#she's not favourably described in the books appearance wise but I think she is so cute with her big smile

[moon-mirage]

Character design for Madge Undersee and Delly Cartwright? Thank you.

Thank you, anon for the prompt!

I put them in their reaping outfits. Madge's is described in the books but there was nothing about Delly in THG so I had to improvise.

I hope you like how they turned out.

[aion-rsa]

Where Are All of the Mothers in Fantasy Fiction?

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This is a guest post from Gabriela Houston, the London-based Polish author of Second Bell, a Slavic fantasy debut described as a cross between His Dark Materials and The Bear and the Nightingale. You can find out more about the book here.

Historically speaking, the fantasy genre has a thorny relationship with motherhood. Technically, it’s acknowledged that the protagonists must have sprung from somewhere. But it is often solely their paternity that is seen as important—while the mothers, if mentioned at all, are usually either dead of irrelevant: unmentioned or languishing in a convent somewhere.  If the mothers (or stepmothers: a different type of a mother-figure) persist in being alive into their children’s adulthood they are most often presented as an obstacle to their child’s self-actualisation/quest, or, as is most common with the stepmother archetype, present an actual threat to the protagonist. 

Since mainstream fantasy as a genre was Eurocentric, this is a trend that is very much connected to the patriarchal structures persisting throughout Europe for most of recorded history.  King Arthur, whose legend was first written down in the 12th Century by Geoffrey of Monmouth, had a mother, of course, but her only real importance was in how her beauty drew the eye of Uther Pendragon, who raped her, conceiving Arthur. Since Uther ended up marrying Arthur’s mother, Igraine, story-wise all was considered to be well, and, her role in birthing the future king done, Igraine became an irrelevance, just as any feelings and thoughts she might have had on her second husband. All we know is she was beautiful, chaste and gave birth to the real protagonist of the story. 

The courtly love conventions forming the basis of many medieval European legends have seeped into the genre of fantasy, especially high fantasy, and have shaped the way in which female protagonists are related to. In most “traditional” fantasy, motherhood was seen as nearly opposite to personhood. A female character’s value centred squarely on her attractiveness to the male protagonist, meaning that the moment she aged/became a mother, she ceased to hold that particular form of attention that comes from extreme youth and innocence. Motherhood is seen as the end of a female character’s journey. The experiences, shifting relationships and emotions linked to motherhood are not seen as interesting enough to garner any space at all. 

In The Lord of The Rings, we are faced with a whole cast of missing mothers. Moreover their absence is not noted as particularly important or carrying any emotional load. Aragorn, son of Arathorn, clearly had a mother, but when his father died he was shipped off to live with the elves. We neither know, nor are expected to care about what his mother thought on the subject. Then, of course, he falls for the elven maiden Arwen, whose mother, we’re told (as an aside) had the good sense to disappear from the scene by sailing beyond the sea before the plot of LOTR begins. Frodo Baggins’ mother helpfully died before he was born and Bilbo Baggins has the rare privilege of having a named mother, Belladonna Took, who, however, is quite dead by the time The Hobbit begins, and is referenced only as a link between Bilbo and the adventurous Took clan. She was a Took and she birthed him. Thus her role ended.

The halls of speculative fiction are carpeted with the corpses of the mothers who died of  broken hearts and colds in order to not complicate their progeny’s journey. In fantasy TV and Film the trend, quite naturally, continued. In the original Star Wars trilogy, Princess Leia and Luke’s mother, Padme Amidala lived a full life of adventure but then died of a broken heart shortly after her children were born, as of course she should have done. Can you imagine, had she survived, the plot-spoiling link to their past she would have become? In Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Joyce Summer’s death, whilst arguably the critical highpoint of the series, was seen as necessary.  She had to die, or else Buffy might have never become who she was always meant to be. As a mother she was an obstacle, one the scriptwriters helpfully removed.

Occasionally, the death of the character’s mother brings about the advent of the perennial archetype of the evil step-mother. A twisted parody of what a mother should be, just as the dead mother was convenient to the character’s journey, the insertion of the stepmother exists solely to scupper all of the character’s efforts. The examples of the conniving stepmother trope abound in traditional folktales (like in Cinderella, or its Slavic equivalent, Vasilisa, where the young protagonist is sent off by her stepmother to ask a favour of the infamous witch, Baba Yaga), mythologies (think the ultimate evil stepmother, Hera, who habitually persecuted the innocent results of her husband Zeus’ many indiscretions), and, not surprisingly, in fantasy genre as well. 

In A Song of Ice and Fire by George RR Martin (which actually does portray an unusual range of mothers with agency), Catelyn Stark, an otherwise fiercely loyal mother, is a cold and distant stepmother to Jon Snow. In the first novel in Katherine Arden’s fantastic Winternight trilogy,  the main protagonist grows up in the shadow of her vapid, fearful and cruel stepmother. Part of the reason, I’d argue, why older women are so often portrayed as annoying and conniving, is because, as far as the traditional narratives are concerned, the whole of their role and purpose is fulfilled the moment their physical (youthful) attractiveness wanes. Those without the wisdom to exit the stage by dying become at worst a cumbersome plot bunny and at best an obstacle.

The issue of a lack of older women in fantasy is such an expansive subject that it demands the respect of a separate thought piece, really. And, as regards the stepmothers, I’m not saying, of course, that they should always be portrayed as kind and loving. But precisely because their archetype is rooted so strongly in our collective consciousness, it’s particularly important to acknowledge their humanity. And as far as the humanity of the older female (in the traditional fantasy fiction this seems to describe any woman over twenty) character goes, the good news is the tide is turning.

Part of the reason for that is that more women than ever are given the platform to write their stories. Perhaps somewhere along the way the publishing industry as a whole realised that as women account for the majority of fiction readers (according to one cross-Atlantic research they make up to 80% of fiction market), then perhaps portraying women as actual people, whose agency doesn’t evaporate once they get pregnant, might simply be good marketing.

In the recent years I’ve been ecstatic to see nuance brought into the motherhood trope within the genre. Where the mother of the character is dead, she is so for a damn good reason, with the echoes of her absence reverberating through the story in the most compelling ways, like in Tracy Deonn’s Legendborn. Mothers fight beside their children, and grandchildren (Like the pink-haired protagonist of The Phlebotomist by Chris Panatier), and battle hardship and heartache, like in Madeline Miller’s Circe.

As a mother it was important to me to focus on the humanity of motherhood in my debut, The Second Bell. The mothers I wrote are not perfect, and they are not always right. And even when they are, they might not know it for certain. And that is the point. Mothers deserve their place in fiction not because they’re perfect, but because they are human. Their decisions are just as complex as their younger counterparts and are complicated further by their new and life-changing bond with their child.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Writing mothers is writing humans. No more, no less. They matter and they are worthy of notice.

Second Bell will be released on Tuesday, March 9th. You can find out more about Gabriela Houston here.

The post Where Are All of the Mothers in Fantasy Fiction? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/30r63n4

[lordeasriel]

lord asriel’s quick analysis

Or why redemption isn’t always necessary.

Given that some people asked me to finish it and that I want to finish it, here’s my stroke over Lord Asriel’s arc. This is based on a post someone made it on reddit about the lack of redeeming traits on his part and this is my personal take on Asriel, so ok, here we go:

Let me get this out of the way: the thing about Lord Asriel is that he is not a redeemable character; that is not his purpose nor his story. He never seeks redemption, nor he sees his actions as a product of villainy or evil; in fact, Asriel believes he is quite righteous and he is willing to do whatever the fuck it takes to achieve his goals.

We never get a direct understanding of his motives: he does say he fights for freedom, he states his disgust with the Magisterium and the Kingdom of Heaven, and those who surround him believe in his cause and say, constantly, that his side is the right side, and that he fights for freedom and against the tyranny of the Church.

What is contantly overlooked is the fact Lord Asriel doesn’t require a redemption, this isn’t some sort of requirement a character needs every time they screw up. This, well, aversion to Asriel and the need to have him either punished or redeemed is solely based on the fact he killed Roger in cold blood, sort of, to wage his war for freedom. Was that fucked up? Absolutely! Does this means he requires redemption over that? No, and Philip Pullman himself explains why when Mary Malone says:

“I stopped believing there was a power of good and a power of evil that were outside us. And I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are.” (The Amber Spyglass)

This has a lot to do with the recurring themes of the books, about morals, ethics and the poor use of free will by some, and it personifies almost every character in the books, from Lyra to Iorek. Everyone has committed some sort of bad deed at some point, but that does not label them as evil, and the same rules apply to Asriel. This is a man who’s crossed the very limits of the multiverse to achieve his goals, by being good in looking after the destruction of the Kingdom, and by being bad while killing Roger (plus being a bad father, a bad uncle, a bad lover, but let us remain philosophical for now).

Asriel is relentless, ruthless and sometimes, even cruel, to Lyra, to Marisa, to anyone really. At Jordan, he walks in, puts the fear of God (unironically lol) into almost everyone, including Lyra and the Master, he takes control of the enviroment and sets on to do what he went to Jordan for: to get money for his plot, so he can tear the sky apart and defy the Kingdom of Heaven. Lyra fears him (righteously) and admires his fierceness, she respects strength and brute force, it is the reason why she is so drawn to violent figures or rude characters, being herself quite rude and arrogant because she mirrors her uncle/dad.

He is considered to be a passionate man by almost everyone, and he causes a great impression in everyone he meets, including the reader. He was written as a likable character at first, made from scratch to fit in the role of the aloof, sometimes austere but caring uncle, or the traveler who serves as the inspiration for the hero (Bilbo Baggins, for quite the literal example, or Professor Kirke in Narnia). Sir Philip describes him, in Northern Lights:

“Then Lord Asriel stood up and turned away from the fire. She saw him fully, and marveled at the contrast he made with the plump Butler, the stooped and languid Scholars. Lord Asriel was a tall man with powerful shoulders, a fierce dark face, and eyes that seemed to flash and glitter with savage laughter. It was a face to be dominated by, or to fight: never a face to patronize or pity. All his movements were large and perfectly balanced, like those of a wild animal, and when he appeared in a room like this, he seemed a wild animal held in a cage too small for it. At the moment his expression was distant and preoccupied.”  (page 13, Knopf edition).

He is, at first, compared to other men in Lyra’s life (the scholars, mostly) only to be extravangantly praised for being nothing like those men. Stelmaria, quiet and reserved, beautiful and pacifying, is the ultimate contrast for Asriel; together, they are one, and he is an aristocrat with wild temper, and she is a snow leopard, a predator, but beautiful and wise. These are the representation of Satan, as in Paradise Lost: forsaken and forgotten by history for fighting the Authority, Asriel and Stelmaria are the embodiment of disobedience and they are bound to rebel again because that is their nature. All that’s left to them is a reason and the Magisterium, oh boy, they’ve given them plenty.

Now, think about a man who’s had everything, then this rising power that was the Magisterium, comes and takes everything from him, from his money to his daughter over something, not trivial, but certainly something that didn’t require such harsh method of punishment; considering a lot of his wealth was confiscated and assuming he had to pay a lot of fees and taxes because of the Court Trial, he was very much not the man he was before Mrs. Coulter’s affair with him. He obeys the rules and stays away from Lyra, only to discover her mother is with the Church and that they intend to harm Lyra, even after he played nice. His friends in Oakley Street are trying to protect Lyra, but against the Magisterium, after witnessing how powerful they are, how far gone they are willing to go, things aren’t looking very bright for Asriel. He even says, in Northern Lights:

“They’re stronger than anyone, Asriel! You don’t know-”

“I don’t know? I? No one in the world knows better than I how strong the Church is! But it isn’t strong enough for this. The Dust will change everything, anyway. There’s no stopping it now.” (page 394, Knopf edition).

The Asriel we meet in La Belle Sauvage is younger and a man who’s just been massacred by the Church, as he reminds us of in Northern Lights; he is wounded after all that has happened, almost in a tender way, as if he had been softened by it. But he still is himself; proud, arrogant and scholarly, he risks Lyra’s safety and his own to indulge himself and be with her for a while, to spite the Magisterium and its distasteful influence. Under the moonlight, he loves her so immensely, in such a raw and fiery way, that for a moment Malcolm even thinks Asriel might leave with her, and so did I.

Everything Asriel does, everything that leads to his war in the name of the Republic of Heaven, has to do with Lyra’s birth and how he lost everything because of the injustice the Magisterium imposed on the world; how he had an affair with a woman he loved and how she could easily have gotten a divorce to prevent all of that; how they took his fortune and prestige because he was defiant. The murders, the oppression, his career as a scholar, his life as a whole, and then after the affair, his daughter’s, all was threatened by the Magisterium. It’s hard to say when he decided to fuck up the sky, but I like to think by the time he left Lyra at Jordan, he was already working on his revenge, because when he lost everything, that was his turning point. He doesn’t do any of this because he is a caring, loving person; he does out of hatred and indignation, two powerful tools that fuel his existence for the next twelve years, perhaps even before then, in small dosages. 

There’s constant evidence of his hatred for the Church and their dogmas, especially on chapter 21 in Northern Lights, when he monologues to Lyra about Dust and how the Church allowed such things as Bolvangar to happen, implying that as many others, including scholars, he knew about what was happening. There could be a number of reasons as to why he didn’t interfer, and the most obvious one is that he was in prison, so there wasn’t much he could in his position. A second, deeper reason, is Mrs. Coulter’s involvement with Bolvangar, and by involvement I mean leadership, basically. He was fully aware she was the one responsible for Bolvangar, even enlightening us:

“That’s why they had to hide away in the far North, in darkness and obscurity. And why the Church was glad to have someone like your mother in charge, Who could doubt someone so charming, so well-connected, so sweet and reasonable?” (page 374/375, Knopf edition).

He speaks of her work with contempt and distaste, but also in a tone as someone who once fell for her masquerade before fully understanding who she was and her ultimate goal. Being his former lover, he sees the fact she works with the very Church who ruined him because of her, as disgusting despite their weird relationship dynamic, (which I could write a whole essay on but I’m not, because I already did it in college and that essay took me to a very dark place lol) and he despises her relation to the Church far more than he despises the nature of her work. And, as we see in the Amber Spyglass, despite inviting her to come with him, he is not eager to be in her company because he simply doesn’t trust himself when it comes to her and neither does anyone who knows both of them.

But the main reason he didn’t interfere, it’s because Bolvangar’s action, however crude and in favour of his enemies, was something he could take advantage of and their cruelty simply didn’t concern his own work, even if it was a discovery of his own that allowed such a thing. While they were doing something awful, they were too busy to notice his domination over his own house arrest or his plans in general, giving him the time and space he needed to finish his work.

Cruel and straightforward, Asriel is too practical and indecent to say he cared about the children: he hated what they were doing because the Church was tied to it; La Belle Sauvage!Asriel might have interfered and cared about it (he saved gyptian children from a flood, restored Malcolm’s boat, was gentle and wise in a rough way), but Northern Lights!Asriel was simply far too blindsided by his wrath against the Authority and the Church to give a damn. The only moment we see him hesitate is when he sees Lyra in the North, and for a moment he is taken by the shock of thinking he might have to sacrifice Lyra to kill God and destroy the Church, who was trying to, you know, kill Lyra. An ironic and cruel position to put him in, and he would’ve killed her, make no mistake; he keeps away from her because he simply knows he would’ve sacrificed her, or anyone else, including himself, to destroy God and the Magisterium.

Understanding this wild, carefree and inconsequential man is a crude task. The thing is, redemption is an overused trope and not everyone that does something bad needs it (or wants it for the matter), Asriel being the person who least requires it, because:

He is not a villain. I have seen this a lot and it honestly confuses me. Asriel, if anything, plays the part of the antihero, and even then he does so very loosely. We are constantly reassured by him and by basically every third party in the book (Ruta Skadi and her infatuation, John Parry and his wise comprehension, Baruch and Balthamos and their first-hand experience of the Kingdom’s brutality, amongst others) that Asriel is the “hero” of the war, that he is righteous and the one with the right views. He is not your conventional saviour, in fact, he is human and flawed, self-centered and ambitious, but charismatic and knowledgeable; that blur our senses and the lines and we’re stuck thinking he is either a hero or a villain when Asriel is, in fact, neither.

