#so I KNOW the culture that begat him

[tathrin]

You mention Thranduil counting himself as sylvan and forest adoption. Is that a magical thing or legal too?

I'm not actually sure what this means, in terms of "legally" a Sindar/Silvan because as far as I know (which is not always very much admittedly, when we get into the Legendarium, so correct me if I'm wrong folks) there is no legal distinction between the different branches of elves, and I'm not sure what it would even mean if there somehow were? But I'm going to try and answer anyway, so please stop me if I'm completely off-base with my answer thanks.

But I suppose the core of the matter is that there isn't a root difference between the different groups of elves; the names are things that are used to distinguish by experience more than anything else, because they were all one group of elves once when they first woke up, and then they split-off to do different things and those things changed them. So the Noldor ended up being best at crafts because that's what they were all generally most interested in and they hung-out with Aulë, while the Teleri bonded with the Sea because they loved it/Ulmo, etc etc. And the more Treelight the elves got the taller/more powerful they generally became, and so on. But they're all elves, they just did different things and thus ended up being different, and the different groupings distinguish those resulting differences.

With the Sindar, you can see some of the fuzziness of those distinctions best I think, because they're Moriquendi, e.g. elves who never went to Aman...but their king, Thingol, did go; he was one of the first three elves taken there, with the hope that they would convince the rest of the elves to make the journey across Middle-earth. Except Thingol and his people didn't, because he fell in an enchanted trance love with Melian, and his people stayed to look for him, and then when he finally snapped out of it (the trance, not the love) they all decided to hang-out and build a kingdom here. But because they all ended up chilling with a Maia, and had a king who had been to Aman, they were the most Calaquendi-like of the Moriquendi and ended up getting called "Elves of the Twilight" because of it. So they're already messy! Because they're Dark Elves, but got taught lots of stuff by a Maia so they're a little bit like the Light Elves, even though they never saw the Light themselves! Except for Thingol, who is a Calaquendi, despite being numbered among the Sindar, who are Moriquendi! So they're Grey Elves, now! And everything is very clear! Whee!

(It's almost like dividing people arbitrarily into strict identity boxes never quite works for some reason huhhhh.)

Anyway, the way I write Green/Mirkwood is that the Sindar elves who came from Doriath to seek a more "natural" way of elvish life after all the Shit Went Down basically ended up casting aside most of their existing culture in favor of cleaving to the traditions and lifestyle of the Greenwood elves (as a result of their grief/trauma/sense of betrayal and loss, etc), and while there was almost certainly some cultural mingling in the end result it was probably like 80% Silvan and 20% Sindar rather than an even cultural exchange/mixing because sure, the Sindar aren't going to just erase everything about themselves (you can't, even when you want to) and the Silvan elves are definitely going to pick-up some stuff from their new buddies, because that's how culture works.

But the overall end result was much more Silvan than Sindar. And since to the refugees from Doriath that was the point, they came here on purpose for this reason, they end up calling themselves "Wood-elves" after, because that's what they chose to be now. And getting back to the whole "terms to distinguish differences begat by experiences" thing...well, that counts as one of the experiences that shaped them, so are they Silvan elves because that's the life they've chosen to live, even though they were Sindar elves before? Perhaps.

(I'm a big fan of Found/Chosen Family, so we know which thought I'm siding with lol.)

Whether or not other elves are going to accept that re-classification or not, or to what extent they buy into "you can just call yourself x and that's what you are now," will vary of course, and I think it would definitely be more difficult for some groups of elves to pull-off than others. (A Noldo, for instance, would probably get HELLA side-eye if they tried to say "no no, I'm x now, not a Noldor anymore, honest!" because a looooot of the shit that everybody else went through is a result of Noldor Bullshit, so I feel like most people would react to a claim like that from one of them with something more like "cute, but you don't get to wash the blood off your hands that easily, Noldo." But also given the general pride-levels of the Noldor I don't uhhh really see that as something likely for many of them to want to do anyway, so.)

But does anyone really care if Thranduil (or Oropher before him) wants to call himself a Wood-elf now? First of all, in the eyes of most of the elves who Care About Status, they're downgrading themselves ("more dangerous and less wise," remember?) by renouncing their Sindar heritage to become a "mere" Wood-elf; second of all, what difference does it really make to anyone? They're hanging out with the weird primitive forest elves and acting just as weird themselves, so why not call them Wood-elves too and be done with it? Whatever, nobody cares, y'all weren't even kings until you got to the weird uncivilized woods anyway pffft.

Now, Galadriel and Celeborn both seem to be counted as "of the Galadhrim" by the Third Age even though they're a Noldo and a Sinda respectively, and the elves of Lothlórien are mostly Silvan...but I also don't get the impression that either of them were even like yeah I'm a wood-elf now. Especially not Galadriel! She's an extremely singular individual! She's not just a Noldo who saw the Trees, she's Galad-fucking-riel for crying out loud! She's no "mere" Wood-elf, she was fucking taught by Melian and bears the Ring of Adamant. She's GALADRIEL. Even calling her a Mighty Lord of the Noldor doesn't come near to summing-up the level she's on. So she definitely isn't going to be going "lol yeah I'm just a simple Wood-elf tra-la-lallying through my tress," and if she did everyone would be very UM NO about that for sure because she's freaking Galadriel!

Anyway, taking the keyboard back from Gimli now and returning to the point ahem.

They led a land of Wood-elves, and considered themselves to be of the people of Lórien, but I don't think they ever rejected their own heritage or culture, either. So would they have taken Thranduil's "I'm a Wood-elf" statement as him saying "I'm one of THESE people now, not a Sinda anymore" or just a statement of allegiance to the elves of Greenwood? ymmv. Personally I write Celeborn as being rather "mm-hmm sure buddy" about his old friend from Doriath just "not being a Sinda anymore" but not, like, doing anything more than making the occasional biting comment about it because again: what difference does it really make? Anyway Thranduil's always been Extra, and hooking-up with the weird-ass cryptids of Greenwood just made him even moreso, so whatever it's no skin off his nose...

But on the subject of "weird-ass Greenwood cryptid elves," I also like to write the forest as really weird, in the sense of it's actually almost a little bit semi-sentient. (Because it is a weird place in a very different way from Lothlórien's "elvish weirdness"; that's more vibes, while Mirkwood is just. what. what the fuck. is going on. why is the RIVER LIKE THAT. WHY ARE THE TREES LIKE THAT. WHAT.) So for me, I like to write it as a thing where they actually specifically, actively bond with the forest itself, and it sort of...claims them? (See chapter six of this, which I haven't posted yet, but I'm hoping to soon because it's almost done honest shhh.) So yeah, this is the Forest Adoption thing I mentioned!

So in one sense, they are Wood-elves now, because they belong to the Greenwood...although the degrees to which they belong, and the degree to which their Sindar nature has become subsumed beneath their newfound Greenwood-ness, varies by individual (for instance, Thranduil as king is The Most GreenwoodTM because the forest is like "yes, this is MINE I have CLAIMED it" which is at least half of where the whole "king thing" comes from, because he's the most in touch with the forest, so who else would they look to when they need a leader? But Eregmegil is very much stand-offish to everything including the forest, and so isn't as much changed as any of the other Sindar refugees; everybody else falls into the spectrum between the extremes of the two of them).

So to bring this ramble to a close...I think it's still very much accurate from a technical standpoint for someone to call Thranduil a Sinda, and I don't think he'd like, throw you in the dungeons "for the insult" or even take it as an insult or anything like that, because yes he is a Sinda; but I think he considers himself a Wood-elf. Because those are his people, and that's his culture. And he probably introduces or describes himself that way, whenever the topic comes up (and he probably drops it into conversation around Celeborn as much as he can on purpose to annoy him once they start hanging out again in the Fourth Age).

But if someone was like "uhh technically you're a Sinda, your highness, because you were born in Doriath not Greenwood..." he'd be like "yeah and now I'm an elf of Greenwood wtf is your point?" and like. what is their point? Sure, he's got the height and power and knowledge of an elf who lived behind Melian's Girdle, but he lives in Green/Mirkwood now and has all the unhinged cryptid energy and weird forest-awareness of a quasi-feral spider-hunting Wood-elf.

So which is he? The answer is both, really. Because he's a product of all of his history, not just part of it; we all are. But his people are a Silvan people, and he's one of them; so when push comes to shove he's standing with the Wood-elves. Even if he's doing it with a Doriath-forged sword in his hands.

[davidmariottecomics]

Transformers, Till We Meet Again

Hello! Or should I say Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong! 

Earlier this week, Transformers: Shattered Glass II #5 came out from IDW Publishing. Written by Danny Lore, drawn by Guido Guidi, inked by Matt Froese, colored by John-Paul Bove, lettered by Jake M. Wood, edited by Riley Farmer, and supervised by me. It's a fun issue with Soundwave, Slicer, Ultra Magnus, and a Titan, where everything goes wrong and comes to a head. I highly recommend it. It is also IDW's last Transformers comic of 2022 and beyond as we part ways. As such, I wanted to take some time to talk about Transformers--my personal relationship with it, my many years on the franchise as an editor (and occasionally a writer), and some behind-the-scenes stuff that you probably don't know and that I won't get in trouble for talking about. I promise it won't be filled with too many TF jokes and that while it is meant to help memorialize a great achievement, it is neither sad nor regretful. You'll see Transformers again. 

My Time with TF (Pre-IDW)

I genuinely cannot remember a time in my life when I didn't know about Transformers. My first exposure was through Beast Wars. I was pretty little when it started airing, but as I started making choices about things I liked and wanted to watch, it became a pretty clear favorite early on (right up there with The Lion King). A driving force of that was, of course, also the toys. I liked the show and when I was getting old enough for the toys, I started getting some. I got one of the basic figures that came packed with a VHS with the first couple episodes of Season 2 on it. It was great and I watched it a lot, but also supremely frustrating because it only included "Coming of the Fuzors, Part 1" an episode that ends on a cliffhanger for the subsequent "Part 2"! 

As a brief and not too embarrassing story: My Depth Charge is still in really good shape and one of my all time favorite TF toys. I think part of why he's always been kept so nice, despite how much I played with him as a kid, is he was a reward. If you're a parent looking to toilet train your kid, apparently a bribe of a Transmetal is a pretty good way to go. 

And slowly but surely, my love for Transformers got reinforced. Our local Hollywood Video had a small selection of TF VHS--I checked them all out off-and-on, but none so often as Transformers: The Movie (and, TBH, the G.I. Joe Movie too). In many ways, that was my early intro to G1. The other big pillar, honestly, since we were in a gap between comics publishers, was Wizard and Toyfare, the big nerd magazines of the era. My dad worked in comics publishing and would regularly bring them home (or I'd read them at his office) and while I was too young to get a lot of the humor, I was old enough to know they thought they were funny and to start to glean insight on what pop culture stuff people liked. 

Beast Wars begat Beast Machines, which I stuck with. In 2001, the original Robots in Disguise cartoon came out--it wasn't so much a hit for me as a show, but I liked the toys. That's also the year Titan Books picked up the license to reissue some of the Marvel comics, which had been out of print for years, and that Dreamwave picked up the license to do new TF comics. Things start to get a little jumbled, but somewhere around there, I got a volume or two of the Titan stuff and a little bit inconsistently got some of the Dreamwave stuff too. I bought in big with Armada, fell out again around Energon (for toys, cartoons, and the comics). And in 2004, my dad left his job as Editor-in-Chief at IDW Publishing and we moved to Arizona, 2 hours away from our local comic shops. 

Being outside a small town in Arizona in the mid 2000s was a very different experience from being in the city growing up. Besides not having a comic shop nearby or a toy store, there was only one small video rental place that we didn't really go to much (especially as we ended up early adopters of Netflix sending you DVDs in the mail) and TV and Internet could both be spotty at times. I was going into middle school anyway, so things were bound to change, but my media consumption definitely pivoted and Transformers was kinda left behind, expect for picking up vintage Beast Wars figures when I found them, the occasional dip back in with the likes of the first live action movie and TF Animated, and IDW having picked up the TF license (and also given me a bunch of their earliest issues). I started with Infiltration #0 and read every issue of every series up through to All Hail Megatron. And I only stopped, really, because I wasn't getting to comic shops very often and AHM was such a radical shift from what came before that I genuinely thought I had missed some transition series/issues and didn't know what had happened and kinda gave up. For a long time, that was kinda status quo--I'd dip an occasional toe back in, pick up a few toys now and then, but for me, TF was primarily a nostalgia based thing--reading my old comics (and pouring over the Beast Wars Sourcebook in particular--where I met my all time favorite TF, Randy), collecting my old toys, and watching Beast Wars and Transformers the Movie. 

My Time with IDW (Pre-TF)

Skipping ahead another decade or so, fresh out of college, I got a job at IDW. It's a much longer story, but that's the short version. I was initially brought in as an assistant for Chris Ryall and Scott Dunbier, which brought me to my first Hasbro book, ROM. Chris was co-writing it with Christos Gage and as Chris's assistant, I got looped in. And, almost immediately, I also got roped in by David Hedgecock to help him out with the fledgling Hasbro universe--starting with some uncredited assistant work on Revolution, and joining the editorial team on Micronauts, M.A.S.K.: Mobile Armored Strike Kommand, and Revolutionaries (a team-up book of characters from Transformers, G.I. Joe, Action Man, M.A.S.K., ROM, and Micronauts). I was working on Hasbro books and with Transformers, but only on the periphery. But the big thing that came of that was I started working with John Barber, who had recently left IDW editorial, but was co-writing Revolution, writing Revolutionaries, and writing Transformers/Optimus Prime. We became friendly and--in an effort to do my job well--I started reading through EVERYTHING so I could be almost as knowledgeable about all these threads he was pulling as he was. And some combination of deep diving into the IDW Hasbro catalog, my own pre-existing TF knowledge, and the lasting mind-addled facts I had absorbed from Wizard actually made me a pretty good fit for the job. 

By the time we're working on First Strike, Hasbro has become my wheelhouse at IDW. But despite being a part of planning a Transformers/G.I. Joe crossover (primarily), I'm still not actually working on TF or Joe proper books. That's all about to change though because IDW's about to go through some major changes in staffing. Ryall leaves (he later comes back), David Hedgecock is promoted to editor-in-chief and has additional responsibilities that limit the number of titles he can edit. Sarah Gaydos briefly becomes more involved with the Hasbro universe stuff before she goes to Oni. And Carlos Guzman, the current TF/Joe editor, announces he's leaving too. I start getting handed a lot more responsibility coming off the event, starting with Transformers vs. Visionaries (also worth noting--in the background of all this, Joe Hughes and I are getting Sonic the Hedgehog up and running). Controversial decision: we decide to kill Kup (again, kinda). And I write a eulogy where I mistakenly call Trailbreaker "Trailblazer" (I'M SORRY!). It's a book that was definitely affected by the behind-the-scenes changing of the guard as well as taking on heavier editorial direction because it's being posed as a bridge series between First Strike and Unicron. 

And this is where I'm quickly having to come in to my own. The Hasbro Universe is being shrunk to a few titles: Optimus Prime, Lost Light, a couple Annuals wrapping up Till All Are One and Nick Roche's Wreckers, the joint G.I. Joe/M.A.S.K. title: Scarlett's Strike Force, Rom and the Micronauts, and Transformers vs. Visionaries--all knowing that Unicron is coming and that that'll be our big--perhaps final--event. Carlos, John, Nick, Mairghread Scott, and James Roberts have all kinda planned their stuff to the end, so I get to start continuing Carlos's plans, but it's comics and things always change. 

Dawn of a Bold New Era Okay, I know at this point, we've mostly been talking about my personal relationship with TF and the landscape as I was really getting brought in--which is maybe a little dry. You're here for the juicy stuff--the secret stuff! So let's talk about when I actually came onto TF. 

Besides taking over the rest of the IDW1/Hasbro Universe titles, my other big project as I'm coming into things is all the build up to my personal favorite live-action Transformers movie: Bumblebee! It's supposed to be more kid-friendly, so a big initiative is some Bumblebee stuff for kids, which ended up being the Bumblebee-Win If You Dare OGN and the Bumblebee-Go For the Gold one-shot. Those books, by James Asmus, Marcelo Ferreira, Valentina Pinto, Maria Keane, Athilla Fabbio, Josh Perez, Tom Long, and Nicoletta Baldari on covers (psst--TFWiki people, if you're reading this, the Go for the Gold cover is misattributed to Marcelo, but it is Nicoletta. k thx) were a heck of a learning experience. Like all our TF books, I'm very proud of them, but suffice to say, I don't recommend doing a graphic novel, even a short one, on anything resembling a regular comic timeline. But it was really exciting because it was the first (and currently is the only) Transformers original graphic novel. It's also one of the few Transformers comics that was also run through Volkswagen as Bumblebee was officially a Beetle. 

Something that came up a few times while we were working on it was requests to actually make it more distinct from the movie. James wasn't given access to that script, but a few of the things he proposed along the way just so happened to be pretty close to what was in Bumblebee and so had to be tweaked. Which also led to the very interesting experience on the other side of things doing the Bumblebee Movie Prequel. If you've read it, you know it's a super fun, purposefully kinda campy spy adventure inspired by The Avengers (the Steed & Peel kind, not the superheroes) and like Moore Bond films. It is also working off an older draft of the movie that was more in line with the other movies. That was the last of our Movie books, which had started way back in 2007. I think it was really appropriate to both start and end with a prequel to the latest movie and, particularly with this being a John Barber/Andrew Griffith/Priscilla Tramontano joint, having it also be referential to some of our other previous movie comics. 

