Shiho is very secretive and reserved and very little of her personality or history would have been known by any of the BO members (except maybe Gin). Therefore, apart from the files the BO would have kept on Shiho and her role in the organisation, that’s all Rei had to learn about her. So, I can’t really blame him for choosing to hand her back to the organisation.

Some people who are still in denial, argue that if he planned to kill Shiho, why was he willing to kill whom he thought was Vermouth instead of handing her over?

Shouldn’t that prove he was going to take Shiho to safety to the PSB, not the BO? Before Gosho's statement, I would have agreed but now...sigh. Now, I get why he did that. If Shiho were to die BEFORE she was returned to the organisation, he wouldn’t have gained the trust he was seeking. If she were to die AFTER he delivered her, I highly doubt it would have mattered to him. Although I'm still hoping he maybe he had a plan of not leaving her in the organisation's clutches after "handing her back" and he never truly intended on getting her killed. But since Gosho also said there was no need to deceive Vermouth, I highly doubt it. (Heart breaking).

After such an explanation, does everything make more sense now? Maybe. Am I ok with it? Hell no! I’m quite angry and annoyed that this is how things turned out to be, but it is what it is. We have to accept that Rei is not a good character, and he's not a bad character. He's a grey character and when you think of it that way, it's easier to understand his behaviour. Not that I agree with it. After Gosho's statement, I think pretty sure Rei is in dire need of some character development. He could stand to learn a thing or two from Conan who manages to reach his goals while preserving as many lives as possible (Akai's fake death being the burst example while managing to drive Kir back to the BO).

For now, I’m looking forward to the developments that will entail. I’m curious to see how Rei and Haibara will react once they eventually meet each other. It'll be interesting to see what will go through his mind once he figures out her true identity. One thing I'm sure of is once they're introduced to each other, emotions will be running high and things will get intense. Which honestly, I can't wait for and I'm counting down the days till I get a proper Amuro/Haibara interaction.

[incarnateirony]

Hi!

Sorry for troubling you with this but I wanted to clarify something for myself. In those posts where you were answering people's questions about, whether Cas's got himself a soul or was saved by Jack, and were saying that it all was in the script, which leaked a long time ago, and all over your meta. But how can people, who didn't read the script and your posts, work it out? Like was there something on the show which said how souls are created through feelings? Because it seems a bit of a stretch that the authors made, for example, so much obvious that Cas's confession was love confession but failed to deliver some at least visual evidence that he got to heaven (with some spec of light in the Empty or something). They had to give some verbal or noticeable visual evidence of the process of creating a soul or Cas going to heaven.

Or we were supposed to get this from the fact that souls don't go to the Empty?

Everyone explained it with Jack because they have seen him an episode before calling desperately for Cas because he missed him and then getting the abilities to bring him back.

Figuring out the soul option from only TV episodes requires analysis if it is even possible, which i don't think, the authors thought the audience would do.

So what do you think about it?

Sorry for the length. And thank you.

So here’s the deal: do I imagine somewhere, in the depths of official business notes even beyond script drafts, there may even be a “yeah sure whatever jack brought him back” to answer any questions to the same suits that can’t tell what the fucking Roadhouse is much less more nuanced story beats? Sure.

But here’s the beats.

Check my #Shadow and #Cosmogenesis tags to begin--but in summary: the shadow is both a protogenic and personal psychological concept of the unformed or unaddressed self, and As-Above-So-Below, of the unformed and unperceived world. That is to say-- everyone and everything has a shadow. If you check out Jung, he explains essentially that the shadow is everything we repress about ourselves or fear addressing.

Now, look at the Occultum, where Jack reclaimed his soul; as Cas put it: “Loosely translated: In order to be in the occultum, the occultum must be in you.” -- but also remember the same episode highlighted “Occultum” is just Latin for “hidden.” -- They made an entire funny trade-off about that. 

See, with the alchemy theme on the year, the original cipher reads, in Latin:  “Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem,” or in English, “Visit the interior of the earth and rectifying you will find the hidden stone.” 

The motto originated in L’Azoth des Philosophes by the 15th Century alchemist Basilius Valentinus. But in alchemy, the shorthand is that the earth is symbolic of the body, and the hidden stone is the perfect soul. 

Naming it the Occultum in Latin, and highlighting the latin, then randomly transcribing it in Enochian for Castiel to be the one to get that line spoken was incredibly poignant: they streamlined the symbolism with his “roughly translated” commentary, but the sentiment remained. Given, the gnostic dweebs in our server, when we realized Jack literally ATE IT:

Either way, Jack disappears into the occultum within him to unlock his hidden soul, where the serpent asks one of the prime questions of the journey of the self: “Who Are You?” -- in rectifying what is found there, Jack rediscovers his soul and is reborn.