His ultimate goal is clear, albeit readable only between the lines sometimes. He is a liar, arrogant and wrathful, but once we get to the Subtle Knife, his goal is more clear, at least from Thorold and John Parry’s points of view (Ruta Skadi too, but she is far too unreliable for being too infatuated with Asriel): he wants to kill God and take down the Kingdom of Heaven. He says it’s for freedom and blah-blah-blah, and although I believe he seeks that outcome in the end, the reason he is doing this is much more self-serving and closer to revenge rather than doing what is right. He is a spiteful man, whom has been robbed of his wealth and his life by a religious institution who serves God and does anything in the name of God. Asriel wants to take them down because it satiates his need for vengeance, alongside his scholarly nature, by being a pioneer and an explorer of multiple worlds. It’s an ego booster, something to pat yourself on the back for.

He is unapologetic. He never apologises, or seems regretful over his actions. He isn’t apathetic, but he clearly does not resent his own choices. Killing Roger was a tough decision, but one he was intent on making because it was what he needed to do to achieve his purpose (hence his hesitation towards Lyra; he would’ve killed her if Roger wasn’t there). That was by far the most beautiful and sensible death ever written by Pullman: he doesn’t extend it or makes it purposefully dramatic and that’s because Roger’s death was merely a switch for everything else: Lyra and Asriel’s journey. Sir Philip makes us believe that Lyra’s ultimate goal is to stop her warmongering father, then he dismantles Asriel’s portrayal as the endgame bad guy for things of higher nature and Lyra simply stop blaming him, instead blaming herself, and everything she does from them on, is to spite Asriel by always staying away from him and his Republic.

These three aspects of Lord Asriel’s character core are relevant because they exempt him of a redemption arc. He doesn’t need to be redeemed, he asks for no forgiveness and he knew, from the start, where things were going. Perhaps not on Lyra’s account, but the overall outcome of his war. He never backs down, nor hesitates and Ogunwe claims:

“We’re not going to invade the Kingdom,” he said, “but if the Kingdom invades us, they had better be ready for war, because we are prepared.” (page 210, The Amber Spyglass, Knopf edition).

Despite the Republic’s claims of being builders, not conquerors, Asriel was the commander of a massive force and he was, fully aware, that the Kingdom would not leave them be to mind their business. They wanted that war, he wanted that war, and everything he did was because of it. That is why he only is granted peace, in a sense, in death as they plunge down into the abyss; it was a price worth paying for wrecking Heaven. He never truly dies, but instead is forged into oblivion.

A villain can be redeemed, and so can a purposeless character, but Asriel is neither of these things. He has a clear purpose, and he has done good and bad things in his life, he never apologises for what he’s done and he doesn’t intend to. He mimics great rebels of epic stories, and he embodies all that is truthful and essential to human nature: knowledge, passion, rebellious mind, the apex of free will and the wrath against those who do us wrong. He is neither a saint, nor sinner: he is both, as are every person in those books, and he embraces fully his nature. Once again, as Mary said: he’s done bad things, but he isn’t evil himself. No one truly is.

And this is it, sorry for the essay, I have thing for academic men in linen shirts who want to tear Heaven apart lol  @laciefuyu this is for you hahah 

[nazali-md]

Get to know my apprentice!

1. Name? Surname? Goes by Scilla. Surname not needed.

2. Any family? Only faint memories

3. Any familiar? A smartass fly named Myiagros

4. Love Interest? Every single one. How does that work timeline-wise? You're asking the wrong person, I don't even know how my day is supposed to work timeline-wise.

5. Best strength in magic? Her biggest strength would be using magic in creative, unconventional ways. Naturally talented in wind magic. Coming from a family of travelling story-tellers, blessed with a literally enchanting voice. Well versed in hiding her presence, altering her appearance, passing through unnoticed and being forgotten quickly.  

6. Favourite colour?  Royal blue, gold, and wine red

7. Favourite number? 4

8. Sexuality? Pan & Polyamorous

9. Weird hobby? Occasionally raising the dead.

10. Favourite season? Summer

11. Favourite weather? Warm but windy. Also night storms.

12. Favourite place in Vesuvia? The Fields

13. How does their laughter sound? Her honest laugh can only described as silent shaking. If you hear her laugh at you, she wants you to hear.

14. How do they look when they cry? 2 types: the Hollywood perfect fake crying, silent tears streaming down her cheekbones, artfully smudged facial paint; and the red eyes, voice breaking, lots of yelling, frustration crying  

15. What do they like to wear? Lots of colour, lots of layers, patterns resembling the night sky. Fond of cloaks, capes, headscarves, veils and flashy facial paint. Anything that helps her hide her facial features. She has little regard to fashion though, and mostly just wears whatever was on the top of the clean pile. It has some... interesting results.

16. What are their fears? Closed spaces, losing magic. Her biggest fear is that people important to her would abandon her after seeing her true shelf.  

17. What do they like to do Friday night? Clear weather? It's astronomy time. Otherwise she loves to go out dancing, and has no problem finding company. However if she's in the middle of some interesting magic stuff, well good luck, she's not going anywhere until it's finished.

18. Do they use makeup? Makeup, magic, magic reinforced makeup, it's all fair game. Mostly for fun. Illegal stuff, sometimes. All the flashy face paint. Lucio's crying in the corner.

19. Favourite food? Shrimps!

20. Favourite drink? Coffee

21. Zodiac sign? Aquarius

22. Day of birth? Classified information

23. Favourite play? Richard III

24. Favourite music? Her taste of music is somewhere right next to her fashion sense

25. Favourite song? Tinariwen - Nánnufláy

26. What are their aesthetics? The endless night sky, copper wind chimes, sand shifting, the piper of Hamelin, cornflowers in wheat fields, the call of the road, tall buildings with gargoyles, untameable hair, mountain peaks and open fields, scarf gone with the wind, dancing barefoot, the milky way

27. What is their style? Eclectic

28. What is their height? Taller than Asra, shorter than Nadia

29. Any mental health issues? Fear of abandonment, slight anxiety  

30. Any health issues in general? Not quite an issue, but very sensitive to cold

31. Favourite book? The Decameron

32. Favourite book genre? Folktales, short stories, anecdotes. Also a lot of non-fiction.  

33. Favourite time of the day? Night

34. If they weren’t a magician, who would they be? Hard question. Being a magician is a large part of her sense of self. She's already a successful shop owner and spy on the side, so probably one of those. She also made a decent healer.

35. Do they believe in ghosts? It kinda comes with her job.

36. Do they believe in demons? Same as above.

37. Do they like sports? Depends. She's pretty fit, but sports involving a lot of rules aren't her thing.

38. Favourite dessert? Chocolate. And those fancy pastries with a million layers.

39. What is their biggest motivation to solve Lucio’s killer mystery? Curiosity and boredom.  

40. What do they think of Lucio so far? (I'll answer these as how Scilla thinks of the LI's at the early stages of their routes) Very entertaining company, but oh boy, so dumb. It's endearing though. They both have secrets they're hesitant to share with each other, and neither of them is happy about the snow.

41. What do they think of Nadia so far? Ooh, challenge. Nadia not only pikes her interest, she really awakens Scilla's need to prove herself. She desperately wants to gain her respect and favour.  

42. What do they think of Asra so far? There's no life without Asra. He's already the centre of her world, but oh my god they were roommates. They love each other very dearly, but they can get under each other's skin in a second. Lots of frustration to work through.  

43. What do they think of Julian so far? She's having a ball, this man is chaos, and she thrives in chaos. He's one of the few who can keep up with her, both in incoherent trains of thoughts and semi-parkouring around the city.

44. What do they think of Portia so far? It was love at first sight, slow motion, cheesy music, everything. She tries to hide just how far she's fallen, because it's really stupid, she's not that easy to win over, but she's failing miserably. Scilla is prepared to do anything to save her from harm.

45. What do they think of Muriel so far? They got off the wrong foot, and he's really trying her patience, as Scilla is not used to people disliking her. They have a long way to go, and I have a long fic to write :(

46. Do they like animals? She grew up poor, so the concept of keeping animals as friends is weird to her. If Scilla sees an animal her mind automatically sorts it to edible/non edible, could be used for farm work/practically useless. This is one of her many conflicts with Muriel. Of course this changes with time and she'd never eat Faust or Pepi, but Camio's on thin fucking ice.

47. Are they allergic to anything? Humourless people

48. Do they have any talents (except magic)? Dancing and astronomy. Also has a knack for smooth social interactions.  

49. Do they get drunken easily? Hates to lose control over her actions, so she doesn't really drink.

50. What is their personality type?  no idea

51. What is their worst negative quality? Desire to control people, greed, mistrust, dishonesty, a tendency to start unnecessary arguments, impulsiveness, pettiness.  

52. What is their best positive quality? Creativity, attentiveness, sense of humour, willingness to help, friendliness, politeness, problem solving attitude.  

53. What is their position to fall asleep? CUDDLE. If only a pillow, then a pillow.

54. The most uncomfortable moment they ever experienced? Getting caught lying by Asra. She used magic to vanish on the spot.

55. Their happiest memory? Waking up surrounded by those she loves, and realising it's not Asra's turn to make breakfast.  

56. Do they blush? It doesn't really show on her skin.

57. Are they clumsy? Quite the opposite.  

58. Do they like jokes? Hell yeah.

59. How do they flirt? You've got to be careful with an enchanting voice, so it's mostly nonverbal, the right dress does all the talking for her. Casual touches, eyes lingering a bit too long. Letting the strap of the dress slide off her shoulders, or her shirt ride up a bit. In a relationship, she's ready to throw in some whispered dirty talk and not so casual touching.  

60. Favourite fruit? Grapes, blueberries and sour cherry.

Why, yes! I do have too much time on my hands due social distancing :)

The questions are originally from @gemarcana​ I think, picture made with picrew

[teabooksandsweets]

The Horse and His Boy has always been one of my favourite Narnia books, and I am glad to say that this hasn't changed at all. It's also by far my favourite title. In fact, I dare say, it's my favourite book title in general, not only out of the Narnia books.

I love the way this book is written, from its style through its structure to its characterization. Having read the series only in the chronological order before, it's really interesting to see how Lewis' writing evolved over the course of the series. I can't say it got better, as it was wonderful from the very beginning on, but there is a visible sort of development, which is especially apparent in the characters and world building.

I love the way Shasta/Cor and Aravis are written – both of them are lovely people, but their behaviour is awfully much influenced from their upbringing and experiences. Shasta's distrust in other people, which lead to a sort of selfishness, and Aravis' privileged aloofness, which lead to a sort of ruthlessness – both of which they slowly but steadily grow out – are not part of their natural personalities, not part of their souls, but of what they are taught to be. Both of them have practically opposite backgrounds, but they come down to the same thing: In order to dare to be as good as they truly are, they need to learn about the good in others, and learn to believe in it. They make a wonderful pair. I also very much adore the horses – Hwin's gentle steadfastness and Bree's pompous fallacy are wonderfully written. It's especially of note that, despite them being Talking Horses, Lewis truly showed that he knew horses, and how to write them. They didn't feel like humans in horse bodies – they were truly horses. I also love the other two kids – in some ways, Corin and Lasaraleen are even more charming than the protagonists, although I don't like them more (or less) than them. They are lovable and engaging side characters and simply a joy to read about. I even think they'd get along really well – not at first, certainly not, but they both have such amazing temperaments that would at least be very entertaining to watch interacting. I also really loved the Hermit. He's a fascinating character and I would love to know more about him. I wonder, if maybe he is also a Star or some other, well, unusual person. That aside, it was lovely to see the adult Pevensies – they all were exactly what they were. Susan, the Gentle Queen who didn't fight though she could, and Lucy the Valiant in chain mail and helmet, Peter the Magnificent fighting giants, and Edmund the Just making peace and plans.

In fact – it's lovely to see a glimpse of the Golden Age, which brings me back the extended world building. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the land and time of Narnia were so full of a very particular, tight sort of magic and enchantment. We knew little of the times before, and even less of the lands beyond. At that point, the World of Narnia and the Land of Narnia could have been one and the same, or else, if there had been more lands, they could also been enchanted. And then, all the more of that world we saw was so, so much later. It's amazing to actually see a story happen just a few years after the Long Winter, in two completely different countries, that existed beside Narnia all the time. Just think of it! According to Lewis' own timeline, the events in this book happened fourteen years after the Pevensies came to Narnia, so the children had not been born at that time, but all the adults we see had. There has been normal life in these countries all that time, and for some reason that does feel quite amazing to me, although I can't really explain how and why. It's just a really different feeling for the story – not better or worse, just different. It's also interesting to read a story from the perspective of characters who were born in the World of Narnia, and even more so to read one from the perspective of characters who didn't grow up in the Land of Narnia. It's the only book with no relation to our world, and that's very intriguing.

My favourite scene? I don't know. Probably Aslan's appearances in various shapes. His role was quite unusual compared to His appearances in the other books, and written in a particularly interesting, and sensitive way. The things He said to Shasta/Cor and Aravis were so very individually relevant, and their effect on them so very significant. His encounter with Bree, I dare say, seemed to have a message that went beyond the pages of the book, but I don't want to put anything into Lewis' words that might not actually be there. It's more of a personal feeling than an actual interpretation.

As for the supposed racism in this book, that I know some people will talk about: Do yourself a favour, and educate yourself. To be honest, I suppose me saying this is of no good use, but I don't want to actually discuss this, beyond saying that a lot of the complaints show some underlying racism themselves, and even more so a severe lack of understanding of this book, as well as various Middle Eastern cultures and religions, both ancient and modern. There's so many remarks on this that are made up of dramatic misinformation, and also an uncomfortable array of people who claim to care for social justice, but at the same time seem to believe all sorts of bad and untrue things about the people they supposedly want to protect, yet obviously don't respect. (It his unfortunate, but certainly not Lewis' fault, that some Islamophobic Christians have a dreadful idea of Islam that somehow resembles the Calormene Paganism, but, so do some of the people who accuse Lewis of Islamophobia.) This is on the racism related to real people.

As for the supposed racism inside the story, I dare say, if anything, the Calormenes show more of it than anyone else, and even that is very limited. I already noticed in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, that Lewis preferred to portray the Calormenes in a fairly neutral, and even more so a very interesting way, describing them as a wise, wealthy, courteous, cruel and ancient people. He did this in a way similar to how he described Trumpkin's face, and I've mentioned before that I absolutely adore how Lewis used to set “good” and “bad” adjectives side by side, simply using them as what they are, rather than a form of judgement. He also did this for the personalities of various characters – such as Edmund and Eustace – and on plenty of other occasions and matters. It's also of note, that all criticism of Calormen was in regards to its politics and some traditions, and never were the people portrayed to be bad based on their race, which played no role at all, or their culture, which was described to be a very beautiful one.

Personally, I find the Calormenes to be highly fascinating to begin with. I mentioned the difference reading the books in the original order makes in regards to the world building, and – with The Magician's Nephew not yet written at that time – I wonder how the Calormenes got to Narnia. I mean, not only how, but from where. Of course, the Telmarines are already proof enough, that after the creation of Narnia there have been people from our world getting there, long before the Pevensies came, but also – long after Frank and Helen came. And that's the interesting thing. Because the Creation of Narnia shows that it happened when in our world, it was the late 19th century, we cannot know since when Lewis had that in mind. The Telmarines were pirates, and the Calormenes seem to come from a very ancient, at least pre-Islamic (if not older than that) Middle East. And at this point, I wonder, was Narnia meant to have been created earlier?

I think it wasn't. I actually think they seem so old, because of the very long time they've been in Narnia! (I mean the World, of course.) Narnia isn't an antique or even medieval world, even though many make it out to be. From the very first book on, Narnia was almost modern – they had the lamppost, after all, even before we learned how it got there, they has sewing machines, fairly modern books, houses that resembled actual modern houses like the house Coriakin lived in, and all sorts of other things that show that there has been a sort of modern influence in Narnia all the time. The Telmarines could have been more or less modern Pirates, who somehow had to adjust to the place, and so did – even earlier – the Calormenes. They used what they had, and somehow adjusted to a live that, even a thousand years after the Long Winter, seemed older than that. And while the Calormene religion is, in terms of inspiration, based on Babylonian religions, the actual religion of the Calormenes is based in their world, and while not religiously True, based around at least one very real deity, which proves that they actually developed the cult around Tash through Tash and on Tash, after coming to Calormen. They might have been normal, modern people from somewhere in West to South Asia, who applied knowledge of their own ancient religions to what they saw in Narnia, and while only a few decades passed in our world, their old and new views and experiences mingled over the millenniums that passed over in Calormen into the culture we finally got to see. I mean – think of the Pevensies, who went on to become quite medieval in style and manners, too. If they could come to Narnia as completely modern people, and then change like that in less than fifteen years, why shouldn't others do so over thousands and thousands of years? I think this is all quite fascinating. Some might think that the fact that Narnia is not really an “independent” world makes it somehow less interesting, less intricate, but I think the way people get there, and bring things into the world, and change and adjust them, is amazing and a completely different sort of world building.