The other kinda funky thing about the Bumblebee Movie Prequel is as it's in progress, at IDW, I've gone from editing my boss, Chris Ryall, on ROM, to editing my new boss, John Barber! The week after John starts, I think, is when the Unicron #0 FCBD issue comes out. And with that, we publicly announced that we were coming in on the end of a universe--a big event that was Transformers focused but a hurrah for everything that IDW had been building since I was a kid reading comics and everything that had been building when I came in at the still pretty early start of the shared universe. Something I ended up having to do twice, but that you can pretty clearly see in the run up to Unicron is I tried to get as many long-time people involved as possible. From bringing folks in on covers to the wrap-up shorts for the universe we had in Unicron, and the creator interviews about the history of IDW1, I wanted to celebrate the "Transformers Legacy." 

I'm afraid it's been long-enough I don't have a lot of particularly funny or interesting stories from that era. Bless Kei Zama and Josh Burcham for getting Randy in Optimus Prime (even if he did immediately die). Big ups to all the creators, of course, who stepped up and helped out as we closed in on the end--some of whom came into tight deadlines or big shoes and always kicked ass. Nick Roche and I had two close-calls: 1. In Requiem of the Wreckers, there's a scene that was supposed to be Quickswitch, but we had just killed him over in Visionaries, so that was a pretty quick and dirty pivot to Sixknight. 2. There was a typo on his cover for the last issue of Lost Light and fortunately it did not go to print saying "We Achieived Something". I'm glad it was fixed, but it was pretty funny when James Roberts noticed it. 

I also got to be the kissing editor! The first on-page, romantic (non-KISS Players) kiss happened in OP #21 between Aileron and Arcee, and then there were a few more kisses between bots across OP, LL, and Unicron. And, later, I got to put a kiss in Wreckers, which was very exciting! 

And--one thing I pretty much never got right and which, again, I profusely apologize for--is we never properly credited Jenevieve Frank. She was supposed to get a special thanks for the last issue of Optimus Prime and I messed up getting that in print in the original run and in the TPB and my third shot where I would've gotten it right, the final IDW Collection--well, we didn't quite get to collecting it in that format. So, I'm sorry, Jen! This is one of only 3 regrets I have for the series, besides "Trailblazer" and the one I'll get to later. 

Because of how comics production timelines work, though, as we were nearing these ends and coordinating shipping the final issues of Unicron, Lost Light, and Optimus Prime to land in shops in the right order, we had also already begun the work of planning IDW2. That actually took it's first steps with Carlos before he left. Working with Hasbro, we looked at some pitches that were very fun and by great creators, but that didn't quite work and brought Tom Waltz in to help write some new directives for pitches. Tom's also the one who brought Brian Ruckley in. The only thing I think I can say about some of those earliest drafts is there was a time when the role that was ultimately filled in IDW2 by Rubble was originally going to be a human. I'm glad that wasn't the case because I think it gave IDW2 a really unique identity to not have any Earth stuff, but suffice to say, there were some very different versions of what it could've been with that simple a change. 

Angel Hernandez was one of those things that was so obvious it was in front of your face, literally. John, Tom, and I were looking for an artist for the series and coming up with all these names and I was walking to John's office to talk about something else when I passed a series of "from script to final page" posters we had hung up for display in the office. It was the sort of thing we liked to show kids and visitors who didn't know much about how comics get made. These pages, in particular, were from Star Trek/Green Lantern and drawn by Angel. I don't know what it was, but on that pass, it clicked: Angel was the guy for the book. We had spent all this time talking about it, but he was right there between my desk and John's office the whole time. 

And so, in 2019, we launched a bold new era, IDW2. A twice-monthly series through the first 12 issues and a Transformer story genuinely unlike any other. With the new series, we wanted to bring in new creators. I am immensely proud of everything that everyone brought into the fold but special shout-outs to Brian, Angel, Anna Malkova, and Beth McGuire-Smith, who did a lot to help define this new universe early and often. 

When we collected that first 12 issue as Transformers, Vol. 1: The World in Your Eyes, I was talking with Justin Eisinger in the books department about what we wanted Cryssy Cheung to do with the covers and fairly quickly settled on the idea of having each one feature 2 major players from that part of the series. In describing the first cover, Tom said that it should be Bumblebee and Rubble. I agreed. Justin and Cryssy have hit on the idea of featuring alt-modes on the back cover. So Justin asks for reference. My answer was to send a bunch for Bumblebee and to explain that for Rubble "he's a baby and then he's a corpse." Accurate (and if you haven't read it, sorry for spoilers), but something we'd joke about for a long time after. 

Transformers Galaxies was our first real attempt at expanding. We got some really cool folks to work on that. A lot of the "rules" of the series actually came out of working on the first arc, Constructicons Rising, with Tyler Bleszinski and Livio Ramondelli. In developing that, we realized that to truly embrace the idea of "Galaxies", all the stories would be expanding the universe, but outside of Cybertron. There was a lot of coordination between Sam Maggs and Brian and the editorial team to make sure the Gauge story spun out of Arcee/Greenlight: Run properly, and then fed back into the ongoing at the end of the series. There was a lot of coordination between everyone to make sure that characters weren't in two places at once and the rules of the universe all followed. For example, Brandon Easton pitched his arc to be in-universe, but also in line with the War for Cybertron: Siege cartoon that he had also written for. But by the time we were working on that arc, it had become pretty obvious that the IDW2 comic and animation didn't line-up too well, so there was a bit of tweaking to make it fit better. 

There were two stories that were pitched as part of Galaxies, but that ended up elsewhere. What ended up as the Transformers 2021 Annual, "Light/Star" started out as a pitch from Brian for a Galaxies arc, as did what became Transformers Wreckers: Tread & Circuits. 

Also around this time, we got Riley Farmer at IDW! You should know Riley! She was the assistant/associate editor on Transformers (and eventually the editor on TF: Shattered Glass & Shattered Glass II). She's my co-editor on Sonic. She's now editing My Little Pony and many other things. She's without a doubt one of the best editors currently working in comics and one of my best friends. So, shout-out to Riley! As much as I think TF can be a trail of my own editorial growth, the same is largely true of Riley. 

Writing Transformers

At one point, Wreckers: Tread & Circuits would've been issues #13-15 or 16 (pitched as three but already might've been expanded to four) of TF Galaxies. But then things changed and Galaxies came to an end at #12 and we launched Escape. Which means that Wreckers was pitched before my actual first TF series, co-written with John Barber, Transformers vs. the Terminator!

The origin of that series came from, as much as anything, early solicit text. We were still on the hunt for a creative team (at that point, I was going to edit it, which obviously changed) and I wrote some early solicit text just to have it done early and realized that was the pitch. The whole thing was written to be the classic Terminator set-up, but with a late twist of the robots controlling the future being the Decepticons and the freedom fighters being the Terminators. And like that, it came together. I pitched it to John and Tom. We set the story beats and then John and I wrote it. It was fantastic getting to work with long-time collaborators Alex Milne and David Garcia Cruz. And Tom and Riley were excellent editors. 

A couple pieces of extra trivia about that series: I think there's at least one kind of oblique reference in the script to the fact that when I lived in Tucson, AZ, one of the local news stations called their traffic camera system "Skynet". In issue #3, there's a jokey reference both to Terminator and a Prince song. That was added specifically because John Barber is the biggest Prince fan I know and I thought it'd be funny. It also ended up being kind of a running gag of referencing Judgement Day, the big catastrophe from Terminator. And this book was particularly special to me because way back when, TF artist Don Figueroa and my dad, Jeff Mariotte, did the Terminator Salvation movie-prequel for IDW and it was nice to write in a universe my dad did too. 

And the Autobots that are seen are all very carefully chosen. Something that we see to an extent in IDW2 and later Beast Wars and in this and Wreckers is a recurring idea that your average Autobot is not a warrior, but a civilian who stepped up to do the right thing. It's why Velocity, Bumblebee, Ratchet, and Wheeljack all play prominent roles in TF/Terminator and why Circuit and Minerva are part of the team in Wreckers. Maybe someday to be seen in some form, there are a few more pitches I put together at various times that play off of that idea. It's something I quite liked and obviously would return to again. 

Speaking of Wreckers, let's talk about that! So, it was pitched wayyyyy back when, before TF/Terminator, even though it came out afterwards, right? While it lines up really well with some eventual Hasbro plans--Leadfoot in the Wreckers line, the whole Velocitron Speedia 500 line, and Minerva and Skullgrin getting Legacy toys--that wasn't intentional! Some specific additions did get added right around scripting, when those things started to be in place, but a lot of them were just coincidental and it was cool that we got to have the characters in the books get some new physical representations/get the designs early so we could have them match in the series. 

In terms of the cast list, a lot of folks had very particular reasons for being there. Thunderclash I loved from his appearances in MTMTE/LL. Aileron and Circuit were directly influenced by RID/Transformers/OP. Hot Shot had been the main character of a pitch that didn't move forward. And Knockout and Breakdown were pulled in from Till All Are One. Minerva, like I said, was specifically chosen because I liked the idea of the Wreckers having a medic. A lot of other folks were chosen just because I liked them and they fit as racers. And spoiler for another story that may never happen--had we gotten another series, some of the would-be-Wreckers featured at the end of issue #4 would've made it to the team (Star Saber and Leadfoot for sure). 

What other secrets can I spill about Wreckers? Because it was originally pitched so early into the 2019 run, at one point Anna Malkova was suggested as the artist because she hadn't yet transitioned to being the main artist on the ongoing. I'm super happy I got to work with Jack Lawrence on it though. I love them both and I think they both worked on the proper book for them (though TBH, I'd also love to do something with Anna in the future!). When it was greenlit, one of the first things I did was send the pitch to Nick and Simon Furman for their blessing as the Wreckers guys. I'm very honored our series gets to stand alongside theirs in Wreckers history. 

Outside of my crossover book, it was also in this period around the end of IDW1 through, really, to pretty deep into IDW2 that we started doing a lot of crossovers and, from that, also started doing what I think of as the standalones. 

Star Trek, Ghostbusters, and My Little Ponies, Oh My! 

Here's kind of a strange thing to think about: When we did Star Trek vs. Transformers, Transformers/Ghostbusters, and My Little Pony/Transformers, none of those were actually the first time TF crossed over with those properties. Back in 2011, IDW did a very interesting crossover series called Infestation--a semi-crossover between Transformers, G.I. Joe, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, and IDW original properties Zombies vs. Robots and CVO. And MLPs showed up for a panel or so in Tom Scioli and John's excellent Transformers vs. G.I. Joe series! 

These were all great fun to work on and are one of those cool things where you get editors who maybe don't usually work together co-editing a book, or editors who used to work together reuniting, or maybe my favorite version--Megan Brown asking you to give one read at the script stage and one read of the final PDF and call out notes, but she really edited both MLP/TF series! 

Crossovers are always an interesting experience, but I think I only have two crossover things worth sharing that I'm able to share. One is when Erik Burnham, Dan Schoening, and Luis Antonio Delgado were first tapped for TF/Ghostbusters, they did a promo piece with an early concept of Ectotron. I own that piece as a T-shirt I bought at Gamestop, despite the fact that it was not the final Ectotron design. Licensing is complicated--comics are complicated--and it's always fun when you find stuff like that which came from an earlier version but made it to production. The other one I can think of is Transformers/Back to the Future had a bit of weird timing to it. I co-edited the series with my pal Chase Marotz, but slightly before the last issue went into production, Chase changed departments at IDW. While it didn't really affect the book, it was interesting having an extra learning curve of figuring out the BTTF approvals system for the last issue, because Chase had been dealing with it the rest of the series. 

Besides the crossovers and IDW2, we were also looking for new ways to bring TF to people, which lead to so many amazing books. I finally got to work with Simon Furman, as well as the phenomenal Guido Guidi and John-Paul Bove, on Transformers '84 (a series that drew from both the original Marvel G1 and Marvel UK). I got to fulfill my childhood dream of launching a new Beast Wars series (with favs Erik Burnham & Josh Burcham) that eventually got picked up by editor Jazmine Joyner (who I spent this weekend hanging out with and who helped me double fulfill my dream by letting me write a story in the Beast Wars Annual). We did the amazing swords-and-sorcery story, King Grimlock, with Steve Orlando, Agustin Padilla, and Jeremy Colwell. Riley took over and did two Shattered Glass series with Danny Lore, Guido, Dan Khanna, and a bunch of other amazing contributors. And I got to team-up with my old buddy Nick Roche, the first IDW TF artist, E.J. Su, and colorists Rebecca Nalty and Brittany Peer (at the end) for Last Bot Standing, a series that acts as an excellent sign-off to everything we did. A last TF story, even though it wasn't our last and, frankly, it's TF. The stories never end. 

I was hoping to get some other stories in, but frankly, we're running long already. The only bits I'll mention in particular are 1. Jaz managed to do something I could not. Initially, we were only using American Beast Wars characters for the series, but Jaz, Sam Maggs, and Lanna Souvanny managed to do a story all about Skold and Powerhug! 2. Speaking of Beast Wars, I believe in the big battle spread in the final issue, Josh Burcham's got a Sonic the Hedgehog joke with Armordillo (another favorite character of mine). 3. Last Bot Standing developed while Nick Roche and I were working on Scarenthood, his excellent creator-owned series with Chris O'Halloran (and in which Becca and I have a brief cameo). 4. Signal Lancer has a very brief role in Wreckers: Tread & Circuits. He was also, at one point, slated for LBS, though he didn't make the final cut. 5. In the first draft of the lettering for the Veteran in LBS #3, none of the haikus were formatted. They were just lettered regularly. If you think they're obnoxious to read as haiku, they are actually harder to read without the proper formatting. And 6. Again, to add context for the TFWiki folks--Nick and I mutually agreed that a haiku of "Damn"s was more reasonable than a haiku of "Shit"s. 

What Could Have Been

Okay, so, I can only say so much about anything. If you checked out our awesome Transformers: Best of the Rarities (including some real treasures that haven't been seen before and may never be seen again), you might've noticed something about Transformers: Collision Course. A few finished covers for that series were included, and obviously, it was never published. What I can say is that much like when building up to Unicron, the goal was to bring in as many longtime contributors as possible, some in new ways. It would've featured elements from everything seen on the covers. It would've gotten kind of weird, in a very fun way. What it would've been actually was pretty different than originally conceptualized. And it would've said goodbye. Maybe some other time I can share more, but that's about all I can say now. 

I mentioned regrets earlier and this is my third one. Not that we didn't publish Collision Course (even if it might've bumped me above Carlos Guzman as the person to edit the most TF comics)--in some ways, I'm glad we didn't. I kinda don't mind not saying an official goodbye. My regret is there was always more to do. There were plans and things we'd like to do and I hope some of them find a home sometime. But the big loss is I wanted to work with so many more people. Writers, artists, colorists--folks who I'd have loved to work with for the first time and folks who I've worked with so many times but would've done TF with forever. None of that's going away--I'll still find ways to work with those folks--but had I had 100 more issues, I still wouldn't have had enough time to work with the many, many amazing folks on all sides who made TF magical (or who would've and the timing didn't work out). 

And so, finally, thank you! Thanks to Kelly Johnson, Michael Kelly, Ed Lane, Tayla Reo, Ben MacCrae, Matt Clarke, Mark Maher, and the team at Hasbro, Isabella Weiss, Beth Artale, Carlos Guzman, Sarah Gaydos, Chris Ryall, Denton Tipton, Chase Marotz, Tom Waltz, Megan Brown, Bobby Curnow, Jazmine Joyner, Andy Schmidt, Tom Long, Jake Wood, Johanna Nattalie, Shawn Lee, Neil Uyetake, Chris Mowry, Christa Miesner, Gilberto Lazcano, Nate Widick, Justin Eisinger, Alonzo Simon, Zac Boone, Lauren Lapera, and the whole IDW crew past and present, Simon Furman, John-Paul Bove, Andrew Griffith, Brian Ruckley, Casey Coller, James Roberts, Livio Ramondelli, Josh Burcham, Alex Milne, Nick Roche, Fico Ossio, Priscilla Tramontano, Sebastian Cheng, Candice Han, Sam Maggs, Sara Pitre-Durocher, Winston Chan, Angel Hernandez, Agustin Padilla, Eduardo Alpuente, E.J. Su, Heather Breckel, Aline Baumgartner, SidVenBlu, Luis Antonio Delgado, Dan Khanna, Dan Schoening, Erik Burnham, David Garcia Cruz, Ed Pirrie, Ben Pirrie, Matt Froese, Rik Mack, Gigi Dutriex, Danny Lore, Rebecca Nalty, Steve Orlando, Ochopante, Phil Murphy, Valentina Pinto, Umi Miyao, John Yurcaba, Kei Zama, Guido Guidi, Evan Gauntt, Jack Lawrence, Evan Stanley, Thomas Deer, Jeffrey Veregge, Tom Scioli, Marcelo Matere, Marcelo Ferreira, Anna Malkova, Beth McGuire-Smith, Stefano Simeone, Josh Perez, Kate Leth, Cohen Edenfield, Saren Stone, Brendan Cahil, Brenda Chi, Cachet Whitman, Ron Joseph, Nelson Daniel, Gabriel Rodriguez, Chris Panda, James Raiz, James Marsh, James Biggie, Jim Wilson, Jim Stafford,  James Asmus, George Caltsoudas, Mairghread Scott, Freddie E. Williams II, Andrew Wildman, Stephen Baskerville, Ian Flynn, Nicole Goux, Nicoletta Baldari, Nick Brokenshire, Sebastian Piriz, Jeremy Colwell, Max Dunbar, Francesco Francavilla, Corin Howell, Philip Johnson, Maria Keane, Brittany Peer, Red Powell, Juan Samu, Cavan Scott, Blacky Shepherd, Reggie Graham, L. Kershaw, Ashe Phillips, Zoner Siyu Hemu, Tyler Bleszinski, Brandon Easton, Billie Montfort, Peri Mercer, Shane McCarthy, Don Figueroa, Patrick Ehlers, Dan Watters, Nahuel Ruiz, Geoff Senior, Nick Marino, Andrea Bell, Lanna Souvanny, Ryan Miller, Chris McFeely, Jim Sorenson, Tony Fleecs, Adam Bryce Thomas, Mike Johnson, Ilias Kyriazis, Stephen Byrne, James Stokoe, Cary Nord, Mateus Santolouco, Marcelo Maiolo, Alex Horley, Paul Harding, Bryan Lee, Dave Wilkins, Cian Tormey, Gavin Spence, Gavin Fullerton, Philip Knott, John Allison, Mina Won, Rui Onishi, John Wycough, Martin Gee, David Rodriguez, Aubrey Sitterson, Sean Ryan, Cullen Bunn, Mags Visaggio, Lane Lloyd, Gavin Guidry, Leonardo Ito, Christina-Antoinette Neofotistou, Christos Gage, Matt Frank, Christian Ward, Luca Pizzari, Hal Laren, Diego Zuniga, Suna Margevich, Zerob, Lantana Gao, Jamel Jones, Ronda Pattinson, Colm Griffin, Camila Fortuna, John Jennings, Andy Duggan, Emilio Lopez, Anthony Pugh, Sebastien Stone, and the likely dozens of other creators who I never got to work with but who touched this big beautiful series! Extra special thanks to Riley Farmer and John Barber who absolutely deserve their own callout. And thanks to the people who facilitated my love of TF over the years so I could bring my passion to this series for so long, from my parents, to my partner Becca (and their TF who's in the last issue of Wreckers, Honk)! Finally--seriously, finally--thanks to you! Thanks for reading TF at any point in the IDW run or for, god help you, having read through this whole long post. 

