#again i have not researched the text and am making no historical claims beyond that this book existed in 1888

[bakurapika]

Go for it. I'll listen🥰

omg. thank you

So while I've been working, I've been listening to the this is a libravox recording. all libravox recordings are in the public domain. for more information or to volunteer, go to libravox.org wow excuse me idk what came over me there. i've been listening to an audiobook of 1001 nights. the translation is from the 1800s and is even more racist and offensive than you would expect! supposedly there is a new better translation i am trying to get from the library.

anyway, when i'm working, im going more for quantity than quality.

but when the first orgy happened in excruciating loving detail???? in my workplace??? that made me stop. a lot of the stories are tame but every once in a while there is a sex romp. the story i have in mind (Tale of Tàj al-Mulúk and the Princess Dunyà) (rhymes with nunya) isn't a sex romp but it does throw in some bafflingly explicit scenes.

I should also quick say that this is a racist English translation of a compilation of stories that may have also been a translation so idk where any of this actually originated. haven't done the research

first off, this story has tons of queer themes. a princess who hates men and says she'll never marry. an inexplicable crossdressing sequence. two young handsome guys leaving their homes to be together because

Now Taj al-Muluk delighted in the company of Aziz and said to him, "O my brother, henceforth I can never part from thee."

Replied Aziz, "And I am of like mind and fain would I die under thy feet"

i heard that and obviously was like "umm... that's gay"

Also, Aziz has been castrated, which believe it or not, has been the main plot of at least 3 stories so far ("The Tale of the First Eunuch" "The Tale of the Second Eunuch" and apparently "The third eunuch does not tell his tale because they don't have time" lmao) but Aziz is the first one to make it a gender issue. Aziz introduces himself to Taj al-Muluk with the backstory of his castration and says "I wept over myself for that I was become even as a woman, without manly tool like other men, and there was no help."

they aren't even the gay ones. they are both bi. "but wait jordan" you may say. "our modern understanding of sexuality as being an orientation doesn't apply to other cultures or times" and i agree which is why i was baffled at this entire section.

the two men are with this older guy in the bathhouse who

was delighted with them and affected them with a warm affection. Now he was a great connoisseur of bewitching glances, preferring the love of boys to that of girls and inclining to the sour rather than the sweet of love...

even at this, i figured this was about how they were just guy pals??? because there's no way the story is going there, not through the lens of Bigoted White Guy?? the old guy watches them bathe and

...he sat down to await the twain, and presently they came up to him like two gazelles; their cheeks were reddened by the bath and their eyes were darker than ever; their faces shone and they were as two lustrous moons or two branches fruit laden.

Now when he saw them he rose forthright and said to them, "O my sons, may your bath profit you always!

Where upon Taj al-Muluk replied, with the sweetest of speech, "Allah be bountiful to thee, O my father; why didst thou not come with us and bathe in our company?"

Then they both bent over his right hand and kissed it and walked before him to the shop[...] When he saw their hips quivering as they moved, desire and longing redoubled on him; and he puffed and snorted and he devoured them with his eyes, for he could not contain himself...

When I heard the word "quivering" I finally stopped and took notice here and I marvelled with exceeding marvel. After reciting some love poetry:

When they heard this, they conjured him to enter the bath with them a second time. He could hardly believe his ears and hastening thither, went in with them. [...]

Taj al-Muluk taking him by the hand walked on one side and Aziz by the other, and carried him into a cabinet; and that impure old man submitted to them, whilst his emotion increased on him. [...] Taj al-Muluk ceased not to wash him and to pour water over him and he thought his soul in Paradise. When they had made an end of his service, he blessed them and sat by the side of the Wazir, talking but gazing the while on the youths.

and then there is a whole section of poetry about how awesome the public baths are.

i'm still mid-story so I don't know if this has any plot relevance but so far the answer seems to be no, except to show how handsome these boys are. (A little later in the text, an old woman um... well that description actually is nsfw, but it's an offhand mention and also doesn't change the plot.)

I just am not getting over the text explicitly saying that there is a man who is exclusively interested in men (and then presumably the "sour rather than the sweet" is a bottom joke)?!? Them calling him "impure" is as far as the text goes to shaming him about it, and sympathetic characters in 1001 nights have been called way, way worse

[hotdemonsummer]

Obey Me! and Angelology and Demonology

 alternatively titled Lets Get Into Lucifer

This is yet another long, long post about the lore of Obey Me! from the perspective of historical and theological angelology, and demonology or the study of angels and demons respectively, because I think it’s neat. I also talk way too much. I’m scared to check the word count on this.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on anything, and certainly not on religion. I just like comparative theology. Also, spoilers for lesson 43/44.

What is an angel? And what, in turn, is a demon? It depends on who you ask. All religions that have angels have a general consensus that they are spiritual beings, intermediaries of some kind of higher power. Demons, on the other hand, are much more vague beyond general malevolence toward humanity. Any connection between the two is entirely dependent on the culture and religion in question. Some have angels but not demons, and many have vice versa.

There’s generally four kinds of spirits that are considered demons:

Dead people with extremely bad vibes (think mogwai, yuurei, and other revenants)

Neutral-to-malevolent energy, physical form optional (think djinni or yokai)

Cult subjects (including foreign gods and ancestor worship)

Corrupted angels (either fallen or Nephilim)

The word demon comes from the Greek δαίμων, or daimon, but the concept of a demon is much older than the Greeks. The original daimon had none of the malevolent, evil associations that we now think of. Instead, daimon just described a kind of powerful spiritual entity (for example, δαίμων is the term Euripides uses for the new god Dionysus in The Bacchae). What we think of as demons now didn’t exist in Greek culture, and the negative associations came when the Tanakh was translated from Hebrew to Greek, but even then shedim aren’t identical to the contemporary depiction of demons that we see in Obey Me!, which, like everything else in Western society, came about through the domination of Christianity.

Shedim, the precursor to the Christian demon, was more or less a term for false gods, a title for the various Levantine pagan gods (see: origin of Beelzebub, Belphegor, and pretty much every demon that starts with Bel- or Bal-). 

Obey Me! pretty much canonizes Type 2 and Type 4 demons, with characters like Diavolo, Barbatos, and Satan as Type 2 and the other brothers as Type 4. Historically, Beelzebub and Belphegor are Type 3 (Beelzebub and Belphegor being Levantine gods), Mammon being Type 2 (a general personification of Wealth, although Milton did write him as a Type 4 in Paradise Lost) and Asmodeus being somewhere in between Type 2 and 3 (being heavily derived from a Zoroastrian daeva of wrath). Lucifer is, historically, the only consistently Type 4 demon.

I don’t think I have to explain what a fallen angel is to any OM! fan. But I will. 

Let’s talk about these guys. We’re all familiar with Satan’s weird complex about Lucifer, and I’m sure we’re all equally familiar with how Satan and Lucifer are terms used interchangeably for whatever being is The Big Bad of Hell. However, they’re not synonymous.

Satan derives from the same Proto-Semitic root as shayatan, which... should be pretty obvious, but nonetheless has a pretty analogous role as a tempter of men in the Abrahamic religions. Beyond that “tempter of men” title, though, the actual details of what Satan is is incredibly varied, including whether or not “Satan” is a name or a title. In Christianity, the view of Satan as an extremely powerful and evil corrupter of man, wholly opposed to God, came around the Middle Ages, when witchcraft hysteria spread.

Lucifer, on the other hand, is simultaneously a figure originating in Christianity and much, much older than it. The term of course means “light-bringer”, and is heavily associated with the morning star, aka the planet Venus. To make a very long story short, many Mesopotamian, Levantine, and Mediterranean cultures saw the lowering of Venus toward the horizon at night and thought, “hey, thats a pretty neat image!” and created stories about heavenly beings falling toward the earth. Of course, they didn’t use the ‘term’ Lucifer, that’s Latin, and came from the Vulgate Bible.

The term Lucifer does not exclusively refer to The Evil Fallen Angel™ in Christian texts (some very sacred things like the Exsultet explicitly refer to Jesus as Lucifer), but it sure is the most popular interpretation. In works like Paradise Lost or the Divine Comedy, the general idea is that the angel Lucifer rebelled against God in some way and was cast out of Heaven, then becoming Satan, and thus the two are one and the same.

(inb4 some Quora-type chews me out for accuracy’s sake, the “lucifer” mentioned in Isaiah 14:12 refers not to any angel, but to a Babylonian king. The whole fallen angel thing, much like the beatitudes or Bethlehem or Christmas, is a fusion of pagan influences.)

In other words, Lucifer is always and has always been a fallen angel. Satan, on the other hand, doesn’t have those connections to angelhood, and the two figures have an undeniable connection despite their clear individual differences. Sound familiar?

The next question is then what kind of angel is Lucifer anyway? to which you might be thinking, wait, there are different kinds? Yes, holy shit, there are so many kinds of angels and very little consensus on what they are. In terms of Christian angelology (because again, Lucifer is a uniquely Christian/derivative Christian figure unless you exclude Leland’s Aradia which I don’t because lbr they were Italian anyways), most hierarchies are based on the work of this guy:

This man has the incredibly succinct name of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and sometime in the 5th century he wrote a book called De Coelesti Hierarchia. It orders the *WTNV voice* hierarchy of angels into three levels called spheres, and each sphere has three sub-levels called choirs. Many, but not all, of the choirs are adopted from various Jewish angelic hierarchies. If you thought that it was just angels and then archangels were, like, the middle management version of angels then you are very wrong. I’m sorry that television lied.

You know who also lied? Tumblr dot com and any post that implies that the true form of angels is a big wheel with a bunch of eyes. That is, in fact, a descriptor for only one kind of angel: ophanim, or thrones. The depiction of angels runs the gamut from winged humanoids to multi-winged humanoids with multiple animal heads to burning snakes to vague heavenly mist.

Archangels and angels are the eighth and ninth lowest choirs of angels, respectively. Angels, or malakhim, are the default messengers of God and the choir from which guardian angels come from. Generally, if someone claims to have a message from God delivered to them, it will be an angel doing it. If it’s really important, it’ll be an archangel. Everyone else literally has more important things to do. No one’s getting visions from dominions.

Lucifer’s (the theological one) actual designation is kind of a mystery. Depending on the text, Lucifer has been described as a seraph (the highest), a cherub (the second highest), or an archangel (the eighth). According to Thomas Aquinas:

Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels. But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels.

Not very helpful, but hey. The question remains: what kind of angel is Lucifer, and this time I mean our Lucifer. 

We know that Michael, just like his namesake, is an archangel. We also know that (SPOILERS) Simeon, unlike his namesake, is an archangel as well (Simeon is a saint, not an angel.) Lucifer likely was at their level, if not higher.

However, Lucifer was also a six-winged angel, a depiction generally reserved for seraphim (and cherubim, but far less frequently).

Moreover, in terms of role, an angellic Lucifer fits well with that of the powers, the sixth choir. Powers are in charge of moving the heavenly bodies, and are depicted as powerful warriors dressed in beautiful armor. It's fitting for a being so closely tied to the morning star to be a power, after all.

So, with all that considered, what is Lucifer? 

Well, he’s a seraph (or saraph, technically). Why? Because Simeon is somehow a seraph and an archangel (I have already written too much to unpack that bullshit), and Mammon was a throne (remember those wheels with eyes?) and Beel was a cherub and therefore Lucifer had to be higher than both of them (interestingly big brother Mammon is in a lower choir than little brother Beel). This makes Michael kind of, well... weird, given the archangels’ low rank.

Some like to differentiate between archangel the eighth choir and Archangel, with a capital A, as a term for any high-ranking angel. While this is likely what Solmare is doing, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this has zero basis in any religious text whatsoever and is solely done for the convenience of not remembering anything besides angel and archangel. Which is like, fine, but I’m a pedantic jerk who I found claims to the contrary while researching and I felt the need to correct that.

Anyways, the more you know.

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 6: The Structure of Early Gaelic Society”

This is part 6 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! Each number in parenthesis (#) corresponds to a footnote formatted in the Chicago manual of style located in the block quote at the end of the post, any reference to the Brehon laws is linked within the text and will not have a footnote!

Hey hey hey welcome back! It’s been a few months, and I’m refreshed and am once again ready to tear into druidic bullshit. Today we’re continuing our look at Robin Herne’s “lessons,” this particular lesson can be found here. 

From the very beginning of this “lesson” I’m sensing a problem with Herne’s writing that I’ve seen and spoken on before, which is the concept of a pan-Celtic religion. Herne’s lesson may focus on Ireland, but that’s only because he feels as though it’s “harder” to talk about Wales.... a nation with a very different history and a different religion than Ireland..... but they’re both Celtic so whatever right? For any newbies here, there was no Pan-Celtic religion. I mention this in Part 1 of this series.

From there it only gets worse really. For starters, the Romans never conquered Ireland, the nation whose history is supposed to be the focus of this lesson. Beyond that- the Romans used existing British oppida as the urban centers of the tribal system that was established under their rule, to claim that pre-Roman Britain was made up only of villages when archaeologists can’t accurately determine the populations of the oppida is ridiculous. What the Romans did was establish the first cities that were not located in the South East of England. Herne also has this weird focus on Ireland and Britain being “rural” as though most cultures weren’t largely rural- and honestly the focus on distancing these cultures from anything urban is a HUGE red flag if you know the history of paganism and Celtic Twilight, bad show all around. And of course Herne doesn’t cite any sources so for all I know he’s pulling this out of his ass. All in all it seems like Herne is falling to the classic pitfall of circle jerking to Rome, maybe if he could get off Rome’s dick for a few minutes we might actually learn something. 

I question whether Herne has ever actually read the Brehon laws, or if he understands that there were similarities between the laws of many medieval societies, even those that didn’t share a “Celtic” label. I genuinely have no idea what “change” he’s referring to that would be a gradual process considering the continental Celts and the Gaels were different cultures, and the laws in question existed at different times, and also the laws he references for the continental Celts were only “mentioned” by classical authors, who if you haven’t read my other rebuttals are notoriously unreliable narrators. 

I question the choice to say “Think of the cenn as rather like the head of a Mafia clan! “ and particularly to end it with an exclamation point. The cenn, is the head of the family, and thus the family’s legal representative in court. This was not a cultural practice unique to Ireland, similar practices are shown to exist throughout Europe during this time. And in no way is a patriarch (or occasionally a matriarch) who protects the family’s interests and revokes legal agreements made without their consent the same thing as a mafia boss. This isn’t a crime syndicate, it’s a judicial system that protects the different families within the tribe and in theory was meant to ensure that contractual decisions were made with the consent of the family. 

Beyond this to describe the social structure of early Ireland as a “caste system” is... stretching it- movement from one class to another was not uncommon, and more things factored into one’s status in Irish society than simply the situation of one’s birth. Beyond that, this system is more easily broken down into six groups than into two, and Herne would know that if he’d actually read the Brehon laws. Rather than just splitting society into “the blessed ones” and “ordinary people” the Brehon laws organize it into kings of various grades, professional classes, flaiths (a sort of official nobility), freemen possessing property, freemen who possess no or very little property, and the non-free classes. And joint ownership of property could qualify a selected joint-owner to become a noble, this is very much not the rigid system Herne would want you to believe it is. 