Also!!! It has been hinted that there are even more countries than the ones we know!!! Which is so amazing!!! And makes me so excited!!! The world actually goes on beyond Calormen!!! And Calormen is huge, oh my!!!

By the way, I love the name Breehy-hinny-brinny-hoohy-hah, and I suppose Hwin also is short for a horsey name. According to Wikipedia, it's probably a contraction of “Hwinhynym”. That would be nice!

I cannot really choose a serious favourite quote (there's just too many!) so I'll go with this one: “Even though Education and all sorts of horrible things are going to happen to me.” I also don't really think I have a favourite chapter.

[m58]

A review of Peter Dent’s ‘Yarn’

Copy No-One

Peter Dent Yarn (Leafe 2021), citation p36; as nettles and ivy permit (Kaleidikon 2020) edition of 50

An alternative rendering of the title might be to copy only oneself, although as Dent elaborated ‘Copy no-one was my mantra until I’d tasted the best of what is and discovered ‘provenance’’ (p36). Dent that is is highly original but his inspiration neither is entirely without precedence. He has been writing inventive poetry for a long time now, since Proxima Centauri (1972) from Agenda, very often in short run limited editions. Dent has thus far resisted any compelling impetus to compile a Selected. Actually the copying motif is no doubt highly pertinent now given the essential status of appropriation among the avant-garde Conceptualists. Dent was also editor and publisher of Interim Press from 1975 to ’87.

It is worth recalling again that I first came across Dent’s writing in the Stride/Shearsman anthology A State of Independence (1998) for the spare and stirring sequence ‘Naming Nothing’, which I still regard highly, and is probably a good place to start for making sense of this poetry. Another highpoint is likely a trilogy of books from Shearsman;- Handmade Equations (2005), Tripping Daylight (2012), and A Wind-Up Collider (2019), by way of retrospect.

Working in favour of this writing is its originality and lack of pretension; it comes without inordinate claims and has a way of affecting or settling into the mind. That said I’d say Peter Dent clearly enjoys writing and is unequivocal about playing the authorial part. Like a number of others he is not averse on occasion to ephemeral private publication, though these works are generally in short runs, as we find for instance with as nettles and ivy permit.

I suspect then there is a sense in which Dent’s writing is not imposing; no grand claims; no reaching out or pushing for authority. And of course this is a little deceptive, like an underdog peculiarly fit for rigours of comparison.

We are here however certainly encountering a late phase in Peter Dent’s (b.1938) poetic trail. I don’t doubt one really has not, if anything else, the energy for it. That said, for mature work I’d say it is very accomplished, the mind in so many ways as perceptual and delineatory, discriminatory as ever.

Yarn naturally takes on both meanings of the word, but this is a collection of some 61 prose poetry pieces rather than any larger narrative. The self deprecatory note is apparent right off from the first poem, ‘At Least One Yarn’s Died the Death’. The homemade white yarn glove on the cover is also short of a couple of fingers. This piece does actually have a self-contained argument winding its way through;- ‘The school closed long ago’, ‘the 20th Century’s lost its way here’, recuperative action may be required but ‘it will mean more than walking the dog’ in that ‘Students are now topographically challenged’ where ‘Playgrounds fly only branded kites’. (p7) It’s a bit of a melancholy observation, Dent himself was a school teacher, but it can hardly be denied the acute and penetrating perception of these linked up observances. There seems to be some sort of recognition that students lack the capability of mobility that once promised and motivated challenges of moving higher or on.

This sense of perhaps opportunities curbed or lost continues in the second poem, ‘A Yarn Found Wanting’ which begins ‘The carnival was only too obviously over’ (p.8). Although this rather elegiac note seems to approach a kind of resolving cast in the third ‘One Yarn to Another’,- ‘I don’t mind what you do: being words only you can always listen to their song.’ (end p.9) There is a muted social commentary here that is perhaps for others to more fully if not prosaically work out.

‘Yarn with Black and Maroon’ that closes the collection returns to this quality of perceptiveness. It consists of three ‘deliberations’, which it is tempting to ascribe as students’ guides. These are,- ‘My shadow makes to light everything I owe’ (somewhat paraphrasing); ‘A road of the circumstances of my understanding’; and ‘Sometimes necessary to close down words too manic to fit’. This verges on a highly truncated ars poetica, while also nothing so obviously grand.

That first deliberation discusses a bringing to light but also a no doubt ethical question of what is ‘owed’. And this plainly also reverts back to the writing, as, say, ‘what is owed in writing’. This suggests to me the way so many of us are caught up as a ‘community’, albeit a highly dispersed one, of writers. We very likely often take on writing not for the obvious lure of fame, fortune and bestselling, but out of an effort of communication with and between those who matter to us, a certain quality of care, attention, craft and the workmanlike.

Dent’s gripping and multi-varied renderings of language are highlighted at many instances through the book. There is for instance a very charming observation on page 49,- ‘Only love and art have the faintest who I am’ which is succinct as well as unexpected. Another memorable rendering occurs just before this,-

            ‘half out the door I’m seeking alliance with simply what              at any given time and in any place actually IS.’   (p.45)

‘Yarn Warp’ (p.21) has some highly adventurous phrasing to encounter,-

            ‘I’m a latch-key liberal independent and a pro-future sky-              diver with an early-onset appetite for even slower slow-              cooking. I’m a multi-bit fact-fake deviant after my tea.’ (end p.21)

which is refreshing and provocative, for instance in matching ‘fact’ to ‘fake’ and contrasting ‘early-onset’ with ‘slowing’ down, not to mention concluding with questions of when to take tea.

nettles and ivy is also dispositionally quite complex. Ways of apprising this, say, might be the artwork and title, neither could be called ‘easy’ or ‘pitched to sell’, say. This intimates perhaps that much of which it speaks pertains to the inner life, including its complexities; but if probed it does yield.

I could pick out a few among numerous distinctive phrasings;-

          ‘If only I hadn’t put myself at the centre of the mystery; if           candy floss hadn’t tempted – and you not around to see.’ (‘Frailties’)

And the conclusion of ‘Palm Trees and Sandy Assignments’;-

                  ‘She thinks irresolutely about me. I

     can account for just about everything that doesn’t matter.      I can’t what does. Her whisper. Barely a breath of air.’ (‘Palm Trees’, end)

Then the penultimate ‘Imagine You Don’t’;-

     ‘She can wear her clothes out; I like her as much as she is as      she isn’t. I always stump up the necessary.’     (‘Imagine You Don’t’, end)

There is also the ‘last rehearsal’ and ‘waving goodbye’ of the final poem, ‘Ill-Informed Choices’, which I suspect many readers may pick up on. Personal pronouns don’t appear too frequently; the ‘Red Book of Refractions’ has much of the male third person.

So the pamphlet I would say is highly articulate and nuanced. There is a thread which I might describe as an awareness of seeking out or recognising in an insightful way matters of truth and deception. In all then, acutely thoughtful and unexpected. My impression is that this will hold up well to rereading; plenty going on there, as with Yarn.

Dent I can only conclude has a pretty decent grasp of philosophy and of ethics. As we find for instance in ‘Unspecified Yarns of the Moment’ he maintains that there is not the inclination to ‘put my mind between warring parties’ (p.62). And nearer the conclusion in this prose poem we arrive at ‘Thinking a letter will put things straight or fix a wise-woman’s potion is curious? If only there were different words and happier meanings.’ There are limits to what words can do. There is naturally what might be termed an interface between action and behaviour and the use of language. An accurate and incisive use of speech is no guarantor of happy episodes or endings.

Poetry can be showy or adept without necessarily offering up much in the way of novel insight or understanding. At the end of the day we are surely returned to how literature and words connect with our behaviour, thoughts and perceptions. Language might be conceded as something of a means to an end. But of course we are embroiled in it and lengthy passages of time can go by in which the use of words is not seen as particularly critical. I suspect Dent’s writing probes or at times irritates with these pertinent connections. There is and has been the effort to move forward with the language, to enjoy and explore its capacities. Albeit that these are very late entries into the game these two publications have a remarkable solidity and a kind of essentialism, whereof the expressiveness is very adequate, guided and appropriate to intent. Whence at last to reside,- ‘This is after all a road and being on it keeps me free’ (p67). Dent keeps this curt and suggestive rather than fully spelling it out, though others have well worked the road motif, as if we were not always gathered into that process of getting from A to B.

Clark Allison

[enter-the-phantom]

Hi! I hope this question isn’t annoying but why do you say Snape is ooc in Hogwars Mystery? I find him pretty accurate (and I love the sassy remarks he makes). I know in the books he’s not as hard on slytherins but still the only student he’s actually nice to is Draco. I also find very interesting the moment in the timeline the game is set, Lily just died 3 years before which makes me think Snape should be extra bitter because he’s hurting a lot. What do you think?

First, wanted to say don’t take this next part the wrong way, but I sort of have a policy on my blog that I don’t discuss Snily in any way, shape, or form. ^.^” It’s a severe emotional trigger for me (if you want you can check my FAQ’s). This isn’t a reprimand against you, it’s more of a notice to anyone else who might come to my blog to ask something similar to this and not know!

Also folks reading this: please, please, DO NOT REBLOG OR DISCUSS. If you haven’t read my FAQ’s and you’re a new follower, I suggest you do so. There’s important info there about why I don’t like to discuss Snape’s character in detail and why I get touchy about it. I’m answering this ask because it’s a fair and polite question, but I do not want to discuss this further or I could go to a very bad place mentally and emotionally. Thank you! :)

There’s a lot of reasons he’s OOC. I will admit I’m not very far in the game yet, so I’m sure I’ll find a LOT more, but here’s what I’ve got so far: 

-The “correct” choices are things Snape hates. One of the big things I noticed was that the way to get Snape to not absolutely despise you was to give excuses, blame others, and suck-up. 

We see pretty early on in the books that Snape hates it when his students give excuses. He has a deep respect for authority and expects the same from his students. When he scolds you for something, he expects a polite apology and a “yes, sir”. But if you give that to him in this game, he just gets even more upset. 

Snape also isn’t big on suck-ups. We’ll look at that in our next point. 

-Snape and Merula. His odd favoritism towards her is very OOC. And I know what you’re thinking: “What about Draco?” Let’s examine Snape and Draco to further look at Snape and Merula. 

Snape knows Draco’s father. Draco’s father believes Snape to still be a Death Eater. He needs to stay in his good graces, both for his own safety and to further serve Dumbledore and the Order. Of course he’s not going to get on Draco’s bad side. His favoritism of Draco can also be easily explained as him wanting to protect Draco from what happened to him. Draco is a very vulnerable kid, and Snape knows this. By favoring him and hopefully gaining his favor, Snape can influence him not to go down the same path he and his father once did. 

But what about Merula? We know Merula’s parents were once Death Eaters, but in the game, it’s mentioned they’re in Azkaban. Snape doesn’t need to fear them the way he needed to fear Lucius. Maybe he’s trying to protect her the same way he does Draco later on, but it seems a bit extreme. And let’s not forget that if there’s one thing Snape despises, it’s bullies (yes, I can hear the antis calling hypocrisy now). 

And yes, I know he didn’t care about Draco’s bullying, but don’t forget who Draco was bullying. I’m not so sure he’d be so apathetic if it was just a random kid to whom he had no personal grudge. Rowan, Ben, and the player have no connection to Snape. They’re innocent bystanders, just as he once was. I find it very hard to believe that he would turn a blind eye to, and even protect, Merula in this situation. 

-His physical appearance. Now this may not seem like a big deal, but in actuality, it’s vital to how we perceive him. And before we begin, yes, I do understand he is based off of Alan Rickman’s version of the character. The problem is that Alan’s version wasn’t at all physically accurate. So really this will also be a sort of critique of the film’s portrayal, lol. 

There’s a lot to go through here, so let’s start with age. In this game, I believe Snape is around 27 (he’s got a January birthday and I’m not good at math, so I’m probably a year off). However, he appears to be around 50. 

For better or worse, we all have preconceptions about people based on the way they look. Any character designer can tell you this. An older character is going to seem more emotionally mature, strong, and able to handle themselves. In book canon, Snape is none of these things. 

Now it is true that he probably looks older than he is due to stress and malnutrition. But he wouldn’t appear to be in his 50′s when he’s in his late 20′s. Making him appear older not only makes us subconsciously view him as more mature and high-brow, it also takes him out of the world of the Marauders. He looks much older than the other Marauder-era characters, which is a problem. It makes him seem more removed and distant from them, when they were a huge part of why he became who he is. 

Next is his size. In the books, Snape is very often described as being very thin, almost appearing malnourished, and actually rather short (he’s described as being “quite a bit shorter than Sirius”, and in the opening scene of DH he’s “the shorter man”). This is actually very important. A tall, broad-shouldered man in his 50′s having bad memories of being bullied seems more like someone who just needs to let a few mean words roll off of him. But a short, skinny man, once a short, skinny teenager, going through the same thing tells a very different story. Sirius and James may not have been able to physically intimidate the Snape shown in the movies and Hogwarts Mystery, but they could snap book-canon Snape like a twig. 

Now in the films, we can overlook this more easily. It’s not Alan’s fault he was in his 60′s–twice as old as Snape is in PS/SS–when he first took the role. And it makes sense from a cinematographic standpoint to make Snape larger: someone of book canon’s size would be very un-intimidating on camera without the descriptions in a novel to set the tone. But in a game, it’s much easier to give the player a moody, immersive setting. It would have been possible to make him his original book-canon size and not lose anything. 

…Of course, this could have just been done to keep him recognizable for film fans and I just wasted twenty minutes typing all that, lol. 

-His undermining of other teachers/authority. 

As we’ve already discussed, Snape has a deep respect for authority. And yet there are in times in the game when he directly goes against what his colleagues say and do. When Flitwick stands up for you after the duel with Merula, Snape ignores/shoots him down. 

Flitwick, as far as we know, was one of Snape’s teachers at Hogwarts (another problem with changing his age appearance-wise: he appears older than the very teachers who taught him as a boy!). Snape would never undermine one of his own teachers, even as an adult. Let’s not forget all the times he backed down to McGonagall in the books (she mentions teaching James, so we know she taught Snape as well). 

He also speaks ill of Dumbledore several times. As you said, this is 3-4 years after Voldemort’s fall, after Dumbledore has taken Snape in. Although he does have a few remarks to make in the books, we need to remember this is after Harry has arrived at Hogwarts and Dumbledore has begun favouring him. At this point, Snape doesn’t have a lot of reason to get on Dumbledore’s bad side, especially when his position is so precarious. 

-His teaching style. I’ll admit, this is more of a nit-pick than anything else. But Snape is very adamant in the books about how precise the art of potion-making is. He doesn’t really allow/encourage the use of magic in his classroom for things like levitating bottles or cutting ingredients–there’s too much room for error. 

And yet in the game, there’s magic flying everywhere in his classroom. Maybe it was just a design choice, but it’s annoying. In other HP games, such as the LEGO series, potions was kept non-magical and the fun was still there! 

-But the big one for me so far is his use of the word “sniveling”. This may not seem like such a huge deal, but it’s actually pretty important. We’ve seen his reaction to variants of this word in the HP book series, and it’s always angry and emotional. I don’t think he’d use this word lightly to reprimand/bully a student, and I think we all know why. To me this shows that the writers don’t really know or understand his character. 

And that’s my main issue: they didn’t understand his character before writing him into the game. This man is incredibly important to me. Seeing him reduced to a caricature of who he is, someone representing only one facet, the worst facet, of his complex personality, is terribly offensive. I’ve even seen him compared to versions of Snape cooked up by anti’s. 

I think it’s important for people to understand that it’s personally difficult for me. Because of my story, I’m going to take greater offense to anything regarding him than most people would. If I make comments about him being OOC, it’s not really a critique of the game or those who play it. It’s just me venting my frustration at…a lot of things. 