With that, I'm calling it for the year! It's unlikely you'll get anything til January, but I guess not completely impossible if I want to share some wrap-up/resolutiony type stuff before the new year starts. If this is it for 2022, thanks for joining the first year of my blog and my website and the first few months of my newsletter and my Tumblr if you're reading there! Happy holidays and see you next year! 

Things I've been enjoying this week: Jaz Joyner came and visited yesterday and that was awesome! Honkai Impact (Video game). Chainsaw Man (Anime & Manga). Spy x Family (Anime). Star Saber (Toy). The Simpsons (TV show). Lego Masters (TV show). The promise of reading time that comes with an extended holiday break. And, of course, Transformers. 

New Releases this week (12/14/2022): Transformers: Shattered Glass II #5 (Supervising Editor--Our last TF book).

New releases next week (12/21/2022): Sonic the Hedgehog: Scrapnik Island #3 (Editor)

Final Order Cutoff (12/19/2022): Godzilla Rivals: Round 1 Collection (I didn't have anything to do with this, but I feel obligated to plug Godzilla!) Godzilla Monsters & Protectors: All Hail the King #5 (Editor) Sonic the Hedgehog Vol. 13: Battle for the Empire (Includes the milestone issue #50 - Editor)

Announcements:  Becca and I have started applying for cons in 2023! Hope to have some updates on those soon! 

In the meantime, you can pick up some of my work at the shop on my website and you can get Becca's stuff at their website. Pochita keychain pre-orders are only open for a couple more days, so get on it! Supporting us now can help us get to those cons! 

And with Twitter going sideways yet again, as a reminder, you can find me on other socials through my website or at my Linktree. 

Lastly, a plea for my peers with hiring power in the industry. There's literally a list above of some of the most kick-ass, dedicated, and amazing creators I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. I want all of them to continue to thrive, so please, if you have stuff, hire them for it. Even if I am also trying to hire them. Make a better offer. Steal them from me. I'll be salty about it, but also, will sleep happily knowing that these folks are getting the recognition they so richly deserve. Also, hire Becca while you're at it. We're both hoping to be able to announce some new comics stuff in the new year, but take advantage of getting them before they blow up!

-David

[sleepynegress]

Dave Chappelle is the exact kind of man that abused me. He's the man that "slaps the queer out of you" and laughs and laughs, except a grown man just hit a kid. He's someone who'll scream homophobic abuse in your face, but if you try and ask to be treated right, suddenly you "can't take a joke". He's the man who threatens your mother because "boys don't need soft shit." I think a lot of people are very familiar with men like him.

Okay. This may be a long response...But I have been thinking a lot about the dichotomy of a black man, who can be considered a thinker, who literally ran away to Africa because he felt so much discomfort at the idea of his white audiences laughing *at* him and black people, vs. him...SAYING and believing, and worst -proliferating and enabling others to feel normal inflicting violence upon queer people. So. Here are the conclusions I've come to about this entire thing (bulleted because ADHD and I'd be here all day w/o it)

● Chappelle is an old "Unc-ish" black man who thinks he's still being edgy by reciting his old black man fears and insecurites to an audience who (he thinks) is shocked by it in a way that makes him "brave" for "telling the truth of what many feel" vs. being one of many very common and typical people, who age w/o growth w/ the social changes in society... i.e. those you see fold their arms and complain about "new words" like agender, them/they, et al, instead of just learning how to use new words.

● You see... Here's a secret of aging that no one tells you. Everything you knew "back in the day" even if you were empathetic and loving enough, strong enough to see and combat regressive hatred back then/go against the grain.... Will shift for new generations. And lately, so much for the good of marginalized people... i.e. undoing the normalized harassment, dismissal and hatred of marginalized queer folks back in specifically Dave Chappelle's day. The simple truth of it is this: Many people age and lament the loss of normalized cruelty. And many (thankfully, these are the elders you see w/o 'the old man yells at cloud' vibes...) simply change w/ the evolving norms.

● Dave. Refuses to grow. Point blank. His fame and privilege and his personal sense of thinking he's being "old school black and honest" helps w/ that.

● There are also many toxic specifically 'black' masculine traits that he has swallowed hook-line-and-sinker; rooted in ancestral trauma/memory. Specifically in black men, hat has caused many to adopt many of the thought processes of yt masculinity, i.e. misogynoir, and homophobia, while pretending it's some kind of super-black man b.s.

tl:dr Many black men flex extra hard in toxic ways to compensate for all the racial humilations they've dealt w/ in history and day-to-day. I've seen many an angry black male elder who went through Jim Crow, pass that ish; that righteous anger in sadly toxic ways, to their male children. And I've seen many elder black woman spoil their black sons (i.e. not teach them to respect queer people because the bible) to "make-up" for the hardships black men would experience in life.

● I guarantee Dave grew-up w/ that. A specific black male youth experience, in his day of listening to homophobic and misogynistic music and chatter from friend-groups trying to "date" i.e. mistreat as many black girls as possible to puff up a deflated sense of masculine self in dealing w/ cops pulling him over for nothing but melanin. ...A certain kind of black male "cool" that acts as a shield for those normalized racial traumas.

● Dave still traffics in and peddles the old style of "cool" that has evolved past him (shout-out to Lil' Nas, the entire cast of POSE, etc.), to the point where all that remains are dull, baggy eyes and a voice ruffened by all the weed smoke over the years. He is an old man standing still, in the singular "black" good old days...that doesn't know or want to know shit about the black queer community that also had to carve out an existence in those days.

● That is where his stubborn transmisogyny comes from. And why he can seperate the fact that he literally ran from people laughing past the joke because he realized it was at black people's expense...from throwing trans woman (many of whom are also black...intersection what??) under the bus of all the violence inflicted upon them, with that TERF head-ass bullshit.

● And one more thing... because I am also on twitter and it disgusted me to witness... So many transphobic black people on that platfrom were wiping their brows in relief at being able to parlay that into a misdirect at "anger" at yt trans woman co-showrunner of Dear YT White People for it's lacking show quality and *successfully* squashed the transmisogyny at the heart of the discussion around Dave. ...That shit irked me to no end. So, queer community. I hear you, I see you all. I love you. ....Especially my trans black brothers and sisters. I'm a demi elder black woman who feels incredibily fortunate to have had the life experiences and perspectives necessary to still *see* people and grow in that seeing every year I exist on this earth. That is *not* an experience everyone gets or WANTS to get, sadly. There is a certain kind of stubborn safety in aging and staying in what is already known to you, while crossing your arms and scoffing at all the "changes". My message of wisdom, is DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN to NOT do/be that.

[redantsunderneath]

On Analysis Part 1 - Hermeneutics and Configurative reading (the “what” part)

“Without turning, the pharmacist answered that he liked books like The Metamorphosis, Bartleby, A Simple Heart, A Christmas Carol. And then he said that he was reading Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's. Leaving aside the fact that A Simple Heart and A Christmas Carol were stories, not books, there was something revelatory about the taste of this bookish young pharmacist, who ... clearly and inarguably preferred minor works to major ones. He chose The Metamorphosis over The Trial, he chose Bartleby over Moby Dick, he chose A Simple Heart over Bouvard and Pecouchet, and A Christmas Carol over A Tale of Two Cities or The Pickwick Papers. What a sad paradox, thought Amalfitano. Now even bookish pharmacists are afraid to take on the great, imperfect, torrential works, books that blaze a path into the unknown. They choose the perfect exercises of the great masters. Or what amounts to the same thing: they want to watch the great masters spar, but they have no interest in real combat, when the great masters struggle against that something, that something that terrifies us all, that something that cows us and spurs us on, amid blood and mortal wounds and stench.” ― Roberto Bolano, 2666

Much of the background for this post in particular comes from Paul Fry’s Yale lecture course about the theory of literature.  This is a great starting course for interpretation and textual analysis and, yes, film and TV shows are text.

In futzing around with this stuff, what am I doing?  Less charitably, what do I think I’m even trying to do, here? Many feel that applying theory to art and entertainment is as pretentious as the kind of art or entertainment that encourages it. It’s understandable.  Many examples of analysis are garbage and even people capable of good work get going in the wrong direction due to fixations or prejudices they aren’t even aware of and get swept away by the mudslide of enthusiasm into the pit of overreach. That’s part of the process. But this stuff has an actual philosophical grounding, so let’s start by looking at the stories history of trying to figure out “texts.”

Ideas about the purpose of art, what it means to be an author, and how it is best to create go back to the beginning of philosophy but (outside of some notable examples) there is precious little consideration of the reception of art and certainly not a feeling that it was a legitimate field of study until more recently. The Greeks figured the mind would just know how to grok it because what it was getting at was automatically universal and understanding was effortless to the tune mind. But the idea that textual analysis should be taken seriously began with the literal texts of the Torah (Rabbinical scholarship) and then the Bible, but mostly in closed circles.

Hermeneutics as we know it began as a discipline with the Protestant Reformation since the Bible was now available to be read.  Sooooo, have you read it? It’s not the most obvious or coherent text.  Reading it makes several things clear about it: 1. It is messy and self contradictory; 2. A literal reading is not possible for an honest mind and isn’t advisable in any event; 3. It is extremely powerful and mysterious in a way that makes you want to understand, your reach exceeding your grasp. This is like what I wrote about Inland Empire - it captures something in a messy, unresolvable package that probably can’t be contained in something clear and smooth. This interpretive science spread to law and philosophy for reasons similar to it’s roots in text based religion - there was an imperative to understand what was meant by words.

Hans-Georg Gadamer is the first to explicitly bring to bear a theory of how we approach works.  He was a student of Martin Heidegger, who saw the engagement with “the thing itself” as a cyclic process that was constructive of meaning, where we strive to learn from encounters and use that to inform our next encounter.  Gadamer applied this specifically to how we read a text (for him, this means philosophical text) and process it.  Specifically he strove to, by virtue of repeated reading and rumination which is informed by prior readings (on large and small scales, even going back and forth in a sentence), “align the horizons” of the author and the reader.  The goal of this process is to arrive at (external to the text) truth, which was for him the goal of the enterprise of writing and reading to begin with.  This is necessary because the author and reader both carry different preconceptions to the enterprise (really all material and cultural influences on thinking) that must be resolved.

ED Hirsch had a lifelong feud with Gadamer over this, whipping out Emanuel Kant to deny that his method was ethically sound.  He believed that to engage in this activity otherizes and instrumentalizes the author and robs them of them being a person saying something that has their meaning, whether it is true or false.  We need to get what they are laying down so we can judge the ideas as to whether they are correct or not.  It may be this is because he wasn’t that sympathetic a reader - he’s kind of a piece of work - and maybe his thheory was an excuse to act like John McLaughlin.  He goes on to have a hell of a career fucking up the US school system

But it’s Wolfgang Iser that comes in with the one neat trick which removes (or at least makes irrelevant) the knowability problem, circumvents the otherizing problem, and makes everything applicable to any text (e.g. art, literature) by bringing in phenomenology, specifically Edmund Husserl’s “constitution” of the world by consciousness. It makes perfect sense to bring phenomenology into interpretive theory as phenomenology had a head start as a field and is concerned with something homologous - we only have access to our experience of <the world/the text> and need to grapple with how we derive <reality/meaning> from it.  Husserl said we constitute reality from the world using our sensory/cognitive apparatus, influenced by many contingencies (experiential, cultural, sensorial, etc) but that’s what reality is and It doesn’t exist to us unbracketed. Iser said we configure meaning from the text using our sensory/cognitive apparatus, influenced by many contingencies (experiential, cultural, sensorial, etc) but that’s what meaning is and It doesn’t exist to us unbracketed.  Reality and meaning are constructed on these contingencies, and intersubjective agreement is not assured.

To Iser, we create a virtual space (his phrase) where we operate processes on the text to generate a model what the text is saying, and this process has many inputs based on our dataset external to the text (not all of which is good data) as well as built in filters and mapping legends based on our deeper preconceptions (which may be misconceptions or “good enough” approximations).  Most if this goes on without any effort whatsoever, like the identification of a dog on the street.  But some of it is a learned process - watch an adult who has never read comics try to read one.  These inputs, filters, and routers can animate an idea of the author in the construct, informing our understanding based on all sorts of data we happen to know and assumptions about how certain things work.

This is reader response theory, that meaning is generated in the mind by interaction with the text and not by the text, though Stanley Fish didn’t accent the “in the mind part” and name the phenomenon until years later. Note that Gadamer is largely prescriptive and Hirsch is entirely prescriptive while Iser is predominantly descriptive.  He’s saying “this is how you were doing it all along,” but by being aware of the process, we can gain function.

For those keeping score:   1. Gadamer, after Heidegger’s cyclic process at constructing an understanding of the thing itself, centers on a point between the author and reader and prioritizes universal truth. 2. Hirsch, after Kant’s ethical stand on non instrumentalization, centers on hearing what the author is saying and prioritizes the judging the ideas. 3. Iser, after Husserl’s constituted reality, centers on configuring a multi-input sense of the text within a virtual (mental) space and prioritizes meaning.

Everything after basically comes out of Iser and is mostly restatement with focusing/excluding of elements.  The 20th century mindset, from the logical positivists to Bohr’s view that looking for reality underlying the wave form was pointless, had a serious case of God (real meaning, ground reality) is dead.  W.K. Wimsatt and M. C. Beardsley’s intentional fallacy, an attempt to caution interpreters to steer clear of considering what the god-author meant, begat death of the author which attempted to take the author entirely out of the equation - it was less likely you’d ever understand the if you focused on that!  To me, this is corrective to trends at the time and not good praxis -  it excludes natural patterns of reading in which the author is configured, rejects potentially pertinent data, and limits some things one can get out of the text.

Meanwhile formalism/new criticism (these will be discussed later in a how section) focused on just what was going on in the text with as few inputs as possible, psychoanalytics and historicism looked to interrogate the inputs/filters to the sense making process, postmodernism/deconstruction attacked those inputs/filters making process questioning whether meaning was not just contingent but a complete illusion, and critical studies became obsessed with specific strands of oppression and hegemony as foundational filters that screw up the inputs.   But the general Iser model seems to be the grandfather of everything after.  

Reader intersubjectivity is an area of concern.  In the best world, the creation of art is in part an attempt to find the universal within the specific, something that resonates and speaks to people.  A very formative series of David Milch lectures (to me at least) proffer that if you find a scene, idea, whatever, that is very compelling to you, your job is to figure out what in it is “fanciful” (an association specific to you) and how to find and bring out the universal elements. But people’s experiences are different and there be many ideas of what a piece of art means without there being a dominant one. So the building of models within each mind leaves a lot to consider as the final filtered input is never quite the same. There is a lot of hair on this dog (genres engender text expectations that an author can subvert by confusing the filter, conflicting input can serve a purpose, the form of a guided experience can be a kind of meaning, on and on ad nauseum)

The ultimate question, you might ask, is why we need to do this at all.  I mean, I understood Snow White perfectly fine as a kid.  There’s no “gap” that needs to be leaped.  The meaning of the movie is evident enough on some level without vivisecting it.  The Long answer to what we gain from looking under Snow’s skirt is the next episode.  The short is: 1. You are doing it anyway.  That Snow White thing, you were doing thhat to Snow White you just weren’t conscious of the process.