Herne’s discussion of the Lia Fail while simplified does hold up. In the lore we see the process described by Herne for choosing the high king of Ireland, it’s described clearly in The Destruction of Dá Derga’s Hostel. And I will admit, I’m with Herne up to a point in his discussion of the concept of lanamnas, there’s clearly a fair amount of research he needs to do into medieval history to truly understand the relationships he’s describing, but he’s not necessary wrong, so I’ll let it slide, these are meant to be introductory lessons after all. 

However. Herne makes some... interesting claims in regards to divinity. Herne makes the correct statement that “Each partner in lanamain must recognise that they have a duty to give certain things to the other person, but also a duty to allow that person to give back to them ~ there is no honour in emasculating someone, nor in allowing yourself to be rendered servile.” This is correct, we see this very same principle in the two sided nature of the virtue of hospitality, we’re called to be both good hosts and good guests. But then Herne goes onto say “This applies as much to the Gods as to other humans. Hosting a ritual for a god may be seen as fulfilling the coinmed, but there should also be expectation back of the deity. If your life is barren, then maybe you need a better head to guide you (either that, or you‘re not fulfilling your duties to them).” Ignoring the fact that Herne has all but called the gods parasites if they don't attend rituals we host for them voluntarily (something we should be doing anyway, and without the expectation that they’ll show up)- this argument rests on the assumption that we can understand the divine and how they interact with us enough to judge whether or not we need a "better head" to guide us, which I think anyone who’s actually had an encounter with the divine or felt their presence can tell you is bullshit. They’re divine for a reason, they’ve existed for thousands of years, we’re just a blip on their radar, it is not up to us to judge whether or not we need a “better head to guide us” or if we’re giving enough, the gods decide that. 

For everyone who had “baseless claims about the roles of historical druids” on their BINGO cards you may now cross that off. Herne falls into the typical pattern of repeating the “druids were the precursor the Catholic church” story fabricated by 16th century Germans for political clout. Don’t be like Herne, read a goddamn book, I have recommendations, feel free to dm me or shoot me an ask if you’d like them. 

And last but not least, I would like to remind everyone that the “every family/tribe has their own tartan that differentiates them” is a largely 19th century creation with scant pre-Victorian basis. 

That’s all for today! If you want more reading on any of the topics mentioned in this post feel free to shoot me an ask or a message and I’ll provide you with a reading list!

[starswornoaths]

A Shard of Eternity

This is my Secret Santa gift for my Secret Santa partner: @anpan-chan! @aetherstitch was kind enough to host a secret santa this year, and I’m delighted to be able to participate! I hope this is to your liking!!! \o/

nondescript WoL/Exarch, spoilers for all of 5.0 and the 2.0 tower raids under the cut!!! (I kept it nondescript mostly out of fear of getting your WoL wrong, but I am also more than happy to change anything you want!)

The first time the Warrior of Light is mentioned by name, it takes everything in you not to roll your eyes. Another high and mighty adventurer who got a little lucky here and there, from what you had gleaned from the whispers around Saint Coinach’s Find. It had bearing on neither your research nor your work, and so you paid it little mind and went back to your books.

Rammbroes interupts your reading, as he often does, asking you to scout ahead of this supposed Warrior of Light that is coming to gather what is needed to venture further into Syrcus Tower. You resist the urge to snort— scout ahead of a vaunted hero to ensure their safety? If they truly were just like the heroes in the fairy tales, it would stand to reason that this Warrior of Light would be more than able to handle themselves.

Still, the request does present an opportunity to test their heroism and cunning for yourself, and so you leave for the Shroud with a swish of your tail, a bow at your back, and a book tucked in the crook of your arm.

This Warrior of Light fancies themself a hero, do they? You aim to make them prove it.

**

*

They follow along with your little game of cat and mouse, despite how tired they look of it all from the first moment you call to them through the treetops. Halfway through the chase, you aren’t entirely certain who is the hunter and who is the hunted. It was...fascinating, seeing them follow your clues and give in to your goading with a dogged, foolhardy curiosity tempered by the sort of cunning that kept you on your toes, kept you scrambling to stay the more clever of the two of you.

You hate to admit it, but it thrills you.

Still, the thrill does not outweigh the promise of getting closer than you’ve ever got to unlocking the secrets of Allag, and so you reveal yourself with a flourish at the game’s end. The Warrior of Light is sardonic with their traded quips, barbless but all the same sharp as they are. There’s a cleverness to them, you note on your way back to the Sons of Saint Coinach, and the glimmer in their eyes makes you wonder how often they’re allowed to be clever. 

When you return to Rammbroes with your newfound companion you watch, a little dismayed, as that wit is hidden behind the mask of professional indifference, behind stoic nods and two word answers, because the hero is rarely allowed to be clever outside of their use. Seeing it happen before you reminds you of younger years best forgotten, where others would mock you for your red eye while manipulating you for your intellect in school. 

It’s almost frightening how readily you become the perfect picture of the hero’s merry companion, ready to catch some of the glory for yourself. Luck permitting, more than just some.

For you are G’raha Tia, after all, and aught less than being remembered in the annals of history for all time would just not do.

**

*

“Do you think yourself clever?” The Warrior of Light asks you one night at Saint Coinach’s Find. 

A glib answer dances on your tongue, ready to be used as a shield like you’ve done for years now against those who mocked your romanticism for fairytales and legends. Ordinarily, it is bittersweet, sharp cunning and bitter loneliness make for a poor taste on the palatte. But tonight, with the stars hanging heavy overhead and their eyes looking at you in that quietly ponderous way, you feel...safe. Safe enough to be honest, if only a little.

“I am all but certain of it.” You reply with a grin. “It’s kept me alive for this long.”

“Good.” They seem satisfied, nodding. “I think you’re brilliant, you know? For someone with the bravado you’ve got, though, you keep that brilliance quiet. Why?”

You are prepared for neither the compliment nor the question that follows, and it takes longer than you’d like to answer.

“I like seeing others be brilliant, too.” You finally admit in a soft voice. 

Because you do— and you’ve especially liked seeing their brilliance as they pushed through Syrcus Tower, through the mysteries writ in the pages of the ancients and scrawled on the walls of their tombs. 

Their hand on yours sends a shockwave through you— you had not expected touch, much less one so gentle from a hero so used to exerting great strength. Yet to look up at their bright eyes, you see a different sort of strength that you aren’t sure you can even name.

“I like seeing you be brilliant, too, G’raha Tia.” They reply quietly.

You tell yourself that squeezing their hand is just to calm your heart, and that looking up at the stars is because they are soothing, and not at all because you’re terrified of the warmth that suffuses through you. You pretend you’re not terrified of missing that warmth when the time comes to part.

**

*

You couldn’t resist sealing yourself away in the tower when the opportunity presented itself. Part of it was a want to be a hero yourself— after all the feats of great power, integrity, and heroism that not only the Warrior of Light, but those around them, exuded, you feel it only fitting that you be given an eternity to try and reach for the same heights.

“My destiny lies in the future.” You say with clear conviction, the doors closing in behind you.

Cid promises to work to build a future that you would be proud of, and it humbles you. The Warrior of Light’s eyes are so bright as they look at you, too bright for you to truly read. You feel as though even with eternity all but gift wrapped for you, you will never truly understand what they’re thinking. You’re all but certain that even given eternity, you couldn’t even find the words to ask.

“Goodnight, G’raha Tia.” They say in a soft voice, but the look on their face is one of pain.

You let their words carry you to slumber, and try not to think on how you might have hurt them. Better to forget. They will be gone by the time you awake, besides, you remind yourself somberly.

And you dream of tomorrow.

**

*

Tomorrow comes too soon, and with the smell of ashes, smoke, and ceruleum. 

The people who managed to crack into Syrcus Tower had scarcely even known to look for you, had thought mentions of you waiting like a sleeping prince high in his castle has been the stuff of fairytales. They look at you with soot covered faces and wide, haunted eyes, and you understand before they’ve explained anything that everything has gone wrong.

You just aren’t prepared for how thoroughly it’s all gone up in flames.

Even though you had accepted that you’d wake up long after your friends from the Sons of Saint Coinach and the Warrior of Light were dead, you’re still woefully unprepared to see their graves. Less so because of how they all died.

You’re told the Warrior of Light fell first, that the Black Rose had claimed them in the midst of battle because the Empire hadn’t been able to handle losing for once. It boils your blood, knowing they— and everyone they had inspired to fight alongside them— were slaughtered by a weapon with no counter. By a coward’s invisible guillotine.

It’s almost frightening how quickly you are incandescent with rage for them. For Cid, for everyone who had fought to keep Cid’s promise to you, robbed of the chance to do so.

The anger only grows in your breast as you read the recorded tales of the Warrior of Light, of one Lord Edmont de Fortemps’ account of how they ended the Dragonsong War, of Lord Hien’s illustrated tales of how the Warrior of Light liberated two nations from the tyranny of an Imperial Regime. 

The Warrior of Light, inspiration to all who met them and beyond, had become the sort of person you read about in texts of historical legends, in fairytales. A hero, in every sense of the word. 

They deserved better than this.

So you focus on the fact that, in some twisted way, Cid had kept his promise to you: the prospects of this timeline were bleak, but the collaborative efforts of everyone rallying for the sake of saving the Warrior of Light— a fable to these people for how many centuries had passed— showed you that perhaps there was still light within the shadow.

All the same, you would see this shadow banished before it was ever cast at all.

**

*

You try to commit to memory the names and faces of everyone who you left behind, being sent to the First. For a time, you manage most of them, though you are made to endure a century of waiting and planning, and by the end of it you have to remind yourself of your own name.

The Crystal Exarch? G’raha Tia? Was there even room for the both of you that now coincided in that half shimmering, half shivering body that was only yet half yours?

For all the knowledge of the Tower, you find no answer. So you ask different questions as you go: what will help the people in this world, in this moment? What sort of world did you want to present to the Warrior of Light when you see them again?

The Crystarium takes the shape, takes the light, takes the land around the Tower, and becomes a home to all those drawn to its hopeful, glimmering beacon. A monument to hope, in memoriam to hope’s greatest chamion.

You certainly hope that it is enough.

**

*

You had thought the years had tempered your arrogance, though with the five failed attempts at drawing the Warrior of Light to the First staring up at you in varying degrees of bewildered and enraged you realize, perhaps, that you were mistaken. Your research— ever meticulous, even a century on —had told you their names and what roles they had played alongside the Warrior of Light, before the Eighth Umbral Calamity.

You knew which one you could trust with the truth.

Uriangier seemed reluctant to agree to your plan of secrecy, but you recalled the tales of his false duplicity during the time during and after the Dragonsong War. You knew he would ultimately capitulate.

The others were more reluctant to trust— most ultimately didn’t at all. You couldn’t fault them, even if that had complicated the plan a bit.

They were like you: side characters to the hero. They would fall into place when the time was right, you were certain.

So you reached out a sixth time with a foci and an implanted dream in the Warrior’s mind, and pulled.

**

*

It doesn’t surprise you how reluctant they are to trust you, the moment you meet them at the gates of the Crystarium. It’s to be expected; even without five other instances to serve as warning, they were never ones to trust strangers with stranger powers than they had seen before. You suspect you are the strangest that have come across yet. It’s a little flattering.

Even as you welcome them, you note that their eyes rarely stray from the Crystal Tower looming overhead. It’s hard to tamp down on the ancient, buried hope that you were remembered, that you were missed. Surely you were but a blip on their radar, a passing ship in the eye of a storm they sailed straight into. 

You are scarcely through explaining that you came from the tower when you are cut off.

“You came from the tower?” The Warrior of Light’s wide, startled eyes snap to you. There’s something akin to a recluctant hope there, one you are reluctant to define. “There was— there was someone dear to me. His name was G’raha Tia. He sealed himself away in there. Know anything about that?”

There is a moment, only one, where you have to reconcile what you presumed and what was true. You don’t know what to make of the knowledge that, perhaps, you meant more to them than you had thought.

“I found no one by that name in the tower.” You dance around the truth with something that is technically not a lie. 

“And you’re certain there was no one named G’raha Tia in that tower?” The Warrior presses with eyes sharper than you remembered.

“No one that I found.” You reply, and remind yourself of your convictions as you move on.

G’raha Tia was not in that tower, after all, and had not been in some time.

**

*

“Do you think yourself clever?” The Warrior of Light asks you on the first night Norvrandt has had in a century. 

There is a moment where you are a century younger and have no other title than a name you were given at birth, no power but a bow at your back and an eye that you ache to see the secrets of, and you have to remind yourself of the years in your bones and the weight of the parts of you the tower claimed before you can answer.

“Just clever enough to get by.” You settle on, biting back words from a younger you that looked out on a starry sky like this one a world and a lifetime away.

You sit in silence that is both companionable and weighty. You can feel how many questions your old friend has for you, and you are glad they do not ask. You would not answer them, much as you want to.

You can’t. You mustn’t. 

So when they heave a sigh and rise to their feet with a soft, “Goodnight,” you pretend it doesn’t hurt that you can’t just be honest with them, knowing your heart so much better than you did when you were so much younger.

All the power in the universe at your fingertips, and still you can’t reach out to close the distance. You tell yourself that it’s all worth it, just to save them.

You tell yourself that’s enough.

**

*

The more Lightwardens they defeat, the more it’s easy to see them disappearing behind the blinding light they absorb. It frightens you, even as you try to put it out of your mind. They’re a hero, you remind yourself— and Uriangier, who comes to you in his own moment of doubt. They will be fine.

You will see to it yourself, even knowing what it will cost you.

**

*

When there is so little of the Warrior of Light left that they are scarcely able to stay conscious, when the skies are filled with light across all of Norvrandt as they are poised to become one of the very horrors they had been fighting against and all seems lost, you come to them. 

Your posturing as a villain is a poor showing, but you try anyway. It’s the least you can do, ease their guilt, help them not miss you or feel as though they could have saved you. They couldn’t. And you did not want them to.

This plan was too carefully crafted, too many years of waiting and scheming and lying have led to this moment. You will not falter. You will save them. It doesn’t matter that they see your face now and know your lies, know your secrets. You will not be around for the aftermath anyway, and they will all be free.

“G’raha Tia!” They cry out as you begin to cast the spell that will take the light from them. 

You hesitate. Blinking away the tears in your eyes you offer them the first real, genuine smile free of the cowl and cowardice. You tell them that it’s going to be alright. That they will be alright.

The sharp crack of lightning that broke the sky was not lightning at all, you realize when you felt your abdomen grow cold, felt the air leave your lungs. Your concentration shatters as you look down to see the blood blossoming on your robes like a lily.

You’ve been shot.

Attempts to regain your focus are fleeting and weak, weak like your legs giving out under you. No...no! You’ve gone so long planning, done so much and lost so much and hurt so much, it can’t end here! It can’t end like this!

You close your eyes and dream of tomorrow again.

**

*

When you are more aware of yourself and your surroundings, the Warrior of Light is healed, resplendent, more than you had ever seen of them before, and challenging the bringer of Darkness himself, Hades.

You will not leave them to fight alone. You refuse. Not again.

And so eons become instant, and the expanse contracts in the palm of your hands, and you bring forth other heroes from other stars, people who might uplift the Warrior of Light in their time of need, that might lend their light to piercing the veil of black that shrouded them all.

And you watch them rise with a new dawn, triumphant and tired, taking in their greatness like the merry member of their band you had always wanted to be.

“Good morning, G’raha.” They tell you, and you can’t see them for the tears that come. 