[whiteladyofrohann]

I've always thought in terms of personality, arya is much more like catelyn and Sansa much more like Ned. Popular opinion seems to like it the other way round though. Maybe it's because of looks, maybe it's because Sansa/cat less popular arya/Ned more so they group them like that. But I firmly believe personality wise, arya gets more from cat and Sansa more from Ned. I was wondering if you could expand on this and share your opinion?

Hey there anon :).I’ve picked up on this many times before and for some reason its oftenoverlooked by many in the fandom. I’ve always thought that while Arya resemblesNed and Sansa resembles Cat, their personality and mannerisms are actually morelike the other parent. I personally think this is often denied because a lot ofpeople love Ned and Arya but don’t like Cat and Sansa, so I’m hoping this mayhelp change their opinion.

Catelyn and Arya:

Feminism: Despite thevery patriarchal society they live in, both Cat and Arya are essentiallychampions of women, recognising the worth of women and also almost scorning howthey’re seen as second value citizens in Westeros:

Catelyn: ‘A woman can rule as wisely as a man’: When Brynden seems to worrythat Lysa intends to rule the Eyrie, Catelyn says this, emphasising her beliefthat women can do just as much of a good job ruling (and to be fair, Bryndendoes agree that the ‘right’ woman can)

Catelyn: ‘Girls are not important enough, are they?’: This is her responsewhen Robb tells her that he could’ve traded Jaime for Ned, and she realisesthat Sansa and Arya aren’t worth as much, lamenting how society favours menover women.

Arya: ‘The woman is important too’: This is when Jon spots that Joffreywears both the royal Baratheon sigil of his ‘father’ and the Lannister lion ofhis mother and says that the royal sigil should be enough but he wears hismother’s house sigil as equal and Arya protests that, saying that women arejust as important.

Both Catelyn and Arya are actually rather intelligent: Now I’mnot saying that Sansa and Ned aren’t intelligent, but Arya definitely takesafter Catelyn, she’s a lot more intuitive than Sansa is, and that is all Cat. Catelynmanages to outwit Tyrion, and he acknowledges that himself: ‘All his life Tyrion had prided himself onhis cunning…yet this seven-times-damned she-wolf Catelyn Stark had outwittedhim at every turn’. Arya is intelligent as well, for example, she uses herwit and intelligence to manipulate Jaqen into freeing them from Harrenhal, shemanages to learn how to speak Braavosi, despite her young age (I also love howwhen she’s in Braavos, ‘Cat of the Canals’ is a name she uses, it breaks myheart).

They both have a massive taste for revenge:

Arya: ‘Every night Arya would say their names. SerGregor…The Tickler and the Hound, Ser Amory, Ser Ilyn, Ser Meryn, KingJoffrey, Queen Cersei’: The list of names that Arya has of people she wantsto kill is very well known in both the books and the show.

Catelyn: ‘I want them all dead, Brienne. Theon Greyjoyfirst, then Jaime Lannister and Cersei and the Imp, every one’: This isbefore Lady Stoneheart, so there’s not even the excuse of the ruthless,resurrected zombified Catelyn who is taking this stance on revenge.

Catelyn literally has a list of people she wants dead, notnecessarily by her hand, whereas Arya actually wants to kill the people on herlist, but if this isn’t a huge pointer to who Arya takes after, then I don’t knowwhat is. Now Catelyn isn’t violent, but she’s certainly after vengeance. Ned isn’ta someone who seems like that. Yes he went to war, but I’d argue that was moreabout finding Lyanna. And if he had got the chance, I’d say he would’ve killedAerys without blinking, but I firmly believe Arya’s stance on revenge andvengeance comes from Cat, and not Ned. Here are some of Cat’s other quotes:

‘You are the gentlesex’ said Lord Karstark…’A man has a need for vengeance’…‘Give me CerseiLannister, Lord Karstark, and you would see how gentle a woman can be’

‘I have no skill withswords, but that does not mean that I do not dream of riding to King’s Landingand wrapping my hands around Cersei Lannister’s white throat and squeezing until her face turns black’

Not only is Cat demonstrating her taste for vengeance, butparticularly in that second quote, she’s describing it gruesomely. Cat has afierceness that is seen in Arya. Arya’s list is almost purely based on a desireto get revenge for the deaths of her family, that sounds pretty similar to acertain resurrected character. This fierceness we see in Arya is all Cat, Ned is not a fierce person at all.

Emotion: Both Cat and Arya are driven by emotion, and this can oftenmean them doing reckless things. While Cat (for the most part) is morerational, and that comes with age and maturity, she can be impulsive at times. ForArya, things like hitting Joffrey (although he was attacking Mycah, Joffrey isthe crown prince and it’s punishable by death to strike him) is an example ofher recklessness, but she does it to protect someone. Catelyn releasing Jaimestrikes me as something similar, it is a reckless act, but driven by a desireto protect her daughters and get them safe. Yes, it wasn’t a good move andseverely weakened Robb’s cause (Though I don’t think that cost him the war asothers do. They just place the blame on Cat), but it reminds me of Arya,because that is something she would do.

Cat is very emotionally driven when it comes to Jon. Jon’spresence (not his existence, contrary to popular belief, Cat doesn’t hate thefact that Jon exists. She actually says she wouldn’t mind if Ned had manybastards, as long as they were kept away) affects her emotionally and it hurtsher to see him every day, to be reminded of the honourable Ned Stark’s infidelity.She acts on emotion and chooses to ignore him over something he had no choicein, and it is driven by her hurt over the situation. Arya is similar to this,in the show, not the book, when Gendry is taken. Gendry is like an anchor forArya at this point, and it really hurts her to see him being taken byMelisandre. However, she adds Beric, Thoros and Melisandre to her list forthis. A list that includes Cersei, Joffrey, Walder Frey, people who helpedmurder her family. Now, Gendry being taken really hurt her, but do them threedeserve to be on her list? Not really, it’s purely driven by emotion.

Childhood: Arya is obviously well known for her play during childhood. She’smessy, enjoys playing with the boys, wants to swordfight, and just wild ingeneral. People often liken that to Lyanna, but Catelyn remembers her ownchildhood where she used to make mud pies with Lysa, and used to play with herand Petyr. Although she didn’t swordfight, Catelyn’s own childhood mirrors Arya’squite a bit, since she also enjoyed playing as a child (I have a headcanon thatArya’s archery skills come from Catelyn because as a child, Cat was taught howto use a bow and arrow by Brynden Tully, but there’s no evidence for that, it’sjust a headcanon). People may then call Cat a hypocrite for wanting Arya not toengage in play activities, but people also forget that Cat was forced to growup very quickly after her mother died and it likely was a quick transition thatshe wasn’t prepared for and I argue that she wanted Arya to be more preparedthan she was and she’s also aware of how harsh society is for women, especiallythose who don’t fit into the roles of ‘looking pretty’ and producing babies.

Strength: Another similarity is both of them remaining strong.

Arya: ‘I am a wolf and will not be afraid’ and the repeated ‘I’m not afraid’ in the show’ demonstrate Arya’s strength. Arya is afraid, and the Hound picks up on that, but she tries to push the feeling of being afraid away out of fear of being weak, she can’t allow herself to be weak, instead she resorts to her inner strength.

Catelyn: ‘I want to weep, shethought. I want to be comforted. I’m so tired of being strong. I want to befoolish and frightened for once. Just for a small while, that’s all, a day, anhour’ While Catelyn is talking about grief and not fear, she also shares the similar belief that she has to be strong, so she pushes her grief away because she also can’t allow herself to be weak, like Arya, demonstrating the inner strength she has.

I said in a previous ask Cat and Arya’s relationship is undervalued, but there are so many things Catelyn loves about Arya and now Arya will never get the chance to know how much her mother loved her. One thing that is heartbreaking is that we know how desperately Catelynwanted to give Ned a son that looked like him, but she never got the chance to.I believe that despite the fact that Arya is not seen as ‘pretty’ and doesn’t getthe nice Tully features the other four do, Cat wouldn’t change Arya’sappearance because Arya is the brown haired, grey eyed child she’d alwayswanted.

LSH doesn’t look like she will be introduced in the show,but in the books, I firmly believe that it will be Arya, to put her out of hermisery. And I like to think that having to kill her own mother, Arya will stopher quest for vengeance and head north to find her family.

Ned and Sansa:

Naivety: Sansa has obviously changed since season 1, but in season 1,her and Ned shared the same naivety. Both of them go to Cersei in the hope thatshe will listen to them, and it backfires on both of them. Ned confrontedCersei with the fact that he knew the truth about her and Jaime, and that wasessentially him signing his death warrant. It was naive of Ned to believe thatCersei wouldn’t try to fight back in any way. Cersei has watched Robert’svengeance follow the Targaryen children around in exile, and she didn’t wantthat for her own children, Ned’s naivety cost him his life. Sansa also runs totell Cersei of Ned’s plans to leave, and it backfired. 

Too Trusting: Ned obviously doesn’t trust Cersei, but he places trust in her that he believes she will take up his offer and flee. He trusts that she will put the interest of her children first, and she doesn’t and he was too trusting of her.

Ned: ‘Distrusting me wasthe wisest thing you’ve done since you climbed off your horse’—‘I did warn you not to trust me’: This is the classic example of Ned being too trusting. Placing his trust in a man who literally tells him not too.

Sansa: ‘Once she had loved Prince Joffrey with allher heart and admired and trusted his mother, the queen. They had repaid thatlove and trust with her father’s head: Sansa places her trust in the wrong people, just as Ned does, and unfortunately for her, she finds out the hard way and it’s certainly a learning curve for her. The too trusting thing is all Ned, Catelyn is much more wary of people, as is Arya (Roose Bolton at Harrenhal for example)

The Eyrie: This is much more of a simple parallel, but it is still one.

Ned: Grows up in the Eyrie as a ward of Jon Arryn

Sansa: Spends time in the Eyrie under the ‘protection’ of Littlefinger as his bastard daughter (niece in the show)

It’s a very simple similarity, but I believe there is a purpose to everything that George writes. It’s funny that LF is almost trying to make Sansa turn into Catelyn, but he’s doing so in a place where Sansa will feel connected to Ned.

Traditional: While Cat and Arya very much champion women and are essentially medieval feminists, Ned and Sansa are much more traditional. Now, that’s not to say that they don’t value women, because they do. Sansa has probably been beaten down to think that women aren’t worth much but by season 7, we see that she’s really starting to believe in herself as a woman. Ned definitely valued women, respected them, he had a lot of trust in Catelyn, but in reality they are both traditional and fit in with the patriarchal society. Sansa despises of anything unlady-like that Arya does, because it’s not how a woman should act. Certainly in book one, Sansa is convinced that she has to look pretty for Joffrey, smile for him, give him babies, a very traditional medieval view of a woman’s role. Ned certainly doesn’t see Catelyn as a breeding machine, and that’s not what my point is here, but he is still traditional in the fact that he is in charge, and what he says goes. He doesn’t give Cat a say in Jon’s situation and then forbids her to talk about him, using his authority as the male over her. That’s not to say Ned is mean, it’s him being traditional, the man is superior to the woman.

Gentleness: Both Ned and Sansa are much more gentle than Cat and Arya. Cat and Arya have a fierceness we don’t see in Ned and Sansa. Sansa is a gentle young lady, made for the south, doesn’t know how harsh the world is, a very gentle soul. Despite his rough exterior, we know that Ned is actually a very gentle person: ‘Eyes that could be soft as fog or hard as stone’, ‘Once I found the good, sweet heart beneath Ned’s solemn face’. Sansa’s gentleness towards people and life is 100% Ned, even though he doesn’t seem the gentle type.

Armour: Their metaphorical suits of armour are pointed out:

Ned: ‘You wear your honour like a suit of armour, Stark’

Sansa: ‘What was it that Septa Mordane used to tell her? A ladies armour is courtesy’

It’s another simple similarity, but a fascinating one again, because they are both using these metaphorical suits of armour to almost shield them from real life. Ned holds honour in high regard, as Sansa holds courtesy as well, and they are the things that they use to shield themselves, as armour is supposed to do.

General Personality: Ned is known as the most quiet (his nickname is the ‘Quiet Wolf’), sensible, patient, dutiful and this is definitely evident in Sansa. Sansa is also rather quiet (in comparison to Arya), sensible and patient, she’s not rash or reckless, she’s slower to act to things, idealistic, she has a great deal of empathy. That’s not to say that Catelyn is the complete opposite, Catelyn does have empathy and she’s not completely reckless, but these qualities are much more evident in Ned.

Reassurance: This again is only a small one, but in the show only, we’ve seen a similarity between Ned and Sansa, trying to reassure Catelyn and Jon respectively that they belong in Winterfell

Ned: ‘All these years and I still feel like an outsider when I come here’ — ‘You have five Northern children. You’re not an outsider’

Sansa: ‘I’m not a Stark’ — ‘You are to me’

It’s a very simple parallel, but an important one. They are both reassuring someone who isn’t sure of their place, that they belong. We saw Sansa through season 6 continue to try and assure Jon that he had a place, that he was a Stark. She made him a Stark cloak, she told him he should have the lord’s chamber, she convinced him to be the person to lead them retaking Winterfell. I imagine that Ned throughout his marriage, assured Catelyn that she belonged in Winterfell, the North was her home etc.

Like Cat and Arya, Ned and Sansa’s relationship is massively undervalued as well. Sansa is his first daughter, and while he obviously loves Arya too, that’s something special to him. She’s the first child he would’ve been present for the birth, seen her as a newborn. We don’t actually know when Ned and Cat fell in love, but Sansa could’ve been the first child out of love. Sansa is precious to Ned, she’s just like him in personality, but she looks just like the woman he loves more than anything, and her innocence and gentle look on the world is why I think he doesn’t tell her what the world is really like, he wants to shield his little girl from the horrors of it.

In the end, people talk a lot about Ned sacrificing his honour for Jon, but they often ignore the fact that Ned loved Sansa enough that he was willing to be deemed a traitor to his best friend in order to save her and that is Ned Stark summed up in one scene. He thinks honour is important, but it’s nothing compared to family. Sansa is one of the last things he sees before he dies, and Ned would be proud of the woman Sansa has become

[arthurharris-blog1]

||luke norris, cismale, he/him|| london welcomes arthur harris, the thirty year old physician. i heard him described as compassionate and industrious but also diffident and obsessive. do you think they will survive without a hint of scandal? we will see. (alex, 19, gmt, she/her)

hey hey hey everyone, i’m alex and this is arthur - some information about him can be found below! 

born and raised in the rural outskirts of london, though his father’s apothecary shop was within the city itself, so his time was split fairly unevenly -- a good portion of arthur’s childhood was spent exploring either alone, or at his father’s side when he visited clients to deliver cures. his time at home was mostly spent following his two elder sisters around, whom he admired greatly ( and still does. )

from a young age showed not only a keen interest, but a natural flair for medicine and healing; he could frequently be found comforting people and rescuing injured wildlife even as a young boy. as such, at the age of twelve arthur became his father’s apprentice and by fifteen knew enough to be trusted to essentially run the business himself in his elderly father’s stead. 

after ensuring the recovery of an elderly and childless nobleman who was not only very grateful for the teenaged arthur’s extensive knowledge and professional approach, but also in awe of it, the noble insisted on paying for his education; namely, he would make sure that arthur would not be ‘stuck’ as an apothecary, but would have the chance to reach his full potential. 

this ended up including tutoring in latin and greek, among other subjects so that the educational requirements for medical school would be reached, all of which arthur thoroughly enjoyed. having successfully grasped all he needed, he was sent to oxford university to complete his training as a doctor, graduating years later as a fully fledged physician. 

personality-wise, it has been noted a many time that arthur’s disposition has gone through very few changes from that he possessed as a boy. he is unendingly compassionate, empathetic and patient; traits not always found in those of his profession. his time is spent evenly serving those with lower ( or no ) income and people at the opposite end of the spectrum; they receive the very same meticulous care. given his background, arthur does feel much more comfortable among those of lower classes but is nonetheless all too happy to serve the upper classes; sickness doesn’t discriminate, and neither should care. when he can, likes to make/purchase the medicine he prescribes himself and will usually bring it to the patient directly rather than have an apothecary; though if a shop appears to be struggling he’ll give them a tip for running the errand or pay extra.

is damn good at his job & works his ass off, all the time -- to the point of obsession; tends to neglect himself often in favour of putting others first. sometimes needs someone to tell him to look after himself.

has always been fairly shy and reserved, introverted and much prefers the company of books and research over people -- they certainly induce less anxiety, but he tends to warm to people quite quickly, and is very loyal. just... the softest boy with a heart of gold; cares about everyone & their dog. ( especially their dog. ) always tries to be positive, a ray of sunshine in everybody’s life -- particularly because in his profession a bit of positivity is often needed.

