#this image speaks to me on a biblical level

[dokeree]

this might be the best thing i’ve ever drawn tbh

[screemnch]

The Pathologic Russian and English analysis: Clara Saburova the Changeling.

Time is a flat circle, similar to a frisbee, and the world is using it to wack me repeatedly on the head with it. So anyway, I finally got my shit together and made another addition to this madness project. This time including images of both English and Russian text. Let us begin

It’s a bit… difficult to pin down what kind of person Clara is in the English translation - partially because you don’t always know for sure which Clara you’re talking to, as well as the fact that she is, most of the time, an obstacle. She seems to shift between “mean child who’s acting like she hasn’t learned about empathy yet”, “kind earnest and trying her best”, and “ominously inhuman and deceiving”. This is, obviously, because of Clara’s main schtick - the fact that there’s two of them (and also because she knows a lot more than the two other healers). Most of the time, however, she comes across as someone with either good or dubious intentions. It’s like she’s trying to help (or acting like she’s trying to help), but things keep going horribly wrong. Since we’re not playing as her, we don’t get nearly as much insight into how frightened she is and how shaky and unstable her current situation is, so she is judged by both of the healers in a very harsh way. She seems a bit verbose for a kid/teenager, however that is nothing out of the ordinary in the town on Gorkhon. Her lines, a lot of the time are either indirect or very direct jabs, so there is an impression that she thinks she is smarter than the other two and is quite fed up with them. It’s difficult to say much else about it without getting into specifics, so here we go.

As the bachelor: Clara only gets interactions on days 3, 6, 11, and 12. You might think that that would make it difficult to write about her, but wow did they put so much stuff in the very few conversations she gets to have with Daniil. There is a level of consistency between how she speaks in English and Russian here, though she seems a bit more earnest in this campaign. Like she’s trying to help, but she also thinks that Dankovsky is unable to receive the help she’s trying to give. Or unwilling. Mainly, however, in Russian there is a very weird quality to her way of speaking that I’m not quite sure carries over well to English. See, (and this is where it gets the tiniest bit anecdotal) I’ve had my fair share of hearing religious talk in Russian (but not in English, which is why I’m not sure if this is even a valid point) - I’ve been to orthodox churches, and in general Christianity is very largely propagated in the part of Russia I grew up in. So I, like presumably many others, am familiar with the very distinct way that religious figures speak. It sounds ancient, but not the same “fairy tale” ancient that I talked about before. Instead of changing the sentence structure, they utilise more biblical words in places where any other person would use regular modern words. Best way I can explain it is how someone might say “t’is” instead of “it is” but like… Religious? “For” instead of “because.” And that is the tone that Clara takes on sometimes. It meshes really well with her “divine messenger” persona, even though she still acts like a child every now and then. It’s a very unique combination that gives her way of speaking a distinct sound that exists outside of time. Overall, however, the translation was pretty close to the original Russian version, so let’s look at where these two diverge.

What’s a little weird to me here is that umm… This is the conversation Daniil has with Clara on day 3 about the Taglur and when I read this in English I was a little confused, because it sounds like the Bachelor is asking a question about Clara’s plans for making a new world or whatevsies, but… This dialogue option is one of those that immediately ends the conversation, which didn’t make sense to me at all. In Russian it’s a bit more akin to “And who’s bright idea was it to place this miracle here?” (or literally “to whose head did the idea to place this miracle here come?” A bit more confusing, but yeah) See, the word here for “miracle” is “чудо” (pronounced smth like “choodo”), which can mean miracle or wonder, but can also be a shorthand for “чудище” or “чудовище” which is a word used to describe monsters. You know. Wonder-creatures. In this context, the word “чудо” when aimed towards a person (Clara) is meant to signify someone either ugly, eccentric or nonsensical. So to sum up, the best way to understand this line is “Who’s bright idea was it to bring this weirdo here?” in which case… Yeah, I can definitely see why that would end the dialogue.