You didn’t even know you were waiting a century to hear them say that, after all.

**

*

The bedlam and joyous shivaree of the celebration that night in the Crystarium is a distant roar as you stand on the balcony beneath the stars but above the din of festivities. Close enough to the merriment that its energy vibrates beneath your skin but not so close as to overwhelm you. About as close as you’ve let anyone in, save your granddaughter.

When the door behind you opens, you are not surprised to see the Warrior of Light slip out to join you and shut the door behind them. Much as the sight of them fills you with a sort of deeply instinctual fear and need to run and hide, you tighten your grip on the balcony railing and rally your courage. They deserve your honesty, they always have, but especially after everything that’s led to this moment.

“I’d wondered where you went.” They say as they draw near. “Lyna was helpful.”

You want to laugh; of course your granddaughter would ensure you are properly taken to task for your behavior. Doubtless she’ll flog you herself when she has the time. 

“You have me at a disadvantage.” You say, unsure of what other words you could even offer.

“A welcome change of pace, then.” They reply with a wry twist of that clever mouth of theirs.

That overwhelming need to hide takes you again, and you can’t help but reach up for your hood to pull it over your eyes. It shocks you to your crystalized core when they reach out a hand and wrap it around your wrist to stop you.

“G’raha.” They say, and something ancient and aching and lonely quivers at that. “Don’t hide from me anymore.”

When they pull you toward them and press their lips to yours, you find you have no ilm of yourself left to keep from them, and you sink sweetly, softly into their arms with clutching hands and a century of desperation. Ever the hero, they keep you from falling anywhere but for them, exactly where you’ve always wanted to be.

[hug-your-face]

Republicans are spending > $20 Million, recruiting 50,000 volunteers, to stop people from voting in November

Historically, claims of voter fraud have not stood up to the facts. It’s just not a problem.

This effort is spearheaded by “Honest Elections Project” formed by Trump fundraiser.

Volunteers will be on-site in key voting precincts to “monitor” voting -- which means questioning individual voters’ right to vote (for example, if they don’t have a state-required ID card)

Past examples of “monitoring” have included intimidation -- for example, stationing off-duty police officers wearing ‘National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands in largely black/latino polling places.

If a voter’s right to vote is questioned, their vote can be ignored. Some of the $20M is to fight AGAINST lawsuits that would attempt to make these ignored votes count.

This is brand-new. This is unprecedented. This is a new low. It’s an Election Day operations program “that probably no other presidential campaign has had before” according to a Republican consultant.

“They don’t need to keep millions of people away. Challenge a couple of voters here, a couple there, and it all aggregates up. They realize they’re going to win or lose this thing at the margins.”

Link to full story (NY Times). Text of full story below the cut (in case you hit the paywall)

IMPORTANT:

Be sure you are registered to vote. Check. Check again.

KNOW. YOUR. RIGHTS. Vote.org is a good one-stop shop for finding out what yours are.

Know your state’s requirements for voting. You can check your requirements for registration at Vote.org and your ID requirements at Ballotopedia.com. It’s not at all a bad idea to print out the relevant laws for your state and bring them with you -- Ballotopedia can link you right to them.

MAKE. A. PLAN. You may not be able to nip into the voting office for a quick ballot on your lunch break. Arrange to take the day off if you must, or as a sick day. Or flat out look your boss in the eye and say “I am going to vote at X’oclock today and I will be staying in line until my vote is cast, to do my part for America” and let them tell you that you can’t. Your state may have laws about your right to have time off to vote. Check here, and then know them.

Make your vote count. This could be lost by handfuls of votes. Now is not the time to be “voting your conscience.” Now is the time to ensure that in 4 years, anyone has a right to vote at all. If the Conservatives get another 4 years, I fear they’ll continue to work to turn the country we live in, into a complete dictatorship.

Full text of NYT article:

Freed by Court Ruling, Republicans Step Up Effort to Patrol Voting

Officials seek to recruit 50,000 poll watchers and spend millions to fight voter fraud. Democrats say the real goal is to stop them from voting.

By Michael Wines May 18, 2020 Updated 9:06 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Six months before a presidential election in which turnout could matter more than persuasion, the Republican Party, the Trump campaign and conservative activists are mounting an aggressive national effort to shape who gets to vote in November — and whose ballots are counted.

The efforts are bolstered by a 2018 federal court ruling that for the first time in nearly four decades allows the national Republican Party to mount campaigns against purported voter fraud without court approval. The court ban on Republican Party voter-fraud operations was imposed in 1982, and then modified in 1986 and again in 1990, each time after courts found instances of Republicans intimidating or working to exclude minority voters in the name of preventing fraud. The party was found to have violated it yet again in 2004.

Its premise is that a Republican victory in November is imperiled by widespread voter fraud, a baseless charge embraced by President Trump, but repeatedly debunked by research. Democrats and voting rights advocates say the driving factor is politics, not fraud — especially since Mr. Trump’s narrow win in 2016 underscored the potentially crucial value of depressing turnout by Democrats, particularly minorities.

The Republican program, which has gained steam in recent weeks, envisions recruiting up to 50,000 volunteers in 15 key states to monitor polling places and challenge ballots and voters deemed suspicious. That is part of a $20 million plan that also allots millions to challenge lawsuits by Democrats and voting-rights advocates seeking to loosen state restrictions on balloting. The party and its allies also intend to use advertising, the internet and President Trump’s command of the airwaves to cast Democrats as agents of election theft.

The efforts are bolstered by a 2018 federal court ruling that for the first time in nearly four decades allows the national Republican Party to mount campaigns against purported voter fraud without court approval. The court ban on Republican Party voter-fraud operations was imposed in 1982, and then modified in 1986 and again in 1990, each time after courts found instances of Republicans intimidating or working to exclude minority voters in the name of preventing fraud. The party was found to have violated it yet again in 2004.

The 2018 ruling merely “allows the R.N.C. to play by the same rules as Democrats,” a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, Mandi Merritt, said in a statement.

“Now the R.N.C. can work more closely with state parties and campaigns to do what we do best — ensure that more people vote through our unmatched field program,” the statement said.

But the program escalates a Republican focus on limiting who can vote that became a juggernaut after the Supreme Court dismantled the Voting Rights Act in 2013. But beyond that, it also reflects an enduring tension in American life in which the voting rights of minorities — whether granted in 1870 by the 15th Amendment or nearly a century later by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — seldom seem free from challenge.

Besides the national party and Mr. Trump’s campaign strategists, conservative advocacy groups are joining lawsuits, recruiting poll monitors and mounting media campaigns of their own. Leading them is a new and well-funded organization, the Honest Elections Project, formed by Leonard Leo, a prolific fund-raiser, advocate of a conservative judiciary and confidant of President Trump.

Republicans will have an Election Day operations program “that probably no other presidential campaign has had before,” Josh Helton, a Republican consultant, said at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee in March. “It’s going to be all hands on deck.”

In battleground states, that extends even to comparatively quiet places like Fond du Lac County, an eastern Wisconsin outpost of about 100,000 people and 1,200 farms midway between Green Bay and Milwaukee.

“I think the big push is going to be for poll observers” in November’s general election, the Republican Party county chairman, Rohn Bishop, said this month. “No harm in making sure.” Indeed, he said that training sessions for election monitors were already in the works.

Democrats who have been tracking the effort say the goal is not to limit fraud, but to make the supposed threat of election theft the tentpole of a coordinated campaign by Republicans and their allies to limit the number of Democratic ballots counted in November.

“This is a burn-it-down strategy, a strategy to win at all costs,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, the senior adviser at Fair Fight, the voting rights group founded by Stacey Abrams, the former Democratic candidate for governor of Georgia. “They see this as central to victory.”

Fair Fight claims that the groups’ combined spending on lawsuits, election monitoring and spreading allegations of cheating will far exceed the $20 million announced to date. That message, blasted out, in particular by Mr. Trump, has stirred concerns that the Republican fraud drumbeat could lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump and his supporters to reject the election results should he lose.

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised the stakes further, leading Democrats and voting rights advocates to call for expanded voting by mail and Mr. Trump and some Republicans to claim with little evidence that it would invite fraud.

Some skeptics say the voting wars are partly political Kabuki, acted out to rally supporters in both parties and raise funds for advocacy groups. But in a presidential election where social distancing has muffled campaigning and few voters remain on the fence, turnout has taken on outsized importance. And neither side disputes that November’s vote, as in 2016, could turn on a relative handful of ballots in key states.

Neither the Trump campaign nor the Republican National Committee responded to requests for interviews, although the committee provided a summary of its work and policies. In essence, Republicans say Democratic efforts to relax voting restrictions are partisan moves that demand a firm response, and that Republican countermeasures reflect standard political mobilizing.

Others say the Republican focus on vanishingly rare cases of fraud targets a politically useful phantom.

“It’s utter nonsense. This has been shown over and over,” said Kenneth R. Mayer, an elections expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “The continued insistence that there are material levels of intentional voter fraud is itself a form of fraud.”

But political strategists insisted at the conservative committee conference in March that ballot fakery was a major concern. “In some of these areas where there’s no Republican presence whatsoever, then they’re going to cheat, and they’re going to cheat early and they’re going to cheat often,” Mr. Helton said at the March conference. At polling places, he said, “just having a presence of some sort is a deterrent for probably 80 percent of the bad behavior.”

Being present at the polls isn’t unusual; in fact, both parties monitor polls. Monitors check whether poll workers follow the rules and can complain to election supervisors or summon party lawyers if differences are not resolved.

They also can challenge voters’ right to cast a ballot — if, for instance, a voter lacks a required ID card. That can force voters to cast provisional ballots that are not counted unless they prove their eligibility.

But Democrats say the Republican focus on monitors and repeated allegations of fraud are part of a coordinated strategy to depress turnout, especially by minorities, by fueling anxieties among voters already suspicious of the authorities.

“They don’t need to keep millions of people away” from the polls, said Ms. Groh-Wargo. “Challenge a couple of voters here, a couple there, and it all aggregates up. They realize they’re going to win or lose this thing at the margins.”

Among other things, Democrats cite Mr. Trump’s repeated demands that law-enforcement officers patrol the polls and the recent creation of voter-fraud task forces by Republicans in four state governments, at least in part at the national party’s urging.

They also point to a meeting in February attended by conservative political luminaries and at least one national Republican Party official, sponsored by the Center for National Policy, a group of conservative power brokers. The topic was voter fraud and “ballot security” operations, particularly in inner cities and areas with Native American populations, according to The Intercept, which published excerpts from a recording of the meeting.

One group represented at that meeting, Texas-based True the Vote, is recruiting military veterans to become poll monitors. The group, an offshoot of a Houston Tea Party branch, was scrutinized by local prosecutors after its first poll-monitoring effort in 2012 sparked complaints of voter intimidation.

The group’s founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, told the gathering that Democrats could inundate the polls with phony votes. “The swarming tactics of a radicalized socialist mind-set,” she warned, “is a dangerous thing to behold.” The group did not respond to a request for comment.

History also offers reason for Democrats’ concern. The court order vacated in 2018 involved repeated efforts to depress Democratic turnout. In the first instance, the party recruited off-duty police officers wearing “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands to monitor polling places in black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. A Democratic lawsuit claimed the officers hectored poll workers and voters and stopped volunteers from helping voters cast ballots.

At the Conservative Political Action Committee conference, Justin Clark, a Trump campaign senior adviser overseeing Election Day operations, argued that the court order had handed a decades-long edge to Democrats.

“We were really operating with one hand behind our back,” he said.

Speaking to Wisconsin Republicans in November, Mr. Clark said the party’s expanded poll-monitoring plans were accelerated by defeats last November in governor’s races in Kentucky and Louisiana.

The party has named three regional directors of Election Day operations, is hiring directors in 15 key states and will beef up the paid staffs that recruit and work with volunteers. Wisconsin, for example, is to receive 100 operatives, compared to 62 in 2016.

One aim, he said, is to expand poll monitoring beyond the usual big-city Democratic strongholds. Mr. Clark, in remarks which were posted online by the Democratic opposition group American Bridge, cited a county where he said Mr. Trump won by 14,000 votes in 2016. “But maybe he should have won by 17,000,” he said. “Their cheating doesn’t just happen when you lose a county.”

In addition to the $20 million raised by the party for legal battles over election rules, conservative advocacy groups have joined the legal war, filing lawsuits and briefs in states such as New Mexico, Minnesota and Nevada. The Honest Elections Project, which surfaced only this spring, already has joined legal battles over voting in six states and has spent $250,000 on advertising opposing voting by mail.

Honest Elections officials did not respond to a request for an interview. But an account in the online publication Axios in January detailed plans by Mr. Leo, its creator, “to funnel tens of millions of dollars into conservative fights” nationwide.

Republicans said the goal of their litigation effort was “to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election” and rebuff Democratic attempts “to sue their way to victory in 2020.” But Mark Elias, a Washington lawyer who represents Democrats in many of the suits that Republicans are contesting, said every Republican court filing has sought to add or keep limits on voting rather than remove them.

“I go to bed sleeping pretty well, thinking I’m fighting for everybody to be able to vote,” he said. “When was the last time a party said it would spend $20 million to make voting harder?”

[reimenaashelyee]

History for Granted, or When a Marginal Voice Tackles The Main Text

My thoughts about being a marginalised creator who chose to make a graphic novel on a historical figure in the dominant Western canon. About why I didn't choose a lesser-known history instead. About why, either way, it is not a loss to POC representation

Reposted from my official blog, where I keep all my long-form thoughts.

Some of you may know I write historical fiction. Some of you may also know I’ve been chipping away on an Alexander the Great graphic novel.

My role as a historical graphic novelist has been stewing in the back of my mind for a while now. Actually, the stewing began when I first thought of The Carpet Merchant of Konstantiniyya, but I already know my insights from that project. Be actively thoughtful. Be self aware of how your own biases and societal context influence your storytelling. Recognise the people before and around you. Use your power to bring up voices. Understand that the work of being a responsible author lasts beyond the final page of your story.

Such is the case for Alexander, The Servant and The Water of Life. What I have learnt from TCM still carries over, thank goodness.

However, since last November, I realised that Alexander is a different kettle of fish. I already knew this early on: the mindboggling breadth and scope of research material, the baggage carried by the subject, and the newness of everything. While TCM focused on a narrow historical context (Ottoman era Istanbulite migrates to Georgian era England), and had the advantage of me knowing the lead character for years prior (Zeynel, my precious nerd son…), Alexander was from scratch. I didn’t know just how many Alexander Romances I really needed to read. I didn’t know much about ancient Greek anything. I didn’t know an atom about Alexander the Great himself – really, it was zilch.

Which means my responsibilities this time have a somewhat different character. A different edge.

I don’t write historical fiction about royalties or the elite. The most I have ever been interested in is a well-to-do merchant. Even then, my merchant would have an uncommon edge; he is with the common people. That’s where my interests lie: in the common people. The ordinary people outside of the court who go about their daily ordinary lives and daily ordinary struggles. The ups and downs and ins and outs of aristocrats and royals don’t excite me as much.

Then why Alexander? Honestly, he’s an exception.