2. It’s fun. The process only puts a tool of enjoyment in your arsenal.  You don’t have to use it all the time.

3. You’ll see stuff you like in new ways.  The way Star Wars works is really interesting!

4. It may give dimensions to movies that are flawed or bad, and you might wind up liking them.  Again, more to love.

5. It is sometimes necessary to get to a full (or any) appreciation of some complicated works as the most frustrating and resistant stuff to engage with is sometimes the most incredible. 

6. It reinforces your involvement in something you like.  It makes you more connected and more hungry, like any good exercise.

7. You can become more aware of what those preconceptions and biases are, which might give you insights in other areas of your life.

[rwmhunt]

Leviticus, Chapter 22

1. Lo, for That I cannot prosecute my thoughts; I needst here cultivate caution- Then put a hold unto my options, That I cannot challenge him. Any source of information, That be of an admixture truth, And of an admixture untruth, is of a danger, Did you know that? Humbly needst I move toward diamonds and gold's Otherwise-useless demarkation on worth; My face must stay its specter in clay, For it is my career; That I can say: It is mine.

2. Thus, to Aaron, gold and diamonds Bringeth ignominy and unwarranted power; Strewth, they are only much use for The rings of your finger; So let alone the past, Which you mark As a messed up place, How then, is this the valid Strategy for the future? Lo, let us divide and game.

3. Increase the paywall; Holy things are ringing in changes; You are the visitor here- I'd like to take the time To consciously consider you so, for We have reached besmircher's cutoff. It's me, mark it; and Either I am a negative nebulae Of unimaginable everything, And you are a little golden bull, Or you are a negative nebulae Of unimaginable everything, And I am a little golden bull;

4. But know that I shall not give you the word For the thought-track down which You might draw the line Of asymetry, such, That you wouldst know How to rend a perfect opposition To go between. And whosoever soweth dead seeds Among young female researchers Hath faileth the épreuve- It shalln’t do for thy running issue, Moreover, those women who are of Quite senior position and are doing it Unto the coercive nature of such a power's New destruction of ability to focus, As unto the camp's commander, With how Peleg begat Reu; Well, it might be enough to get you pregnant, But wait, where am I going with this?

5. Worm touchers, Creepy pressers, Come, come, observers, Keep from that strange creature; Don't be giving unto me None of thy screaming abdabs; I think on you, Pig dressed as a clown, Eructing unto, then drawing forth A near-entire white, plastic fork; And know you not how this came to me- Lo, it came up with a sequence of items that appeared Not unlike balls of meat, Furred, wistfully, in a grey cowl of reactionary mucus; A kind of veil, a barrier, in effect, Penetratable, at any point, But equally real as a barrier, Gainst our otherwise passive environs, Such as be the diffusion of inert thoughts, or spores, murky, and maintaining of a human resource, I liked to thrill it- The direct and immediate livid relationship Between a font of funding and a media event, O, harmless dalliance of the stationary cupboard- You are knowingly walking, As against your will, A wrong into the carpet, Within the tent of meaning.

6. Looking up to see God's face in the moon, Or whatever it was That can't be drawn, And I won't be drawn; His hands he filled with moisture and His own was sent for ablution Into the improvised basin. So denieth all such allegation Through the washing of thy soule, Clean off; so sloughed away, Away with the diminishing liquid.

7. Sundown with the unseen Woman's leverage on the situation- if you should find a way to redress balance, So she gaineth a bit more power in some manner, Then so what? it was no loss. A new deal, And the bill shall embolden survivors.

8. Positions of power shall have of a hard time In recognizing the coercive nature of that power Within an unbridled relationship; Things that die 'Of themselves', Or are yet rent by nature's horn, Are defiled; while I, a malign influence, lie with my soul distracted; Oh lord, but I've been swallowed by narrative, And tried to keep it communal, Inside and outside; As you are.

9. Pit stop- The horror is the fact; The horror it unfolds Through legions of would-bes Without a meter, like me, Who have applied, Will apply, in perpetuity; Just do it, Or die; if then, As I am still.

10. The individual is always Hedging toward A private business model. Attention-seeking shalln't be of sin, no! Tis sensible, keep with a forward optioning- That's why i tell you, Soujerners and servents, Who art sent to the concession to collect me my messages- My tutu is a Fendi, And my codpiece is a Bosch. We live unto a roaring attention economy. But you're not up to it. I've given them a tomato one, And also I gave them a spaghetti- We struggle to attune to where I'm compelled- Ourselves, as groups, who feel of themselves As blunted against their lack in deserved attention, Because it is a powerful, a dangerous feeling.

11. So eat souls As paid for with a priest's money, On escrow, attention Has always been currency Though rendered unimaginable Since the falling-away of the gold-standard, As was borne unto the tent of meaning, Where every page has a piece carved out, To house an advert's grab For égards; No space is secure, For security hath put an advert thither.

12. Jade lock, To knock the donald offline, So unto a stranger, Gone off to scavenge, The framers that frame themselves As refuges for free-expression Shall be rent at the fringes, forcing A redirection, away from my personal kingdom.

13. But should she go prodigal, Whosoever you are, Howeverso you might express thyself, You may now have a crack at a global audience, With incentives and disproportionate benefits Offered unto the most shameless, The demand of each to pay what scarce attention Might be rendered unto others, To get some fraction of this nominally limited resource, As unto yourself alone. Such are these poor weapons, An oversharing, That, essayed to the personal, Stretcheth my nancy stories To breaking.

O Marigold, I was bad At that, in the territories of fandom, As forced to return Unto the track over and again- Such was my leaky comprehension; Only apparent to me in the afterward, And now, I cannot say I am better.

14. Whence, Enroute from the concession Shouldst be eaten of the item Without, thence, So anguished in the relish, Thou giveth a fifth Of the holy thing; So that the leg shall grow A starfish, whole . Then let us bend our dark tubers towards, And look the knot, as in at an eye-

15. What's gold and glitter, But to mock a toom, And maketh of myself A symbolic same, Wrought as an aesthetic echt; Where diplomacy is weak, The aesthetic be yet The sole portal unto The conveyance of meaning; Verily, here, that I keep within The aesthetic of thought Whereby action is always y, You are i, and The antagonist be markated x; Where holy might only Fall down to one's discretion, You should've known That I wouldst be so solid.

16. Or suffer them to bear the enquiry of trespass, Felt as an information glut, Whilst eating of their holy orders, Found relishing within the anguish, And those who want it, Want it as much as they can get it, And  there is more access than can be vaunted, For, in an attention economy, one is never not on. Yes, me. O the guilt.

17. Attention is akin to the spirit; That it be vital but conventionally invisible, And thus, think not very much upon it, But unto whom, being unable to share A simple encounter with it, Wouldst soon become an artifice of torture.

18. Tell Aaron et al ensundry, To take up of stock with sarcastic markets, Sarcastic markets and I, impunity; The sacrifice of your own will I hand you freely; or no; T'was never yours to oblate, But sacrifice thy quasi-will, As will thee, Which is mine, against The short hedge, Thus maketh me of a currency exchange.

19. And an haut stud dost thou, unto me, weasels? By your whimsically free-will sacrificing? How charmingly lame. I sense Actors at play, in a very long game Of grooming the disaffected- Call me my boys in- then Send a lie to the long deceiver, To use the ruse, in turn, like poison, For to wish you that which upon may be Enabling unto the benefit of thine enemy.

20. It's no hambone, No hobbling billy- If he tells or interferes I'll fill the well in; its Prophets in stocks and neck-irons time, Else tolerate such increasingly radical agendas Of such gleefully uninhibited platforms as Where followers might laugh At biblical memes and opine such as- 'I'd rather do drama than a play, where, You can't say, really, What you want to say.' Go long, my cowhands, go long.

21. And peace is a sacrifice Of the streaming platform, while Attention has always been currency, Same. Our abilities to pay heed are limited; Not so our abilities to theoretically receive of it; No need to adequately substantiate If you can bamboozle With all the time in the world, Ka-pow-ka, ching-ching, da-da, Badoo-daboo-baday; Trust-modesty, yay, verily. Humility is hard to sustain In an attention economy. I only see me accelerating.

22. Blind, broken, maimed; Cankered, scurvied, wan with the wen, Thus, by my lights, The fault shall be displaced, Be it cleaned or weeping, Tis a no-no, get me another. Such was The schism that fractured the donald, Sent out to extend a tortured metaphor, Became too much of a liability To be held in high office- But if the stranger doesn't come, After all the things I’ve done for him,

23. Well, it's alright for a free-will offering Which you feel compelled to go along with, But it's not good enough for a vow offering As be brought unto online-influencer culture, And it might be enough to get you pregnant But it shan't be enough to stir my interest- I require an extreme case of humility, Whereby a person giveth his all to a presence so completely selfish As to serveth no other purpose. It's me.

24. But the reality is far less complicated than Moses, Hiding his damage behind a veil of linked-up back-channels, Recoiling at what his fellow hardcore moderators attempt to oblate; Too engrossed within the tents to consider anything outwith While hoping the whole doesn’t spin out of control.

25. Corruption is in them, strangers, Bethinks, flooding an affiliated image board So thoroughly that it becometh abomination. Here increaseth the shamelessness of wanton Allegation,  terror co-option of a social platform, which struck with the rise of a reality magik-vision, Alike as came unto a mid-80s index of abundance, Shewn running away whilst attempting to make focus On the ever-deterioratingly indistinct Object of the distancing, that It’s only when, at stopping to think about it, That the understand can be ascertained as to quite how rife it is.

26. Here, he left a passing message for Those who might collectively commandeer: Abide by life; that, if, then, I wouldn't be here.

27. Debates about amplification And attention-hijacking form a Siege mentality Of the corrupted Federal Apparatus- For seven days beneath the dam, As then a fire spiralled further Toward a more outlandish means Of unconstitutional civic theatre,

28. Whereby a calfling must be made to last The night and know it's mother As having died before slaughter; So the community Moved in after it went dark, Enjoining, then modulating, then killing off, And now Your complexes are all cooked in, Deeply infringing upon the weirds of others.

29. So must you make sacrifice To your very free will, As to common patriotic causes, Or else be sieged Within the corrupt Federal Apparatus.

30. The fundamental thing is: You cant escape my attention economy; Eat everything now, For nothing shall be saved, And this same day shall be Until tomorrow; when again, it's me.

31. Lo, and you must; it's me, remember? But by now all this blood and all this law Was affecting them, as had long been within their dream, Where they have their own rules, quirks and cultures, Which they ignore at your peril; Where environments play out upon a knife-edge, And attention might simply be a lens Through which to read the events of the moment While running away.

32. Herein, power shall not be trusted To recognize affiliated abuses of power; Yet, check, however, before Redirecting such missives from my personal kingdom, For lo, there shall be nonesuch insubordination, As might mitigate against, for I shall be hallowed; Me me me me, So you;

33. Thus, I lay my notional claim Unto my servant-leadership- as bang, That brought you out of the land, Didn't it? Akhenaten to me. So Leviticus stood at The simply-inflated Size of Capitalism, To whom, hereto, On a bench they'd built Between themselves, Be here, thisway, is addressing- 'Imagine; You have been wrong For a long long time now.'

[centerofstupidity]

Noah Primeval Preface Snark

If you enjoy the content you are reading, please like and follow the Center of Stupidity blog.

Summary: The author claims that his stories are rooted in "the theological and spiritual intent of the Bible."  He also loves to scripture drop. The worst is yet to come. 

In case anyone wants to read the original author’s preface in order to form their own conclusions, you can read it here. 

In the event that this gets flagged, here is another place to read the chapter snark.

Inspired By True Events.

Keep this in mind, folks. 

Because...

The story you are about to read is the result of Biblical and historical research about Noah’s flood and the ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context of the book of Genesis. 

Translation: Because I did some research, it means that the novel is deep and elevated lit-ra-choor. 

While I engage in significant creative license and speculation, 

....

..................

......................................

That’s a verbose way of saying “I created a work of fiction.” 

all of it is rooted in an affirmation of what I believe is the theological and spiritual intent of the Bible. 

Even though there are countless Bible interpretations.

You found all of the "hidden truths"and know the "correct" way to read the Bible.

But silly me. 

This is the same person who spews vitriol at movies that don't conform to his beliefs and wrote a paper called Calvinism and the Bible. 

In the document, Godawa insists that "Calvinism is simply Biblical Christianity" and how the five points of Calvinism are “truly Biblical doctrines, then most of us western American Christians have been sold a bill of goods as to what the Gospel really is."

For those who are leery of such a “novel” approach,

Like some other writers, Godawa believes that he has a Wildean wit.

let them consider that the traditional Sunday school image of Noah as a little old white-bearded farmer

I gotta call bullshit.

The traditional Sunday school image depicted Noah as being a white man.

It didn't emphasize that he was an old farmer.

building the ark alone with his sons is itself a speculative cultural bias.

It's been a while since I've been to CCD…

But I don't remember them ever discussing at great length on how the ark was built.

They don't deal in the minutia.

Instead they focused on educating people about their faith.

And the whole "speculative cultural bias" comment is rich...

Coming from a man who preaches in his fiction and does evangelizing podcasts with his friends.

The Bible actually says very little about Noah.

Instead we get lengthy details about who begat who and what tribe they came from.

We don’t know what he did for a living before the Flood or even where he lived.  

Which is why the Midrash aggadah was written.

According to MJL, Midrash aggadah interprets biblical narrative, exploring questions of ethics or theology, or creating homilies and parables based on the text.

For instance, one of the best known midrashes is the story about Abraham.

It states while Abraham was a young child in Mesopotamia, he was smashing idols.

This story suggests that God didn't randomly pick Abraham.

Instead, God knew that Abraham would be receptive to His voice.

How do we know whether he was just a simple farmer or a tribal warrior?

The answer?

We will most likely never know for certain.

And secondly, who cares? It is minutiae.

Oh wait.

The author is going to bestow us the answer.

Genesis 9:2 says Noah “began to be a man of the soil” after the Flood, not before it.

Genesis 9:2 says this:

The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.

(This comes from the New International Version.)

And I checked two other translations: the King James Version [KJV] and the English Standard Version [ESV].

They are the same as the first.

The passage about Noah becoming a farmer comes from Genesis 9: 20

Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. [ESV]

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. [NIV]

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard. [KJV]

So in conclusion:

If the world before the flood was full of wickedness and violence,

Because they would all fight evil physically.

It's not like righteous men would ever combat evil by using their words or practicing non violence.

Noah would not have been that different from Abraham,

Or…

He could have been a prophet whose words inspired others.

Nobody knows for certain what Noah did prior to the flood.

who farmed, did business and led his family and servants in war against kings.

Man, Godawa is obsessed with the idea of righteous warriors.

We know very little about primeval history,

There is a newfangled thing called archaeology.

but we do learn from archeological evidence that humanity was clearly tribal during the early ages when this story takes place.

Um…

The previous line belies the rest of the sentence.

Where's the editor?

Yet, nothing is written about Noah’s tribe in the Bible.

We also don't know anything about Jesus' childhood.

Your point being?

It would be modern individualistic prejudice to assume that Noah was a loner when everyone in that Biblical context was communal.

Who ever said that he was???

Is Godawa just making up arguments so he can tear them down?

Noah surely had a tribe.  

You already said that. Move along.

There is really no agreement as to the actual time and location of the event of the Flood.

And in other news…

Bears shit in the woods and the Pope is Catholic.

So B. Godawa lists some theories about when and where the Flood took place.

He thinks it is "Early Bronze Age Mesopotamian contexts" because of some passages in Genesis.

By the by... He doesn't mention any specific passages.

At some other time, I'll take a look at the appendix.

Because right now, I'm not in the mood to read an appendix that is about one hundred pages long.  

The Bible also says Noah built the ark.

And now for the following news bulletin:  

Adam and Eve lived in a place called the Garden of Eden.

Are we to believe that Noah built it all by himself?

Yes, if you take the Bible literally.

It doesn’t say. With his sons’ help? It doesn’t say.

But that very same book does say earlier that Cain “built a city” (some scholars believe it was Cain’s son Enoch).

Which scholars said that?

Because doing a quick Google search got me absolutely bupkis.

Instead, I got a bunch of websites that talked about Cain building a city and naming it after his son.

Are we to assume that he built an entire city by himself?

No lie… I had to check and see if Cain had a son named Enoch. (And he did).

Because after the bungling of a verse from Genesis, I wasn’t sure if this was another mistake.

As for Cain building an entire city single handedly?  I’m sure Christian fundamentalists would respond with “yes”.

My response would be “no” followed by:

Who helped Cain to build a city? A lot of golems? Some demons? Or did he hire a lot of people in the nearby area?

If Cain just hired a bunch of people, wouldn't the idea of God only creating two humans [a.k.a. Adam and Eve] be false?

How did Cain get the materials to build a city?

How would Cain know which materials would be good for building a city?

And why did Cain want to build a city in the first place?

Ridiculous.

Who knew that with one word, such disdain could drip from a person’s tongue? 

Cain or Enoch presided as a leader over the building of a city by a group of people,

Wait a tick…

Godawa previously said that it was Cain that built a city but some scholars believe it was Enoch.

And now he is stating that it could be Cain OR Enoch.

Does that mean that Godawa forgot what he wrote previously?

Or the man who sees himself as the Grand Poobah of Biblical Knowledge is finally admitting that he doesn’t have all the answers?

just as Noah probably did with his ark.  

So in other words, Noah just sat on his ass and barked orders at people.

Because as we all know, that is a great leadership style.

One of the only things Genesis says about Noah’s actual character is that he was “a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9).