Here’s a fun little thing: I’ve mentioned before how the Haruspex defines Clara in very vague terms. Here, when the Changeling (the real one, guys, trust me) is asking the Bachelor to deal with the Changeling pretending to be her(yeah, go figure), in English she calls her a “loathsome creature”. However, in Russian she calls her (according to Google translate) an “abomination”, “filth” or (in my own translation) “grossness”, which - you guessed it - is indeed a very vague term. Regardless of who you think is talking to the Bachelor at the moment, it’s still very interesting to see, for various reasons. She also does this later in the dialogue (and the English translation ignores it again)

More out of the same dialogue tree where the Bachelor is trying to get Clara’s blood. I’ve made a point in the analysis of the Bachelor from the Changeling’s perspective, where he calls her “darling”  where the original was something like “sweet/dear creature” and almost had a sombre mood to it. In this one, however, it is the complete opposite. Not only does the word he uses here actually translate the best to “darling” (or dove), but it also has the same kind of ironic connotation to it as I mentioned. In this particular scenario he almost sounds… Thuggish? The words he uses, as well as the use of the “-ка” sounds similar to the snarky, confrontational way that thugs and bandits speak in cartoons. Something like “c’mere, dear” that makes it clear you’re about to get beaten up.

Two things here: firstly, in this dialogue line Clara refers to Daniil using the informal version of “you”, while the lines said by the Changeling whose blood he doesn’t get uses the formal version. In the interaction on day 3 Clara doesn’t address him directly at all, but I think in other dialogues she also addresses him informally (It isn’t surprising to see Clara address Daniil of all people informally, because not only does she see herself as, at least in part, a tool of divine whatevertheheck, she also rightfully believes that he is an idiot. She does not need to be polite to the stupidest man this side of the Gorkhon (I say this lovingly, of course).

Secondly though, I’d like to point out the way Daniil talks to her in here, because when I did my analysis of his lines I talked about how the English translation dials down the intensity of the stuff he says. This here is a prime example, as the Russian version is not only more curt, but also uses a much more cutting insult. Of course, people are well aware of the Russian language’s rich curse word vocabulary, but it also has the wonderful capability of making non-curse words sound like the most humiliating thing ever. I think maybe it’s the way Russian combines rolled “r”s and multiple consonants (which is less prominent in English) that allows its words to have that added weight to it. Here he calls her essentially “trash”, specifically - something that’s been so torn up and worn out that it's become useless. The way the word rolls off the tongue when you say it out loud is almost like a spit in the face, and it’s not softened by calling her “little” or anything. He calls her trash. How dare.

I’m bringing this up because it has me genuinely confused? The English version makes sense, or so I thought until I read the Russian version? Because the Russian version kinda states the opposite. It says “You can’t come up with a better knife for this than a conversation - of course, only if you’re in a hurry.” Which is very different from “unless you’re in a hurry” because those meanings are like… The opposite? The English implying that a conversation is a good way to see what’s going on in her soul, but the Russian one alluding to the fact that it’s only good if you’re in a hurry? Or is she agreeing to give her blood because they don’t have time for a conversation? I don’t know. I’m confused. Help.

I think the metanarratives of pathologic are very cool, so when I read this line in English I got really excited, because I thought it might be implying that Clara is aware of the fact that the player may have died a few times during the bachelor route alone (similar to how she calls the other healers her past or future). Then I realised that it simply could’ve meant “dying” as in being close to death. Then I got excited again, because I thought the Russian version might elucidate the issue for me. And… I think I was right? I think she implies here that Daniil has died several times, although it was probably just left vague for this specific purpose. Either way, the fact that it can be read this way and was probably worded like this just to confuse the players (and reward those who may have been on the lookout for it) is really cool to me. Also in response to that (where in English Daniil says Clara has “a shrewd eye for human condition”) he calls her a psychologist, and then brushes her off as trying to charm him, which means we don’t get to gauge the meaning of what she was saying through his response either.