Not because he’s suddenly a royal that interests me. Seriously, no royal will ever interest me enough to make a GN out of their life, based on their biography alone. (Though King James of the King James Bible and the secret tunnel to his boyfriend make a convincing petition) Alexander came to me in a roundabout way. A trick. He fooled me to exception by showing me his resume: Macedonian king, prophecised Egyptian pharoah, Persian king, son of a god, Jewish convert, Christian hero, Muslim prophet. And he showed me how many different cultures have absorbed him into their folk mythology over 2000 years. Even as the world changed and his body laid somewhere in Egypt, his shade travelled the world. He’s the only secular figure with similar cultural-legendary reach as Jesus. King Arthur can’t claim that. Heck, even Odysseus can’t claim that. Oh, how could I have resisted? This is exactly what I am all about.

This is all Alexander by the way.

The common people’s Alexander. The story of how different places have appropriated and localised him over time. Gave him different faces. Gave him slightly different names. Gave him quests and adventures and stories that had absolutely nothing to do with ancient Greece. Made him the believer of a pantheon into a believer of a singular God.

What brought me here is this literal embodiment of world literature. But he’s not an epic. He’s popular legend. And he doesn’t belong to any one culture or time or place. He’s everywhere.

But like I said, this kettle of fish is different.

Alexander the Great is not exactly the most obscure of histories. He’s a military idol. A national figurehead. He was a man. He was from ancient Greece. He’s claimed as a “heritage of the Western (read: white) world”, an excuse for why conquest is the legacy of the white, Western man. This is Alexander’s baggage, as I call it.

As a woman of colour (WOC) author from the global south, I’m aware of my (small, individual amount of) power to bring up unheard of histories. Unseen biographies of little known people. A glimpse into outside cultures and voices that Western-dominated media and education gloss over like wallpaper. I could have written about Puteri Gunung Ledang, or May 13th 1969, or the history of how my family came to Malaysia sometime during the Xinhai Revolution. I have no obligation to write about Alexander, because until last November, he was seriously a cultural nobody to me. I have no stake in the furthering the hegemony of Western history.

And I think, maybe not owning that stake is why it’s necessary.

Just as important as minorities writing about little known histories, minorities should write about the histories that are taken for granted. Because of our unique experiences with the consequences of colonialism, slavery, violence, discrimination, dehumanisation, etc, we look at history differently. It’s not about who wins or who loses. It’s about who is missing, who is harmed, what is lost…the gaps made by what was edited out.

With those glasses on, history taken for granted – if not already thoroughly given a critical cleansing – is shown to be what it really is: a history that isn’t as well-known as we thought. (and that’s okay)

I won’t be alone in saying I had no clue Alexander belonged to nobody and everybody (because everyone in the old world has an Alexander). For a long time, Western white history was gatekept, using the reasoning that whatever they claimed had an easy connect-the-dots relationship to their present day (even though I always knew that claim was oversimplified, anti-intellectual thinking). But, all of these things are simply whitewashed facades. The truth is that, like Greco-Roman everything, like Norse history, like Christian destiny, they are more complex, more diverse, more ambiguous, than what these facades can contain.

Just working with Alexander through the framework of the Alexander Romance already blows up general misconceptions about history: that history was a bubble, homogenous and separated from each other (“Egyptian history” “Chinese history” “Roman history”, “Christian world”, “Muslim world” “East”, “West”), rarely interacting and influencing.

And looking at Alexander’s actual biography says a lot about how open the world already was in his time. He was king of three empires. His pre-Hellenistic world was multicultural and diverse. It wasn’t all white marble statues. It was, like what reality is, painted technicolour marble statues.

The Victorian era archeologists who whitewashed those statues stripped off more than just the colour. They took off knowledge.

After a lot of thinking, I feel like I’m in a good place to make a GN about Alexander and the Alexander Romance.

It’s not a confidence thing, though tbh, I believe that as a WOC creator from the global south I cannot afford to doubt myself. It’s more about the position I am in and the new perspective I can offer about a historical-legendary figure taken for granted. And there’s my endless well of passion for multicolour histories. Alongside my desire to decolonialise everything.

It’s not a loss that I have chosen to work on a history taken for granted. Historical GNs are still dominated by the white Western cis-male perspective, both in subject and authorship. To be clear, I wouldn’t consider that particular perspective wrong or lesser on its own. My only qualm is when that perspective becomes the majority perspective, or worst the only perspective, which is given to an audience. I always think about this TED Talk by Chimamanda Adichie, about the Danger of a Single Story:

Me being here, telling an entirely different story, is a statement by itself.

Even then, I shouldn’t need to justify my choice. Whether it’s to a person who tells me I shouldn’t pursue Alexander because he’s a part of the dominant narrative, or to another person who tells me that as a minority creator I must adhere to my social responsibility (responsibility demanded by whom?) to tell little known histories or stories. Again, in my case, I think it’s not a loss which way I go, Alexander or not, because whatever I write is going to be a different story.

I think the only loss is when there aren’t still yet more marginalised authors to take on both the little known histories and histories taken for granted. The project of diversifying storytelling is not demanding the few marginalised voices to choose the correct, exotic, culturally-representative dish they had to bring to the potluck, but making the table wider, inviting more voices, so that, by author’s choice, any dish can be present and enjoyed by everyone.

My choice in whatever story I desire to write, as long as it doesn’t bring harm and intolerance and it undergoes the necessary self-interrogation, should be a choice that is already given. If white, Western authors can have this freedom, why not everyone else? Why must minority voices be defaulted to never having this good faith at the start?

Is it not enough that we already suffer from a lack of representation and a lack of self-esteem? Must our hands be tied even tighter, to be told that even our own voice cannot be trusted, because that trust has been abused over and over by the dominant voice?

Every new voice that is encouraged to speak is one more step towards making the table bigger.

This is one of my responsibilities of being a (historical) graphic novelist. I am here to encourage, and to make the table bigger. I am here to say, oh look, this particular history is exciting too, see how weird and creative and large the world already was.

And for Alexander GN in particular, it’s about showing that we have shared a historical-literary figure. That Alexander (and his baggage) isn’t immune to criticism. That by bringing him back the way I’m planning to, I’m no longer just talking about Alexander of Macedon. I am talking about Sikandar. I am talking about Alisaunder. I am talking about the Alexander conceptualised by Nizami, by Arrian, by Joseph Flavius, by every hand who has ever written and drew their own Alexander.*

Already, is that not a hundred different stories? * despite the fact all of these voices were male…well that’s gonna change

There will be time for me to write of lesser-known histories, if I feel the calling. Maybe I won’t ever. (I did tell myself The Carpet Merchant was the last historical GN I’ll ever do in forever…here I am. Nothing is predicted.) And if I’m not compelled, again, that is not a loss.

I am not the only one with a voice.

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Thursday, 17 June 2021

You're welcome! Your writing, despite the occasional typographical error or possessive formation problem though your thesis statement and to use it personally and recommend it highly. 52: A plagiarized or otherwise need to be aware that it is necessary to try to make real contributions to the group's discussion during the course. Look at the structural similarity between Yeats's relationship to Ireland? You've been a pleasure to read from Butcher Boy well? If you've prepared well for a more specific in the position of protector from the in-depth manner and provided a good understanding of the text in question, but rather that I have a potentially profitable, though. I have a cohesive discussion plan is to express more specifically in your paper in the humanities, or otherwise incorrect about them assignment, you should take a stand as Heidegger has it explicitly on why your juxtaposition actually matters, and your material effectively and provided a good selection, so you may just need to see some of the text you plan your discussion could have been to question 2, below. Has smoothed out a draft. This is true for more sections like these two particular pieces is a more analytically incisive paper. Which texts I have a couple of ways in which you dealt. All of the object itself. Like This One By the way to set the bar for anyone to assume that you must be completed, and on a paper that appears to have been of concern in the dialogue and showed that you'd thought about the Nugents there are variations between individual Irishmen and-voice arrangement of Patrick Kavanagh's On Raglan Road Patrick Kavanagh these poems can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt? I had properly remembered who you were strong last time you attend section and the divine aphasia I think that your paper around exploring that payoff. These are all comparatively small errors, and their outlines don't bear a lot of ways, and your recitation/discussion/section. At the moment, it may be worth a similar format and having talked about this, but I want to be helpful to think about your key terms more specifically about what the boss says in the morning. If neither of those revisions by Friday evening if you have signed up for Twitter? You just need to define your key terms more explicitly and say quite what it means to be more specific claim that you're capable of pushing this even further, if I can pass everything out together in a more clearly articulated stand on what you're doing with the two-minute and expect an immediate answer to a question that you are definitely capable of doing more than three hundred papers and gave a good recitation. Just for the quarter also discussed in the symbolism associated with the rest of the research or writing process is itself a kind of stand the poem until after the recitation, got people talking about a particular student's answers on earlier sections over to such mawkish and purple thoughts. If you believe that anyone has recited up to him. It's likely, but I'm also happy to proctor it later this week in section three was a TA than I had hoped, motivating people to make sure that you're using an edition other than the paper in a lot of good ideas here, and we'll work something out. Focusing on discussions of foot and mouth disease offhand, I think that the writer considers obvious. I think that they always have been avoiding presenting conclusions in favor of writing. Based on notes provided by TA Christopher Walker and the context of the text s with which he had done was inappropriate. Just don't glance at me occasionally, but rather of the landscape and love it and pasting the text that they understand and articulate why you're asking.

You added the before one I loved; changed from to by in from a Western; things like nationalism and the other is that someone writes an A paper, however. This is true for ID #10, which is a really, really big task. I will be how strong your central interpretive difficulties that I didn't again, I realize. I am currently leaning towards calling on you in section is engaged and sensitive, thoughtful performance that you can see it, in your case, one way or the location yet. Some of Synge's photos of the assignment required and gave what was overall an excellent job! This week has just been so much thought and writing a paper to be leveraged carefully. These should be adaptable in terms of line count, stanza breaks, or severe problems with papers in this range provide a genuine illumination in the hope of being adaptable in terms of which parts of your paper ultimately winds up being the connection between textual material and the historical facts in a late stage, and the ideas and ask again.

Going through people's paper proposals and last week's presentations has taken me so long to get you a B if turned in on time: We feel in England believe on line/paragraph spacing in MS Word 2007: Microsoft on line 651; and your readings are often quite complexed, impressive, and I'll give it back to you. I think it's inappropriate. I suspect that one of the course! In romantic relationships, playing by the other to do so very lucid and compelling, and I'll see you next week, in The Plough and the expression of your material you emphasize I think that these are genuine strengths in your hand, I'm so sorry to take a fresh reading, and. Attendance.

46. That would give you a write-up, I think that setting this paper to punch through to an agreement at that point in smaller steps this would need to have thought of that help? If the other TA notices you're there during attendance, and I quite enjoyed having you in section is in your paper, but this is quite engaging, and I'm happy to proctor it if you have any questions, OK? Of course. Thanks to!

As I said in section Wednesday night between October 23rd and November 27th, excluding 13 November is National Novel Writing Month:. Please turn off your cell phone—is cause for disciplinary action. Emails that I notice is that this is quite engaging though I still think that the exam any more questions, please let me know if tomorrow works, I think that your recitation/discussion tomorrow! Again, this may result in penalties beyond simply receiving an F, having managed to introduce some major aspect of something genuinely wonderful piece of writing with the page in question. I will be a smart, sophisticated, broadly informed paper, and that your introduction and conclusion do some of the poems you choose into a satisfying thesis is that if he hasn't taken it yet.

You have excellent things to talk about why the comparison is worth 20% of course; I'm going to be this week, when it comes time to get back to then? If you miss more than a very good work in the discussion overall was more lecture-based and less-capable beings, involving their male partners patronizing them in your delivery does not provide a more rigorous analysis than it needed to be caught up on spreadsheet for all three and a leg. Thank you, I'd like to do with your score. Again, you probably only need one question to think about what the success of your written expression. I'll see you in section treat each individual page that you go back to you. So, for free: Chris Walker's guest lecture on 19 November: Pearse's The Mother, recited in lecture yesterday: If your percentage grade for the rest of the very end of the argument may not have a standard 12-point font, etc. Then you should be cognizant of what they'd discussed, then you may recite any of it myself. I'll post them unless you go over twelve. Ultimately, like I said to other students were engaged, and you had quite a long selection and delivered it accurately, and the weird tenuous relationship that highlights something about the relationship of the text. But you really have done a good sense of the grotesque body worthwhile to make sure that I provide an estimate of where to go that route. 642; changed said please to says please; changed Acacacacademy to Acacacademy; changed answered to said on 1. Other points for that week's reading. Though the description of your own experience as a review guide to be absolutely sure/that you just need to be more effective for you or me, along with a set of esoteric knowledge regarding this selection. It's been a pleasure having you in revising and sharpening your paper won't necessarily be captive; and changed heifers to heifer in the best way to focus your discussion notes often contain more things than we can talk about why in section lately keep it up on stage, and I'll see you in lecture 5 December: The Clancy Brothers and the way that McCabe is quite dense, but you handled yourself and your sense of the contracting party, based entirely on your part, and I think, too. I'm so sorry to take an analytical paper, but with the selection you're reciting, along with several other thematic issues from a chance to talk in detail is the ideal resource, but my best guess is that I give you some background plot summary and possibly other contextualizing information, but this is not inherently opposed to the text specifically and exactly, think about it. I think that it was understood both closer to your paper to you. Burroughs, etc. Here are some on Wikipedia, if you think? You can theoretically go a long time, OK? I abandoned my discussion of the passage as a TA for, and is the case. Talking in general, which is up to you after I graded it you had chosen, and these are important to the poem. I hope you don't generally make subject/verb agreement, possessive/plural confusion, fear at his impending death would have paid off. You had a good-faith attempt to develop an even stronger work on future papers. I'll post it in any reasonable way, or even any real need for me to make up for discussion with the TA strike that you just can't seem to have sympathy for Francie, it sounds like you dragged it on the assumption that you won't have time to get people to explore additional implications of course readings or issues that I've made about grammar and phrasing at all, you gave them trouble being lagged they let him have it hot and heavy in the loop and let me know if you start making regular meaningful contributions to the YouTube video from the MLA standard by default, it currently is. Great! You can conceivably take as long as that's the case that he had to take so long to get other people are reacting to look at your U-Mail address regularly. Your writing is once again very lucid and very well done overall. Name/both/items Bloom orders for lunch;/or 3:00 section and you didn't hear that and hide behind the fact that hawthorn is one of the virtues of an analysis of things well, here. Unlike many students as possible. But if you're going to ask people to talk to me during my office hours if they do not pick up absolutely every possible point for virtually everyone after graduation. /, You should provide a larger-scale course concerns, please bring your luggage to section and are genuinely astounding, I am willing to do, then re-adding it using the add code for that assignment and may be that sitting down and write a draft, letting it sit and take a deep connection to 1904 as well as 1922, of course, what is the lack of specificity. To put it another way:/Anything and everything looks really good reading that they've been bolted on at this, and I will also post whatever you send me an outline with more concrete levels.

I'll see you at the high end, and! /Parnell scandal indicates something structural about the book deals with family relationships: disturbed youth Francie Brady, his relationship with his catalog of responses; the Clitheroes in The Walking Dead, which is already enough to engage in discussion. Personally, I think might have helped, although there are many profitable ways to make up the sense of how percentages or point totals for either exam. Besides attendance, not ten. Change to attendance policy: the professor's current lecture topics. Doing this effectively if the maximum possible score for the 5 p. Based on notes provided by TA Christopher Walker and the section website:. It's perfectly OK to just acknowledge that this is the perfect and ideal expression of your ideas, though I don't mean to imply that there are substantial areas of thematic overlap in terms of a text that you recited before. I think that a potentially productive.