Now a normal person would interpret this to mean that Noah was a good person who conversed with God.

But Noah Primeval turns Noah into a Gary Stu. (By the way, this will be revealed in future chapter snarks).

The New Testament clarifies this meaning by noting Noah as an “heir” and “herald” of righteousness by faith (Heb. 11:7; 2Pet. 2:5).

ESV [English Standard Version] said Noah as a “herald of righteousness” while NIV and KJV described Noah as a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5).

While ESV, NIV, and KJV all described how Noah “became an heir of righteousness.” (Hebrews 11:7).

You might be thinking to yourself: What’s your point?

If we are to take into account what the Bible said about Noah… It describes Noah spreading God’s message (like a herald or a preacher). But it also adds that because of Noah’s faith in God, he “became an heir of righteousness.”

This differs from the depiction in Noah Primeval where Noah is the Chosen One from an ancient prophecy.

And that makes him superior to all the other filthy mortals along with slightly less perfect than Jesus.

The popular interpretation of this notion of “righteousness” is to understand Noah as a virtually sinless man too holy for his time, and always communing with God in perfect obedience.

But is this really Biblical?

If you mean, some people acting like sanctimonious hypocritical assholes, then I would loudly shout “Hell yes!”

Would Noah have never sinned? Never had an argument with God?

Personally, my answers would be “no” for both questions.

But in this novel, when Noah isn't acting like a bratty teenager, he acts like a smug douchebag.

Yet the reader is supposed to see Noah as a paragon of virtue.

Never had to repent?

In order to repent, a person must have genuine remorse for their actions. It also requires accountability.

It doesn't entail a person rending their garments melodramatically until they are completely naked and then yelling at the top of their lungs. I'm looking at you, Noah Primeval.

As a matter of fact, the term “righteous” in the Old and New Testaments was not a mere description of a person who did good deeds and avoided bad deeds.

Maybe it is because the writers of the Old and New Testament know that good people are not perfect. They make mistakes and take ownership of their actions.

Righteousness was a Hebrew legal concept that meant, “right standing before God” as in a court of law.

What makes me so fucking disgusted is that Godawa has no qualms with cherry picking things from different mythologies and whatever doesn’t suit his narrative is either discarded or depicted as being malevolent lies.

It carried the picture of two positions in a lawsuit, one “not in the right,” and the other, “in the right”

You mean a lawsuit involves two sides:  the prosecution and the defense?

or “righteous” before God.

And this series doesn’t hesitate to jump on a soap box and shout at the top of their lungs.

It was primarily a relational term.

*Sigh*

What’s next?

Are we going to define the definition of is?

Not only that, but in both Testaments, the righteous man is the man who is said to “live by faith,” not by perfect good deeds (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17).

So righteousness does not mean “moral perfection” but “being in the right with God because of faith.”

In other words, ice is cold and fire is hot.

….

This is leading up to rant filled with gratuitous Bible citations.

What’s more, being a man of faith doesn’t mean a life of perfect consistency either.

You mean good people aren't perfect??? Thanks for notifying me Brian Godawa!

Look at David, the “man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22), yet he was a murderer and adulterer and more than once avoided obeying God’s will. But that doesn’t stop him from being declared as “doing all God’s will” by the apostle Paul.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, good people are not perfect.

Which is why repeating the obvious makes a person look like a blithering moron.

Or consider Abraham, the father of the Faith, who along with Sarah believed that God would provide them with a son (Heb. 11:8-11).

What does this have to do with anything? Is Godawa trying to dazzle the reader with how many Bible verses he can quote?  

Yet, that Biblically honored faith was not perfect, as they both laughed in derision at God’s promise at first (Gen. 17:17; 18:12).

I guess Godawa never heard of a thing called context.

According to the Zohar, Sarah laughed because her son would have a feminine soul.

The Zohar also states that a soul from the "feminine world" cannot have children.

Sarah knew this and laughed because this contradicted God's promise to continue Abraham's bloodline.

God had to remind Sarah that He has the power to do anything. Which means He can turn a feminine soul into a masculine one.

And because Godawa loves to scripture drop, he cites additional examples from the Bible when people either argued or complained to God.

The very name Israel means “to struggle with God.”  

I normally don't split hairs but considering the fact that the author fancies himself to be a scholar…

The word Israel means "God contends".

An alternate translation is "He Retains God"or "God Is Upright".

All the heroes in the Hebrews Hall of Faith (Heb. 11) had sinful moments, lapses of obedience and even periods of running from God’s call or struggling with their Creator.

According to the NIV translation, it commended the people for having a strong faith in God and how that faith allowed them to do what it is just. It does not give blow-blow descriptions of their spiritual struggles or a detailed accounting of all of their sins.

Now that I'm thinking about it… I have a sneaking suspicion that this is leading up to Godawa justifying his depiction of Noah.

It would not be heresy to suggest that Noah may have had his own journey with God

Well, duh.

Noah's spiritual journey would have started with baby steps.

It is not like Noah would be chummy with God the very second he was born. A relationship with God is developed during a lifetime.

that began in fear and ended in faith.

That's assuming that every person that started a relationship with God that said relationship was founded on distrust (which is fueled by fear) or the case of Noah Primeval, built on a foundation that is a passive-aggressive hate boner for the Almighty.

For some individuals, their spiritual journey never originated from animosity or distain because they always had faith.

In fact, to say otherwise is to present a life inconsistent with the reality of every human being in history.

I'll say it again.

Every person's spiritual journey with God is different.

To insist that every person's relationship with God originated from negative emotions is not based in reality.

To say one is a righteous person of faith is to say that the completed picture of his life is one of finishing the race set before him, not of having a perfect run without injuries or failures.  

It is time for a writing exercise! Let’s take this wordy sentence and make it concise.

I'll go first.

The completed picture of a righteous person’s life is not a perfect run without injuries or failures but rather they finished the race set before them.

Now that I'm thinking about it …

This verbose sentence sounds like something that belongs in a fortune cookie.

Also, I find it odd that this little nugget of wisdom uses the gender neutral phrase “righteous person of faith” but then uses his | him pronouns.

Why am I getting the feeling that this is a subtle message that only a man can be a "righteous person of faith"?

Some scholars have even noted that the phrase “blameless in his generation” is an unusual one,

“They also think it is peculiar that the Flood lasted for forty days and nights. Why not eighteen or twenty-five? Is forty God’s favorite number or did He just pick it randomly?”

reserved for unblemished sacrifices in the temple.

Wait a minute.

So these scholars are stating that the phrase "blameless in his generation" is only used for animal sacrifices.  

Which means Noah is likened to an animal sacrifice…

Which is totally different from Noah Primeval's depiction of Noah as a macho and virile warrior who is the Chosen One.

Also, it is really dodgy when someone only gives some citations or doesn't provide any.

This physical purity

…

The words "physical purity" just sent shivers down my spine.

Because when words like that casually enter into a conversation, it is not long before an argument is made in favor of eugenics.

takes on new meaning when understood in the genetic context of the verses

"Genetic context"?

I didn't know that words had DNA.

Flippant comment aside, all this talk of "physical purity" and "genetic context" prompted me to do a quick Google search of the following:  Noah blameless in his generation animal and it  brought up a thread asking if Genesis 6:9 is referring to Noah's genetic purity.

before it that speak of “Sons of God” or bene ha elohim leaving their proper abode in heaven and violating the separation of angelic and human flesh (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 5-7).

Um…

This is sort of correct.

Genesis 6:7-4 is about the Sons of God marrying beautiful human women and having children called Nephilim. Yet it also states that humans will live to be 120.

While Jude 5-7, the writer reminds the reader that God delivered his people out of Egypt and destroyed the non-believers. They also said that the angels who "did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling" along with the sinful people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be punished by "eternal fire."

Within church history,

The concept of the Grigori and Nephilim originated in Jewish folklore and legends.

At some point, early Christians either stumbled across an old scroll discussing these ideas or simply heard about it. They probably found the whole story to be fascinating and proceeded to write their own interpretations.

there is a venerable tradition of interpreting this strangest of Bible passages as referring to supernatural beings from God’s heavenly host who mate with humans resulting in the giant offspring called Nephilim.

The idea that some angels came down from Heaven to mate with humans doesn't sound bizarre to me.

Frankly, the Book of Revelation reads like John was on a big acid trip.

Other equally respectable theologians argue that these Sons of God were either humans from the “righteous” bloodline of Seth or a symbolic reference to human kings or judges of some kind.

Again, Christians didn't come with these alternate explanations. For instance, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai strongly opposed the idea that the "benei elokim" were angels.

I have weighed in on the supernatural interpretation

That is a weird way of saying "I have decided to write a novel that depicts the Grigori as angels."

According to the Collins dictionary,  the words "weighed in", means:

give an opinion or enter a discussion or argument

to measure how heavy someone is, esp. before a competition

It is important to note that The Free Dictionary  and the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries has these definitions but with slightly different wording.

In conclusion?

and have provided appendices at the end of the book that give the Biblical theological foundation for this interpretation. 

Only a filthy peasant has opinions.

An enlightened individual only believes in facts and since they are benevolent, they are imparting their wisdom to others.

This novel seeks to remain true to the sparse facts presented in Genesis (with admittedly significant embellishments)

“Admittedly significant embellishments”?

That’s putting it mildly.

More like “being preachy but insisting that you are only telling people facts.”

interwoven with theological images and metaphors come to life.

I’m sorry but I can’t take this statement seriously.

Because it reminds me of a scene in the movie The Ref when Gus is talking about how “a complex web of complications need to be weaved and woven into a quilt of some kind.”

Where I engage in flights of fancy,

That’s putting it mildly.

This story never put its feet on the ground.

such as a journey into Sheol,

Pray tell, what is Sheol?

An explanation would be nice because for all we know, Sheol is the name of a cave or a forest.

I seek to use figurative imagery from the Bible, such as “a bed of maggots and worms” (Isa. 14:11) and “the appetite of Sheol” (Isa. 5:14)  and bring them to life by literalizing them into the flesh-eating living-dead animated by maggots and worms.

Let’s break this down, shall we?

Isaiah 5:14 ESV says this:

Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite

   and opened its mouth beyond measure,

and the nobility of Jerusalem[h] and her multitude will go down,

Isaiah 5 is about the people of Israel who will be punished for their sins. This specific passage is discussing how the sinners are going to die. 

Isaiah 14:11 ESV says this:

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,

   the sound of your harps;

maggots are laid as a bed beneath you,

   and worms are your covers.

Isaiah 14 discusses how Babylon will be destroyed by God.  This specific passage is about how the haughty King of Babylon will perish.

It still doesn’t answer the question of what Sheol is.

If we are still looking at the Bible for an explanation, the NIV translation of Isaiah 5:14 states:  

Therefore Death expands its jaws,  opening wide its mouth;

Also, the New International version of Isaiah 14 doesn’t use the word Sheol.

Instead,  it uses the words to the grave.

Based on these translations, one can make the assumption that Sheol is the word for death or grave.

However,  Sheol is a place where the souls of the dead reside.

Let's take a look at this line more closely:

bring them to life by literalizing them into the flesh-eating living-dead animated by maggots and worms.

The Bible having figurative imagery? That is not a groundbreaking revelation. Plenty of Bible scholars have written papers and or books analyzing this.

Figurative language is not supposed to be taken literally. It is used by a writer to convey an idea (example: time is a thief) or to paint a picture in a reader's mind (example: the flowers danced in the wind.)

To take something figurative and make it literal is asinine.

Also, "flesh-eating living-dead"?

I guess the word "zombie" is too plebeian.

Another player that shows up in the story is Leviathan.

“Another player”?

I bethink he is a pretentious rampallian who thinkest by using an antediluvian word maketh him intelligent and literary sir.        

“Player” is an old fashioned word for actor.

It DOES NOT mean character.

So in conclusion:

While I have provided another appendix explaining the theological motif of Leviathan

Translation?

“Behold my dizzying intellect!”

as a metaphor in the Bible for chaos and disorder, I have embodied the sea dragon in this story for the purpose of incarnating that chaos as well.

One word:

I have also literalized the Mesopotamian cosmology of a three-tiered universe with a solid vault in the heavens, and a flat disc earth supported on the pillars of the underworld, the realm of the dead.

Thanks to Brian Godawa, the words "metaphor" and "literalized" annoy me.

I'd hate to rain on your parade but Mesopotamian mythology isn't the only one who had a three-tiered universe.

Below is an image of the Hebrew cosmology:

It also has an universe that has three levels: heaven, earth, and the underworld. The earth is a flat disc floating on water with heaven above it and the underworld below it.

If one takes a second look at the picture, you will notice that there are pillars or the foundation of the earth.

In conclusion, Mesopotamian mythology isn't the only one to depict a universe as being composed of three levels.

This appears to be the model assumed by the Biblical writers in many locations (Phil. 2:10; Job 22:14; 37:18; Psa. 104:5; 148:4; Isa. 40:22),

Jewish people have their own culture. They would not be using Mesopotamian mythology as their yardstick.

so I thought it would be fascinating to tell that story within that worldview unknown to most modern westerners.

You mean a different concept or an idea can be interesting? What a mind boggling revelation!

If I didn't know any better, I’d believe Godawa when he said telling a story from another culture’s point of view would be “fascinating.”

Yet it is painfully obvious that if something doesn't conform to his beliefs, it must be a vile falsehood created by malevolent beings.

The purpose of the Bible is not to support scientific theories or models of the universe,

Actually, the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the story of creation.

but to tell the story of God through ancient writers. Those writers were people of their times just as we are.  

Which is why the absence of Jewish culture is jarring.

Especially since all the "good" characters are Calvinists.

I have also woven together Sumerian and other Mesopotamian mythology in with the Biblical story,

It is randomly inserted  (ex: Pazuz) or the deities are evil fallen angels who are destroying Family Values™ and Corrupting the Children™.

but with this caveat:

"Anything that doesn't conform to my worldviews must be the lies devised by Satan."

Like C.S. Lewis,

Did he compare himself to C.S. Lewis?

….

……….

…………………….

It is like trying to compare M. Night Shyamalan to Alfred Hitchcock.

Even though one is a hack while the other one is a talented creator.

I believe the primary purpose of mythology is to embody the worldview and values of a culture.

Aside from helping people to understand the world around them and giving them answers to timeless questions such as: Is there life after death? Why does evil exist?

Mythology also provides a form of entertainment and ensures that certain traditions survive.

But all myths carry slivers of the truth and reflect some distorted vision of what really happened.

This reeks of ethnocentrism!

Sumer’s Noah was Ziusudra, Babylon’s Noah was Utnapishtim, and Akkad’s was Atrahasis. The Bible’s Noah is my standard.

I'll bring this up if anyone tries to claim that Noah Primeval isn't preachy and ethnocentric.

So my goal was to incorporate real examples of ANE history and myth in subjection to that standard in such a way that we see their “true origin.”

....

You know what?

If someone wrote a Wiccan based fantasy series that demonized Christianity, he would be outraged.

Godawa reiterates his "speculation" that the deities were fallen angels with superhuman abilities that once belonged to God's divine council.

See the appendix at the back for my defense of this interpretation from the Bible.

I'm not in the mood to read a lengthy appendix that reads like you giving yourself a giant pat on the back. Perhaps that will be a future snark.

Lastly, I have permitted myself to use extra-Biblical Jewish literature from the Second Temple period as additional reference material for my story.

In other words...

He gave himself permission to steal and vandalize a different culture. Isn't that charming?

I use these ancient Jewish sources

I bet many people wished you hadn't.

not because I consider them completely factual or on par with the Bible,

"They are complete heresy. Instead, believe in the teachings of John Calvin."

but simply in an attempt to incarnate the soul of the ancient Hebrew imagination in conversation with the text of Scripture

Like the Yeti, the Hebrew imagination has yet to be found.

rather than imposing my own modern western one upon the text.

...

............

............................

I am within the tradition of the Church on this since authors of the New Testament as well as early Church Fathers

Just "Church Fathers"?

Christianity also had Church Mothers.

To name a few: Mary Magdalene, Phoebe, Junia, Lydia, Eudia, Thecla, Syntyche, and Prisca.

and other orthodox theologians in church history respected some of these ancient manuscripts as well.

While the author did the opposite.

Many of these texts from the Second Temple Period, such as Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or The Life of Adam and Eve, and others found in the Pseudepigrapha, were creative extrapolations of the Biblical text.

I guess the word of the day is "extrapolations".

Extrapolation is defined as "to predict by projecting past experience or known data" or " to infer from values within an already observed interval."

I find it rather disgusting to imply that the Midrash is a product of guesswork or estimates.

Which means whatever the author's personal beliefs are founded in facts.

These were not intended to deceive or overturn the Bible,

Notice the word "intended".

It infers that the writers weren't deliberately telling lies.

It just happens that they were spreading falsehoods.

but rather to retell Biblical stories with theological amplification and creative speculation

You see, humans are a curious species. We don't like unanswered questions.

Therefore, we come up with a possible answer or an explanation for a particular event.

The purpose of the Midrash is to provide explanations or to give a story details.

Ever wondered who was Cain's wife? According to Book of Jubilees, she was Cain's sister and her name is Awan.

while remaining true to their interpretation of the Scriptures.  

They weren't providing interpretations to Mesopotamian mythology.

In short, I am not writing Scripture.

Normally, I would believe this.

But subsequent interviews and podcasts along with the preachy messages written in the story belies this statement.

I am not even saying that I believe this is how the story might have actually happened.