This one has a couple of fun differences. Firstly, instead of referring to the town in its “true form” Clara refers to saving it “the way that the town turned out.” This, to me, is a slight difference that paints the contradictory nature of the town in a different light. The English version claiming that it’s the town’s “true” form almost makes it seem like a design from an outside force, both bringing up vibes of intelligent design and the fact that the town was made this exact way by the children. The Russian version’s implication that the town “turned out” this way has a more “nature is a chaotic force with no purpose” vibe to it, that would more suit a person unaware of the whole “we’re dolls for a children’s game inside of a video game” thing. Maybe I’ve just gotten used to being picky about the tiniest word choices because of my studies, but I feel like this difference changes the overall vibe. Like painting with the same colour but using a different brush.

Secondly, in Russian Clara calls Aglaya’s mission “simply a performance for fools” which to me is a wonderful choice of words, given all the theatre themes included in the gameplay.

I’ve kind of set a precedent where I make all of these “translation differences” have some sort of significant meaning for the narrative, but I just think this one is genuinely cool? It’s a bit of a “same colour, different brush” situation, where the sentiment is the same, but the word choice carries a different vibe. Focusing on the last sentence here, the Changeling specifically says “You were supposed to bribe him with your honesty” instead of “get at him”. And I just think that’s neat, because like. I always thought of “getting at someone” as like… An attack or provocation? But “bribing” someone has a bit more of that slimy vibe, which clashes with “honesty” so well, and… I guess it’d technically be an oxymoron.

During the conversation in regards to Clara acknowledging Maria as a mistress, in the Russian version she frequently switches between formal and informal “yous” when talking to the Bachelor. However, as it becomes clear here, this is an instance in which instead of a sign of respect, it seems that she is referring to several people at the same time. Namely, that she is directing her words both at Daniil and Artemy. During the Bachelor’s campaign she seems to think that the Haruspex is a lost cause and they seemingly don’t interact (and she even believes that he is dead during this day), so I doubt she actually ever spoke to him about this. It’s interesting then that she still tries to convince the Bachelor, even though she often calls him a fool. Makes you wonder what the differences are between this scenario and the Changeling campaign (in which she can invite Artemy to the Cathedral on the final day fully knowing that he chooses to stay oblivious).

Here’s some silly Clara on day 12 (right after giving a whole speech about the Polyhedron) and I just wanted to point out this very fun change. Instead of saying “pretty face” she instead says “мордашка” (pronounced “mordashka”)  which is a diminutive of “морда” (“morda) which is usually the word people use to refer to an animal’s face. Except it can also be used to refer to a person’s face if you’re calling them ugly. The addition of the diminutive adds a little mischievous tone to it, which turns it from ugly into a “cute” kind of thing. Like… Derpy, I guess. Anyways, I think it’s absolutely hilarious that Clara says that while also talking about the eldritch concept of being a multitude of people, or perhaps just one person controlled by the will of different people at different times (which they all are, by the way).

Big difference here that I found absolutely odd as in why they cut it out of the English version? This is from the “did you know we are toys?” dialogue tree and if you look carefully, you’ll see that there’s a bit here in Russian that for some reason wasn’t included in the English version. The last sentence after Clara says that she has an advantage. She adds “and I intend to use it.” Which like… I feel to someone who hasn’t played patho before would sound antagonistic, but to those who know - this is a direct indication to how it feels like playing as Clara in the campaign. You know a lot more about the game and the characters from other campaigns. And you already know that the kids are there and that they are toys. While playing you use all this knowledge to your advantage to play the game better. So yeah, don’t know why they cut that out of the translation.