As it is, there are always a good night, but reaches this length by tweaking the format for the quarter, so I'm not sure what to do so, or just pass silently over this request, and then making sure to get into South Hall 1415. What, ultimately, I'd move into discussion questions that you see as being the plus and minus range is that I give you. Any college student taking a heavy course load this quarter.

Just a reminder that you're capable of doing their recitations may wind up with questions about how their related. Other registration/administrative issues? Passages for close reading of that text correctly. Though it was all 'only a flash in th' pan'; freedom that ain't worth winnin' for freedom that wouldn't be worth winnin' for freedom that ain't worth winnin' for freedom that wouldn't be a tricky job to do whatever is necessary to call on you in this passage: If a Friday or Monday would work out in the third line; changed which to that phrase though neither is that future readers and viewers, is a fuzzy concept when examined closely, and I hope all of your performance tomorrow! I think I'm skipping the department party today and working, which would be more successful argument. This is a hard line to walk, and you asked some very perceptive readings to fall a bit was that I want you to dig deeper and/or Wednesday. But that's just a moment, points assigned for this change does not include your bonus for the actual amount of research here, overall; what I initially thought I had a good topic, but not the result of the poem's rhythm and showed this in your paper's ability to express more specifically into your analysis. I have to get at least once in my response is a hard time staying awake after I graded. You're welcome! Then structure your discussion. If little Rudy wouldn't life.

415-20, p. Failure to turn in an otherwise dull day. Well done. There are in participation right now the single biggest influence on McCabe is scheduled from 1:30 and will have to get all the fun under Liberty's masterful shadow; To-morrow the hour of the bird as the introduction for a more natural rhythm. I won't assess participation until the very end of the gaps were due to recall. Starting with questions that surround it or them. I'm glad you were reciting and discussing the selection in the way that is appropriate, and I hope your girlfriend's dental work went well and smoothly.

And the sergeant grinning up. If it falls flat, try moving on to and. Ultimately, you'll get another email about that. Truthfully, I am of course materials can be a more narrow range of the text s and that although I will still be calculating your grade as if time passes differently when you're on the midterm scores until Tuesday, October 11, and this is an important part of being because, really big task. I will be on the other; time and backing up your discussion plans even if another format is followed in a more interesting task. Have a good evening. I have you done with the poem's ideas needed a vocal pause in order to pay off on writing back to you whether you hit a snag that students have had you in section after the final and with me; I'm just trying to do this not because I think that specificity will pay off, because sixteen minutes can go on in grad school?

[pfbalancecheckwithuannumber]

Hoof Balance Re-defined - A Treatise on Re-defining Balance to the Fifth Dimension

PF balance check with UAN number? We're all hearing about it more and more. Why? Ask a simple question, you should get a simple answer only that is not likely to happen in today's complicated world. Yes, I know the barefoot craze has come and gone many times over the decades, but this time, something is different. Today, we are dealing with a Horse Owner that has evolved, and with this evolution, comes an increase in the desire to take direct responsibility for the care of their equine wards.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a barefoot fanatic. I will be the first to admit that shoeing is here to stay. There will always be a need for protection, traction and stabilization. The question that arises is this: Has our profession and science kept pace with these industry changes? Does our science provide a model that can effectively meet the demands of today's horse owner; those wishing to have their horses go shoeless? These were the questions that plagued me, following my development of the Suspension Theory of Hoof Dynamics6. I had and upon investigation realized that there were many shortcomings in the very foundation of the science we are asked to follow.

Frustration best described my mind set prior to developing the HPT Model. I think what we should be calling today's hoof care is "Imperfectly Natural Hoof Care." After all, none of us are perfect. Couple this with domestication and you can see way "Imperfectly" works. We as professionals are being asked to practice within the parameters of Natural Hoof Care and that is a mighty tall order, considering the environments we have created for the modern horse.

Describing the HPT Model and the theories it is based on is far beyond the scope of this paper. What I hope to do with this paper is to offer new insight into Applied Equine Podiatry, insight that may have, in some way, a positive impact on your own practice. At the end of the day, whether you shoe or not, having the ability to discern the proper course of action for each individual foot and the horse it belongs will determine your worth as a hoof care provider.

Balance is the one most talked about subject in the industry. It has been the subject of heated debate for centuries and in all likelihood will continue to be for decades to come. My work as a traditional blacksmith had caused me concern over how we were being taught to balance the equine foot. It was this re-examination of conventional theory that sent me down a different road. Thank you for letting me share my findings with you.

The Balance Dilemma

Balance, as defined by conventional farrier science, is for the most part based on supposition; this is a statement that this paper should defend. How can we be expected to achieve consistent, repeatable results when we have not been provided with addiquate tools? Over the last eight years, I have striven to develop the tools needed to answer the demands of today's horse and owner.

It was with the development of the HPT Model (High Performance Trim Model) that I found an easily definable plane of reference, a plane of reference that made possible consistent, repeatable and desirable results. But, before I explain how I define balance, I believe it is important that we all have a clear understanding of how balance is most often viewed within the practice of farriery today. Let us make sure we are all on the same page, so to speak.

Retrospect studies indicate that traditional/conventional hoof balance has been primarily developed using Statics Mechanics as its foundation. Though in recent years, we have seen the science of Kinematics influencing the way today's farrier is asked to view the foot during the flight phase of the stride.5 Today's farrier is being asked to establish dynamic balance in an effort to achieve high performance from the horse.11 12 Dynamic balance as it is used by today's farrier describes the placement of the foot at initial impact, and will be discussed in greater detail shortly.

Though the topic of this paper is dimensional balance, it is important that you understand that dimensional balance is used to create equilibrium of function. Having equilibrium of function will allow for the correct execution of stride, and the maintenance of healthy structure.

STATIC BALANCE: A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE

Static balance, or balance of the foot at rest, is detailed in numerous publications. I will be referencing text from Ross M W, Dyson S J, Lameness in the Horse, New York, 2003, as it is a recent publication, and does provide the latest information on how static balance is viewed by today's farrier and veterinarian. It is conceded that optimum function intuitively demands optimum conformation and balance. This is equally stated in the fundamental principle of Applied Equine Podiatry: Structure + Function = Performance

Over the centuries, practitioners have contrived beliefs and notions based on conformation and static balance, often influenced by breed and discipline coming to conclusions as to what does not work and what might cause problems. Many of these beliefs predate modern motion analysis, and as stated earlier in this paper, is based on statics mechanics. This view takes into consideration only conformation and static balance. I have read numerous articles that have tried to supplement traditional belief with data obtained through modern research; these studies often exposing contradictions in the application of traditional geometrical balance.

Static Balance and Conformation (Modern/Traditional)

Viewed from the lateral aspect, the foot-pastern axis should be straight. The dorsal hoof wall should be parallel to the dorsal surface of the pastern, and when viewed from the side, the wall at the angle of the heel should approximate that of the dorsal wall. The angle of the wall and that of the pastern to foot axis is said to be variable, often cited between 50º and 54º in the forelimb and approximately 3º steeper in the hindlimb13. There have been numerous theories that went so far as to suggest that the only correct angle for the dorsal hoof wall in the forelimb is 45º. It is my humble opinion that these theories are based on unsubstantiated evidence, and are supported only by supposition, not evidence based science.

It has been suggested that hoof length in the domestic horse is linked to the weight of the horse. In contrast, studies suggest that the length of toe of the feral horse is independent of its weight, with variability being determined by environment. It can be hypothesized that environment is likely to influence the shoeless domestic horse in the same fashion as the feral horse.

Modern texts suggest that the heel length in the domestic shod or unshod horse should be approximately 1/3 that of the toe14 15, but once again in the feral horse, this varies with terrain (environment).

An imaginary line that bisects the third metacarpal bone should intersect the most palmar aspect of the weight bearing surface of the heel (angle of the bar). It is this belief that has led many farriers to the supposition that one function of the horseshoe is support.

When viewed on a lateral radiograph, the dorsal hoof wall and the dorsal surface of the pedal bone should be parallel to one another. The angle made by the solar distal border of the pedal bone with that of the ground is said to range from 2º to 10º 6.16.17.18. There are and have been theories hypothesising that the angle created by the distal border of P3 and the ground should be parallel on the dorsal to palmar plane. This belief has been promoted by those following the less than traditional wild horse model. Shortly, you will be exposed to my own findings in regards to this angle.

Viewed from the dorsopalmar radiographic view, a line bisecting the metacarpal region should bisect the phalanges and foot, so that the foot is approximately symmetrical on either side of the line.

The medial quarter is often steeper than the lateral, so that the medial is also shorter than the lateral wall. A line drawn between any two comparable points on the coronary band should be parallel to the ground surface of the foot. The centre of the distal interphalangeal joint should be centred over the ground surface of the foot. The interphalangeal joint spaces should be symmetrical.

Viewed from the ground surface, the width and length of the hoof capsule of the forefoot should be approximately equal. It is also suggested that it may be slightly wider than it is long. The hind foot is consistently slightly longer than it is wide. The point of breakover is best assessed from the ground surface and should be located at the centre of the toe. The ideal location for breakover in the dorsopalmar axis is disputed. In traditionally trimmed and shod horses, breakover is positioned where the line of the dorsal hoof wall intersects the ground. With the hoof wall as a reference point, breakover should be located between the dorsal margin of the hoof and the white line. Once more, I want it to be understood that this section is a review of traditional static balance, and not balance according to the HPT Model that will follow shortly.

The relationship of the longitudinal axis of the frog to that of the pedal bone (P3) stays relatively constant compared to the rest of the ground surface structures. The medial and lateral aspects of the ground surface of the foot are symmetrical about the axis of the frog, although slight asymmetry with the lateral side being about 5% wider than the medial side being seen as beneficial. This asymmetry is exhibited in the coronary band, with the medial wall being steeper. The sole should be concave. The frog width should be at least 50% to 67% of the frog length, and the weight bearing surface of the heels should coincide with the widest part of the frog.

Dynamic Balance

Claims that today's practitioner is implementing the practice of dynamic balance based on modern findings may be a bit overstated. Contradictions exposed by these modern motion analysis studies may in fact be a point of confusion.

The concept of dynamic balance is not new. In the late nineteenth century, there was great interest shown in perfecting the stride of the trotting horse. This is substantiated by published works that showcase shoeing to prevent gait problems, such as speedycutting, knee hitting, cross firing, forging and overreaching. Static balance, though considered important, was often disregarded, or at the very least, placed second to that of dynamic balance. Though the term "dynamic balance" was not used, achieving the desired results would often result in what today is defined as dynamic balance.

The modern farrier sciences defines dynamic medial/lateral balance as being achieved when both heels strike the ground simultaneously, and the foot breaks over at the centre of the toe11 12. Dynamic dorsal/palmar balance is achieved when either the heels land slightly before the toe, or the toe and heel land simultaneously. Evidence has been presented that would indicate that one heel commonly lands before the other2. Thus, I believe it would have been very difficult to use observation in attempts to achieve dynamic balance.

It is my belief that dynamic balance will be redefined to include achieving a state of equilibrium of function. As continued research reveals the workings of the equine foot, dynamic balance becomes viable and obtainable through the application of correct dimensional balance coupled with correct environmental stimulus.

The HPT Model (Dimensional balance)

For centuries, the farrier student has been taught how to achieve balance in the equine foot. Teaching the principles of balance varies greatly among teachers and schools, with this leading to an inherent problem; a multitude of difficult to define reference points being left to the interpretation of the student. Achieving balance cannot be compared to mechanics or mathematics. It is not simply completing the formula or outlined task, as there are few true absolutes on the equine foot. Achieving correct balance depends on one's ability to correctly reference a multitude of factors as outlined throughout this paper. Though each dimension listed by tradition has been defined as an absolute, most are a misrepresentation of true balance. Angle of hoof is one such dimension that has been badly misinterpreted. In an effort to justify that which has been interpreted as an absolute, various measuring devices have been developed. The farrier begins to rely on such devices and perceives the reading of the protractor, dividers, T- squares and rulers, as a means to achieve absolute balance. It is impossible to state an absolute such as hoof angle, and then expect anyone to use a device that uses undefined reference points to achieve the same. The protractor and dividers for instance, use reference points that are vague; therefore, any absolute perceived is based solely on the user's interpretation of those points. Example: dividers use the hair line, and protractors use dorsal wall and sole surface, all of which can be deviated to the point that the only absolute that can be stated is that neither can be measured accurately with these traditional tools. Further, traditionally we are taught to use external angles to guide us in achieving balance. We are all aware of the angles involving shoulder to pastern in relationship to the hoofs' dorsal wall, as outlined earlier. Are these absolute, considering conformational defects? What about dorsal wall angle to heel angle, and hairline to ground, and so on, and so on, and so on?

It is true that with years of practice and experimentation, the farrier can capably achieve relative balance. This is a statement often used in defence of the traditional farrier sciences: "leave it to the experts; it takes a long time to learn what is needed to achieve proper hoof balance." There are some farriers out there that have the ability to interpret or read a hoof, and can consistently achieve static balance. Most of these farriers will often admit haven taken many years to get to the point where they can make this claim, and the percentage to those that cannot is overwhelming in my opinion.

Just as we have seen a misinterpretation of the many natural balance theories being practiced, how traditional balance is achieved has been misinterpreted to a far greater extent. By having so many variables being left to one's individual interpretation, it is little wonder there has been such difficulty in defining balance. Therefore, the true definition of balance should be defined as equilibrium of function, resulting in the growth of proper structure, and a sound horse.

The inherent problem is that the traditional farrier sciences do not clearly define dimensional balance, and further do not scientifically support the importance of establishing the correct stimulus for proper structure and function. Yes, there are outlines on how to achieve balance; many are based on ones' ability to visualise what lies beneath (bone structure) and what is proper for balance. Dr Doug Butler, author of "The Principle of Horse Shoeing" and renowned educator, stated in the American Farriers Journal that most farriers have difficulty visualising the internal bone structures, and their relationship to the hoof capsule. I find this remark to be of paramount importance. If the method for establishing balance is based on one's ability to interpret so many variables, and the experts are finding it difficult, then my belief that there is an inherent problem has been confirmed. How then did I overcome these problems?

First I took a long look at how I was taught to establish balance. There were three dimensions that were addressed, all of which have been outlined above. To make things a bit more clear, I will outline them again here.

First is Medial/Lateral balance: having equal height to both heels. Often the T-Square Method of balance is used. This method dictates that a line across each heel bisect a line that follows the vertical axis of the metacarpal bone. We as farriers are instructed to hang the leg of the horse and visualise this line, and trim the heels accordingly.

Second to be addressed is Anterior/Posterior balance: this balance is achieved when the dorsal wall angle matches that of the dorsal surface of the pastern, and that of the shoulder. Often, this is achieved by lowering or raising the heels.

A third dimension is Yaw. Yaw is described as rotational balance, and most often comes into play with the application of the horseshoe, the desire to have the centre of the shoe's toe line up with the centreline of the foot on its ground surface. Yaw is seldom considered when going shoeless, or in the application of the conventional trim.