Remember when I said to keep something in mind because it will be significant later on?

Well, now it is important.

This statement and the words "Inspired by True Events" are contradictory.

I am simply engaging in a time-honored tradition of the ancient Hebrew culture:

No, no, no!

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200!

I am retelling a Biblical story in a new way to underscore the theological truths within it.

Godawa only wants to associate with ancient Hebrew culture when it elevates him as a writer and  his stories.

From his remarks, it is obvious that he regards the Midrashes as being subpar bodies of work that will mislead undiscerning readers.

That being said, that won't stop him using such texts in order to receive praise for his "creativity" and be commended  in scholarly circles for using Jewish texts.

This mentality is similar to Rick Riordan's.

In case anyone doesn't know...

Rick Riordan is best known for writing the Percy Jackson series which retold Greek mythology. He then wrote a series based on Norse mythology called Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard.

Both series were a hit and he greatly profited from these stories.

After sometime, Riordan made the following statements:

“I didn’t realize some people still worship the old Viking gods. Very strange, and a little scary…In my opinion, the more you learn about the mythology, the more impossible it is to take it seriously as a religion… after you’ve met Odin and Thor in the stories, who in their right mind would ever want to worship them?”

" I love Greek myths, but why anyone would want to worship the Greek pantheon is beyond me. "

"It’s strange to think anyone would still worship the Olympians seriously."

Early in the book, the character Chiron draws a clear distinction between God, capital-G, the creator of the universe, and the Greek gods (lower-case g). Chiron says he does not wish to delve into the metaphysical issue of God, but he has no qualms about discussing the Olympians because they are a “much smaller matter.”

Unsurprisingly, this offended many polytheists.

You might be wondering: what's my point?

To put it simply? Both writers profited from incorporating different mythologies into their stories.

One writer made disparaging remarks about individuals who believe in these deities after becoming a best selling author.

While the other barely concealed their disdain for the source material they used that garnered their popularity and praise from critics.

In conclusion?

Don't build your career on writing stories using different mythologies and deride the believers of said mythos or the very thing that puts money in your bank account.

Then wonder why some people think you are a horse's ass.

The Biblical theology that this story is founded upon is provided in several appendixes at the back of the book for those who are interested in going deeper.  

First of all..

Stop peddling your friggin' appendixes.

We get it.

It has citations.

Which means it is supposed to be scholarly...

Therefore... It is deep and elevated literature.

The beauty of fiction

Um, no.

It is not all beautiful.

It can also be bland or terrible.

And in some cases, it is deeply disturbing.

is that we can make assumptions regarding uncertain theological and historical information

Yes, you can.

Up to a point.

The moment when you insist theses assumptions or personal beliefs are based in fact...

Writers like Philippa Gregory and Brian Godawa are born.

without having to prove them one way or another.

You know what also doesn't require proof?

Faith.

The story requires only that we establish continuity within the made up world,

It is called the suspension of disbelief.

and accepting those assumptions for the sake of the story does not imply theological agreement.

Normally, yes.

But this series makes it abundantly clear that if you don't agree with the political and theological beliefs...

At best, you are country pumpkin. (Yes, he does equate them to being stupider than Ana Steele.)

At worst, you are not only a moron but a depraved degenerate as well.

So, sit back and

Reach for the booze because you are going to need it. Also, make sure that the vomit bucket is in front of you.

let your imagination explore the contours of this re-imagined journey

And before long, wishing that you never did and longing to depart for the Undying Lands.

of one of the most celebrated religious heroes across all times and cultures.

And by the end, you want:

To repeatedly punch the "good" characters in the throat and stab them in the groin. Especially Noah.

The villains to shut up and fuck off. Because they are what a thirteen years old boy would think is edgy.  Especially if said boy was also a Bible thumper.

[brotherhoodnovel]

My parents have been rewatching The Mahabharata, the 1988 TV series that faithfully dramatizes the longest story ever told (the 93 chapters + Prelude in The Brotherhood is a homage to the 94 episodes in the series!). Since I’ve been busy finishing The Dance Towards Death, doing library stuff, and occasionally watching films/reading, I’ve only been able to rewatch parts of it (have seen it many times, btw its other productions are crap!) and of course be very annoying in my questioning of its substance to my mother, who is the most knowledgeable person I know of its content in its multiplicity of forms. There’s no question it’s not only the longest and one of the oldest epics in history, but also, by far, the greatest, and certainly the most influential on my own narratives, particularly The Brotherhood Chronicle, which is probably why there’s so much reference to it throughout the epic trilogy (as I’ve mentioned in many readings, the mythologies of the past are referred to write a mythology of the present). The older Ramayana is simplistic drivel in comparison; if only Homer and Plato had lived in the same era, or been fused into the same person, the ancient Greeks could have combined its action with its philosophical questioning; the Old Testament, while full of interesting stories, is also mostly a bunch of “begats”; the New Testament has too many miracles; Virgil, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Milton, and others have their great merits, but again, nowhere near its depths. Faulkner has a wider range of stylistics, but his specific concern for the South, and the introspection and specific obsessions of his characters makes him fall a bit short, and Balzac, while comparable in his output, is too concerned with Parisian interests too. Only Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy perhaps compare, in terms of their totality of works, and maybe if War and Peace was fused into The Brothers Karamazov, it could be on its level, somewhat. I could go on and on, but, The Mahabharata is so great it really has to be watched (don’t worry, this version has subtitles) to be fully appreciated. You can also read it, but good luck, it is 10 times the length of The Iliad and The Odyssey combined, as it has so many subplots and small stories within its great primary narrative. My only issue is The Bhagavad Gita itself. As great as it is, as with other “religious” works, I can’t possibly see anyone living by it literally. For example, Krishna repeatedly tells Arjuna that one should do one’s birth caste duty (like warrior for example) even if one is dreadfully bad at it, and some else of a different caste is good at it. I mean, really??? How could any society survive in such a way? Thankfully in America we have a choice of profession and can even change them up (in my case, I’ve chosen multiple ones!) If you don’t know what I’m referring to, feel free to dive into the work! I also have to say my great appreciation for my parents in how they raised me, both instilling a remarkably good knowledge of my heritage and the great mythological and philosophical traditions of our past (pretty good for someone born in the USA, anyway), while also making me free to be as American as I wanted (unlike many Hindu kids (I’m actually agnostic, btw) I was allowed to eat meat at an early age for example) and open to all other cultures and types of learning. As a result, not only do I feel like I have good knowledge of one of the great cultural traditions on earth but also deeply and proudly American at the same time and able to constantly explore the endless multicultural learning and discovery experiences of NYC and the world, as much as there may be issues to all these realities that I explore in my books. Anyway, check it out!

[thenewwei]

My parents have been rewatching The Mahabharata, the 1988 TV series that faithfully dramatizes the longest story ever told (the 93 chapters + Prelude in The Brotherhood is a homage to the 94 episodes in the series!). Since I’ve been busy finishing The Dance Towards Death, doing library stuff, and occasionally watching films/reading, I’ve only been able to rewatch parts of it (have seen it many times, btw its other productions are crap!) and of course be very annoying in my questioning of its substance to my mother, who is the most knowledgeable person I know of its content in its multiplicity of forms. There’s no question it’s not only the longest and one of the oldest epics in history, but also, by far, the greatest, and certainly the most influential on my own narratives, particularly The Brotherhood Chronicle, which is probably why there’s so much reference to it throughout the epic trilogy (as I’ve mentioned in many readings, the mythologies of the past are referred to write a mythology of the present). The older Ramayana is simplistic drivel in comparison; if only Homer and Plato had lived in the same era, or been fused into the same person, the ancient Greeks could have combined its action with its philosophical questioning; the Old Testament, while full of interesting stories, is also mostly a bunch of “begats”; the New Testament has too many miracles; Virgil, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Milton, and others have their great merits, but again, nowhere near its depths. Faulkner has a wider range of stylistics, but his specific concern for the South, and the introspection and specific obsessions of his characters makes him fall a bit short, and Balzac, while comparable in his output, is too concerned with Parisian interests too. Only Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy perhaps compare, in terms of their totality of works, and maybe if War and Peace was fused into The Brothers Karamazov, it could be on its level, somewhat. I could go on and on, but, The Mahabharata is so great it really has to be watched (don’t worry, this version has subtitles) to be fully appreciated. You can also read it, but good luck, it is 10 times the length of The Iliad and The Odyssey combined, as it has so many subplots and small stories within its great primary narrative. My only issue is The Bhagavad Gita itself. As great as it is, as with other “religious” works, I can’t possibly see anyone living by it literally. For example, Krishna repeatedly tells Arjuna that one should do one’s birth caste duty (like warrior for example) even if one is dreadfully bad at it, and some else of a different caste is good at it. I mean, really??? How could any society survive in such a way? Thankfully in America we have a choice of profession and can even change them up (in my case, I’ve chosen multiple ones!) If you don’t know what I’m referring to, feel free to dive into the work! I also have to say my great appreciation for my parents in how they raised me, both instilling a remarkably good knowledge of my heritage and the great mythological and philosophical traditions of our past (pretty good for someone born in the USA, anyway), while also making me free to be as American as I wanted (unlike many Hindu kids (I’m actually agnostic, btw) I was allowed to eat meat at an early age for example) and open to all other cultures and types of learning. As a result, not only do I feel like I have good knowledge of one of the great cultural traditions on earth but also deeply and proudly American at the same time and able to constantly explore the endless multicultural learning and discovery experiences of NYC and the world, as much as there may be issues to all these realities that I explore in my books. Anyway, check it out!

[helloworlddemo1122-yahoopar-blog]

14 Movies to See in May 2018: 'Deadpool 2,' 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' and More

We are now living in a post-Avengers: Infinity War world. Marvel broke records as we returned to the theater over and over again for repeat viewings and now sit at home counting the days until we find out what the Groot happens next. (Avengers 4 opens May 3, 2019, which is almost exactly 365 days away...)

In the meantime, May sees another superhero face off against a villainous, though gauntlet-free, Josh Brolin in the Marvel-but-not-Marvel Cinematic Universe movie Deadpool 2. We'll also get a bromance origin story for Han Solo and Chewbacca, Melissa McCarthy in a new wig and a ballsy remake of Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell's most beloved rom-com. (Godspeed, Overboard 2018.) This month's list of 14 Movies to See is below:

1. Overboard (May 4)

Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures / Pantelion Films

1987's Overboard may be a comedy classic, but the premise -- a blue-collar guy gets revenge by conning a rich woman with amnesia into believing they're married -- has aged...problematically. The cast of the reboot says their gender-swapped version "makes more sense now." Starring: Anna Faris, Eugenio Derbez and Eva Longoria.

Watch the trailer:

2. RBG (May 4)

Magnolia Pictures / Magnet Releasing

In the first documentary to center on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, directors Julie Cohen and Betsy West look both at Ginsburg's legacy within the women's movement and her newfound status as a pop culture icon. (Speaking of documentaries, let me also recommend the André Leon Talley doc, The Gospel According to André, which arrives later in the month.)

Watch the trailer:

3. Tully (May 4)

Focus Features

The third installment in the Jason Reitman-Diablo Cody trilogy (following Juno and Young Adult) proves that the director and writer are perfectly suited for each other, this time unwinding a pitch black comedy-turned-something more about modern motherhood. Starring: Charlize Theron, Mackenzie Davis, Ron Livingston and Mark Duplass.

Watch the trailer:

4. Breaking In (May 11)

Universal Pictures

If Breaking In is exactly what it appears to be in the trailer -- a mom brings her kids to a remote mansion, home invaders hold the kids hostage while robbing the place, thus ensues 90 minutes of Gabrielle Union being an absolute badass -- I will get everything I want out of it. Starring: Gabrielle Union, Ajiona Alexus and Billy Burke.

Watch the trailer:

5. Life of the Party (May 11)

Warner Bros. Pictures

Look, real-life married couple Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone don't have a perfect track record when it comes to making movies together. (Tammy.) But we will watch McCarthy in anything. And this one has a Christina Aguilera cameo! Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Maya Rudolph, Debby Ryan and Gillian Jacobs.

Watch the trailer:

6. Terminal (May 11)

RLJE Films

The last film Margot Robbie produced and starred in -- I, Tonya -- got her an Oscar nomination. This one is a neo-noir thriller about assassins attempting to carry out a mission and the mysterious femme fatale they keep crossing paths with. Starring: Margot Robbie, Max Irons, Mike Myers and Simon Pegg.

Watch the trailer:

7. Book Club (May 18)

Paramount Pictures

The final Fifty Shades of Grey movie (sadly? Mercifully?) opened earlier this year, but Christian Grey is still getting people hot and bothered on in this flick about four women whose lives are reignited when their book club selects E.L. James. More importantly, this cast! Starring: Candice Bergen, Diane Keaton, Jane Fonda and Mary Steenburgen.

Watch the trailer:

8. Deadpool 2 (May 18)

20th Century Fox

In two months, two different Marvel superhero movies have starred Josh Brolin as the bad guy. He's far less purple here, however, playing a gun-toting mutant who travels back in time to open a can of whoop ass on the Merc with a Mouth. Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Zazie Beetz, Terry Crews, Brianna Hildebrand and Rob Delaney.

Watch the trailer:

9. First Reformed (May 18)

A24

First Reformed begins as a story about grief -- a reverend mourning the death of his son, who died while serving in Iraq -- but becomes something far more twisted when the minister is called on by a young woman's whose husband has committed suicide. Paul Schrader writes and directs and, thus, it has been liked to Taxi Driver. Starring: Ethan Hawke, Amanda Seyfried and Cedric the Entertainer.

Watch the trailer:

 10. On Chesil Beach (May 18)

Bleecker Street

Saoirse Ronan's last Academy Award nomination was for Lady Bird, but her first post-Lady Bird role is a return to the writing of author Ian McEwan, whose novel Atonement begat Ronan's first Oscar nomination. This collaboration concerns the wedding night of a young married couple. Starring: Saoirse Ronan and Billy Howle.

Watch the trailer:

12. How to Talk to Girls at Parties (May 25)

A24

This is one of two movies Elle Fanning stars in this month -- the other is the Frankenstein period drama, Mary Shelley -- and one of countless Neil Gaiman stories currently making their way to your screen. It's got punk rock music, an alien invasion and Nicole Kidman's latest wig. Starring: Elle Fanning, Alex Sharp, Ruth Wilson and Nicole Kidman.

Watch the trailer:

12. Ibiza (May 25 on Netflix)

Netflix

Netflix will stream an s-load of new content this month -- like the sci-fi drama Anon and zombie apoco-flick Cargo -- but make sure Ibiza doesn't get lost in your queue. The plot is simple enough -- a 20-something falls for a DJ and follows him to Ibiza -- and leads to oodles of full-on LOLs. Starring: Gillian Jacobs, Vanessa Bayer, Phoebe Robinson and Richard Madden.

Watch the trailer:

13. Solo: A Star Wars Story (May 25)

Lucasfilm Ltd.

Come for Han, stay for Chewie, come back for the Lando Calrissian spinoff this will hopefully greenlight. Even knowing all that went down in the galaxy not-so-far, far away while this was being shot, each look at Han's origin story has gotten us more and more excited. Please be good! Starring: Alden Ehrenreich, Donald Glover, Emilia Clarke and Woody Harrelson.

Watch the trailer:

14. The Tale (May 26 on HBO)

HBO

The Tale isn't so much an adaptation as it is a memoir told on film. Documentarian Jennifer Fox helms the drama, in which Laura Dern plays a documentarian named Jennifer Fox who uncovers a short story written by her 13-year-old self and begins to unravel her childhood trauma. Starring: Laura Dern, Ellen Burstyn, Elizabeth Debicki and Jason Ritter.

Watch the trailer:

RELATED CONTENT:

Laura Dern Gushes Over Her 'Icon' Meryl Streep Joining 'Big Little Lies' (Exclusive)

Charlize Theron Reveals 'Very Long Journey' to Lose 50 Pounds Packed on for 'Tully' (Exclusive)

Donald Glover Says 'Solo' Is 'a Lot More Fun' Than Other 'Star Wars' Movies (Exclusive)

[frederickwiddowson]

Leviticus 20:22-27 comments: God's condition for the Israelites to inherit Canaan

Leviticus 20:22 ¶  Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. 23  And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. 24  But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. 25  Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26  And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. 27  A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

             Two things I want to mention first are that we have seen that there were places in Canaan, as there is in Palestine today, where finding water was a chore and so wells became points of contention in Abraham and Isaac’s time. And yet, much of Canaan is said to be very fertile as alluded to in this passage. So, clearly there was a varied climate in the region even then as the climate is varied now. We’ll discuss the fertility of Canaan shortly.

             The other thing is that if you read Paul’s religious history of mankind in Romans, chapter 1, and remember what we’ve studied in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus we see that not only are the things God has told Moses matters of personal morality, violations of these standards for the Hebrews were part of ancient religious behavior and therefore practicing any of the things mentioned in previous passages were gateway behaviors into the established idolatry of this world.

God commands the Hebrews to follow all of His commands, His standard of righteousness and not the way of the heathen. Verse 23 tells us that the residents of Canaan are cursed and doomed because of their sexual immoralities which are linked to their religious practices and cannot be separated from them. First, see the prophecy.

Genesis 9:25  And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 The descendants of Canaan were listed.

 Genesis 10:15 ¶  And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 17  And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 18  And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19  And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

 Their descendants are the Hittites, sons of Heth, and the rest of the inhabitants of Canaan. See the promise to Abram/Abraham.