But the Occultum isn’t only JUST this literal place. It’s a place, it’s a thing, whatever it is, it’s powerful. That was the core key to come in contact with it, but the moral of the story is simple: the kingdom of heaven is within you all along. 

But first we have issues to rectify.

The stages are simple. The Shadow asks, “Who are they?” in its dawning state, lacking self identity. On a cosmogenic level, this is where for example Chuck and Amara come to be. On a personal level, this is when we look both outward at other people for identity and even almost disassociated from ourselves.

“I know what you hate, I know who you love, what you fear, there is nothing for you back there.” - Castiel’s shadow on an individual level reflected this in a detached third person sort of way, even if the reflection itself is incredibly personal. The speech is “I speak in order to affirm we are the same.” -- I’m you, you’re me. But if the shadow is rejected, we do not address it.

The Animus, or basic ego, asks “Who am I?” it’s the first stage of wondering. The speech phase is marked “I don’t speak as I don’t dare.” By the next phase (Anima, the superego or dawning soul), it’s “Who are you?” and the speech phase is “I speak as I don’t dare to remain silent.”

On Castiel’s journey, this comes through things like the prayer group where he talks about rediscovering who he was. In the raw initial text, it was coming to realize that he became a father and found a family. But later, 15.18 -- as we approach a stage called Rubedo or the Magician -- has the question “Who art thou”. The speech stage is “I speak in order to hear what I have to say.”

Now, Dean for example had his share of this journey even if it was less about gaining a soul as SPN gives him one as a human birthright but more in repairing the damages on it and also learning when to let go. The four phases are also associated with birthing phases. And death phases. Rubedo is death and birth at the same time.

Notice closely Castiel’s dialogue with Dean; in Purgatory, in a stage reflective of the shadow called Nigredo, where their relationship had rotten and putrefied, he took a knee into Albedo, connected to Animus. I don’t know why I get so angry. It’s always been there. And I can’t stop it. You’re my best friend and I just let you go. No matter how hard I try, I just can’t stop it. I’m sorry it took me so long to say it. Cas, there’s something I have to tell you. 

But I don’t speak as I don’t dare/you don’t have to say it.

Castiel turned around in his own awakening and answered this prayer. He addressed why Dean has these self worth and anger issues and how worthy he is of love.

This, just like several other visuals on the year (15.09, 13) are symbolic of something called the Marriage of the Minds. If Grace/Mind is embodied in Castiel, which also mirrors the divine feminine (hence calling the light Rowena parallel in both his death and what he does post-rebirth), and well--Soul and humanity has always been Dean, which is also the solar emblem. Their union gives life to the World, which they just kept kicking us in the teeth with both the phrase of over the year and the visuals in 19. Cue, planetary zoomout, for reasons.

But this also falls into the shadow’s “threat” to Castiel: When you let the sun shine on your face, that’s when I’ll come.

Castiel poured out his heart and, well... soul, basically, about Dean. He changed because of Dean. He carried his torch of right and wrong and what it meant to love because of Dean. Dean changed him. And the moon and mind was full of light reflected in the soul, because of what they did and learned for the Whole World. For love.

A phrase from the corpus hermeticum is, “The cause of Death is Love, but Love is All,” and All itself is another macro/microcosm: the All is the Shadow when perceived, the universal soul, it is essentially--in SPN terms--heaven, unadulterated by the whims of the demiurge that was Chuck. It is the place where souls are born -- as the occultum, the garden, led to Eden, which DSOTM also tells us some see as god’s throne. It’s that we all have a throne inside of ourselves. 

Castiel in subsuming Death in an act of love addressed his every fear and repressed issue of himself, and came to learn that Happiness wasn’t in the having, it was in the Being, it was in the Just Speaking It. The just tweeting it out.

But if you track back to those cosmogenics tags, Being comes from the Prima Materia, and the Prima Materia once perceived is the light of the world that is the soul. Souls are real, everything else is perception. People, families, we are. 

The Empty is both a cosmogenic paradox and a place within ourselves of our own hollowness -- those things we won’t let ourselves have or feel, but without it, we will never be complete. The idea embodied in the occultum is opposite of that, but also within all of us. It’s nowhere-everywhere-in-us. It’s a matter of asking: Who are you? Who am I?