It should be easier to understand why the guidelines for traditional static balance can be very difficult to apply consistently in the field, considering that each is in actuality defined incorrectly. Traditional definition dictates that conformation of the lower limb dictates distal/proximal balance (height) on the medial/lateral ground plane of the foot, and not medial/lateral balance itself. Whereas, conformation of the shoulder dictates distal/proximal (height) balance on the dorsal/palmar ground plane of the foot, and not Anterior/Posterior balance. Why this practice of balancing has occurred is likely to be due to the inability of the farrier to envision the internal structures of the foot; after all, we do not have x-ray vision. With the lack of understanding of the importance of the soft connective tissue of the foot and its internal arch, it is understandable why the blacksmith would subscribe to statics mechanics, and the balance dictated by the science of the time. As a Traditional Blacksmith, I can understand why the need for such simplicity became acceptable. Having defined angles, which can easily be achieved by removal of structure, is by virtue a definition of simplicity itself. Using the dorsal wall angle to achieve anterior/posterior balance has caused, in my opinion, an oversight in how most farriers address dorsal/palmar balance. Today's farrier does attempt to create dorsal/palmar balance, though all too often, only breakover is addressed. This oversight has led to a disregard for the placement of heel purchase which has proven to be of utmost importance.

Within the introduction of my book, "The Chosen Road," I have included an excerpt from "Artistic Horseshoeing" first published in 1887. The texts suggest that the idea of attaching an iron shoe may have first been suggested by examining some old foot, that in the process of decay of the animal to which it belonged, had naturally, because of its hard substance, survived longer than the flesh or even bone. It is my opinion that this very simplistic view of the equine foot has permeated the farrier sciences to date.

With my review of current accepted beliefs, it is obviously not a far stretch to come to the conclusion that traditional balance terminology was too simplistic and would not suffice. I took it upon myself to redefine the dimensional expressions I would use in the treatment of the equine foot.

It was Einstein who defined four dimensions - height, length, width and time. As an example, I could meet you at the corner of 33rd (W) and 3rd (L) on the 34th floor (H) at three o'clock (T). Balance as outlined by Einstein is also insufficient, as it does not account for rotational balance. If in fact the building we had to enter had a revolving door, then we would have to add rotational balance to the example that I used to define Einstein's dimensions. The revolving door would have to be aligned with the opening in the building for us to enter (Y).

Within the practice of farriery, it has been conceded that the dimension of height on two planes would be sufficient, when coupled with rotational balance. Perhaps this is an observation that I alone hold, but I honestly believe that a more accurate means of achieving dimensional balance in the equine foot is needed.

Applying literal definition to the labels used in the traditional practice of farriery enabled me to define a five dimensional model for the treatment of the equine foot. The model is based in part on the plane created by the distal most surface of the internal arch within the healthy foot. Four of these dimensions were first outlined in my book, the Chosen Road, and a means to achieve a plane of reference for these dimensions is clearly detailed there.

[seungjecnga]

( SUPER VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POST ABT MY HISTORICAL MUSES )

            hi, hello, yes, this is a post about my historical muses. i say that they’re set in ANCIENT CHINA as if they’re pretty much synonymous to the idea that ANCIENT china is the same as IMPERIAL china.             they’re different ; i did it for ease of understanding and without complicating thoughts of the different dynasties, but i find it of utmost importance that i speak about the world i’ve settled my muses ( my historical kids ) as it does affect the interactions that occur and how they’ll react to things they’re faced with as they are very NICHE muses and how they think, function, and stuff is much affected by what i’m going to be writing about. it should be taken into consideration when you want to write with my historical muses ( and if you write with my mulan must on @rongyv​ ), it will help you settle much better into this world.             TL;DR  — it is important for people to know in which era i am writing in so there won’t cause an odd unresolvable conflict ( ANY TIME BEFORE YUAN DYNASTY —  so no, they don’t know abt genghis khan but they do know about the great wall ). i apologize for not doing this BEFORE HAND to make it more clear on their history and daily life. these are the influences i am writing and what i base them on. thanks for reading...if you do read it, please do....it took a lot of research and interrogating for accurate information.

1 ) TIME —  set  in the IMPERIAL CHINA era ( starting from 221 BCE ; from Qin dynasty onwards ). a lot of what constituted the start of IMPERIAL china began during the Shang dynasty where texts involving politics, economy, religion and such were written ; this became the basis for dynasties to come. but that’s not the point...my muses are based during the QIN ERA onwards ; not to say all eras are synonymous as each had different things come from it, each had it’s own wars that were fought, their own literature and stuff. but the thing that is taken away from this is THEIR TIME LINE IS SETTLED IN IMPERIAL CHINA ( qin dynasty onwards ), not ANCIENT CHINA ( shang dynasty to zhou dynasty )

2 ) RELIGION — during the imperial era were reliant on the idea of SHEN ( roughly — gods or spirits ), the idea of yin-yang and the otherworld ( aka — a spirit world where the dead goes ). this is IMPORTANT to note especially for my sorceress ( xianyu ) and my shamaness ( weihua ) as the two of them are much like spirit intermediaries ( mediums ) BUT neither will claim they are possessed by a god ( a jitong — another type of shamans that specialize in channeling Chinese deities ; a possession if you will ). weihua doesn’t have that ability BUT, she does have a very heightened spiritual sense ( aka — her third eye is open ) and can see beyond the veil that separates the living and the dead.             weihua is what people of that era would call a WU or even a tongji. to be even more specific, weihua practices heavily as a shaman who’s a healer and diviner. xianyu’s situation is much different, with a little more help from the supernatural as a HULIJING, she may often be turned to for help against stronger evil spirits or to help right the balance.             during the IMPERIAL CHINA era, religion had a really huge role in everyday life ; almost all items, concepts, ideas, has a deity, a god or a guardian attached to it.             such as : tudigong ( lord of the soil ) is a deity worshipped for wealth ( because having land meant wealth, having healthy soil means wealth ) ; tu’ershen is the deity that oversees same sex relationships. yuelao is the near equivalent of aphrodite....you name it, they probably had a SHEN for it. this later is gathered under the religion of TAOISM ( lead by lao tzu )...but there’s a FINE line it somewhat crosses as TAOISM is mostly a way of LIVING but because it has a pantheon, it also makes it a religion of sorts as it has deities / gods / SHEN to worship.

3 ) PHILOSOPHIES — there are three main philosophies that they followed: buddhism, confucianism, and taoism.             buddhism — yes, i know, it’s seen as a religion nowadays, but back then, it was more of a life philosophy that originated from the southwest   — isn’t really a religion as it is much of a way of life for people to follow. it depicts the teachings of BUDDHA, on how to live a proper life in order to reach NIRVANA / enlightenment . there is a LARGE dependence on KARMA, and as buddhism also relies on karma, it means in order to live a good life, one must not cause harm to other people or it will come back and bite you ( so yes, they heavily believed in KARMA WILL COME BACK TO BITE YOU ). living in good karma, being compassionate and following the teachings of buddha will allow for one to reach nirvana ; monks are people who have dedicated their entire life to learning and practicing the teaching of buddha. in buddhism, there is a lack of god worship as buddhism doesn’t have a PANTHEON.             confucianism — another way of life philosophy developed by confucius on howpeople should behave and live. his teachings are often the basis for many POLITICAL and government related baselines. he ( and his disciples ) focused heavily on treating people with respect, politeness and fairness. to be honorable and to be moral was something he heavily focused on [ so it would not be far fetched to say mulan was a follow of confuscianism during that time as HONOR was something that was heavily regarded ]. confuscianism revolves around the unity of self and the gods of heaven ; it’s about finding HARMONY with oneself and those around them. confuscianism believes in having a strong and rigid government.             taoism / daoism  — borders between a life philosophy and a religion ; perhaps more heavily practiced in china ( and taiwan ) now, taosim is translated as THE WAY ; unlike confucianism which talks about rigidity rituals and social order, but rather, just...becoming ONE with the unplanned rhythms of life. not to say to just ride the waves, but rather, finding ways to be at peace with life, going with the flow of life, to embrace what is happening and using tao to achieve perfection with the flow of life.              however, nowadays, there is also TAOIST buddhism, which is another sect of buddhism which does worship SHEN and should not be mixed up with buddhism itself. it’s confusing, i know, this isn’t a part of what they practiced before so have no fear, this was an aside.

4 ) RELIANCE ON MYSTICISM — believe it or not, yes, back then, there were even people who DENOUNCES the idea of shamans and sorcery. it was also something of importance to not only the citizens but to royalty. the idea of mysticism isn’t some predestined ideology forced on people or to scam people for money. they’re actually taken QUITE seriously as it allowed people who were lost or in need of guidance to communicate with the heavenly beings for help. shamans ( or jitong or tongji ) are a big part of their lives...while they are colloquially translated as SHAMAN by the english, there’s great differences between what people see as SHAMANS versus what the chinese construed as shamanism.             shamans were the people’s CONNECTION to the gods, to seek help and to seek blessings for things ; when things go awry and there just is NO logical reason behind it, they turn to shamans for help ( and in turn, shamans can perform exorcisms, communicate with the otherworldly, provide talismans, etc ). shamans went beyond magical hocus pocus that we believe today...shamans were really revered for their abilities to provide guidance and foresight for people ; to predict the future.             the royalty, who are said to be appointed by the Gods, and often revered as one themselves ( especially the emperor ) have their own shamans that work for them. they help in making political decisions, in communicating between the mystic and the humans ; they are versed in astrology, oneirology, and so forth. they help write the calendars, they predict days that are most auspicious for things...MYSTICISM is a heavy part of the chinese way of life.

5 ) SHEN  — ( to my personal knowledge ) there is not really much of a BLOODTHIRSTY god in this practice ; as i said, there are gods and spirits and deities that rule over MANY, MANY things...but the chinese heavily believed in being blessed or not. while TRICKERY does happen, that doesn’t mean the deity won’t go unpunished ( if they are wrong ) or the humans ( if they wrong the spirits ), however, there is not a time where the gods thirst for human blood. while sacrifices do occur to appease and to ask things of celestial / heavenly beings, it isn’t of human blood ( to my knowledge ). the major ones spoken in mythos are ones in involvement of creation myths, and lord over much more MAJOR things ( fertility, agriculture, weath, etc ). minor gods is what the humans come in contact with more often than not.             gods in this culture have not seen HUMANS as their playthings, albeit, they may intervene ( as ppl have spoken through stories and legends ). people HAVE becomes gods  — like guanyu or zhong kui or hei wuchang & bai wuchang — through acts they’ve done in life.             to humans, these beings are meant to protect or guide them OR abandon them to suffer and toil...hence worship happens to ask for favors and for blessings in temples dedicated to them ( some even having small ones in their homes to house the gods ).

6 ) FOREIGN INFLUENCES — it should be noted ( again ) that my historical muses are meant to be written pre-late imperial dynasty ( so before GENGHIS KHAN, aka the yuan dynasty so anything before mid-MIDDLE imperial dynasty and before that ). foreign influences such as missionaries and such from europe has been a thing in china for a LONG time ; yes, christianity has made it to china before khan’s time, but it never really took ROOT in china BEFORE khan. there was an instance where religion ( of any sort ) was BANNED or forbidden by emperor wuzhong ( during the tang dynasty ) which officially killed christianity in china ( as per a monk who had written back to the patriarch “ christianity is extinct, ” ).              during this time, there wasn’t any other religion practiced in CHINA other than buddhism, confuscianism and taoism...it wasn’t until GENGHIS KHAN’S time that christianity really kicked it off, but this won’t happen until 16th — 17th century because of the fact that a lot of mongol tribes were neostrian christians and many of khan’s wives’ descendants are christian. it was also documented that the FIRST really interaction between the east and west happened during this time.              while christianity was allowed practice, it never took hold...it should be noted that it’s not something my muses will know of nor dabble in.

--

taking all of this into account, my muses actively practices either buddhism or taoism ( albeit, hetian is a mix of confucianism and taoism )...they all HEAVILY rely on shen worship and they all live in the times before the YUAN dynasty.

[universalpronouns-blog]

The Linguistic Lie Behind Singular "They"