Genesis 15:12 ¶  And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13  And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;14  And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15  And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

 And now their grossly immoral behavior and idolatry is being dealt with. How can America, so steeped in sexual sins, have the nerve to plead, “God bless America?” Judging by how depraved we are, how much of a Babylon we have become, I wonder at how we are even held together as a nation. Our iniquity, perhaps, is not yet full.

Verse 24 gives us two very important things to consider. The first is that the climate of Palestine would have been milder at this time than now as we know the earth was drying out after the Flood and continues to do so. Canaan would have been a bountiful area. We must remember in this drying out that in the Sahara Desert have been found rock carvings showing hippos, crocodiles, leopards, and antelope found much further south than the seemingly barren sands of the desert. We cannot look at all of Israel today and see what was true in the distant past. Use the Bible as your guide.

The earth has been drying out since the flood. Land use studies of the Ancient Near East show the climate was cooler before 1,000 BC. and better suited to crops and forests. The Scriptures themselves give evidence to this wetter, cooler climate so unlike the arid landscape we see today. It is likened to the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 13:10 ¶  And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.

Exodus 3:7 ¶  And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 8  And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Josephus, chronicler of the war against the Romans, tells of the climate himself at Christ’s time.

Its nature is wonderful as well as its beauty; its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it, and the inhabitants accordingly plant all sorts of trees there; for the temper of the air is so well mixed, that it agrees very well with those several sorts, particularly walnuts, which require the coldest air, flourish there in vast plenty; there are palm trees also, which grow best in hot air; fig trees also and olives grow near them, which yet require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together; it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if every one of them laid claim to this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men’s expectation, but preserves them a great while; it supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs continually, during ten months of the year and the rest of the fruits as they become ripe together through the whole year” (The Jewish War, Book 3, Chapter 10:8).

So, no matter what you’ve been told the testimony of Scripture and history shows that this area was once a fertile place that was a great producer of food.

The most important thing about verse 24 is that it defines what it means to inherit. A person who is chosen to inherit something is given that something to possess. It is a grant, an act of grace. Israel has done nothing to merit this gift as you have done nothing to merit everlasting life and the kingdom of God but to receive it.

Verse 24 also speaks of how God has separated Israel from other nations. Separation for God’s purpose, being made holy, is the meaning of sanctification.

Exodus 13:2  Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

 Israel was a chosen vessel through which God worked among men in the world. It is through Israel that He would enter the lives of men and women as the Lord Jesus Christ, born in poverty among common people.

Verse 25 taken with 24 in context suggests that one purpose of having clean and unclean animals is to reinforce the idea of separation and of making a distinction between the sacred and the profane, the holy and the common, and even good and evil. Commentators write about verse 25 referring to not eating the unclean thereby making one’s soul abominable. We must remember that until Christ the sins of the flesh are condemning of the soul so that it can be said when referring to a person that their soul does this or does that. However, an operation is performed by God in Christ that separates our souls from the sins of the flesh. It is a spiritual circumcision that we receive.

Colossians 2:11  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

 God calls the Hebrew to be holy as He is holy. He is separate from His creation. While He is present everywhere He is not part of what He has made. He is just, righteous, and the standard for all righteousness. They and we are also called to be separate. God divides the light from the darkness. The Hebrews, a nation of slaves, have been separated from the world around them, from Egypt, Canaan, and every other culture.

God reinforces His commands regarding those who think they can consort with the dead, call them up and ask them questions. See my comments of familiar spirits previously.

Each Christian is a type of the nation of Israel. We are called to be separate and holy, apart from the world around us while, unlike the Hebrews who were to form a special nation, we live in the world. Our neighbors, often-time coworkers, and even members of our own family reject Christ’s offer of forgiveness and we have no warrant to try to force anyone to receive Christ nor are we to build some compound or buy some island so we don’t have to face the unsaved world.

We have no nation on earth that is a Christian nation, whose government serves Christ and does God’s will. Each individual Christian unites with others to form the body of Christ on earth moving in the world but not of the world.

Paul did, however, call Christians to be separate in their behavior and in their fellowship in the church body.

1Corinthians 5:9 ¶  I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10  Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 We cannot worship together with people engaged in open sin, as God defines sin. Like two oxen pulling in different directions under one yoke it would be disastrous. In the context of the wicked world around them Paul admonished the Corinthians.

2Corinthians 6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

 Known fornication, adultery, drunkenness, abuse of any kind cannot be tolerated in a Christian congregation of believers. We must pray for the fallen one but we also must confront them. In matters of church discipline we can look at Jesus’ own words in Matthew 18.

Matthew 18:15 ¶  Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19  Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

[blackrockandrollmusic-blog]

The Atomic Dog: George Clinton is hustler, preacher, poet, and pimp of the congregation of funky bloods whose doos are always laid, whose rhythms are always mashing and whose stage rags range from sci-fi to birthday suits. Splib hustlers and hip ofays, it’s funk time again.

Where it all began is a barbershop in Plainfield, New Jersey, back in the early '60s. Before he was cutting vinyl, George Clinton was cutting hair; before he got involved with the recording process, my man was chemically processing hair-mixing down wave, curl, and conk jobs for all the slick splib hustlers that ran the streets of Plainfield. We know now that this cat had a lot more on his mind than snipping naps and knotting up doo-rags for the rest of his natural born life.

Along with a couple other barbers and a few high school chums, Clinton organized a doo-wop group named Parliament. Modeling themselves after groups like the Temptations and the Four Tops, they gigged around until Clinton one day got the bold idea to head for Detroit and try to bogart his way into a Motown recording deal. So Clinton and crew wind up in '65 with a minor hit, "I Wanna Testify," on Motown subsidiary Revilot. For whatever reason, Berry Gordy decided he had enough male vocal combos in his stable, and Parliament languished on the label until Clinton decided to strike out on his own. Problem was, Motown owned the name Parliament, and so Funkadelic was born--out of desperation, the Parliament back-up band, and Clinton's warped notion of fusing the hippie counterculture with parodies of black pop, pimp, and prayer culture.

Between 1968 and 1975, you opened up a Funkadelic record and you couldn't guess what was coming next — a straight-faced take on the Fifth Dimension, like "Can You Get to That," or a heavy-metal hydrogen bomb test like "Super Stupid." And go figure Cosmic Slop, where the title track, about a welfare mother who pimps for the devil, is followed by a country-swing ditty, "No Compute (Spit Don't Make Babies)," about a hard dick on the prowl who raps like a poolhall version of Jimi Hendrix and waxes philosophic the morning after about being turned out by a transvestite. If that's not enough there's "March to the Witch's Castle." A fairyland goof? Nope, a holy-roller preacher's benediction for soldiers returning from Vietnam—and maybe the only song of the period that embraced the Vets as wounded mortals rather than as babykillers.

Get the picture? If so, you're doing better than the mass record-buying public of the period, black and white. Because in the main, Funkadelic was too wacky for the souled-out splibs and too black for the spazz whiteys who believed hard rock only came in caucasoid and got nothing to do with bloods getting happy feet besides.

Then Clinton struck the mama lode with 1975's Mothership Connection. This one was the turning point, alright. Not only did it give Clinton his first gold album and launch P-Funk as damn near a musical genre in its own right, but most important, it provided the impetus for the Mothership tour, which in turn begat the Funkentelechy vs. the Placebo Syndrome "flashlight" tour, which begat the Clones of Dr Funkenstein tour, which gave rise to the One Nation under a Groove anti-tour--all barnstorming black guerrilla theater extravaganzas that between roughly 1977 and 1980 made P-Funk seem a cross between the old Apollo and the circus.

Having written off Clinton as a has-been in 1981, few expected the success he found upon the release of 1983's Atomic Dog. Those few who weren't surprised weren't just diehards, they were folk who knew that if nothing else, George Clinton was a longtime survivor of the vicissitudes of the American music business. George Clinton is as cagey a ringmaster and self-promoter as P.T. Barnum, as charming a stage ham as Fats Waller, as charismatic a bandleader as Duke Ellington, as hardworking a showman as anybody else this side of James Brown.

Listen to Clinton's lyrics and you find him playing plenty roles: hustler, preacher, poet, pimp, professor, psychoanalyst, student of politics and sexual manners, carny barker, soulman, swingmeister, bebopper, doo-wopper, druggy, subliminal seducer, free spirit. And the band he leads is the best rock band in America.

Like some folk live for Sunday morning prayer meeting, I live for the gestalt achieved by these virtuosi. And for the image of Clinton—his living death-head's grin spreading across his Nubian mug like the stitchings on the Frankenstein monster's neck, teeth strung cadaverously from jawbone to jawbone, his limbs and torso madly whipping the crowd's emotions until they're all feeling the funk as much to the fullness as he is. Ain't nobody got fans that know as much about pure musical possession as funkateers, unless we talking disciples of vodun, juju, or hoodoo. We are a tribe unto ourselves, y'all, with our own language, lore, rites of passage, and articles of faith. One nation under a groove.

If George's rap is the positive side of P-Funk, the down side is what you'll find in the margins from the mouths of the men who've propped up Clinton's thang for lo these many years and are now crying the blues of unpaid-for dues, misspent youths, and sacrificed creative muses. You're gonna ask yourself why, if this cat seems so righteous, has he treated these bloods so badly, and why, even more outrageously, they keep hanging in for more abuse. Ahh, but I told you we're talking church here, family even, as well as coldblooded business. And as much as George took from these guys he gave back. And dem's da facts. Now, here's the funkies.

[mariateachesthings-blog]

SAINTHOOD 101

GOSPELS! Matthew!

Matt. 9:

9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphæus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

Luke 5:

27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.

The gospel/book that holds his name GOD dictated to him. 

II Peter 1:

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake {or wrote} as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The theme of the book of Matthew is Jesus Christ the King. I begins with his royal genealogy, on Jesus christ mother side. Very important to royalty.

Then after listing them there is a check point.

Matthew 1:

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

When I was a kid I counted them up one time and found there were 14 generation in each group but the last one. I thought I couldn’t count right. The Word of GOD couldn’t be wrong, so I must be. Then I leaned years later That the Word is right and I was right. The problemed was in that the word in verse 16 translated husband should have been translated father. See the word it was translated from mean head of the house, which could be father or husband. By translating it father the Word fit. The translation of husband the Word falls apart! Thank GOD HIS Word never falls apart, (and I am not to stupid to count to 14!).

Matt. 1:

16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

See Mary father and husband had the same 1st name. Not impossible even for today.

Matt. !:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 

{There customs are different from ours. They would have a wedding. Then had to wait to have sex until the priest said so. They would take the personalities of the parents and what sign they were born under and see what sign and personality their 1st born should be so he would fit nicely into the family. Then that is when they were to come together. That 1st year they had a one year honeymoon and could only stay with family.}

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

{Now only religious people don’t understand what it means when a man takes a women. The 100% proof she was a virgin when she conceived  was the bloody sheets so popular in some cultures and the girls parents keeped as proof she was a virgin.}

25 and knew her not

{IF you work the word you will see this phrase “knew her not” means he didn’t know her to get her pregnant.} 

 till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

{Jf Jesus Christ was Mary’s 1st born son then she must have had other sons.Matt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56a And his sisters, are they not all with us? }

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus Christ was GOD’S only begotten {born not eternal} son but Mary’s 1st born.

GOD BLESS!

[vierge-noire]

When stories talk about fallen angels do they ever actually mention whether women were actually attracted to them/ wanted to have sex with them? It just occurred to me that these could have been very one sided relationships, what with the power imbalances.

Lol I mean they’re not detailed descriptions and only speak in generalities accounting past events so there’s no real in-depth look into individual relationship dynamics beyond simply saying they were married and begat children: 

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

The human women in these passages were referred to as “wives” that the angels were “enamored” with, which implies that their union was more than just a sex thing, but all in all trying to figure out the power dynamics of marriages between literally legendary peoples who are only spoken of in generalities is kind of pointless, especially when it comes to the nephilim who were sort of spread around in different groups and therefor in varying cultural climates. Although these passages…

“And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day…”

“Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…”  

…. imply that angels who left heaven left behind their position of authority (and are also expected to live and die as mortal men as the same status, so there’s that. Although the first passage could also just be referring to angels who left with Lucifer rather than the “sons of God” (whose collective title suggest that they might not be “fallen” in the same sense that Lucifer is).

It’s also worth knowing that in general, Islamic interpretations not only describe angels as universally attractive, but also obligated to prostrate themselves before mankind. From one translation of the Qur’an:

“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am going to create a human (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud.  So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down (and) prostrate to him.”

So despite their badass titles and all the fanfare surrounding them, they’re not really of higher ”status” than humans so discussions of power dynamics are kind of moot. In many interpretations, they’re more like holy automatons than living creatures. It’s mostly up to one’s religious upbringing and individual interpretations regarding their inherent status that determines how you color their interactions with humans.

Although I will say in closing that I’ve personally never known humans to need to yield to the “will” of angels beyond heeding what they say when it comes to delivering messages directly from God, which is generally angels’ main function in the first place, in all Abrahamic texts.

[they-call-me-marlon]

What is your full 'getting ready for the day' routine?

Well first of all, for context and prosperity I have to state that today is Tuesday, May second 2017 and I, marlon, am now 29 years old.

Which means I was born in 1988 and in 1989 The Tim Burton directed film Batman was released. Now as much as I hate this movie, have always hated this movie, and wish nothing but bad things to happen to everyone involved in the creation of this movie, I have to admit that it was a complete cultural phenomenon that created a huge burst in Batman’s popularity across America and probably the world. (this is still adding context here) This movie begat three horrible sequels (and ironically the best of the four of them is the one that’s infamous for being the worst batman movie ever made. I’ve SEEN every movie ever made with batman in it–minus four, i’m sorry, i’ll catch up, I’m working on it–and sure it’s in the bottom ten but it’s not the worst. Batman Returns is the worst and if you disagree, never speak to me again.) countless toys and clothes and the best thing to happen to the character since Bill Finger, Batman the Animated Series (1992-1995). And you could say that it sort of indirectly shaped my whole life.

My parents didn’t know what they were doing at the time. They just thought “hey, this is a little boy. Little boys like superheroes and right now Batman is the big one. Let’s get him some batman stuff. What’s strange to me is I can remember a lot of things from my early childhood like not being able to walk, sink baths, diaper changes but I can’t remember the first time I saw Batman the Animated series or the series from the 60s starring Adam West and Burt Ward but I know they instantly made a huge impact. I remember basically watching Batman The Movie (1966) on repeat for days and I remember consciously deciding that batman was the perfect role model. He was intelligent, skillful, and kind, he kicked exactly as much butt as he needed to only when he needed to, and he was always prepared for everything.

One thing you may not know about me is as a young child I was a big nerd. And I was really into the idea of making schedules, developing routines and increasing my efficiency while also having plenty of scheduled leisure time. I’d deliberate with myself about everything I wanted to do in a day, and about how long it would take to do each thing, I’d cross reference TV guide magazine so I could be there when the shows I wanted to watch were on, and I would type it up on the family computer and add fancy borders and clip art and print it out. I even set alarms on my digital timex watch. I’d look at my handiwork, smile, and pin it on my wall and do my best to adhere to the schedule. and as far as I could tell I was pretty good at it. the only problem was, I was the only thing in the world that wanted to follow the schedule. things would happen like, I’d be watching saturday morning cartoons and my mom would say “do the dishes” and I’d say “I know I have to do the dishes, see I put it on the schedule for 4:00. Right now it’s 10:00 and batman is on and that’s on the schedule too. I’ll do the dishes at 4, I promise” Then she’d start to get mad and say something like “I said do the dishes now” so I’d explain “the dishes aren’t going anywhere, they’ll be there all day, doing the dishes isn’t time sensitive. Batman is only on for this half hour and then I don’t know when I’ll get to see this episode again. I can’t just watch this later” then I’m “getting smart” and I’m like “what’s wrong with smart?” and she gets more mad, turns the tv off etc. Or things would come up that aren’t on the schedule at all. and no matter how much I tried to follow it, I’d never be able to. And honestly that was the cause of a lot of distress and frustration because I’m probably autistic.

Some time later through some means I met and became close friends with @toasterssupertasty and during my senior year of college he tells me and our best friend who we’re now not friends with because he’s pure garbage that when he graduates and we’re all at the local community college we should take improv together and I said “I have no idea what that  is, but yes I’ll do it and let’s take more classes together” when we finally took the class it. literally. changed. my. whole. life. I learned that improv is exactly how I used to play as a child and also additionally how I have had fun in every situation since then. I learned that improv is governed by a system of rules to make it work well and they’re the same rules that govern every social situation and everything that has ever been funny and I learned that it’s a thing that people actually do for a living. Our other friend hated it and oddly enough everything he hated about the class highlighted everything I hated about him. I actually still refer to improv as the love of my life and the most important class I’ve ever taken. and of course improv is short for improvisation which is defined as the act of improvising which is defined as  [verb (used with object), improvised, improvising.1.to compose and perform or deliver without previous preparation;extemporize:to improvise an acceptance speech.2.to compose, play, recite, or sing (verse, music, etc.) on the spur of themoment.3.to make, provide, or arrange from whatever materials are readily available:We improvised a dinner from yesterday’s leftovers.verb (used without object), improvised, improvising.4.to compose, utter, execute, or arrange anything extemporaneously:When the actor forgot his lines he had to improvise.] (dictionary.com)

What you do in improv is take whatever situation you end up in and roll with it.

so basically, if you think about it, if I’m being honest, because I like to try to be prepared for anything at any time. You could say that all I do to get ready for the day is wake up.