[ebonystar]

I rant for a very long time about a story likely set as standard coursework by idiots in the Ministry of Education

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/LadyTige.shtml

I'm sorry. My teacher is making me suffer through this story again. I leave you this, which I wrote in my fury.

It is with the deepest fury that the most gracious masterpieces are formed. Either whomever wrote 'The lady or the tiger' was feeling rather happy when he did write it, or he was just so miserably inept and uncaring that he allowed his work to stagnate like the piece of school-standard literature it is.

'The Lady or the Tiger' is a story which postulates on the result of a situation so amateurishly created that it becomes blatantly obvious within the first sentence that it is setting something up. What setup is required does not pay out, as the final sentence, which would suffice as sufficiently dramatic to mark itself among its innumerable peers with identical morals, is thus followed by paragraph upon paragraph of postulation. In case our dearest author did not attend public school (and indeed, did not pass his English class) and study the beautiful and artisan intricacies of the English language, postulation is supposed to be done by the reader, in their head, not on the page, for is it not true that the art of writing most successful when it makes you think?

The most fiery pits of my soul could not describe how soulless and unerringly dull this story is. The author weaves long, tangled sentences which follow the upsettingly specific mind of a 'semi barbaric king', the likes of which has been seen in too many stories to count, teetering his way between moral and amoral like a drunken man meandering down a street at midnight. It is in stories like this, where a character is given absolute power over the rules and systems within whatever kingdom one chooses to name, that the most contrived statements of all come whispering out of the character's mouth, torn from the throat of the author. Truly, he is not a king at all, but a puppet for the author, the true king, who rules his kingdom with all the grace of a beached whale.

And so, the puppet of the king decides that he must have trials so very pettily contrived and so utterly pointless so as to let the king ask moral questions, the likes of which are the bane of philosophers all over, as it asks no question at all. Indeed, it is smartly enough that the reigns of fate are handed over clumsily to the reader, who, depending on their morality spectrum and indeed anything from their level of annoyance with this monstrosity to how easily they can imagine a handsome man being torn to bits by the mouth of a tiger or a woman, is offered the chance to decide how to judge a man's love. However, any reader who reads this story will inevitably come to the conclusion that this story offers no solution, and instead a series of choices with equally inadvisable results.

After all, life does not have two doors.

The story further complicates and elaborates and otherwise lengthens itself by musing over a criminal, the likes of which is either a new groom or a new grave depending on the location. In this story, it seems, the lad of esteemed appearance, kindness, and love, the likes of which would not be unwelcome to fill the role of an innumerable number of books dedicated only to the sexual and romantic satisfaction of misguided women or the general ego-boosting of teenaged boys, is given a choice between them, decided - whoop-dee-doo - by chance.

The author, in all his wisdom, decides to use chance as the ultimate judge - and indeed, done right, chance, luck, and justice can work well together. But here, used so unceremoniously to play the reader into deciding for them, the author fails to even express an inkling that the three queens of law - evidence, logic, and reasoning - exist in his fictional, philosophical world, in a setting so overused that it fails entirely to enthrall. Indeed, the setting could be no worse; space would prove more interesting, and space does not even fit in this story of primitive proportions.

This lad, inflated so by innocence, beauty, and his existence as a nameless Gary Sue, falls in love with the first woman most likely to get him in trouble, least likely to give him a stable, healthy relationship and astronomically likely to end up in his arms anyways. I am speaking, of course, of the Princess; a twat so important to herself and her kingdom of innumerable contrived coincidences that she must fall in love with the first lad to, in the authors' own words, be 'fine of blood and low of station, as common to the conventional heroes of romance who love royal maidens'.

I cannot express more disgust over the selection of these cut-out heroes, the likes of which you find in the back of fairy tale books in supermarkets and which children inevitably discard much faster than the author appears to have done.

Now, of course, the princess takes after her father in one of his highest sins; she becomes a mouthpiece of the author. Without hesitation, she decides his fate, and the author is sure to elaborate extensively on her petty worries and her entitled wailings over being unable to choose whether to kill her beau violently or have him married to a girl of esteemed beauty. Clearly, their love is not strong, as any who would love their significant other honestly would choose a path that they discuss at length and, lacking this, choose a path which puts live more firmly in the hands of their loved one. However, evidenced by the otherwise useless mutterings of a wordsmith who has never held a hammer, she cares very little for how it reflects on the life of her lover and rather more on how it reflects on her, her disgust always residing firmly with that which she cannot have or wishes not to see.

All I say to the ever growing Sue which is made of the boy at this point boils down to this; 'in his soul he knew' has no place in philosophy, and if it does, then I will end my sobriety in tears. No soul-bound love is strong enough to excuse the sheer selfishness of the princess, and thus it pains me to say that the attempt to further empower the man has failed spectacularly at the hands of a spoiled princess.

And finally, we find ourselves at a cliff, a most impossible cliff which further frustrates young minds all over my country. In every English class across the continent, it is the bane of young boys and girls to find what many a teacher have called "the moral of the story". Fortunately, our dearest author Frank has been kind enough to come right out and say, 'Now, the point of the story is this', were it not clear enough before. Unfortunately, he fails to see the moral of his own story, much like he fails to see the many shortcomings it possesses, and instead replies with a question which offers no answer at all. It is so plaintively disastrous that a setup of two and a half pages of writing in 12 point font must end so inexcusably and unsatisfactorily. After all that time spent reading, people are not looking for more questions, they are looking for answers which will change their world view instead of befuddle them in such a way as to sap as many brain cells as possible.

With such a terrible story, it is astounding that it brings up so many questions; and thus, I believe it is time I explore those many doors which the author seems so very fond of pretending are non-existent and break the little boxes into which he attempts valiantly to write himself.

Firstly, we must address this system as a whole, for the author, in his quite arguably entitled masculinity, has made an oversight or ten. What is to be done if there is a female criminal? Shall the wedding continue, regardless? Shall she be wed, and shall they prance along in ignorance of the attitudes of many a king in such settings? Or shall it be that a man is chosen instead, destined to be as ego-strokingly masculine as possible, and set upon the criminal as a husband who will inevitably fall into the practices of such times? I must insist that, without this vexing question answered, we cannot rule the situation we find ourselves in logical, and indeed, the system itself so fundamentally flawed that it does not function for a good half of the king's kingdom.

And, indeed, a lady is chosen as a flip side to the tiger, a beast described as a killing machine; a guillotine would have been more or less the same, such serves the tiger's role. Are women objects? Are women beasts? It is such things that the author is comparing a woman to, after all. And, despite being the assumed favourable fate, it cries foul at the slightest skew in a man's stereotypical base desires; namely, sex (or lovemaking, if you’re of a puritan mind).

Are both not equally horrible fates? To some, the only choice is between death and further suffering. In such case is it not wise to say that the best choice belongs only to they who choose it? And indeed, this story never hints to this question, instead firm in its belief that the tiger is a horrible fate and the woman only horrible to those present to be jealous of the ever-glorified man.  

While it is easy to formulate other postulate endings for this increasingly vexing short, no other postulates are offered. Indeed, the author makes no effort to present the story with an open ending, the likes of which could last for hours or days in the head of an impressionable consumer, but instead leaves only two, and offers readers only the choice of which fate is superior and to judge the morality of a princess with the nerve to think nothing of the man she is directing.

Indeed; would it not be right to judge the princess whence whatever is chosen rises? It would be fitting, I believe, for her to choose a fate for herself. It would certainly be just as horrid for her as it would be for Gary the Sue, who feels things in his soul only for women with enough status to make men roll over and pant like a dog.

Never did I think 'every barleycorn a king' would be the most interesting sentence of a story, but there it be, as clear as day. This story cares not how it flows or how it moves from one thought to another, but instead takes a hammer five times the size required and unceremoniously slams neurotypical and stereotypical as deep into the story as possible, so ingrained in the roots that it cannot be salvaged. This philosophical story can be aptly described with a blunt knife; it is used to cut the dinner of unrefined whelps while wise men stare disbelievingly at the texts which have, over time, come to be accepted; as useful in a child's education as a blunt knife is to a kitchen. They stare at their plates, at their sharp knifes which weave truth and fiction together irrevocably and at their tenderloin, and then to the others who are cutting with vigor into meat so tough and unappetizing that it fails even to spark hunger in a starving man.

Were it my choice, to end this story, I would have a meteor the size of god's hand fall upon the unsuspecting heads of those within the arena. Begone be the lady and the tiger, whose uses extend only to offer a meaningless choice; begone be the princess, who is an utter twat, and a selfish git to boot; begone be the king who speaks for the author, who makes decisions so tangled and unclear as to their origin that they tear understanding from the roots, and who seems to enjoy catfights, both literal and very literal. May they all perish at the hand of that which they tried use to make their decisions for them, in the place of true justice, who is probably quite pissed with the lot of them.

The author fails to see more than two doors. I see a third, where I walk away and close it behind me, never to see this blasted story ever again.

[sunshineweb]

How to Be A Fortunate Investor

If you think I am going to talk about some mystical way to increase your luck in stock market, then you’ll be disappointed. Being fortunate in life and in investing is largely about increasing your odds of success. And how do you increase your odds?

“Study the principles of sound investing and work hard to implement those principles,” you might say. But is that sufficient? Studying, reading and working hard are all necessarily conditions for being successful in the stock market, however they are not sufficient. You need one more thing.

Let’s turn to world’s greatest investor to give us some clue. In his 1982 letter to investors, talking about two of his managers Phil Liesche and Ben Rosner, Warren Buffett wrote –

Both Ben and Phil ran their businesses for Berkshire with every bit of the care and drive that they would have exhibited had they personally owned 100% of these businesses. No rules were necessary to enforce or even encourage this attitude; it was embedded in the character of these men long before we came on the scene. Their good character became our good fortune. If we can continue to attract managers with the qualities of Ben and Phil, you need not worry about Berkshire’s future.

The lesson for an investor is that in stock market, you’re not just in the business of finding good businesses. Your real job is to find people who are running good businesses. That brings good fortune.

The words “we are fortunate” appears more than a dozen times in Buffett’s letters. Every time he has uttered those words, it was to describe his association with great managers running the businesses Berkshire owns.

Time and again Buffett has extolled the significance of associating with good people. In his 1987 letter, quoting Winston Churchill, he wrote-

Churchill once said, “You shape your houses and then they shape you.” We know the manner in which we wish to be shaped. For that reason, we would rather achieve a return of X while associating with people whom we strongly like and admire than realize 110% of X by exchanging these relationships for uninteresting or unpleasant ones.

It’s not sufficient to find a great business and ignore the character of the management. If you invest in a great business which is being run by crooked or dishonest management, it may bring profit to you in short term. However, on the longer term you will end up regretting your decision.

I have seen an example of this in my life. In 2008 I had a colleague who was assisting (part time) a group of people in setting up the technical infrastructure for a mobile software startup. He was working very hard because he had a full time job and he was also working nights and weekends in the startup. Although he was excited about the work, he would always complain to me about the integrity of his partners because of their questionable practices of generating funds for their operations. In the end, he was left with a personal debt of few lac without any results for his years of hard work.

Working with unscrupulous people, even if they’re on your side, is a deliberate invitation to misfortune. As Thomas Phelps wrote in his book 100 to 1 in the Stock Market – “Remember that a man who will steal for you, will steal from you.” Put simply, you can never strike a good deal with a bad person.

A wise man once said, your future is decided by the books you read and people you associate with. When you buy a stock, you decide to associate, albeit indirectly as a minority shareholder, with the owners/managers of the business. You’re essentially putting a trust on the managers running the business.

That person may be extremely good in his job, he may be a very smart businessman. He may also be growing the business profitably. But if you aren’t sure about his honesty and integrity then heed the advice of Woody Allen who said, “While the lamb may lie down with the lion, the lamb shouldn’t count on getting a whole lot of sleep.”

Once you find a good business, being run by competent and honest management, stick with it for a longer term, provided the quality of the business and management doesn’t deteriorate. Because the moment you break the partnership, you’re left with a task of finding another honest manager, which by the way isn’t an easy task.

Don’t be a fair-weather friend to the good stocks in your portfolio.

What if an honest manager suddenly turns evil? Well, chances are that he was always crooked, and you failed to judge his character. In that case, learn from it and move on.

At the same time, it’s delusional to hope that a dishonest CEO will have a change of heart. Crooks turn into saints only in movies and stories. It’s not impossible but very uncommon because people don’t change. Turnarounds seldom turn – Buffett may have said this for businesses, but it’s equally applicable to people’s character.

If a CEO has been known to display a clean character for a long time, he will seldom turn out to be of questionable character in future.

Fortune favours the brave, goes the saying. And in investing, fortune favours those who are brave enough to stick with their honest and competent partners through the ups and downs of market cycles.

Apart from investing, if you want to be fortunate in life too, you now know the drill.

Surround yourself with people who posses the qualities that you admire. Who inspire, uplift and motivate you. Who set the right example by doing the right thing.

How do you find such people? Let them find you.

Like attracts like. Which means the best ways to find honest people is to be honest yourself. If you develop a good character yourself and practice those qualities which you’re looking in others, it attracts similar people in your life. I can personally vouch for it. The strategy has worked remarkably well in my life so far.

In the end, Lady Fortuna doesn’t just smile on honest business people. She likes anyone who possesses a good character.

The post How to Be A Fortunate Investor appeared first on Safal Niveshak.

How to Be A Fortunate Investor published first on https://mbploans.tumblr.com/

[trendingnewsb]

The Boy With the Perpetual Nervousness review a tale of betrayal by the church

Graham Caveneys defiant, important memoir details how the Catholic establishment fails abuse victims

Pope Francis has taken great strides in challenging all sorts of entrenched attitudes and prejudices in the Vatican that have given the Catholic church such a bad name of late. Progress has been disappointingly slow, however, on the commission he appointed in 2014 to tackle the appalling scandal of clerical sexual abuse. In March of this year Marie Collins, the last remaining member of the panel who was a survivor of abuse, resigned after a Vatican department failed to comply with the commissions recommendation that it respond to every correspondent who writes in with allegations that they have been a victim. If the curia is resisting such simple steps, how to have faith that they will tackle the bigger underlying issues?

Reluctance to face up to the consequences of clerical abuse remains hard-wired into the structures of the church: an instinct to protect the institution at the cost of the individual who has suffered, and a brick-wall resistance to addressing the profound questions about the nature of vocation posed by such abhorrent behaviour. And so church leaders not all, granted; certainly not Pope Francis tend to speak of historical allegations whenever victims find the courage to speak up 20, 30 or even 40 years after events that are not for them in any way historical, but are a psychological and emotional trauma they will live with until their dying day.

Individuals like Graham Caveney. The Boy With the Perpetual Nervousness recounts with great courage and candour how, in the 1970s, as the clever, awkward, nerdy, only child of devoutly Catholic working-class parents in Accrington, Lancashire, he was groomed by a priest at his local grammar school in Blackburn, and then sexually abused by him.

A casual glance might suggest he has managed to put it behind him he has a successful career as a writer on music (the sounds of the 70s are one thread of this well-structured, rounded memoir) and biographer of William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg. But as he describes, without self-pity, Caveney dropped out of university, struggled to form adult relationships, turned to drink and drugs to blot out the trauma, and on occasion attempted suicide.

The abuse leads you to fuck up yourlife, he reflects bleakly but unsparingly, and a fucked-up life means that youre a less credible witness to the abuse that fucked you up in the first place. Its an ironic trick of memory and survival: abuse makes you want to forget the abuse.

John and Kath, his mum and dad, had no idea what was wrong. They watched their beloved boy, in whom they had invested so much hope that he would have more life opportunities than them, change first into a sulky, angry adolescent who refused to go to mass, and then into a messed-up wreck, beset by panic attacks.

They died in 1998 and 2002, still none the wiser. They continued to direct their flailing son back towards his old headteacher for wise counsel, never suspecting that Father Kevin ONeill had sexually abused him as a 15-year-old and set off the downward spiral.