“You think that’s what you are/That is not who you are.” Castiel addressed, but instead told him of love, and the world, and being the most loving man he would ever meet. “That is who you are.”

In this moment Castiel addressed both himself, and even Dean’s issues. Castiel answered who he was and, at the same time, helped Dean come to peace with who *he* is. And that sacrifice and moment would not be in vain. So it was time to stop the anger, and the desperation, and to live on as intended, and eventually let go in peace come his time. 

Sam’s path on this was always leading opposite and always leading him towards earth. Not in a bad way either. It’s fine to do that. Sam had his own chance at individuality told in the future-story. 

But it’s about the Shadow integration, about the difference in Being or Absence and knowing what is Good, in about the peace we can find in all of ourselves to be complete. 

I do feel a bit sad that the plot end had to be diverted; they generally addressed the idea of Dean needing to speak at the end of the road. But the original point he “had to tell you” and got shut down on never manifest, to the expectable disappointment of all. But I guess that’s what eternity-ever-after is for. 

“Castiel is At Peace.” -- At Peace. Heaven tag. Not the Empty. “Mary Winchester is At Peace”, remember that? And teaching the guys to let go and move on because she was at peace?

Even souls can burn out--that’s what demons even are after all. The fact that Dean’s story long walked parallel to the threat of wandering into the Empty isn’t a fluke either. Because of his own issues the concept reflects. But he didn’t. He went to heaven. And probably has 15.09 and 15.18 to thank for that in the subtext.

Integrating with the shadow to become a complete persona (Jung) or soul (general alchemy) aka gold (also general alchemy) doesn’t leave regrets to even sit there and dream about. In fact, the entire heaven structure and division--even that’s perceptual. Check out the Axis Mundi meta on that. Chuck protected his Thought Box against the shadow and it needed summoned, but anybody notice it’s fine on rolling through heaven? It’s up to the rules in each chamber there. It’s just the flipside of the garden/throne/heaven-- it’s not being At Peace. It’s not being full. It’s not being your complete self. It’s just Absence (14.18, the soul.)

The Shadow haunted Castiel as his fears, and when Castiel lacked self worth and to some extent invited death and suffering, it reflected those desires. But in addressing the reasons for having them, it turns into another form of Being entirely.

[allieinarden]

Hi Allie, you recently reblogged a post in which criticisms of Catholicism are rebutted by someone - would you mind if I, a protestant, could ask you some questions? I've never asked any of my irl Catholic/Orthodox friends for fear of treading on toes - I don't find the pro-praying to saints argument convincing or reassuring at all: it hugely bothers me that Catholics pray to other people than God, perhaps bc I can't separate worship and prayer (this is going to have to have a part 2, haha)

and I can’t understand veneration of Mary (or any non-Jesus person, but particularly Mary, because Jesus himself said “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” He himself said that! When told his family were there to see him! And in Timothy 2:5 it says that there is one God and one mediator between God and men: Jesus Christ? I’m sorry if this is coming across as aggressive, I’m just very confused and have been for ages!

Hi Waltermeadows, I want you to know that you’re not coming off as aggressive in the least bit. This is a very good question, a very understandable question (I often am in awe of my Protestant followers for continuing to give me the time of day, believing what they do of Catholic worship—thank you all so much for hearing me out), and one I’m happy to answer to the best of my ability. 

When discussing the Catholic view of saints, it is highly important to consider them, not as ghosts, not as abstractions, but as living members of the Body of Christ. Every saint in Heaven once walked the Earth, as you and I do now. The only difference between you and a saint is that the saint is more advanced in the service of Christ; the saint has gained what we on Earth can merely strive for. The saint, who lives in Christ, is more alive than you and I are.

I have yet to encounter a Protestant who finds any difficulty in the idea of praying for others, whether family members, friends or complete strangers. In such prayer, which is fundamental to the life of the Church, we intercede with God on behalf of these others, effectively saying, as Mary and Martha said of Lazarus, “Lord, the one whom you love is ill.” Not only do all Christians make such prayers for others, the Christian frequently asks them of others, on his behalf; “pray for me” is a common refrain among the suffering. And when we feel our own prayers to be insufficient, do we not also seek out others—older than us, wiser than us, having more faith than us—in particular, sensing somehow that their intercession will strengthen something which is lacking in us and that, knowing God better than we do, they will access His heart in some way that may be lost to us? This can hardly be strange, for many stories of divine healing in the Gospels tell not only of the cure but of the faith of the messenger. How much faith did the servant of the Centurion have? I do not know; I am prepared to guess that he, being a gentile, had none at all. The faith of the Centurion, a greater faith than any in Israel, is sufficient to touch the very heart of God on behalf of the servant. 