[christianworldf]

New Post has been published on Christian Worldview Institute

New Post has been published on https://christianworldviewinstitute.com/bible-prophecies/end-time-events/book-of-daniel/daniel-8-greece/3864-prophecy-at-the-end-stars-fall-to-earth-sun-turns-to-darkness-moon-turns-blood-meanings/

#3864 Prophecy: At The End- Stars Fall To Earth, Sun Turns To Darkness, Moon Turns Blood Meanings

Contact us at jimbrown@graceandtruth.net Check out all of our online videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/jimsgraceandtruth/videos Visit our website at http://www.graceandtruth.net/

3864 SN010619 Prophecy: At The End- Stars Fall To Earth (Preaching Judgment) Sun Turns To Darkness (No Truth)- The Moon Turns To Blood (Dies)- Mountains Moved Out Of Their Places (Governments Fall)- “Say Unto This Mountain”- Rev. 6:12-14

A study of NT Greek and OT Hebrew, customs and culture of Israel, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, the pagan origins of the Christmass and other “holydays / holidays”, all for the purpose of understanding what the bible meant when it was originally spoken/written as opposed to what modern “preachers” and “christians” “think” it says; i.e. NO OPINIONS.

About Grace and Truth Ministries Jim and Mary Brown

I have been preaching and teaching Bible for over 50 years. In 1957, I began studying the scriptures diligently after graduating from high school. In 1980, God began dealing with me, bringing me to what I believed was my deathbed in 1985.

In the hospital, I awoke near death crying out to God, “Lord, You are going to kill me if I don’t quit living for myself and saying all the truth in my power!!!”

Thereafter, I began to say these blunt plain words that appeal to the elect sheep. As a result, I began to make more enemies than I could have ever imagined. I was sick and tired of the “mush” gospel that churches were preaching.

My family was confused, and on many occasions on the way home from church, my wife would say, “he said such-and-such last week and he said this-and-that this week contradicting what he said the previous week.” I began to say to my wife Mary, “don’t listen to the preacher, because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Finally, I said, “this is a waste of time! We are going home. We are not going to these churches anymore. I will teach you from our home.”

Twenty years ago, we started Grace and Truth Ministries which included my wife, son and one other young man. We started taping the sermons shortly thereafter. Grace and Truth Ministries is now meeting in a building located in Hendersonville, TN.

Last year, by the grace of God, we gave away approximately 25,000 DVDs free-of-charge.

We regularly add more television, radio and internet to get the truth to those who have ears to hear.

If you are located in a city that does not air our programs, please contact us so that we can let you know how you may help to get this message out to God’s predestinated elect family.

We are adding new stations every month.

God Has Chosen

Romans 8:29-30 – “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Foreknow – to have a personal intimate relationship beforehand.

God predetermined that all who belonged to him before the foundation of the world were to “conform” to the word of God in obedience to Christ.

All that were predestined were “called”, “justified”, and “glorified” (past tense verbs). These were fixed in the mind of God before the world began. (Ephesians 1:4; Acts 13:48; II Thessalonians 2:13). The election of the saints is unto accountability (I Peter 1:2).

The majority of the protestant church held to this doctrine during the reformation. It is the foundation of “The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689”.

You Baptists are supposed to be believing it and you’ve discarded this precious doctrine of Grace !!!

No Free Will John 1:13 – Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. James 1:18 – Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Romans 9:15-16 – 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. John 5:21 – For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. John 6:39 – And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

God Does All Things Isaiah 46:10 – Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. Eccl. 3:14 – I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. Ephesians 1:11 – In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will source

[junker-town]

A Celtics team 5 years in the making

The Celtics finally went for it. Now what?

Take a trip down the rabbit hole of Danny Ainge’s transaction page on Basketball-Reference once more for old time’s sake. Explore that page long enough, and it will reveal a nonlinear method of rebuilding from scratch filled with endless possibilities.

Remember that Keith Bogans’ shell contract begat Abdel Nader and that Tayshaun Prince was briefly a Celtic. Recall the one that haunted Sam Hinkie; Jordan Crawford for Philly’s heavily protected first pick that became a pair of inconsequential seconds.

Pour one out for the time Ainge used a cap exception to secure a late first-rounder that got Isaiah Thomas. Raise one final toast to the time he picked up Jae Crowder in the Rajon Rondo deal.

You should also take a moment to remember all the deals that never happened: a bushelful of picks to move up in the draft to take Justise Winslow, trades for Paul George and Jimmy Butler that broke down on various draft nights, and not getting Kevin Durant in free agency.

“It never goes the way everybody wants it to go, you know?” Ainge said with a slight chuckle during training camp.

Take one last look around because those days are suddenly over. What had been an endless series of moves spiraling into nebulous directions has suddenly come into clear focus. The end result is a core featuring Kyrie Irving, Gordon Hayward, and Al Horford with as many as five rookies and nine other new additions to integrate into the lineup.

Even in the hyperdrive reality of the modern NBA when roster turnover is inevitable, the Celtics offseason was extreme. Not that it was completely unexpected.

“I loved our team last year,” Ainge says. “I had a blast. I really enjoyed it. I knew we weren’t a championship team with the Warriors and the Cavs, but I thought the team achieved all they could.”

Ainge pushed back at the suggestion that last year’s group had run its course, but nevertheless he went into the offseason looking to acquire veteran star power. He made a run at George on draft night, then turned his attention to Hayward in free agency. That, in turn, necessitated trading Avery Bradley for Marcus Morris to balance the cap ledger. And that was supposed to be that. Until Kyrie Irving became available.

The blockbuster deal for Irving involving Thomas, Crowder, and the last of the vaunted Brooklyn picks was announced in late August, traditionally the quietest part of the NBA calendar. It was stunning in that teams that compete in the conference finals simply don’t trade key players to one another. It was also stunning in that Ainge had finally traded away his most prized asset to forge a completely new team.

Some of it was opportunity; players like Irving don’t usually become available. Some of it was timing with key contracts coming due. And some of it was uncertainty over Thomas, who is hoping for a late December return with the Cavs from a hip injury. All of it just kind of happened.

The Celtics believe that they are better-positioned for the future with a clearer cap situation. They think they’ll be better in the postseason with two elite playmakers along with Horford, and they think their young players are ready to step into larger roles. In other words, this is really who they are for the foreseeable future.

“There will always be changes and we’ll have to tweak it but yeah, we have no intention of blowing our team up again next summer,” Ainge said. “That’s for sure.”

But who are they? Nobody really knows. Of all the contenders that made wholesale changes in the offseason, none is as opaque as the Celtics. To begin to understand them, we need to start with the question of identity.

Photo by Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

If you compare Irving’s career numbers with Thomas’ from the impartial distance of a spreadsheet, they look remarkably similar. Both are scoring point guards who utilize a high number of possessions and both have issues on the defensive end. They are both certified All-Stars and elite scorers. Beyond the data, though, you’d be hard-pressed to find two more different players.

Irving has always been basketball royalty, a top recruit at Duke who went first in the 2012 draft. He is sleek and skilled, a ball-handling virtuoso and brilliant shooter who slips between cracks and unspools textbook perfect jumpers. He plays with the easy confidence of a can’t-miss prospect who once made the biggest shot of an NBA season.

For all of his gifts on the court, Kyrie has been a cypher off the court for most of his career. He shocked many with his trade request (who would want to leave LeBron James?) and seems perpetually unbothered by the prospect of leading a franchise in pursuit of a championship. Beyond his dabbling with the flat-earth society as a means of challenging social constructs, there is little that we know about Kyrie Irving.

Thomas, on the other hand, plays with the vengeful hellfire of a man scorned. The last pick in the same draft class the year Kyrie went No. 1, the All-Star that coaches wanted to bring off the bench, the little guy who challenges the giants by going right through them, Thomas exists to prove others wrong. You never have to guess what he’s thinking because he’ll tell you right to your face.

He personified the character of the 2016-17 team perfectly. Like Thomas, many of the players had been overlooked and undersized. They played with a snarl and a chip on their shoulders that even their detractors — and there were many — could appreciate their effort.

“Last year our identity was a feisty group of kids that played really hard. But we did rely on Isaiah a ton.”

Pull back from the raw emotion that team engendered to the safer distance of the salary cap sheet, and the trade makes logical sense. Kyrie is younger and under contract for one more season beyond this one, when he has a player option. If you commit to him, you are securing the prime years of his career.

And yet, by trading Thomas and Crowder, as well as Bradley, you are also exchanging your hard-earned persona for a blank slate.

“Last year our identity was a feisty group of kids that played really hard,” Ainge says. “But we did rely on Isaiah a ton.”

That but is the biggest reason for all the change. When Thomas was out of the lineup, the Celtics struggled to score. While Thomas performed magnificently in the postseason, those team-wide offensive shortcomings were magnified, especially by the Cavaliers, who blew them out in five games while Thomas was sidelined by his hip injury.

That weakness was first addressed by signing Hayward, a seven-year pro coming off his best season right in the prime of his career. He gives the Celtics offense flexibility the team hasn’t enjoyed since Paul Pierce was still roaming the Garden floor. Together with Horford, who is a skilled playmaking big man, the Celtics now have multiple options where before they were limited.

There was still the dicey matter of Thomas’ hip, and that’s where it gets complicated.

Could they have gone into this season without one of their most important offensive players for at least the first few months? That question stopped being rhetorical the moment Irving became available.

Irving’s arguably the best one-on-one player in the game and has proved capable of taking over playoff games all by himself. Ainge refers to him as a “born basketball player,” and adds that, “Kyrie has proven that on the biggest stages against the best players in the world he’s one of the elite players.”

To make the deal, Ainge had to not only part with two of his core players, he also had to throw in the highly valued and much-discussed Brooklyn pick. Ainge caused a few ripples among the hardcore faithful when he suggested that he had a responsibility to Horford and Hayward to put the Brooklyn pick on the table in trade talks for Irving.

“Here we are asking those guys to come in with an opportunity to win and they did,” Ainge says. “They chose us over other teams because they believed that we’d do what it took to win. So it’s hard to recruit free agents and not do all you can to win. I did feel like there was some responsibility to those guys.”

Viewed from that perspective, Ainge’s methods come into an even sharper focus. Horford doesn’t sign without a stable environment already in place. Hayward might still be in Utah if he didn’t think the Celtics were a viable contender. And Irving may not have been so anxious to join a team without those two already on the roster.

As much as cap space and tradeable assets, this is how contenders are built and maintained in the modern NBA. Loyalty at the top of the NBA food chain is as much between players as it is between teams, and Ainge has tried to turn the Celtics into a destination for stars to consider.

What he’s looking for now is continuity, which sets up an interesting experiment this season. How do you get a team with 11 new players to perform as one?

The Celtics don’t have a captain, which isn’t that surprising. They haven’t had one since Rajon Rondo was traded. If there is a central figure in the locker room, it’s probably Horford. He’s not a forceful personality the way Kevin Garnett was a culture change unto himself. Horford, rather, is a stabilizer.

“I want to help our guys in any way I can to make them better,” Horford says. “Just be a good example for them and making sure I’m challenge them on the court and we’re growing as a group. Everybody wants to label one guy as a leader, but I feel like we have many leaders on this team. That’s the way to do it. When you have a locker room with only one leader, you should worry.”

Horford pointed to Irving’s championship experience and Hayward’s professional example. He cited Marcus Smart’s vocal contributions. He noted Jaylen Brown’s precocious development and veteran big man Aron Baynes, who provides toughness and savvy.

Greg M. Cooper-USA TODAY Sports

That’s a good start, but chemistry is not easily sourced, nor is it easily gained. It’s one thing to assemble the pieces of the puzzle, and it’s quite another to execute on the court. Through the course of their one season together, Horford and Thomas were able to develop a dynamic that fueled their offensive possessions. Now he needs to do it again with Irving and Hayward.

The frantic pace of player movement has accelerated this team’s learning curve, and all three understand that it largely falls on them to rewire the team’s approach. No one is under the impression that it will take place overnight, least of all Brad Stevens who is tasked with organizing a structure around which all the new pieces can become whole.

“It’s like a brand new job,” he says.

Stevens has simplified some of his concepts and impressed upon his coaching staff the need to remain flexible and malleable to adjustments when needed. He’s been impressed by how quickly his team has picked up its defense, which requires trust and communication. For Stevens, this is not about X’s and O’s. It’s about creating a framework for his team to find itself.

“All that stuff happens when you’re focused on winning,” he says. “All the other stuff about spending time together, we’re eating meals together, and we’re going to be around each other for a long time. That’s not just what it’s about. Do I know what the guy next to me does well, and can I put him in position to do that? Everyone’s intent is already good.”

What is it that makes Brad Stevens so darn good? His after-timeout plays are so nifty that my colleague Tom Ziller has dubbed him the Michael Jordan of the Whiteboard. His offenses are heavy on player motion and rely on crisp, unselfish passes out of their actions. His defenses cover up weaknesses and utilize strengths. When you look at a Brad Stevens team, you see a well-coached team. All that is true, but it still doesn’t get into the heart of the matter.

“Brad’s one of the greatest coaches because he allows you to go out there and play and be you,” Marcus Smart says. “He doesn’t try to make you anything else but you, and he allows that. He puts you in the right places to have success.”

Few players need to be themselves more than Smart, who is blessed with a competitive streak that mandates playing time. He will guard anyone. He will go after loose balls and tough rebounds and play with an edge to the point of recklessness. There will always be a place for someone like that, but he has been defined in the minds of many by his weaknesses.

Smart’s primary issue is his shot. He’s a 29 percent three-point shooter for his career and unless that improves, teams will continue to exploit that hole in his game. When he was struggling last March, Stevens told Smart that he had confidence he would make them when the game was on the line. Smart hit 39 percent of his threes during the postseason.

“The bottom line is he needs to know that we think that too,” Stevens says. “I believe in Marcus. He’s a winning basketball player.”

His other weakness was his weight. Smart was carrying around 240 pounds during the playoffs, and his conditioning was becoming an issue. In the offseason he shed 20 pounds thanks primarily to an overhauled diet...and thus was born Skinny Marcus.

“It’s what you eat,” Smart told me while munching a post-practice banana. “It defeats the purpose to go be in the gym for two, three hours and go home and eat a burger.”

Skinny Marcus has been the talk of training camp, draining threes in the first preseason game and becoming a vocal leader for a defense that relies on switching as much as any team in the league. He wants to become a more complete offensive player, getting into the paint to create for his teammates and earning trips to the free-throw line. Stevens approves, of course, but he’s not taking any credit for it either.

“You can lead people in certain directions as much as you want, but ultimately it’s got to be their decision,” Stevens says. “That’s why I respect Marcus so much. He made that call.”

Ken Blaze-USA TODAY Sports

Much of Stevens’ approach is culled from the book Mindset by Carole Dweck that advocates fostering an environment focused on learning and improving. Mindset has gained extensive currency in education settings and has naturally filtered down to coaches who have shed the rigid old paradigms of the past.

There may not be a more perfect example of this philosophy on the Celtics than Brown, the second-year forward who surprised many with his season-long contributions.

“I just want to be the best version of myself,” Brown says, echoing many of Mindset’s themes. “That’s going to help the team. I just tried to push myself this summer and get uncomfortable. Working on things I’m not as good at, grind on those things, make myself uncomfortable so that I’m comfortable when I get into a situation in a game. Without being uncomfortable, you won’t grow.”

The defining moment of Brown’s rookie season came in the first round of the playoffs after the Celtics had inexplicably lost the first two games of the series at home. Stevens needed to shake up the lineup, and he went with veteran swingman Gerald Green over Brown. Green got hot in Game 3 and salvaged the season, but it was Brown’s willingness to keep himself ready that made the biggest impression.

“That would have debilitated most 19-year-olds,” Stevens says. “They would have been done for the season. But Jaylen was antsy to help against Washington.”

Brown returned to the rotation against the Wizards and stayed there throughout the playoffs. He took on LeBron in the conference finals and expressed zero fear. It wasn’t always pretty, but he competed. Over the summer, he put himself through a 28-day workout fast where he didn’t eat or drink water from sunup to sundown. He’s also incorporated meditation into his routine.

“You have to train your mind like you have to train your body,” Brown says. “Anything you can do to get as uncomfortable as you can, try to persevere through as much pain as you can to work yourself as hard as you can mentally. That will push your mental strength.”

When Brown came into the league, there were unsourced whispers that he was too independent of a thinker. Stevens literally scoffed when I brought this up.

“One of the things I really appreciate about Jaylen is he’s got a curious mind,” he said. “He wants to learn. He wants to grow. Setbacks don’t define him. He’s not afraid to make mistakes.”

The Celtics will rely heavily on Smart and Brown this season, along with third-year man Terry Rozier and rookie Jayson Tatum. Beyond them, the deeper ends of the rotation are a curious collection of rookies and veteran journeymen. Some of the rookies are old, like Daniel Theis, the 25-year-old German who turned pro at the beginning of the decade. Some of the veterans haven’t played much in the league, like Shane Larkin, who earned his stripes in Europe.

Whatever issues the Celtics will have this season, the expectation is that Brad will fix it. That the perception runs counter to everything he values is beyond his control, which means that he doesn’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.

“I think we have a chance to improve as much as everybody from where you start and where you end, and we need to focus on that,” Stevens says. “In March, we should look much different than we do right now.”

And then what? And then we will finally see this grand design for what it is and what it can be. It took five years to manifest itself. A few months of the season shouldn’t be too much to ask before we have any idea if it will work.