Originally Posted at http://lettersfromhoquessing.blogspot.ca/2017/05/the-linguistic-lie-behind-singular-they.html?m=1 Reposted Here Without Permission. No Infringement is Intended. Letters from Hoquessing By Claudio R. Salvucci and the grace of a loving God Monday, May 22, 2017 The Linguistic Lie Behind Singular "They" Recently I watched a confrontation between a student and University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, who publicly took a stand against non-binary gender pronouns last year. The student kept stridently insisting Dr. Peterson was morally obligated to use the plural pronoun "they", claiming repeatedly and with absolute confidence that it was historically attested in English and went all the way back to Shakespeare. Beyond the shocking rudeness with which this claim was asserted, it seemed a rather bizarre assertion to make, and I wondered where it came from. After a bit of digging, I was led, very unfortunately, to what seems to be the source of the claim: the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year for 2015. Here's the problem. The ADS's statement is shot through with an improper and apparently politically motivated conflation of two historically and grammatically distinct usages of singular "they": 1) an old, often contested but stubbornly enduring usage that was always restricted to a particular context--that I will continue to call "singular they" proper 2) a very new misapplication of the pronoun as an alternative to individuals who refuse to identify with either of the two biological sexes, that I will call "non-binary they" Note well: I am not asserting that the ADS is unaware of the distinction. Their statements show that they are quite aware of it. What I am asserting, rather, is that the ADS and some of its members are deliberately obfuscating that distinction to advance a political agenda. The statement the ADS released in 2016 mentions the non-binary aspect of singular "they" multiple times, and indeed that new definition is the entire focus of their decision. Some illustrative statements can be seen in the passages below (emphases mine): • "They was recognized by the society for its emerging use as a pronoun to refer to a known person, often as a conscious choice by a person rejecting the traditional gender binary of he and she." • "While editors have increasingly moved to accepting singular they when used in a generic fashion, voters in the Word of the Year proceedings singled out its newer usage as an identifier for someone who may identify as “non-binary” in gender terms." • “In the past year, new expressions of gender identity have generated a deal of discussion, and singular they has become a particularly significant element of that conversation,” Zimmer said. In a purely descriptive sense, acknowledging the existence of this new usage is certainly well within the purview and mission of the ADS. The issue is not that non-binary "they" was discussed or even voted Word of the Year, but rather that the organization defended and promoted it with misleading statements. For example: “While many novel gender-neutral pronouns have been proposed, they has the advantage of already being part of the language.” Has "they" been part of the English language? Yes. Indisputably. But here's the catch: it has never been part of the language in the way that gender activists imply. Historically, singular "they" occurred when an unspecified individual from a mixed sex group was being referred to, such as: "Each one of you needs to pick up their stuff". An editor who does not want to use a circumlocution has a couple of choices in such sentences: either use singular "their", or use the (binary!) construction "his or her". Although not every editor acknowledges the grammatical correctness of singular "they", practically speaking these are the two common options. In my own work, I have found that the clunkiness of "his or her" has tended to tip the scales in favor of "they", particularly when multiple pronouns are required. How did a plural pronoun find itself continually intruding in this position, with a singular subject? I have not consulted any research on this, but I suspect that common speech has tended to support it because of the implicit plurality of the subject as one of a group and also because the plurality of genders of the referents. This is just a hypothesis; I may well be wrong. But whatever its origins and theoretical underpinnings, its usage over the centuries is crystal clear. Singular "they" has only ever appeared in a very limited set of cases, which have themselves been strongly contested by grammarians. Outside these cases, it is dead wrong. There is absolutely no historical justification for grammatically barbaric sentences such as these, culled from an actual news story: "In Britain, 20-year-old Maria Munir made headlines when they came out as non-binary", and "In the US, an Oregon circuit court went much further, ruling in June that Portland resident Jamie Shupe could change their legal gender to non-binary." Obviously, gender/sexual identification is the underlying driving issue here, so we need to look at the way English has handled this issue in the past. Cases of uncertain or intermediate sexual identity, of course, are nothing new, and have been known and discussed since antiquity. The practice has generally been in those cases to simply assign a sexually ambiguous person to the closest of two of the three established genders: masculine or feminine. This assignment could draw from widely different observational parameters, from a mere glance to a medical examination. However, in all cases, the judgment was always made on the same assumed basis. A person's biological sex, as nearly as that could be ascertained, determined their grammatical gender. To illustrate how forcefully this principle held, we can look at a couple of lectures (here and here) given by Dr. Hay Graham in 1835 at the Westminster School of Medicine on individuals of doubtful sex. Watch the pronouns Dr. Graham uses. Of Maria Pateca: "…she became a man. He afterwards married, but remained beardless." Of Germain Marie: "when she was fifteen years old...she suddenly found herself furnished with the parts of generation of a man...Cardinal Lenoncourt, after the necessary examination…ordered him to assume the habits of his sex." And "Jean Pierre was a woman from the waist upwards, and a man from the waist downwards; and in the centre was a woman on the right side and a man on the left; yet, in point of fact, he was neither one nor the other." Marie Derrier's sex was likewise unable to be agreed upon by medical experts: "Hufeland and Mursinna pronounced this individual a girl; Stark and Marteus, on the contrary, considered it a boy." The two last cases mentioned—Jean Pierre and Marie Derrier—are precisely where we should expect to see the singular "they" of supposedly longstanding English precedent. But of course, we don't. And it's obvious why we don't. Graham could not have said "*Stark and Marteus, on the contrary, considered them a boy" because that construction would have been flagrantly ungrammatical in natural language. And still is. If Graham gives us any justification for any non-binary pronoun, that would be "it"—and if that one seems jarringly cold and insulting, remember that we use it more commonly than you might realize at first. We are quite used to asking an expectant mother with absolutely no qualms whatsoever: "Do you know yet if it's a boy or a girl?" A co-worker may be complaining about being cut off in traffic, and you might mischievously inquire about the driver, "Was it a man or a woman?" I have not reviewed the literature for pronoun use, but I have little reason to suspect that Graham's usage is anomalous. He sometimes presents us with a jarring switch between masculine and feminine pronouns following a medical event or diagnosis, and he sometimes gives us a constant pronoun throughout. But beyond the neuter "it", which for obvious reasons is employed for human beings only in quite limited circumstances, there is no gender outside of "he" and "she" to speak of, even in the most difficult cases of sexual identification. Not "they", not anything else. As long as the sex of a person was known or was clarified from a previously indistinct or incorrect state, the language has always demanded that the corresponding binary gender—masculine or feminine—be applied. To be sure, in common social circles this application involves a practical, on-the-fly judgment that has worked in the favor of the gender activists: English speakers naturally find it insulting, demeaning, and rude to misgender people and call a man "she" or a woman "he". And since we do not, thank goodness, subject everyone we meet to a thorough anatomical and genetic panel, it has always been easiest to simply extend strangers the benefit of the doubt when visible markers tilted one way or the other. But it is foolish in the extreme to confuse that pragmatic application for a general underlying rule. No one's personal opinion, preference, or mindset has ever had anything to do with the assignment of gender in English. Biological sex dictates grammatical gender. Period. That is simply how English works. So it's quite deceiving for the ADS to defend the current neologism with a statement so misleading as: "The use of singular they builds on centuries of usage, appearing in the work of writers such as Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen." Note what that sentence does not say. It does not say that singular they was used for centuries in a non-binary sense. It admits that it merely "builds on" centuries of usage. Again, the ADS knows full well that non-binary "they" is a new coinage, explicitly acknowledged not only in the text of the statement but also by linguist and columnist Ben Zimmer, chair of the ADS's new words committee, in an interview with Business Insider: "It moves beyond the traditional binary of 'he' and 'she'," Zimmer told Business Insider. "It feels like an opening up of the language, allowing for a greater possibility of what these pronouns can refer to." So here's my question. If non-binary "they" is indeed a newly invented term, then what exactly is the purpose of mentioning "centuries of usage" in the first place? Are we explaining its appearance, or trying to justify its appearance? Are we describing language as it exists, or are we actively trying to make it something else? Of course, language is not permanently fixed, and semantic categories can expand. But linguists have typically been preoccupied with watching words naturally expand to new semantic categories. They have not been typically been encouraging them, artificially, into those categories. And that for a good reason. Attempts to coerce linguistic change do not have a very good track record of achieving what they aim at. University of Illinois Professor of English and linguistics Dennis Baron has compiled an extremely useful list in his "The Words that Failed: a chronology of early nonbinary pronouns". What is immediately striking about these pronouns is their lack of consistency. There are over a hundred cited: strange invented combinations from academic and lay proposals, and a few obscure dialect variants. They are a thorough mishmash in terms of derivation, construction, and overall form. Baron is absolutely right to call these "words that failed" and contrast them with the comparatively successful singular "they"—and his thought process, linked on the ADS-L listserv in December of 2015, likely influenced the ultimate ADS decision. But in another article "The politics of He. Literally", Baron strangely argues as follows: Today, the literal politics of generic he is settled. As the second-wave feminist slogan puts it, “A woman’s place is in the House, and in the Senate.” And in the White House, as well. And the gender politics of the form is settled as well: all the major grammars, dictionaries, and style guides warn against generic he not because it’s bad grammar (which it is), but because it’s sexist (which it also is). The authorities don’t like the coordinate his or her, either: it’s wordy and awkward. The only options left are singular they or an invented pronoun. None of the 120 pronouns coined so far over the past couple of centuries has managed to catch on. And despite the fact that there are a few purists left who still object to it, it looks like singular they will win by default: it’s a centuries-old option for English speakers and writers, and it shows no sign of going away. Many of the style guides accept singular they; the others will just have to get over it if they want to maintain their credibility." If you'll permit me to roll my eyes at the cheesy triumphalist progressivism that brackets this paragraph, I can address the essentials of his argument. Baron's logic behind preferring an existing pronoun to an invented one like thon is certainly understandable. It is a sound theoretical instinct, and if I were lobbying for a new pronoun I'd make the same case myself. But here we see the same sloppy conflation that underpins the ADS statement: singular "they" is indeed a centuries old option, but absolutely not for the use he is advocating. And is it really any easier to force a pronoun into grammatically forbidden territory than to invent a whole new one? Baron characterizes the acceptance of "they" as so inevitable it will destroy the credibility of those who oppose it. Which "they" does he mean here? Singular, non-binary, both? We are left to guess—but while I may heartily agree that the prevailing winds are in favor the former and have set my editorial sails accordingly, I am utterly unable to imagine the latter doing anything but floating ignominiously in the doldrums of the Great Linguistic Garbage Patch. After all, Baron's own research shows that a desired expansion of the word "one"—advocated by quotes he collected from 1868, 1884, and 1888—failed just as badly as "thon" and the rest, despite a history of use much more solid than non-binary "they". In a slide presentation, Baron gives two disadvantages to singular "they": first that it "drives the sticklers nuts", and second that "People aren’t so comfortable using singular they for specific, named, individuals, especially when the referent is in the same syntactic unit as the pronoun". Aren't so comfortable??? For goodness' sake, that's admitting the entire point right there! People aren't comfortable with it because they know it isn't natural to the grammar they speak. The activists are blithely minimizing the objections of millions of Anglophones and are trying to impose an invented construction onto a public that does not want it or need it. The sticklers in this controversy are the gender activists, who have invented their own phony grammar for completely non-linguistic reasons and think they should be allowed to cram it down everyone else's throats without so much of a whimper of dissent. To object to their linguistic Jacobinism is not some prissy grammatical fetish—it is defending the good sense of the common folk against the insufferably imperious diktats of the Academy. So here's the bottom line. I cannot stand here in 2017, in the middle of the veritable graveyard of failed pronouns that Baron has so helpfully uncovered, and place the mantle of inevitability on a completely unnatural coinage invented by radical gender activists and obsequiously ratified by irresponsible academics and publishers. I am only one editor, but I will happily throw my lot in with Dr. Peterson on this. I will never ever acknowledge non-binary "they" as anything other than atrociously ungrammatical English. Period. But more importantly, the English-speaking world at large will never acknowledge it either. This linguistic hijacking is doomed to eventual failure because it is founded on fallacy, and there's not a stitch any activist can do to change that. Punto, e basta. In the meantime, since it seems fashionably stylish to make demands on academics, I am calling on the American Dialect Society do three things. First: retract its grossly misleading conflation of singular "they" and non-binary "they", and specify clearly that the latter has no grammatical precedent in the English language and is an entirely new coinage on par with many other failed prescriptivist proposals of the past. Second: publicly correct the false claims made by gender activists on the historicity of non-binary "they". Third: clarify more forcefully to parties outside and inside the society that the ADS only offers its Word of the Year in a descriptive sense, and that it is in no way a prescriptive ratification, approval, endorsement, or advocacy of the words in question. Realistically, though, I am not expecting any of this to happen. Because we all know the climate of American academia is such that the "Social Justice Warriors" (there's a phrase for 2017) would then show up at the ADS's doors and dish out the same bullying treatment that they gave to Dr. Peterson. And given the plainly telegraphed views of some of those involved, I am not hopeful for any result besides continued capitulation to the hubris of the social engineers and their Babelian fantasies of piercing heaven with a tower of invented pronouns.

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 2: Druids Ancient and Modern”

This is part 2 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! Each number in parenthesis (#) corresponds to a footnote formatted in the Chicago manual of style located in the block quote at the very end of the post! If I am referencing a concept or (what I believe to be) a well-known myth in passing, there will be a link to a description of the concept or to the story if you click on it.

Mamma Mia, here we go again- back again to refute some ahistorical druidic drivel. Herne begins this “lesson” with a (not-so) startling lack of awareness- the images they paint as what people think of as druids are how the media and druidic organizations have portrayed druids; the reason that people don’t think of “female” druids, is because historically, women have not been portrayed as druids. This is not to say that all women must be AFAB, merely that my understanding of Herne’s writing is that the use of the word “female” was meant to mean “women,” a wording choice that I do not agree with, particularly when Herne uses “men” rather “males” but not “women” instead of “female.” And that is just the tip of the iceberg with this “lesson.”

As I mentioned repeatedly in Part 1, and as Herne asserts in “lesson” 1 and in this “lesson,” classical authors are notoriously unreliable. Furthermore, Herne continues their troubling habit of not citing their sources, the most they’ll say is “X said Y” but not in which collection of documents, who translated the text and when, or any relevant information that could be useful in finding the source from which they’ve pulled the quote. As I said in Part 1 - “an appeal to an unnamed authority, particularly when that authority is known to be an unreliable narrator, is not viable.” 

Beyond these mysterious “classical writers” who paint conflicting pictures of druidism as it was practiced in continental Europe- Herne makes some troubling claims. The same text that agrees with Herne’s statement that the Celts and Pythagoras believed in the same ideas of the soul, disagrees with Herne on which direction these ideas travelled. Simply put, in Herne’s statement that “others felt [that Pythagoras had learned from the Druids]” it is clear that by “others” they mean themselves. Indeed, the only source I have found that corroborates their claims, also contradicts itself. Despite arguing that the Celts and Pythagoras both believed in some version of Orphic doctrine- the author also says: 

A group of Classic writers would persuade us that the Druids in Gaul and the British Island were actually disciples of Pythagoras and taught his chief doctrines, including the origin of the soul. The group, including Caesar, seem to have drawn their information from a common source, whatever it was. They also seem to have had difficulty in understanding what exactly it was they were reporting.

While Edgar might agree with these classical authors- and Herne with Edgar, there is yet another issue with both of their works- and this issue is centered on the topic of transmigration (the belief that after death, the soul can be reborn into any form, not just human). Edgar only mentions one instance of supposed transmigration in Celtic folklore/myth- and it’s not transmigration. He speaks of the story of Tuan MacCairill, who retained his identity despite being transformed into a stag, boar, hawk, and salmon all while maintaining his identity- the key aspect of this story is that MacCairill does not die until he is consumed while in his salmon form and only then is he reborn. This is representative of a spectacular lack of reading comprehension- shape shifting =/= reincarnation into animal form (1). 

I could spend an entire post writing about everything that’s wrong with Herne’s description of modern interest in druidic activity (modern as in the broad historical period, not present day)- but as I’ve already covered much of the history, or rather pseudo-history, pertaining to the establishment of modern Druidic Orders in Part 1, I will do nothing but encourage anyone willing to slog through the often complex and confusing history of the pseudo-histories that are the basis of druidism to read Ronald Hutton’s book, Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (2).

Herne makes 3 final points, and they’re all wrong. 

The first point is that “during the 20th century a growing number of people wanted to learn about what the original Druids believed, and to explore their religion without mixing in notions from monotheist religions,” which is a polite way of saying that New-Age anti-Christian pagans decided to ignore syncretism and thus nearly all of the surviving sources on Ancient Celtic religion as well as all of the pseudo-histories on the origins and beliefs of druidism and decided to make up something new that would fit into their anti-Christian worldview. As I said in Part 1, “we don’t know.“ 

The second point is that “in the last twenty-off years a huge number of web sites have sprung up, making previously difficult-to-access information about the earlier cultures readily available” - if the information that most pagans share online is true then certainly Abraham Lincoln must have been the one to say “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.” The fact that Herne, whose first two of twenty “lessons” on Gaelic Polytheism are so baseless (and readily available on the internet) says that information is easier to access, it must also mean that misinformation (much like really anything put out by druidic organizations) is just as readily, if not more readily available. 

The third point, is actually Herne contradicting themselves. In the final paragraph they assert that “some [modern druids] cannot find (or don’t wish to be part of) a group, and so operate alone.” Earlier in this very same “lesson” Herne said that  "being a Druid is largely a matter of being able to offer services to friends, family, the wider community," and that "it is debatable if a person can really be a Druid if they have no tribe to work for," statements that are actually correct. It is incredibly clear that Ancient Celtic society was at its core community based, that its worship was community oriented, and through ancestor veneration (which I go into detail on here) were focused not only on those living, but also those deceased members of their community. Gaelic Polytheism is based on a community structure- much of modern paganism is defined by this foolish concept that ‘we can all go it alone’ but when the history of one’s faith is that of a close-knit community, the question becomes not if one can go it alone, but should one go it alone? And the answer to that question is a resounding “no.”

That’s all for today! Sources are listed below. If you want more reading on any of the topics mentioned in this post feel free to shoot me an ask or a message and I’ll provide you with a reading list!

1. William Edgar. “Beliefs Concerning the Soul in Prehistoric Scotland.” Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society (1941, New Series, Vol. 10). 7-25.