The Caveneys had believed that the youthful, relaxed Rev Kev the Catholic equivalent of a trendy vicar was doing their boy a favour by taking him to theatres, cinemas and restaurants, broadening his mind. Whatthey couldnt know was that on the way home, the priest they looked up to would turn his car into quiet side-road and force himself on their son. Later, when he invited young Graham to go on holiday to Greece with him and a group of others, John and Kath enlisted the help of relatives to scrape together the cost, but it was just a pretext for more abuse.

Its them that I cant forgive you for, Caveney writes, addressing his abuser in the pages of a book that must have cost him dear to complete, the way in which you made their hopes and aspirations the tools of your own needs. Its them who spent their lives worrying if it was something they had done wrong to make their boy turn out the way he did.

Given how much Catholic grammar schools from the 1950s through to the 1970s were the route by which generations of working-class Catholic boys and girls got on in life the Irish Christian Brothers in my own home town of Liverpool boasted that they took the sons of dockers and made them into doctors it is impossible to believe that the betrayal of Graham Caveney and his parents is an isolated case. How widespread it is, however, remains impossible to know because every bit of information has to be dragged out of a compulsively secretive church that recoils from thinking in terms of deep-rooted, complex patterns of abuse.

And what happened when Caveney identified his abuser in the early 1990s to Father ONeills religious order, the Marists? Id just slashed up my arms, he adds, by way of context. The priest was challenged, apparently confessed his crimes, but was referred to a US therapy centre rather than the police. In 1993, he retired with full honours as headteacher. Kath even sent her son a cutting about the celebrations from the local paper. You were always one of his favourites, she reminded him. The report told of ex-pupils lining up to sing the priests praises, little suspecting how they too had been betrayed.

ONeill died in 2011, the serious charges against him covered up to the grave. He still doesnt seem to appear on any register I can find of abusive clergy. What distresses Caveney almost as much as the churchs failure to involve the police and courts is that he now can never confront his abuser, save in this raw, defiant but important memoir. A part of him, he confesses, still thinks in his darkest moments that what happened was somehow his own fault.

What was it about me? he asks. You see, theres a bit of me that still believes Im unique, that I really was your prime number, indivisible only by myself. I dont want to think of myself as part of a pattern, just another victim.

ONeills old school, St Marys, Blackburn, today has a drama block named after him, an honour accorded despite the Marist order having been told about Caveneys allegations nearly 20 years earlier. Is it plausible that there is no one who knew of them who could have spoken up? Or did they consider that whatever good he had done at the school cancelled out sexually abusing a 15-year-old in his care? It is part of the same impossible-to-fathom and offensive attitude that now apparently stops Vatican officials answering letters from those reporting abuse, in defiance of the pope.

Quite how long it will take for that prejudice to be defeated, I dont know. But after they have read The Boy With the Perpetual Nervousness, the school governors might at least like to revisit the naming of their drama block, which rubs salt into open wounds.

Peter Stanford is a former editor of the Catholic Herald

The Boy With the Perpetual Nervousness by Graham Caveney is published by Picador on 7 September (14.99). To order a copy for 12.74 go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over 10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of 1.99

Read more: http://ift.tt/2uy6WI5

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2vEuYFq via Viral News HQ

[netmaddy-blog]

The Beauty Myth - How Do Women Really Feel About Their Looks?

New Post has been published on https://netmaddy.com/the-beauty-myth-how-do-women-really-feel-about-their-looks/

The Beauty Myth - How Do Women Really Feel About Their Looks?

In 1991, Naomi Wolf published The Beauty Myth detailing her understanding on how women continue to be oppressed throughout society for the benefit of men.

Wolf argued that the instigation and use of the myth of beauty would be men’s ultimate weapon against women and their perceived rising power.

Women continue to face blockades in the workplace due to the political and systemic use of beauty to define worth. Although men define the ideology of beauty, the demarcation of beauty is not defined thereby leaving the female confused about her own feelings of self.

This allows big corporations to levy unfairly the work that women do increasing their revenue whilst enriching both female expenditure and manageability. This has in turn reduced the female’s self-esteem, a powerful tool for control.

Naomi Wolf wrote this book in 1991 following both the first and second wave of feminisms. Are we embarking upon a third wave of feminism? Many skeptics of feminism report that the previously overwhelming injustice towards women and their cries that created and sustained Women’s Rights movements have now been diluted to a mere whimper. Is there any truth to this statement?

I want to use this article to examine what if any changes have happened since 1991 and how women’s lives may or may not have changed.

Women have always been necessary to the workplace even if not respected for their contribution. Latent history informs us that due to the First World War (WW1) in 1914 -18, women were necessary to move out of the home where they worked to fulfill the employment gap due to men being at war. When the war ended, women did not naturally want to give up this level of financial independence and return to the home. Cross-referencing historical information, the fight for Women’s Rights began much earlier therefore women were already aware of the injustices towards them thereby informing of the reluctance to ‘return to the home.’ In 1848, 68 women and 32 men outlined grievances towards women including women having the right to vote and signed a Declaration of Sentiments in New York. It was in 1872 that saw the national movement begin in the UK in the form of the National Society for Women’s Suffrage and later the more influential National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies. Without this cross-referencing, one would be forgiven for mistaking that up until WW1 in 1914, women were not knowledgeable about their unjust treatment towards them.

With the knowledge that women did indeed know that they were being treated unfairly and that they actually felt strong enough to take action in different forms showed both tenacity and strength; words that were not used to describe women at all. Since 1991, what has changed to strengthen Women’s Rights to being more equal to men?

Not much in my opinion from the viewpoint of entry-level top careers for women although according to a recent research carried out by Astbury Marsden, they found that this year has seen an increase of 100% of women in management positions. This equates to 12% overall from 6% overall last year. We should be grateful! What about the significant pay gaps between men and women for equal jobs? Well, according to Dr. Carla Harris from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA), the gap is widening, currently for every dollar a man makes, his female counterpart earns 82 cents. I doubt very much that you will find a noticeable difference in the UK. In fact, upon research, women earned 15% less than men. Is this gap made worse in poor economic times?

So not much has changed in terms of respect for females and the contribution they make in society and for society. Not much in terms of how females are viewed, mostly negatively and for sexual pleasures. However what is more startling (perhaps an over-exaggeration) is that although there have always been women ‘night-workers’ (prostitutes), women appear to be engaging in their own war against themselves. Let me put this into perspective about this internal war going on with women. Notwithstanding the ‘glamour’ needed for night workers to attract for work, women are now using this same concept for their self-esteem. Not that those women did not care for their looks previously, as their grooming ritual is natural in attracting a mate. However, because of the Beauty Myth, the natural birthing process of grooming for a mate has become blurred, confusing and instills a lack of confidence in a female. The precocious instigation of the Beauty Myth undertaken by men but calculatingly not clearly defined (Naomi Wolf) has left women attempting to attain not just the indescribable but the unattainable as beauty is left open for interpretation by the beholder (men).

What has been the result?

Financial contributions to cosmetic, diet and surgery have all seen a surge in willing captors, all seeking this beauty myth and all rather quite despondent when they realise that the goalposts keeps shifting. Cosmetic companies revel in ascribing what their latest product is and how wonderfully powerful some ingredient is, now contained in their product. I mean, who on earth really heard of Pentapeptide, let alone researched what it did before buying the product?

Companies such as those in the cosmetic industry rely on the poor self-esteem of women to direct their products to. Women in return respond in an impassioned grab for the ‘miracle’ product that will stave off or at least slow down the ageing process. Women are made to feel that they no longer visually please and according to Wolf, companies can take steps in removing the female from her role in the workplace in favour of a younger model. Remember Miriam O’Reilly winning her claim against the BBC for what she alleges being dismissed on ageism and victimisation grounds? A second rate victory because she did not win on the grounds of sexism. What this tells me is what Wolf already identified in her book, that it is very difficult for a woman to claim against sex discrimination as the law fully supports what it calls a BFOQ (bone fide occupational qualification- USA) or the UK’s version of GOQ (genuine occupational qualification- Wolf). What this means is that a company may dismiss a woman if they feel that she does not measure up to their ideology of beauty. Now remember, this level of beauty is not defined and what would this really say? As beauty is in the eye of the beholder (self) is it not?

The tribunal for Miriam O’Reilly was held on the 4-19th November 2010, 19 years after Wolf’s publication therefore women are still demonstrably being targeted and treated according to how they look and not what talents they may have in the workplace. So no real progress here then!

Next time you go shopping, look out for the number of different beauty products. Be aware of the amount of time and energy that commercials use to sell you their copious amounts of products and the images they use. The use of anti-wrinkle creams on models probably not even yet 20 years old yet. Why on earth they need anti-wrinkle cream is beyond me. Next, these kinds of adverts will be shown using a 13 year old!

Now look at grounded products such as lipsticks. Now you can get ones that last all day. In fact, you need another product to get the lipstick off because normal cleanser and water does not always work. Companies have to keep re-inventing the wheel to keep their profits up so their imagination runs riot and comes up with all sorts of products all doing the same thing but differently. Women fall for this; just take a look at her make up bag, products of the same but different thing, hardly used due to the copious amounts.

What about products containing a certain ingredient that will ‘benefit’ perceived ‘bags’ under the eyes. Do you really think that by buying this product will alleviate ‘baggy eyes’? Why should it, because if it did then you would have to stop buying the product once you have been cured? So companies use only enough to make a slight difference and you have to keep re-buying to secure better results. I imagine companies laughing at women as they stand far at the side of the room throwing in the magic ingredient (that is to say how offensively low the ingredient is in terms of weight and productivity). Now, I am not saying that a particular ingredient does not work, for example caffeine. However, following your lovely cup of tea, you could quite easily reconstitute the teabag and put this on your eyes. Probably has more caffeine in the teabag than in the expensive product you buy.

Let us look at how other companies have cashed in on the creation of poor self-esteem in women. An ostentatious amount of money is spent by females on diet products in the hope that the ‘extra’ pounds they think they are carrying will disappear leaving the female with a sense of acceptance and perceived beauty. The sugars used in many foods are replaced with a substitute that is less calorific. To me, this is just a lot of useless chemicals being pumped in the body and for no real gain. Processed sugars are not good for anyone in huge amounts and a wise thing for health purposes would be to reduce your intake not substitute this with something that requires the body to work harder to break it down if it is able to use at all.

For research purposes, I typed in ‘what effect does artificial sugars have on the body?’ and I did not have to look far to clearly see the dangers of artificial sweeteners. According to author Marcelle Pick, (Obstetrician and Gynecologist) she speaks openly about being properly informed of possible side effects of sweeteners. I will not mention the company as I do not wish to give them any form of exposure but you can do your own research. This particular name brand is the trade name for Sucralose; a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formation. (Marcelle Pick) What this company did was twist the sugar component of their product by citing the ‘natural sugar’ aspect. Yet more importantly, did you catch the word ‘pesticide?’

Now we go onto cosmetic surgery. This phenomenon has increased tenfold since the 1970’s. Now you can book a botox in your lunch hour and be back to work. The lackadaisical procedure should be seen as worrying and not that companies are seeking to make life easier for women to attain this face stiffening procedure. Remember the poor actress infamously known for her ‘trout pout?’ I will leave this here to save her blushes! The point I am making is some of these procedures are downright dangerous yet women are still clambering to risk life or limb.

We do not have to search our brains too hard to recall some other poor soul who underwent breast surgery to enlarge her already natural assets and perceptually ended up looking misplaced. The female body is perfect as it stands and whilst some females may have to undergo a surgical procedure on medical grounds, this should not be confused with the female body, being nature at its finest.

Women are undergoing all sorts of procedures in an attempt to gain the unattainable body. Bum enhancements, face lifts, eye lifts, neck lifts (anything that is deemed lift-up-able), nose adjustments, liposuction on any part of the body and do not get me started with lace fronted weaves or extensions. The woman spends a great deal of time and money on products and services to achieve the ideology of beauty and remember this perceived beauty is undefined. So what this means, is they end up chasing a mirage that disintegrates the moment they think that they are now acceptable. This results in a cyclical pattern in women dabbling in metamorphosis, re-inventing something else to feed that ever-growing pit in lost souls leading to other behavioural and emotional difficulties.

If you look at the objective of The Beauty Myth, the power is monumental and the devastation that this myth leaves behind is great news for those instigating this concept for nothing more than mind-control over women. This concept reminds me of the Lynch (Willie Lynch) method; create a divide and rule mask, in this case, in women.

My name is Marcea Hibbert-Roye, qualified Social Worker and Life Coach. I work as a Strategic Lead Develop for Women. My specialism is developing emotional awareness in females. I have devised a 6 Step Program that promotes good emotional health by accessing information held in the subconscious mind to the conscious mind. The result is having more control over thoughts, feelings and behaviour.

Visit the website for great motivational cards for females that will support during difficult times or just to say ‘You’re worth it.’ We have cards designed at the younger female especially as she is navigating through puberty.

[readbookywooks]