Alright, I think that’s about all I’ve got for Clara’s role in the Bachelor’s campaign. I’d say the biggest differences that I notice is, of course, the biblical language (which I didn’t get good examples of unfortunately, but the whole “your eyes are white for you are blind” is a good example) and the subtle ways in which the words Clara uses hint to her knowledge of what is going on. As always, it’s something that’s also present in the English version, but there are also things that are characteristic to the Russian language that allow her to break the fourth wall. Like, with the change to a formal “you” we can get a bit more clarity on whether the Clara we’re talking to is real or not. With the specific verbs she uses we can almost see the outline of a false bottom to everything she says and I think that’s really cool. Outside of the translations, I think it is genuinely fascinating to get a better glimpse into Clara’s story during the Bachelor campaign - I feel like if we got more of her, it would give the whole game away. In what she says already, talking about the wills behind her, behind the Bachelor (although she does count Artemy as part of the “special toys” camp, she always says it with such disappointment. Cuz she compares herself to him, but is also frustrated that he refuses to get it) she alludes to being aware of not only the stagehands, but also the player and the power that they have. It’s also really cool because you can almost compare her to Aglaya, what with all the knowledge, sacrifice, and being doomed by the narrative. Except Clara’s approach is entirely different, although it’s difficult to glimpse through her frequently changing attitude. They both know “the Law”, both talk about how miracles should not be captured - except Aglaya seeks to undo what has been done, while Clara wants to forge ahead, accept the changes as part of the world. They both seek to fix what’s wrong, but what to them is considered “fixing” is so directly opposed that they have to destroy each other. I don’t know. I just think that both of them are really cool characters that totally don’t make me wanna scream, cry, and throw up, and you know… They deserve just as much love and obsessive analysis as the men in the story (speaking of which, in one of the dialogue trees where Clara talks about Block essentially becoming a crusader she can also admit that she knows it’s not true and that he’s also doomed, but she feels so bad about it that she pretends that he isn’t. And who knows, with a miracle worker like her it might just become the truth).

Also I'm thinking of maybe at one point or another making a name pronunciation, meaning, nickname, and literary references guide? Idk, sounds like it'd be fun.

I feel like a weird little bog creature whenever I emerge with one of these. Have fun and remember to engage your critical thinking skills, fact check, and let the media you encounter change you (be it through vulnerability or empowerment) instead of just being fodder for your consumption.

[esthermitchell-author]

Just gonna toss this out there, then I have to get back to my SciFi edits and the GO fanfic I'm writing (titling it "The Gift of Words" just to be mean and hint).

A lot of people keep equating Aziraphale to a warrior because he once had a flaming sword and was tasked to guard the Eastern Gate of Eden.

I'd like to dispute that, now. And this is just my take, so feel free to disagree with me, or believe whatever you wish. We're all entitled to opinions, here, and the only one that really gets the definitive say is Neil. :)

Nothing about Azi reads "warrior" to me. In fact, he flat-out REFUSES to fight when told to line up and be counted for war in S1. That's not the action of a warrior. Warriors fight. As for the whole flaming sword thing -- if you check out the Archangels, etc, in Biblical/Catholic canon, pretty much ALL of them have a flaming sword at one point or another. Doesn't mean much, for my money, other than "this is to make sure you're paying attention to me when I talk to you."

And yes, I get that he has protective vibes about certain things / beings. But protective doesn't meant warrior. We've all, at some point or another, felt the need to defend something or someone.

To me, from my first reading of the book and going straight through the end of S2, Aziraphale has always vibed Love and been more of a healer than a warrior. He even tells Maggie at the beginning of S2 that forgiveness is one of his favorite things. To forgive, you have to love. You can't hate something and forgive it (I speak from personal experience there... and it also segues another subject I'll talk about another time: what I think Azi's really saying every time he tells Crowley "I forgive you."). And Azi is unfailingly kind to people, even if he's sometimes misguided in how he does it. He gives Adam & Eve his sword, knowing it'll cause him trouble, because "it's going to get cold and dark, and she's expecting!" He watches over Job's children, even in gecko form, checking to make sure they're okay. He's absolutely broken about Jesus (listen to his tone of voice when he's talking to Crowley) being crucified -- he feels helpless to prevent it, but it's clear he wishes he could stop it. He wants Shakespeare to succeed, tries to encourage the actors on the stage, refuses Crowley's request for holy water because "it won't just discorporeate you. It'll destroy you!" He tries to save Elspeth's soul (misguided), and is gentle and kind to wee Moraig. There are countless examples of his gentleness and love for humans and occult/ethereal beings alike.