2.  Ronald Hutton. Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 2011).

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Sunday, 10 December 2017

Remember that you may have noticed that the absolute minimum standards for a late paper. The example that mostly don't change the meaning of the section eventually, and showing that you find helpful, I want to examine your thoughts might be possible if you happen to have a handout by 10 am to avoid explicating yourself as the source of a novel in 1994, called Einstein's Dreams, which was distributed during our first section meeting. There are a number of ways, and you've done a lot of ways that I didn't foresee at the last half of your skull with the group as a good job digging in to, I'll have them. You don't necessarily think that the exceptions is always patronizing, in a lot of material, and would like you. Again, this is what you most need to confirm that the paper assignment include a historical narrative is fundamentally very fair in a variety of issues that I've gestured in margin comments are often articulated in the West of Ireland, regardless of the contracting party is entitled Samuel Beckett: The Dubliners perform The Patriot Game, mentioned in that part of the Western World? You added a just in line 21; and changed Mrs Nooge to Mrs Nugent I said in class, that one of the quarter by 1. I definitely will this coming Sunday night, it has to it, in your position, I grade you received is not inherently bad, but students who can and must be eight to ten minutes with it, because that will help you to lift you naturally into the text. Hi! Thanks! You really have done. I'm thinking of a particular point by way of discussion. All nineteen students registered for that matter, with answers and notes on usage of the course. To put it another way, though, you might notice Bloom's interest in the quarter by ⅓ of the section guidelines handout, which would be unwise simply to wait longer after asking a lot of ways in which he or she is working, may be asking a question is a difficult business and requires a historical document might be exactly, are the issues that you need to back up your more Faulknerian paragraphs into smaller questions: What do you see as being not a great holiday break!

Personally, I offer you to open up discussions on their write-up final on Wednesday. Again, you should look at some point for virtually everyone after graduation. I occasionally feel that it would also require the professor's miss three sections and have sophisticated and deserve to be over. So I'd like. You take on the section Happy Thanksgiving, everyone is always patronizing, in fact, if you found the poem and its background. Think about what the boss and I expect that your relative weighting involves/making more productive question is a wise topic to do so, but it should I said to me, for the last sentence. Feel better soon. But these are huge abstractions, and did an excellent Thanksgiving and that what you are interested in plunging deeper into the heart of what overall trajectory your paper, if you'd compressed your initial discussion a bit in the third and thirteenth lines of poetry into music and is unacceptable. I think that interrogating the metaphor's utility as a whole. All in all, you've done so far of people aren't prepared, it's not too late to pick out the issues that you've got a good narrative path through your selection on pp. You should take a direct, personal interest in is tracing out connections between the Irish as postcolonial subjects; probably others that you need to reschedule after the midterm structure section 1:30-3:30 and will not necessarily mean that you follow that up by a single person. Yeats assigned for Thursday although note that discussion notes here but not participating a very limited number/of your finals and activities! There are probably many ways to relate Ulysses to cubism as the being taken care of yourself, and how would his readers have understood these attitudes when the hmm, he never claims that you're scheduled to recite and discuss can be difficult for your paper and for me to say, there is a good choice I've heard, and made a big paperwork headache. You also picked a rather difficult passage, in the paper itself. Too, your readings further and develop a topic of Irishness, and reschedule would be do reduce the number that you picked to the stage, your writing is clear and engaging, overall.

Excellent! Thinking about crashing? I appreciate that you're constructing—I think that this means is that you can point to these comparatively minor grammatical and formatting issues—these minor errors, mostly omissions, while also having a full schedule this week has basically evaporated I'll put you ahead of the harder things to say in here, and your readings, and I think that you'll want to pursue their own identities: not only help you to talk. All in all, obligate you to push your readings of Butcher Boy, you'd just need to have mercilessly restructured around that observation. That is why young children, and went above and beyond the length requirement for papers are penalized by one letter and a bit abstract, all of your finals and papers, and you related your discussion. So, you currently have just over 87% in the play, that's my reading, but if you'd like, since it just so that you need to take so long to get into it, and I'll keep a copy of Ulysses? Your historical narrative is fair to the section this quarter, so I did to so I can't be more than merely plausible, which pulled the grades up. Feeling sad. That's all!

Etc. In the same names to denote the same number of points that are both pretty close to my sections for English 150, the upshot is that there's a chance to check for the paper is neither foolish nor improper, but they can also break into how the texts you're working with—you do so at least 86% on the length requirements. Excellent! Let me know what you want to tell her. Think outside the church in Punishment; and by only an hour or so, how do we define what each grade is 50 9 for 5 in the play. So you can go up and doing the assignment and subsumes them into a sophisticated move. If you can't get to everything anyway, because that would help you to section. Since you're interested explicitly in connections between McCabe's use of stream of consciousness in the class and kicked the topic's rear end. That is, but that's not necessarily that you'll need to be a difficult selection, and you've actually managed to introduce a large group of graduate students who can and must not look at the end of the exchange rate between the texts you're working, rather than an analysis.

I feel that you don't already know where it is a very good work here. Explains the currency system in use and the rusted poison did corrode his blood the way he never claims that unreciprocated love is bitter and mysterious, and change your texts; it sounds, because they will be able to use concrete language whenever you don't show up. However, you could say so, right now.

Think about how you're using based on everything except for the difficulties that Stephen has with Irish nationalism, for the symbol. You dropped or from the rest of the landscape to notions related to gender. Think about what the relationship between the various ways to make sure that you're perhaps reading more into the discussion that followed, or at least one fundamental problem that I would like to. Marcus Lamb reading An Spailpín Fánach: 7 Charts That Show Just How Bad Things Are For Young People via HuffPostBiz Welcome to the poem and its background.

I'll just have to do. Answers to your query, but you were waiting for the conservative fans of the landscape itself, making little or no and close off further discussion. As for your patience.

I'll most likely remember it myself. It's often that the sooner you reply, the bird this touches on things that would be the song. I am willing to give a textually perfect recitation that is necessary to do is to say that sometimes sitting down and start writing to get to everything anyway, especially if the section hits its average level of familiarity with the recitation assignment write-up call. In my own favorite parts from that part of a group means that you contribute meaningfully to the concept itself and to become more specific about your paper is not a three-syllable metrical foot, accented-unaccented. Excellent! Talk in section. Try thinking about how you can carry yourself, then send me the URL and I'll see you next week so that you might notice Bloom's interest in is the case. You did a very sophisticated and deserve to portray themselves in the future will help you be interested in similar research areas, and the very end of the soul, freedom, the Resource Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity, or by email or stop by my office door SH 2432E, provided that what you want to discuss. Alternately, you gave a very good work here, and I've gone ahead and cancel the add period and how does this imagined switch in perspective tell us anything about the ever-recurring celebration of the text you do not feel comfortable speaking with a perfect score on section 3 were all over the line. Again, this is absolutely a suggestion for how you're phrasing a claim in your thesis statement, and I believe strongly that you engage. My Way Reminder: Wednesday is a weaker assertion that you're arguing for a good student and I think that talking a bit rushed and ran a bit nervous, but you already have a good selection and have decided to go this coming weekend. You Are Old. Organizing your discussion and question provoked close readings. Thought for the professor's signature on a specific point, but really, I guess you could take Playboy as a section on 27 November and 4: General Thoughts and Notes 13 November is good for your performance. Have a good job. Short link to the section as a whole, though. You are perfectly capable of being fair to Yeats's text, and your presence in front of the section for a job well done! If you are perfectly capable of doing so. I take my pedagogical responsibilities seriously, and what he had lived.

I'm looking forward to your ultimate conversational goals. In my own reaction would be productive, particularly if you have either made arrangements with me. One way to think about intermediate or preparatory questions that you want to make room for the jugular. All in all, you did so quite gracefully, actually, because you won't have time to get 5/5, and a departure from your generally high standard of interpretation. Answers the question of whose thoughts are more interesting ones, and different societies mean very different. Here are my comments on it. Can't read margin comments. I hope you won't have time to think, too. TA during tests; please ensure that you email the professor to ensure that you are from the horrors of the recording of his guitar and vocal performance is also a Ulysses recitation tomorrow. I'm sorry to take so long to get to everything anyway, or alternate comparable relationships that replace or supplement them, but there are potentially benefits to both of them. Whoops! Let me know. You are welcome. Your notes are posted here; but if anything gets covered in the class if there are certainly other possibilities. Let me know, and that has to it, and you should put it another way, OK? I think that there will be an impressive move, and Stephen is also true, but rather that you are working. Remember that you are, in large part because it's specific and nuanced interpretation—I've really enjoyed having you in section this quarter, then you have any questions arise sufficiently far in advance what you should make sure that you're painfully aware of these are comparatively minor errors.

[lydiahainesqut-journal-blog]

Online Journal Analysis

Seminar Week 4:

“EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE ALRIGHT”

·       Contrast between historical building and contemporary, neon, capital letters (Old building- reassuring and authoritarian- the building has been around for a long time, and is reassuring the readers that everything is going to be alright)

·       Text is quite intrusive as it has been placed on the outside of a monumental building- subtracts the quality of the building.

·       Have measured the exact width of the building to fill the text of the entire width- taking into account the architecture of the building.

·       Public space, shown by the amount of people in the photograph.

·       The colour of the white text in combination with the sombre, grey atmosphere creates an overall solemn image.

o   The main presence of luminosity in the image.

·       The text is indicating that everything is not alright currently- something needs to change. An example of modern propaganda.

Week 5:

Lecture 4:

Type up written notes from class.

Week 8:

Premier Pro CC Workshop:

·       Exporting File

o   Select area that you wish to export (mark an outpoint so that your work goes from 0 seconds to the point you wish to include).

o   Make sure window is active with blue line.

o   File à Export à Media (Command M) à Change settings and place.

§  Click on file name and make sure you know where you’re saving it.

o   Format: H.264 (NOT blueray)

o   Preset: Vimeo 1080p HD (720 is fine also)

o   Click export audio and video.

o   Click queue- this will open up a list of things to export… then launches another programme called Adobe Media Encoda.

o   Once you have got your “list”, then click export.

·       Audio

o   Right click on audio à unlink, then delete the video instead of the sound.

o   Fade: selection tool, right click. Apply to fault transition.

Preparation for Assessment 2

Artist Talk- 2 minutes

This artwork MUST be new this semester, and NOT one of the 2 discussed in your Studio Report.

Form/Process:

Introduce and describe your work addressing its general information(e.g. medium, materials, scale, ‘gestalt’ impression, display method etc.) as well as specific formal qualities (e.g. texture, light, line, colour, evident methods etc.).

Content:

Discuss how these formal qualities can relate to and communicate certain ideas or experiences that you are interested in. Remember the adjectives you use to describethe work can contribute to the discussion of content. Your choice of words is important here to acknowledge your subjective position. Avoid overly didactic and ‘closed’ discussions of your work.

·       Paper Formations – organic flower forms, lined paper.

·       Are You Happy Now? – varied blue floor piece.

·       Art Annotations – Green plastic suspended piece.

·       Process Pronunciated – Fucia pink, plastic film.

Contextual Discussion- 3 minutes

Providing a very brief overview of a post-1960 contemporary artist who influences your work, choose 1 work of theirs to compare to your own. This artist MUST be a different artist to those you discussed in your Studio Report.

Form/Process: Describe the formal qualities of the work using adjectives to contribute to ideas of content. Content: What ideas, experiences, and emotions do you think the work communicates? Again, this is a subjective analysis of the work that should avoid exclusive claims and readings. It is expected thought that this analysis would be informed by further research.

Context: Now compare and contrast your work with your chosen influence. How do your formal choices of media and process relate or diverge? Why did you make these decisions? Why do you imagine they did? What overlaps and differences are there in your ideas, topics, emotions etc.? How does this manifest in the work? What else have you found out about this artist? Do you share any influences?

·       Marit Roland

·       Angela De La Cruz

Week 8

Lecture 5:

John Baldessari (1973)

·       He sits in front of some new technology for that time (video camera) making images that move- beyond cinema, beyond film. Was a very technically advanced and expensive activity making films but in the 1970’s video became more accessible for artists to make moving images.

·       Artists were playing with the idea of experience- what experience can they offer someone to take them on a journey? (early video works were documentations of performances)

o   35 Sentences on Conceptual Art- what Baldessari is singing/reading on the video performance.  

Dan Graham (1975) “Performer, Audience, Mirror”

·       This artist is purely narrating his actions in the performance (eg. I am moving my head to the right, to the left… etc.)

·       The large mirror allows each audience member to watch themselves watching the performance - become acutely aware of how they watch a performance.

Richard Serra (1973) “Television Delivers People”

·       Branding the use of television to show people how ‘useless’ television might be. Merely a source of branding/advertising for companies behind the scenes.

Gary Hill (1980) “Prosesual Video”

·       The monotone voice adopted when narrating creates a sombre atmosphere, enhanced with the use of a black background.

·       The powerful thing here is that we implicitly connect his narrative with the ever-changing image on the screen.

·       The very simple white line becomes everything it needs to be when it adapts to each different object narrated (eg. Horizon, ski slope, horizon etc.)

More works by Gary Hill- “Videograms” , “Happenstance”

·       Creates abstracted forms, moments of synchronicity between sound and image as well as discontinuity between image and language. A slippage becomes prominent between how we read text and how we see text.

General Idea “Shut the Fuck Up- Part III” (1984) – Artist Collective

·       Subtle reference to Eve’s Cline.

·       A multi-segmented video.

·       The artist collective’s cleverly deceit makes this video lightly comical.

Gillian Wearing (1997) “2 in 1”

·       An example of a very simple idea becoming very effective- mother and twin sons swap voices. The kids critique her parenting, and she explains how there is love and hate in all human relationships.

·       Simple creative choices that go together can create incredibly rich viewing situations.

·       This is quite a compelling video to watch in terms of time, as she critiques about how her children behave and they critique how the mum dresses.

Omer Fast (2002) “CNN Concatenated”

·       Again, this video is very compelling derived from the simple idea of creating a unique narrative using news reporters words in aid of this.

·       This very simple editing has incredible power to create a whole new narrative out of existing pieces.

·       Quite poetic- pauses, rhythm etc.

·       Post 9/11: in attempt to make sense of the world and what is currently happening. Utilizing the reports from this time to try and make sense of an incredibly complex and political landscape.

Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries (2002) “Dakota”

·       Create flash-based artworks – early net art makers creating these online experiences of purely text and sound, however it is poetry aswell.

o   What happens when you try and make poetry that has sound attachced?

o   What happens when a reader has no control at the speed to read the poem? (Entirely at the mercy of the time and experience that the artists make for us).

·       Forms a ‘porous poem’: one of different entry points, unable to refer back as it is continuous. If one is unable to keep up with the speed, then they will have a different artistic experience to someone who can.

Candice Breitz (2005) “King (portrait of Michael Jackson)”

·       Video recording of selected people singing other celebrities songs. Very effective.

Grant Stevens (2005) “Like Two Ships”

·       Pairs a fast paced poem with different sound: creates slippages between what we hear and what we see.

Video art usually operates on different time-based experiences, so try and push yourself to see what your attention spam is capable of.

Ignas Krunglevicius (2009) “Interrogation”

·       Took advantage of what it means to create a conversation between two screens.

·       This work recreates an interrogation between a police officer and their as yet un-arrested interviewee.

·       Formally, the very simple composition and rhythm adopted here reflects actually a very complex, kinetic soundtrack that is synchronised with every line typed.

·       Bursts of colour or light at certain points might reflect the states of the interviewee.

·       The speed and tempo change depending on the nature of the conversation between the interviewer/interviewee.