The Angel ended, and in Adam's ear So charming left his voice, that he a while Thought him still speaking, still stood fixed to hear; Then, as new waked, thus gratefully replied. What thanks sufficient, or what recompence Equal, have I to render thee, divine Historian, who thus largely hast allayed The thirst I had of knowledge, and vouchsafed This friendly condescension to relate Things, else by me unsearchable; now heard With wonder, but delight, and, as is due, With glory attributed to the high Creator!  Something yet of doubt remains, Which only thy solution can resolve. When I behold this goodly frame, this world, Of Heaven and Earth consisting; and compute Their magnitudes; this Earth, a spot, a grain, An atom, with the firmament compared And all her numbered stars, that seem to roll Spaces incomprehensible, (for such Their distance argues, and their swift return Diurnal,) merely to officiate light Round this opacous Earth, this punctual spot, One day and night; in all her vast survey Useless besides; reasoning I oft admire, How Nature wise and frugal could commit Such disproportions, with superfluous hand So many nobler bodies to create, Greater so manifold, to this one use, For aught appears, and on their orbs impose Such restless revolution day by day Repeated; while the sedentary Earth, That better might with far less compass move, Served by more noble than herself, attains Her end without least motion, and receives, As tribute, such a sumless journey brought Of incorporeal speed, her warmth and light; Speed, to describe whose swiftness number fails. So spake our sire, and by his countenance seemed Entering on studious thoughts abstruse; which Eve Perceiving, where she sat retired in sight, With lowliness majestick from her seat, And grace that won who saw to wish her stay, Rose, and went forth among her fruits and flowers, To visit how they prospered, bud and bloom, Her nursery; they at her coming sprung, And, touched by her fair tendance, gladlier grew. Yet went she not, as not with such discourse Delighted, or not capable her ear Of what was high: such pleasure she reserved, Adam relating, she sole auditress; Her husband the relater she preferred Before the Angel, and of him to ask Chose rather; he, she knew, would intermix Grateful digressions, and solve high dispute With conjugal caresses: from his lip Not words alone pleased her.  O! when meet now Such pairs, in love and mutual honour joined? With Goddess-like demeanour forth she went, Not unattended; for on her, as Queen, A pomp of winning Graces waited still, And from about her shot darts of desire Into all eyes, to wish her still in sight. And Raphael now, to Adam's doubt proposed, Benevolent and facile thus replied. To ask or search, I blame thee not; for Heaven Is as the book of God before thee set, Wherein to read his wonderous works, and learn His seasons, hours, or days, or months, or years: This to attain, whether Heaven move or Earth, Imports not, if thou reckon right; the rest From Man or Angel the great Architect Did wisely to conceal, and not divulge His secrets to be scanned by them who ought Rather admire; or, if they list to try Conjecture, he his fabrick of the Heavens Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move His laughter at their quaint opinions wide Hereafter; when they come to model Heaven And calculate the stars, how they will wield The mighty frame; how build, unbuild, contrive To save appearances; how gird the sphere With centrick and eccentrick scribbled o'er, Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb: Already by thy reasoning this I guess, Who art to lead thy offspring, and supposest That bodies bright and greater should not serve The less not bright, nor Heaven such journeys run, Earth sitting still, when she alone receives The benefit:  Consider first, that great Or bright infers not excellence: the Earth Though, in comparison of Heaven, so small, Nor glistering, may of solid good contain More plenty than the sun that barren shines; Whose virtue on itself works no effect, But in the fruitful Earth; there first received, His beams, unactive else, their vigour find. Yet not to Earth are those bright luminaries Officious; but to thee, Earth's habitant. And for the Heaven's wide circuit, let it speak The Maker's high magnificence, who built So spacious, and his line stretched out so far; That Man may know he dwells not in his own; An edifice too large for him to fill, Lodged in a small partition; and the rest Ordained for uses to his Lord best known. The swiftness of those circles attribute, Though numberless, to his Omnipotence, That to corporeal substances could add Speed almost spiritual:  Me thou thinkest not slow, Who since the morning-hour set out from Heaven Where God resides, and ere mid-day arrived In Eden; distance inexpressible By numbers that have name.  But this I urge, Admitting motion in the Heavens, to show Invalid that which thee to doubt it moved; Not that I so affirm, though so it seem To thee who hast thy dwelling here on Earth. God, to remove his ways from human sense, Placed Heaven from Earth so far, that earthly sight, If it presume, might err in things too high, And no advantage gain.  What if the sun Be center to the world; and other stars, By his attractive virtue and their own Incited, dance about him various rounds? Their wandering course now high, now low, then hid, Progressive, retrograde, or standing still, In six thou seest; and what if seventh to these The planet earth, so stedfast though she seem, Insensibly three different motions move? Which else to several spheres thou must ascribe, Moved contrary with thwart obliquities; Or save the sun his labour, and that swift Nocturnal and diurnal rhomb supposed, Invisible else above all stars, the wheel Of day and night; which needs not thy belief, If earth, industrious of herself, fetch day Travelling east, and with her part averse From the sun's beam meet night, her other part Still luminous by his ray.  What if that light, Sent from her through the wide transpicuous air, To the terrestrial moon be as a star, Enlightening her by day, as she by night This earth? reciprocal, if land be there, Fields and inhabitants:  Her spots thou seest As clouds, and clouds may rain, and rain produce Fruits in her softened soil for some to eat Allotted there; and other suns perhaps, With their attendant moons, thou wilt descry, Communicating male and female light; Which two great sexes animate the world, Stored in each orb perhaps with some that live. For such vast room in Nature unpossessed By living soul, desart and desolate, Only to shine, yet scarce to contribute Each orb a glimpse of light, conveyed so far Down to this habitable, which returns Light back to them, is obvious to dispute. But whether thus these things, or whether not; But whether the sun, predominant in Heaven, Rise on the earth; or earth rise on the sun; He from the east his flaming road begin; Or she from west her silent course advance, With inoffensive pace that spinning sleeps On her soft axle, while she paces even, And bears thee soft with the smooth hair along; Sollicit not thy thoughts with matters hid; Leave them to God above; him serve, and fear! Of other creatures, as him pleases best, Wherever placed, let him dispose; joy thou In what he gives to thee, this Paradise And thy fair Eve; Heaven is for thee too high To know what passes there; be lowly wise: Think only what concerns thee, and thy being; Dream not of other worlds, what creatures there Live, in what state, condition, or degree; Contented that thus far hath been revealed Not of Earth only, but of highest Heaven. To whom thus Adam, cleared of doubt, replied. How fully hast thou satisfied me, pure Intelligence of Heaven, Angel serene! And, freed from intricacies, taught to live The easiest way; nor with perplexing thoughts To interrupt the sweet of life, from which God hath bid dwell far off all anxious cares, And not molest us; unless we ourselves Seek them with wandering thoughts, and notions vain. But apt the mind or fancy is to rove Unchecked, and of her roving is no end; Till warned, or by experience taught, she learn, That, not to know at large of things remote From use, obscure and subtle; but, to know That which before us lies in daily life, Is the prime wisdom:  What is more, is fume, Or emptiness, or fond impertinence: And renders us, in things that most concern, Unpractised, unprepared, and still to seek. Therefore from this high pitch let us descend A lower flight, and speak of things at hand Useful; whence, haply, mention may arise Of something not unseasonable to ask, By sufferance, and thy wonted favour, deigned. Thee I have heard relating what was done Ere my remembrance: now, hear me relate My story, which perhaps thou hast not heard; And day is not yet spent; till then thou seest How subtly to detain thee I devise; Inviting thee to hear while I relate; Fond! were it not in hope of thy reply: For, while I sit with thee, I seem in Heaven; And sweeter thy discourse is to my ear Than fruits of palm-tree pleasantest to thirst And hunger both, from labour, at the hour Of sweet repast; they satiate, and soon fill, Though pleasant; but thy words, with grace divine Imbued, bring to their sweetness no satiety. To whom thus Raphael answered heavenly meek. Nor are thy lips ungraceful, Sire of men, Nor tongue ineloquent; for God on thee Abundantly his gifts hath also poured Inward and outward both, his image fair: Speaking, or mute, all comeliness and grace Attends thee; and each word, each motion, forms; Nor less think we in Heaven of thee on Earth Than of our fellow-servant, and inquire Gladly into the ways of God with Man: For God, we see, hath honoured thee, and set On Man his equal love:  Say therefore on; For I that day was absent, as befel, Bound on a voyage uncouth and obscure, Far on excursion toward the gates of Hell; Squared in full legion (such command we had) To see that none thence issued forth a spy, Or enemy, while God was in his work; Lest he, incensed at such eruption bold, Destruction with creation might have mixed. Not that they durst without his leave attempt; But us he sends upon his high behests For state, as Sovran King; and to inure Our prompt obedience.  Fast we found, fast shut, The dismal gates, and barricadoed strong; But long ere our approaching heard within Noise, other than the sound of dance or song, Torment, and loud lament, and furious rage. Glad we returned up to the coasts of light Ere sabbath-evening: so we had in charge. But thy relation now; for I attend, Pleased with thy words no less than thou with mine. So spake the Godlike Power, and thus our Sire. For Man to tell how human life began Is hard; for who himself beginning knew Desire with thee still longer to converse Induced me.  As new waked from soundest sleep, Soft on the flowery herb I found me laid, In balmy sweat; which with his beams the sun Soon dried, and on the reeking moisture fed. Straight toward Heaven my wondering eyes I turned, And gazed a while the ample sky; till, raised By quick instinctive motion, up I sprung, As thitherward endeavouring, and upright Stood on my feet: about me round I saw Hill, dale, and shady woods, and sunny plains, And liquid lapse of murmuring streams; by these, Creatures that lived and moved, and walked, or flew; Birds on the branches warbling; all things smiled; With fragrance and with joy my heart o'erflowed. Myself I then perused, and limb by limb Surveyed, and sometimes went, and sometimes ran With supple joints, as lively vigour led: But who I was, or where, or from what cause, Knew not; to speak I tried, and forthwith spake; My tongue obeyed, and readily could name Whate'er I saw.  Thou Sun, said I, fair light, And thou enlightened Earth, so fresh and gay, Ye Hills, and Dales, ye Rivers, Woods, and Plains, And ye that live and move, fair Creatures, tell, Tell, if ye saw, how I came thus, how here?-- Not of myself;--by some great Maker then, In goodness and in power pre-eminent: Tell me, how may I know him, how adore, From whom I have that thus I move and live, And feel that I am happier than I know.-- While thus I called, and strayed I knew not whither, From where I first drew air, and first beheld This happy light; when, answer none returned, On a green shady bank, profuse of flowers, Pensive I sat me down:  There gentle sleep First found me, and with soft oppression seised My droused sense, untroubled, though I thought I then was passing to my former state Insensible, and forthwith to dissolve: When suddenly stood at my head a dream, Whose inward apparition gently moved My fancy to believe I yet had being, And lived:  One came, methought, of shape divine, And said, 'Thy mansion wants thee, Adam; rise, 'First Man, of men innumerable ordained 'First Father! called by thee, I come thy guide 'To the garden of bliss, thy seat prepared.' So saying, by the hand he took me raised, And over fields and waters, as in air Smooth-sliding without step, last led me up A woody mountain; whose high top was plain, A circuit wide, enclosed, with goodliest trees Planted, with walks, and bowers; that what I saw Of Earth before scarce pleasant seemed.  Each tree, Loaden with fairest fruit that hung to the eye Tempting, stirred in me sudden appetite To pluck and eat; whereat I waked, and found Before mine eyes all real, as the dream Had lively shadowed:  Here had new begun My wandering, had not he, who was my guide Up hither, from among the trees appeared, Presence Divine.  Rejoicing, but with awe, In adoration at his feet I fell Submiss:  He reared me, and 'Whom thou soughtest I am,' Said mildly, 'Author of all this thou seest 'Above, or round about thee, or beneath. 'This Paradise I give thee, count it thine 'To till and keep, and of the fruit to eat: 'Of every tree that in the garden grows 'Eat freely with glad heart; fear here no dearth: 'But of the tree whose operation brings 'Knowledge of good and ill, which I have set 'The pledge of thy obedience and thy faith, 'Amid the garden by the tree of life, 'Remember what I warn thee, shun to taste, 'And shun the bitter consequence: for know, 'The day thou eatest thereof, my sole command 'Transgressed, inevitably thou shalt die, 'From that day mortal; and this happy state 'Shalt lose, expelled from hence into a world 'Of woe and sorrow.'  Sternly he pronounced The rigid interdiction, which resounds Yet dreadful in mine ear, though in my choice Not to incur; but soon his clear aspect Returned, and gracious purpose thus renewed. 'Not only these fair bounds, but all the Earth 'To thee and to thy race I give; as lords 'Possess it, and all things that therein live, 'Or live in sea, or air; beast, fish, and fowl. 'In sign whereof, each bird and beast behold 'After their kinds; I bring them to receive 'From thee their names, and pay thee fealty 'With low subjection; understand the same 'Of fish within their watery residence, 'Not hither summoned, since they cannot change 'Their element, to draw the thinner air.' As thus he spake, each bird and beast behold Approaching two and two; these cowering low With blandishment; each bird stooped on his wing. I named them, as they passed, and understood Their nature, with such knowledge God endued My sudden apprehension:  But in these I found not what methought I wanted still; And to the heavenly Vision thus presumed. O, by what name, for thou above all these, Above mankind, or aught than mankind higher, Surpassest far my naming; how may I Adore thee, Author of this universe, And all this good to man? for whose well being So amply, and with hands so liberal, Thou hast provided all things:  But with me I see not who partakes.  In solitude What happiness, who can enjoy alone, Or, all enjoying, what contentment find? Thus I presumptuous; and the Vision bright, As with a smile more brightened, thus replied. What callest thou solitude?  Is not the Earth With various living creatures, and the air Replenished, and all these at thy command To come and play before thee?  Knowest thou not Their language and their ways?  They also know, And reason not contemptibly:  With these Find pastime, and bear rule; thy realm is large. So spake the Universal Lord, and seemed So ordering:  I, with leave of speech implored, And humble deprecation, thus replied. Let not my words offend thee, Heavenly Power; My Maker, be propitious while I speak. Hast thou not made me here thy substitute, And these inferiour far beneath me set? Among unequals what society Can sort, what harmony, or true delight? Which must be mutual, in proportion due Given and received; but, in disparity The one intense, the other still remiss, Cannot well suit with either, but soon prove Tedious alike:  Of fellowship I speak Such as I seek, fit to participate All rational delight: wherein the brute Cannot be human consort:  They rejoice Each with their kind, lion with lioness; So fitly them in pairs thou hast combined: Much less can bird with beast, or fish with fowl So well converse, nor with the ox the ape; Worse then can man with beast, and least of all. Whereto the Almighty answered, not displeased. A nice and subtle happiness, I see, Thou to thyself proposest, in the choice Of thy associates, Adam! and wilt taste No pleasure, though in pleasure, solitary. What thinkest thou then of me, and this my state? Seem I to thee sufficiently possessed Of happiness, or not? who am alone From all eternity; for none I know Second to me or like, equal much less. How have I then with whom to hold converse, Save with the creatures which I made, and those To me inferiour, infinite descents Beneath what other creatures are to thee? He ceased; I lowly answered.  To attain The highth and depth of thy eternal ways All human thoughts come short, Supreme of things! Thou in thyself art perfect, and in thee Is no deficience found:  Not so is Man, But in degree; the cause of his desire By conversation with his like to help Or solace his defects.  No need that thou Shouldst propagate, already Infinite; And through all numbers absolute, though One: But Man by number is to manifest His single imperfection, and beget Like of his like, his image multiplied, In unity defective; which requires Collateral love, and dearest amity. Thou in thy secresy although alone, Best with thyself accompanied, seekest not Social communication; yet, so pleased, Canst raise thy creature to what highth thou wilt Of union or communion, deified: I, by conversing, cannot these erect From prone; nor in their ways complacence find. Thus I emboldened spake, and freedom used Permissive, and acceptance found; which gained This answer from the gracious Voice Divine. Thus far to try thee, Adam, I was pleased; And find thee knowing, not of beasts alone, Which thou hast rightly named, but of thyself; Expressing well the spirit within thee free, My image, not imparted to the brute; Whose fellowship therefore unmeet for thee Good reason was thou freely shouldst dislike; And be so minded still:  I, ere thou spakest, Knew it not good for Man to be alone; And no such company as then thou sawest Intended thee; for trial only brought, To see how thou couldest judge of fit and meet: What next I bring shall please thee, be assured, Thy likeness, thy fit help, thy other self, Thy wish exactly to thy heart's desire. He ended, or I heard no more; for now My earthly by his heavenly overpowered, Which it had long stood under, strained to the highth In that celestial colloquy sublime, As with an object that excels the sense Dazzled and spent, sunk down; and sought repair Of sleep, which instantly fell on me, called By Nature as in aid, and closed mine eyes. Mine eyes he closed, but open left the cell Of fancy, my internal sight; by which, Abstract as in a trance, methought I saw, Though sleeping, where I lay, and saw the shape Still glorious before whom awake I stood: Who stooping opened my left side, and took From thence a rib, with cordial spirits warm, And life-blood streaming fresh; wide was the wound, But suddenly with flesh filled up and healed: The rib he formed and fashioned with his hands; Under his forming hands a creature grew, Man-like, but different sex; so lovely fair, That what seemed fair in all the world, seemed now Mean, or in her summed up, in her contained And in her looks; which from that time infused Sweetness into my heart, unfelt before, And into all things from her air inspired The spirit of love and amorous delight. She disappeared, and left me dark; I waked To find her, or for ever to deplore Her loss, and other pleasures all abjure: When out of hope, behold her, not far off, Such as I saw her in my dream, adorned With what all Earth or Heaven could bestow To make her amiable:  On she came, Led by her heavenly Maker, though unseen, And guided by his voice; nor uninformed Of nuptial sanctity, and marriage rites: Grace was in all her steps, Heaven in her eye, In every gesture dignity and love. I, overjoyed, could not forbear aloud. This turn hath made amends; thou hast fulfilled Thy words, Creator bounteous and benign, Giver of all things fair! but fairest this Of all thy gifts! nor enviest.  I now see Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, myself Before me:  Woman is her name;of Man Extracted: for this cause he shall forego Father and mother, and to his wife adhere; And they shall be one flesh, one heart, one soul. She heard me thus; and though divinely brought, Yet innocence, and virgin modesty, Her virtue, and the conscience of her worth, That would be wooed, and not unsought be won, Not obvious, not obtrusive, but, retired, The more desirable; or, to say all, Nature herself, though pure of sinful thought, Wrought in her so, that, seeing me, she turned: I followed her; she what was honour knew, And with obsequious majesty approved My pleaded reason.  To the nuptial bower I led her blushing like the morn: All Heaven, And happy constellations, on that hour Shed their selectest influence; the Earth Gave sign of gratulation, and each hill; Joyous the birds; fresh gales and gentle airs Whispered it to the woods, and from their wings Flung rose, flung odours from the spicy shrub, Disporting, till the amorous bird of night Sung spousal, and bid haste the evening-star On his hill top, to light the bridal lamp. Thus have I told thee all my state, and brought My story to the sum of earthly bliss, Which I enjoy; and must confess to find In all things else delight indeed, but such As, used or not, works in the mind no change, Nor vehement desire; these delicacies I mean of taste, sight, smell, herbs, fruits, and flowers, Walks, and the melody of birds: but here Far otherwise, transported I behold, Transported touch; here passion first I felt, Commotion strange! in all enjoyments else Superiour and unmoved; here only weak Against the charm of Beauty's powerful glance. Or Nature failed in me, and left some part Not proof enough such object to sustain; Or, from my side subducting, took perhaps More than enough; at least on her bestowed Too much of ornament, in outward show Elaborate, of inward less exact. For well I understand in the prime end Of Nature her the inferiour, in the mind And inward faculties, which most excel; In outward also her resembling less His image who made both, and less expressing The character of that dominion given O'er other creatures:  Yet when I approach Her loveliness, so absolute she seems And in herself complete, so well to know Her own, that what she wills to do or say, Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best: All higher knowledge in her presence falls Degraded;  Wisdom in discourse with her Loses discountenanced, and like Folly shows; Authority and Reason on her wait, As one intended first, not after made Occasionally; and, to consummate all, Greatness of mind and Nobleness their seat Build in her loveliest, and create an awe About her, as a guard angelick placed. To whom the Angel with contracted brow. Accuse not Nature, she hath done her part; Do thou but thine; and be not diffident Of Wisdom; she deserts thee not, if thou Dismiss not her, when most thou needest her nigh, By attributing overmuch to things Less excellent, as thou thyself perceivest. For, what admirest thou, what transports thee so, An outside? fair, no doubt, and worthy well Thy cherishing, thy honouring, and thy love; Not thy subjection:  Weigh with her thyself; Then value:  Oft-times nothing profits more Than self-esteem, grounded on just and right Well managed; of that skill the more thou knowest, The more she will acknowledge thee her head, And to realities yield all her shows: Made so adorn for thy delight the more, So awful, that with honour thou mayest love Thy mate, who sees when thou art seen least wise. But if the sense of touch, whereby mankind Is propagated, seem such dear delight Beyond all other; think the same vouchsafed To cattle and each beast; which would not be To them made common and divulged, if aught Therein enjoyed were worthy to subdue The soul of man, or passion in him move. What higher in her society thou findest Attractive, human, rational, love still; In loving thou dost well, in passion not, Wherein true love consists not:  Love refines The thoughts, and heart enlarges; hath his seat In reason, and is judicious; is the scale By which to heavenly love thou mayest ascend, Not sunk in carnal pleasure; for which cause, Among the beasts no mate for thee was found. To whom thus, half abashed, Adam replied. Neither her outside formed so fair, nor aught In procreation common to all kinds, (Though higher of the genial bed by far, And with mysterious reverence I deem,) So much delights me, as those graceful acts, Those thousand decencies, that daily flow From all her words and actions mixed with love And sweet compliance, which declare unfeigned Union of mind, or in us both one soul; Harmony to behold in wedded pair More grateful than harmonious sound to the ear. Yet these subject not; I to thee disclose What inward thence I feel, not therefore foiled, Who meet with various objects, from the sense Variously representing; yet, still free, Approve the best, and follow what I approve. To love, thou blamest me not; for Love, thou sayest, Leads up to Heaven, is both the way and guide; Bear with me then, if lawful what I ask: Love not the heavenly Spirits, and how their love Express they? by looks only? or do they mix Irradiance, virtual or immediate touch? To whom the Angel, with a smile that glowed Celestial rosy red, Love's proper hue, Answered.  Let it suffice thee that thou knowest Us happy, and without love no happiness. Whatever pure thou in the body enjoyest, (And pure thou wert created) we enjoy In eminence; and obstacle find none Of membrane, joint, or limb, exclusive bars; Easier than air with air, if Spirits embrace, Total they mix, union of pure with pure Desiring, nor restrained conveyance need, As flesh to mix with flesh, or soul with soul. But I can now no more; the parting sun Beyond the Earth's green Cape and verdant Isles Hesperian sets, my signal to depart. Be strong, live happy, and love!  But, first of all, Him, whom to love is to obey, and keep His great command; take heed lest passion sway Thy judgement to do aught, which else free will Would not admit: thine, and of all thy sons, The weal or woe in thee is placed; beware! I in thy persevering shall rejoice, And all the Blest:  Stand fast;to stand or fall Free in thine own arbitrement it lies. Perfect within, no outward aid require; And all temptation to transgress repel. So saying, he arose; whom Adam thus Followed with benediction.  Since to part, Go, heavenly guest, ethereal Messenger, Sent from whose sovran goodness I adore! Gentle to me and affable hath been Thy condescension, and shall be honoured ever With grateful memory:  Thou to mankind Be good and friendly still, and oft return! So parted they; the Angel up to Heaven From the thick shade, and Adam to his bower.