Everywhere he's given the option, he acts in a healing capacity. He doesn't dispute being called a "doctor" though he could, and the image of him clutching that jar with the young boy's tumor in to to his chest, that stricken look on his face, will be forever burned into my mind. He heals Anathema in the book and in S1.

Yes, I know the argument "but he tried to shoot a child in S1." What those people are failing to pay attention to is that it wasn't just some random kid, and he didn't even want to do it, at first. He was trying everything else he could to get out of doing it. He even tried (until the very last moment) to pawn the task off on Shadwell. The only reason he tried, instead of handing the gun to Crowley, in that last moment, was because he was no doubt trying to protect Crowley from Hell's wrath.

Would it be awesome to see Azi just lose his shit and level Heaven in S3? Umm... Yeah.

Does it feel like part of his character to me? Probably not. Not unless Crowley is in direct danger.

I have my theories. :) I'm just writing my fanfic and waiting to see if my S3 bingo card comes up a winner or not. The rest, I leave in Neil Gaiman's capable hands.

While we wait, have fun theorizing and writing, and just being a generally, amazingly unhinged fandom (meant with great love... I enjoy being part of it, and I'm every bit as unhinged. lol).

[izzythehutt]

Forgive me if you’ve spoken about this before, or if my assumption is incorrect, but I think it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the interpretation of Jesse as a Christ-like figure considering from what I’ve gathered you’re a Christian? A lot of people who I see draw comparison between Jesse and Christ (including myself) are either not religious or have had a negative experience with religion so I think it would be interesting to hear from someone who has a different experience.

I think the main problem with that interpretation is that none of Jesse’s suffering is particularly redemptive or self-sacrificial, which would be the baseline requirement for him to be a Christ-figure.

Don’t get me wrong, a lot of bad things happen to him: but it’s never because he’s consciously choosing that suffering for the sake of another person. The one exception to this might be continuing to cook for Jack's gang to keep them from killing Brock, and even that is a coerced choice between two evils—and Brock’s mother would never have died, Brock would never be in the position of being threatened in the first place, if he was not a pawn in Jesse and Walt’s codependent self-perpetuating psycho-drama.

That’s what it all goes back to. Listening to Walt, being Walt’s partner in crime—gets Jesse beat up by criminals or used as emotional leverage against him. The overwhelming guilt Jesse feels all stems from things he did to help Walt, save him, in service of their mutual criminal partnership or out of wrath/hurt at what Walt has put him through.

It’s because of his cooperation with evil that Jesse (and his loved ones) suffer, and that makes him far more of an Adamic figure than a Christ figure.

For my money, the closest we ever get to a truly Christ-like act in the show would be Flynn throwing himself between his mother and father to protect her, knowing full well that Walt could easily overpower him and acting under the assumption that his father has just murdered another member of their family. Junior is as close to an innocent as Breaking Bad has—the only character more innocent than him is the baby—and if he had somehow ended up injured or dead by Walt’s hand because he was shielding Skyler, that would be truly laying down his life for another person. Respect for Flynn, you were more than breakfast memes.

I don’t necessarily know how useful it even is to think about this particular narrative in this way, tbh. Breaking Bad is not an allegorical or didactic show, nor is it particularly moralistic (though it is keenly interested in morality.) It can be read on a realist, psychological level, and through the lens of noir, crime and western genres. It’s definitely not consciously symbolic.