It is easy for us to accept this story, and to understand that the Centurion is not a mediator in competition with Christ, but a man who has recourse to the Mediator on behalf of another. Of the saints in Heaven, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning asked, “Shall they love us less because they have now power to love us more?” If we do not fear to ask those on Earth to intercede for us with God, we should fear still less to speak to those who have been united with Christ for eternity, who live in the light and the love of the God to whom we pray. Heaven is not a state of retirement or of inactivity, but of incredible motion: St. Therese of Lisieux, with faith enough for dozens of Centurions, declared that her greatest mission would begin after her death: “I will spend my heaven doing good on earth. I will let fall a shower of roses.”

And this is where I get to Mary. 

The Gospel of Luke gives us a brief and beautiful story which is too frequently misunderstood. As Jesus speaks, a woman from the crowd cries out, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” Jesus replies, in most English translations, with the word “rather”: “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” (Luke 11:27-8) Read in this way, the scripture is a stumbling block for many who wish to understand the significance of Mary: does it not seem as though Jesus is saying that Mary is not blessed? But she is blessed, according to the angel, who called her “full of grace,” and told her “the Lord is with you”; according to her cousin Elizabeth, who said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb”; according to Mary herself, who asserted that “all generations will call me blessed”; according, I would argue, to anyone with a grain of sense, for if any mother may fairly be called blessed, how much more blessed is the mother of Jesus, the savior of the nations? 

A knowledge of the Greek word “menoun,” which is commonly translated as “rather,” is extremely helpful here; it is not a contradiction, but an addition, one which appears elsewhere in Scripture and is translated in Philippians 3:8 as “indeed,” “yes,” or “what is more”: “But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things.” Jesus does not deny that Mary is blessed, but, by expanding the definition of those who are blessed, gives us important insight into why Mary was blessed in such a way: “Blessed is the womb that bore you,” the woman says, and Jesus says, “Yes, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” Compare Elizabeth’s statement in Luke 1:45: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” Mary is upheld by scripture for her obedience to God and for her willing participation in the Divine Plan: no one heard the word of God and kept it with a more generous spirit than Mary, who said, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” If Jesus’s statement carries the air of a contradiction, it is because Jesus does not want this woman, or anyone else, to miss the mark; to believe that Mary alone is blessed by God, or, conversely, that her carrying of Christ is a thing removed entirely from her obedience, a mere bit of good luck for her. Mary consented to carry Jesus in her womb; everything Mary has, she has because she heard the word of God and kept it. Mary is not an abstraction, a mere nice thing to look at—“What a lucky girl,” a statement which must inevitably carry an afterthought of “and how far removed from my lowly self” (it is deeply significant that it is another woman who has made this statement, and to whom Jesus speaks)—but a living example for Christians, one who shows us how we must react to Jesus’s commandments: “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’” (John 2:5) 

This is what we must understand when we read of Jesus asking, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” and answering His question by indicating his disciples, saying “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of My father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:48-50)—or, as Luke phrases it, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” This statement would only exclude Mary if she were not included in the above group, though it may exclude certain relatives of his who had come to suppress His speech. It is primarily a statement of inclusion, a statement of adoption. 

And speaking of adoption, if this isn’t enough, and you need further proof that Jesus does not disown his mother, look no further than John 19: 

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-7)

Jesus commends the beloved disciple to His mother, uniting them as a family—and the beloved disciple takes Him at His word, bringing Mary into his own home “from that hour.” This is not a terribly strange action for a man who believes he will never return from death, but it is a very strange action for a man who fully intends to come back in three days; we must see its deeper significance. This is not a mere business arrangement; this is the beloved disciple, and Jesus entrusts the beloved to the care of a woman to whom He has shown the greatest love imaginable, living and growing within her body, becoming her child. The word “son” cannot be spoken lightly between these two.

As one who believes that the saints can and do intercede for us, I think—I hope—that even without this scriptural prompting, I might be inclined to ask for the intercession of Mary, who knew Jesus better than anyone who lived on earth, who obeyed God as no one else has obeyed him, who carried Him and gave birth to Him, who lived with Him as a mother and who watched Him die and rise again. 

But this scripture does exist, and because it does, I cannot help but feel, as a beloved disciple, that I am not merely invited to honor Mary as a mother, but ordered.