[notesonfreedom]

Anima in Jungian Theory

This is the second part of two posts on the Classic version of Jung’s Anima and Animus theory in which I condense the information from Marie-Louise von Franz’s book Anima and Animus in Fairy Tales [1].

This post focuses on the malevolent, destructive, dysfunctional Anima and how that affects a man and also attempts to address the approach to take in order to integrate the Anima and thus render her benevolent and constructive.

In the classic version of Jungian psychology, the Anima is the man’s internal other, and the Animus is the woman’s internal other. In other words, if you are physically a man, you will have an inner Anima, a feminine image which guides and shapes the way you relate to women and the world at large. Whilst Post Jungian theory is in line with Post Modernity and more ambivalent about gender, the classical model, as described by Marie-Louise von Franz in this post, is still incredibly useful and very interesting. The information and knowledge that Marie Louise von Franz extracts from the Fairy Tales is fascinating.

As this post focus on the man’s relationship with his Anima, what needs to be understood is that this feminine image is unconscious, and has her roots in the relationship he had with his mother. A man’s experience of his personal mother puts the flesh on the inborn archetype of the Anima and both define his attitude towards women and the functioning of his inner feminine principal. In Jungian psychology, the first step is to individuation is integrating your shadow. After that follows the integration of the Anima and/or Animus.

Anima Possession:

When a man’s Anima is not integrated, it wreaks havoc in his life. The Anima possessed man is a spineless wimp who does not know when or how to take action in the world. He is moody and sulky and throws tantrums like a toddler. Although very passive, he totally overreacts to slights and confrontations. He is not appropriate in his actions, either he is paralysed and can’t find the energy to do what needs to be done, or he jumps into action when he should be thinking about it first. He is usually in a relationship with an Animus hound [2] who knows it all and makes all the decisions in the relationship.

The Anima possessed man is stuck in a fate that his repetitive patterns choose for him. The Anima spins a cocoon of fantasies and illusions. He repeats the same dynamics, dates the same type of women, and experiences the same resistance in the world again and again.

Any numinous experiences he has, she quickly attacks and he is left with a feeling that he experience was “nothing but”… She is a master of creating doubt and he finds himself always doubting his options and choices. He gets lost in contemplations and thinking and this is what prevents him from taking action. At night he dreams about his Anima, she appears in his dreams as a monster, attacking him, threatening him and dismissing him.

The Anima attacks the man’s inferior function, and to explain this I need to quickly divert to Typology. In Jung’s personality type model, each person has four functions, namely Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation. These four functions identify the way you relate to, and take in information from the external world. An individual will always favour one of the four as their superior function. To explain this, I will use the example of wanting to buy a new car. A thinking type will analyse the performance, fuel consumption, motor plan deal etc. A feeling type will evaluate which vehicle is best suited for his purposes. An intuitive will select the vehicle that he “knows” is right for him. A sensate will choose a vehicle that feels great to drive and is in the right colour. Now if you are a Thinking type, your inferior (opposite and underdeveloped) function would be Feeling (and vice versa). If you are an Intuitive, your inferior function would be Sensation (and vice versa). Coming back to the Anima, she always attacks the man in his inferior function. So where most men are thinking types, typically, his feelings will be poorly developed and here the Anima takes control. She plays his emotions like a fiddle. He is moody, sulky, throws tantrums and gets really upset. When he has the rare moments of happiness and elation and has a fabulous time, she quickly casts doubt and destroys the experience for him. And naturally, as a consequence, his evaluative ability tends to be poor.

Generally this man, who’s inferior function (feeling) trips him up all the time, experiences his emotions and mystical numinous experiences as a handicap. He finds himself disillusioned with his feelings and often tries to escape into the thinking realm, but this does not help his cause at all. He is afraid to trust his feelings and consequently makes a complete mess of his life.

Integrating the Anima

The Anima represents the divine aspect of the human being. She is a goddess that imbues everything with numinosity and mystery. The human being tries to bring the divine into the realm of reality and thereby reduce the mystery to the banal. This attempt to rob the Anima of her divinity is evident in the Western culture where the feminine is reduced to base and crude sexuality.

The Anima has fallen into the unconscious, especially in the protestant cultures, where the idealized feminine is projected onto the Virgin Mary and the dark aspect is projected out onto women who fascinate and capture the passions of a man, who then grants her the status of witch because he feels as if he has been bewitched.

The danger with Anima possession is when the man takes on an average, reluctant, undifferentiated attitude. His attitude towards risk is to avoid it, because he simply does not believe that anything he undertakes will succeed. This hopelessness opposes the hero within. As the Anima is an Archetype, to realise the Anima instinctively will release overwhelming emotions. This is why the man must develop his inferior function, to prevent the Anima from possessing him. To redeem the Anima, she must be allowed to reveal her divine nature.

Here are some guidelines for dealing with the dysfunctional Anima.

One of the main problems with the Anima is that she lies outside time. This results in men who act inappropriately for their age. They are either childish old men or wise young boys. This time related issue affects the man’s judgment in relation to action. He either totally overreacts to small matters, or does not act when he needs to in big matters. This must be opposed in the following manner.

The quick to react Anima: When the man is riled up, emotional and has an urgency to react then and there, he must wait and put off his response to the given situation. Sleeping on it does wonders, and a new perspective will emerge. This man has gotten himself into many undesirable situations because of this need to react immediately and some perspective on the situation will allow him not to fall into the trap of repeating his neurotic dynamics unconsciously. The Anima creates a pressing urgency to send the email, confront the person, phone immediately. This impulse must be resisted in order to change the Anima in the unconscious. Delay the excitement, delay acting on it, and it will lose its urgency and the man will tire of it. With time and practice the man will be able to enter the situation consciously, without falling prey to the emotion. Once he is able to hold the opposites in consciousness, not to commit to any action, he will be able to integrate his Anima. This struggle is the battle for moral responsibility, the search for light and meaning.

The slow to react Anima: When the man finds himself lost in ambiguity and at a loss on what to do, he needs to act. The Anima is an expert on implanting doubt. He must step into life to get out of this trap. He needs to act in some way. He must escape the repetitive pattern of getting excited about ideas and then discussing it to death until he is totally uninspired. He needs to develop a disciplined consciousness for solutions and directions. The correct attitude is to accept that it may not work, or that it is possibly not the right thing to do, but taking action anyway. One must take action based on the knowledge an understanding available at that point in time. Overcoming the Anima is through experiencing reality and the unknown, not talking about it.

Developing the inferior function: The integration of the Anima requires the balance between the intellect and the instinct. One must not sacrifice the intellect for the Anima either, because this will also develop an unbalanced relationship with the Anima. Whatever the inferior function is, the man must engage it bravely and enter into it slowly. He must not use the inferior function to govern his external realm, but use it in the internal realm. As long as he tries to use his feeling function in the external realm, he will be heavy, slow, mystical and inarticulate. But if he turns his feeling function inwards, and allows himself to feel, no matter how silly or infantile, he will slowly develop his feeling function. This ability to think naively, without rules, allows the libido (energy) to rush forth and re-energize the psyche. But to give a voice to the unconscious inferior function, the man must learn to sacrifice the superior, ruling attitude of rules and structure, which is not easy.

Conclusion:

As with the Animus, the Anima is the bridge to the unconscious and the roadmap to this unconscious realm lies within the inferior function of the man. The ultimate goal of this journey is individuation, which is the most authentic and whole expression of an individual. Integrating the Anima and Animus is a vital aspect of this journey.

Until next time Anja

[1] Von Franz, M. L. (2002). Animus and anima in fairy tales. D. Sharp (Ed.). Toronto: Inner City Books. [2] Read the blog Animus Possession: Are you a ball busting bitch?

[sunshineweb]

How to Be A Fortunate Investor

If you think I am going to talk about some mystical way to increase your luck in stock market, then you’ll be disappointed. Being fortunate in life and in investing is largely about increasing your odds of success. And how do you increase your odds?

“Study the principles of sound investing and work hard to implement those principles,” you might say. But is that sufficient? Studying, reading and working hard are all necessarily conditions for being successful in the stock market, however they are not sufficient. You need one more thing.

Let’s turn to world’s greatest investor to give us some clue. In his 1982 letter to investors, talking about two of his managers Phil Liesche and Ben Rosner, Warren Buffett wrote –

Both Ben and Phil ran their businesses for Berkshire with every bit of the care and drive that they would have exhibited had they personally owned 100% of these businesses. No rules were necessary to enforce or even encourage this attitude; it was embedded in the character of these men long before we came on the scene. Their good character became our good fortune. If we can continue to attract managers with the qualities of Ben and Phil, you need not worry about Berkshire’s future.

The lesson for an investor is that in stock market, you’re not just in the business of finding good businesses. Your real job is to find people who are running good businesses. That brings good fortune.

The words “we are fortunate” appears more than a dozen times in Buffett’s letters. Every time he has uttered those words, it was to describe his association with great managers running the businesses Berkshire owns.

Time and again Buffett has extolled the significance of associating with good people. In his 1987 letter, quoting Winston Churchill, he wrote-

Churchill once said, “You shape your houses and then they shape you.” We know the manner in which we wish to be shaped. For that reason, we would rather achieve a return of X while associating with people whom we strongly like and admire than realize 110% of X by exchanging these relationships for uninteresting or unpleasant ones.

It’s not sufficient to find a great business and ignore the character of the management. If you invest in a great business which is being run by crooked or dishonest management, it may bring profit to you in short term. However, on the longer term you will end up regretting your decision.

I have seen an example of this in my life. In 2008 I had a colleague who was assisting (part time) a group of people in setting up the technical infrastructure for a mobile software startup. He was working very hard because he had a full time job and he was also working nights and weekends in the startup. Although he was excited about the work, he would always complain to me about the integrity of his partners because of their questionable practices of generating funds for their operations. In the end, he was left with a personal debt of few lac without any results for his years of hard work.

Working with unscrupulous people, even if they’re on your side, is a deliberate invitation to misfortune. As Thomas Phelps wrote in his book 100 to 1 in the Stock Market – “Remember that a man who will steal for you, will steal from you.” Put simply, you can never strike a good deal with a bad person.

A wise man once said, your future is decided by the books you read and people you associate with. When you buy a stock, you decide to associate, albeit indirectly as a minority shareholder, with the owners/managers of the business. You’re essentially putting a trust on the managers running the business.

That person may be extremely good in his job, he may be a very smart businessman. He may also be growing the business profitably. But if you aren’t sure about his honesty and integrity then heed the advice of Woody Allen who said, “While the lamb may lie down with the lion, the lamb shouldn’t count on getting a whole lot of sleep.”

Once you find a good business, being run by competent and honest management, stick with it for a longer term, provided the quality of the business and management doesn’t deteriorate. Because the moment you break the partnership, you’re left with a task of finding another honest manager, which by the way isn’t an easy task.

Don’t be a fair-weather friend to the good stocks in your portfolio.

What if an honest manager suddenly turns evil? Well, chances are that he was always crooked, and you failed to judge his character. In that case, learn from it and move on.

At the same time, it’s delusional to hope that a dishonest CEO will have a change of heart. Crooks turn into saints only in movies and stories. It’s not impossible but very uncommon because people don’t change. Turnarounds seldom turn – Buffett may have said this for businesses, but it’s equally applicable to people’s character.

If a CEO has been known to display a clean character for a long time, he will seldom turn out to be of questionable character in future.

Fortune favours the brave, goes the saying. And in investing, fortune favours those who are brave enough to stick with their honest and competent partners through the ups and downs of market cycles.

Apart from investing, if you want to be fortunate in life too, you now know the drill.

Surround yourself with people who posses the qualities that you admire. Who inspire, uplift and motivate you. Who set the right example by doing the right thing.

How do you find such people? Let them find you.

Like attracts like. Which means the best ways to find honest people is to be honest yourself. If you develop a good character yourself and practice those qualities which you’re looking in others, it attracts similar people in your life. I can personally vouch for it. The strategy has worked remarkably well in my life so far.

In the end, Lady Fortuna doesn’t just smile on honest business people. She likes anyone who possesses a good character.

The post How to Be A Fortunate Investor appeared first on Safal Niveshak.

How to Be A Fortunate Investor published first on https://mbploans.tumblr.com/