But, if you were going to make the case for a Biblical symbolic interpretation, the glaringly obvious one is Walter White as the Luciferian figure par excellence. Is there a fictional character who more perfectly exemplifies the sin of pride than Walt? A brilliant scientist (Lucifer was, after all, the Angel of Light—the greatest of all the angels) who makes a spectacular fall from grace and proceeds to drag many others down to his level.

So, if Mr. White is “the devil”, then that would make Jesse his Adam. Exiled from the garden of (comparative) innocence in the pilot because he agrees to the partnership between them (his ‘deal with the Devil’, so to speak) Jesse then spends the next sixty-some episodes making a lot of terrible choices, directly and indirectly leading to a lot of pain and suffering, because of that partnership. That’s the entirety of salvation history (as Christians understand it) in a nutshell. This is Jesse Pinkman’s equivalent of taking the apple of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—his original sin.

Man is made in God’s image, and like Adam and all his sons, Jesse still has a conscience—the spark of divinity lives in him. He still wants to do the right thing, but his relationship with Walt constantly pulls him back into the world of crime and evil. By the end of the show he’s become a literal slave to sin—his ability to make the blue meth, the gift his devilish mentor gave him that helped Jesse attain honor, power and money in the drug trade, now keeps him literally shackled in a hole in the ground. It’s not exactly subtle, is it?

But he does break free in the end. Not from his literal slavery—Walt has to be the one to free him from that—but from evil.

Jesse’s refusal to end Walt’s life at his command is him simultaneously breaking free of Mr. White’s control over his actions and refusing to continue the cycle of violence his old teacher fostered and Jesse enabled at every turn.

He does it all on his own. He makes the choice. After a lot of suffering, so even if there’s not a salvific figure in this universe persay, there is purgation.

(Ironically, Walt shielding Jesse with his body and taking a literal bullet for him would be an almost textbook Christ-like sacrificial death....except Walt was the person who set off the gun in the first place. Also the idea of putting Walter White and Jesus in the same thought, let alone comparing them....repels me for what I hope are obvious reasons, lol.)

What I liked about El Camino was Jesse finally having serious moral growth and maturity (not shocking that Walt had to die for it to happen.) The scene where he calls his parents, absolves them of blame and takes responsibility for his own actions was such exponential growth for him—the boy becoming a man. And his ultimate fate is to spend the rest of his life in a kind of exile. All of this comes at such a high cost, but there is atonement. It does all mean something.

[catsvrsdogscatswin]

Hellsing Commentary 3 Notes

This commentary is done by Taliesin Jaffe, the voice director and script adapter of Hellsing, Victoria Harwood, the voice of Integra Fairbrook Wingates Hellsing, and JB Blanc, the voice of Enrico Maxwell and the Cheddar Priest. Direct quotes may vary in accuracy, as these are written down from audio without transcripts. I also didn't write down every joke or piece of trivia because I feel like people who watch the commentaries should get to have some nice surprises for stuff that isn't covered here.

-Yuri Lowenthal, Pip's VA, apparently speaks French. Victoria also calls him "a very sexy character, you wanna sort of follow him."

-JB Blanc playfully comments that "there isn't nearly enough blood in this episode."

-At the time of recording the OVA 3 commentary, JB and Victoria have known each other for 20 years, since Victoria was twelve and JB was eighteen respectively. Steven Brand (Anderson's VA) brought Victoria to Hellsing, and she brought JB during the original run. JB Blanc and Steven Brand even lived together at that point ("but not in the biblical sense, uh, it was a very very chaste relationship"). Victoria knew Steven Brand for even longer than JB, and they were "in one of the worst plays ever, ever written" together.

-Victoria Harwood was the very last actress they auditioned for Integra's role, and until she came in they were going to settle on an actress who was competent but sounded too young. "She sounded thirteen. Just, no gravitas, no gravitas."

-When Victoria watches herself as Integra she thinks that she sounds like she's on Mogadon.

-Victoria also comments that she likes how everyone has "very different colored eyes" in this show. JB agrees and says "Mine are purple, for god's sake."

-When talking about the differences in the Cheddar priest performances, Taliesin restates that Ultimate is going for a different level of camp from the original TV series. JB agrees and says "Its almost a level of camp beyond any I have ever experienced, and believe me, I've experienced some camp."

Victoria: "Yeah but, well, that was when you were living with Steven Brand."

JB: "Pretty much, yeah yeah, there was a lot of camp going on then."

-Continuing on the differences between Ultimate and the original series, JB says of Ultimate that "You know its sexier, its more arch, its more Gothy, its more...its like everything the first one had, amped-up, and it makes it more fun."

-Taliesin states that a friend that yells at him about acting theory says "'Its very much like doing opera.' Its just, its all exercise. You're not even -you're almost not struggling for a character at any point, you're just, its just this exercise in theory." JB agrees and says "You're driven by the image much more, and therefore you're always trying to pitch up to what the images are telling you and to try and honor what the Japanese has before you."

-Victoria says that "the time thing" is what she found difficult, with the Japanese taking things a lot slower than what she's used to. "That's what I mean about the Mogadon, sometimes I'm like 'Oh my god, how much- how long can I- (JB chips in at this point with "Aaaallooow me to introoooduuuce myseeelf") how much slower and sort of -controlled, and very measured."

-When discussing Seras, Victoria comments "That's the whole manga thing, isn't it? It's all about-" JB overlaps her at this point, saying "Chests and short skirts." Victoria replies "Well- well I was gonna say 'tits and panties.'" JB says "'Chest and short skirts' is the polite version of 'tits and panties'." as they both chuckle.

-Taliesin says that at a meeting with Hirano discussing future things in Ultimate, Hirano said that he was just going to keep making Seras's chest bigger and bigger as per his own frustration levels. JB chips in and says "I think its integral to the story. As the pressure grows, so does the pressure on her shirt."

-JB says that Gildart Jackson (the Major's VA) is "absolutely superb in this, it's wonderful. It's great. It's pretty great work, the mad German."

-JB also says that Crispin has underplayed his role beautifully throughout. Taliesin admits that he doesn't write Alucard very well, since he knows Crispin will come in and work on everything with him anyway, so he sort of cheats and says "Eh, good enough." for a lot of his dialogue script.

-Victoria has two boys as of the time of recording OVA 3, and "Actually, Jonathan (the producer) rang me...about ten minutes after I had given birth, and said- and launched straight in 'We need you back!' -it was for something else- 'We need you back!' and I was like, I said 'I'm in hospital.' He said 'What are you doing in hospital?' 'Nothing,' I said, 'I've just had a baby.' and he said 'Well- well- oh god, yeah, s-stop talking to me!' You know, get off the phone. But I was back in a week later." Taliesin agrees and says he has also crawled his way out of a hospital bed several times to "crawl in here and get something done."

-JB says "If you ever want to know anything about anything, get Taliesin drunk at a convention, and it will all spill forth, like the blood of Alucard's victims."

-Taliesin says that the VA who played the Pope was a "fabulously crude man." His track was also recorded first, and JB compliments him because "I could actually, like, keep a check on my Italian accent because his was so good."

-Taliesin says that "as long as there's a controlling, awful director" as the voice of Harkonen, it would be fine.

-Taliesin initially got together "all the Brazilian accents" for the Rio teams, but then he took a minute and saw that they were "the whitest-looking Rio de Janeirian people I've ever seen" and decided to use an American SWAT team instead.

-Taliesin actually counted "everybody who dies" in the Rio scenes, and gave them a name. "So that you can actually pay attention and not have nine people die in the same scene that are all voiced by the same actor. And keep some sort of continuity as to who's talking, and where they are, so that if you have a Team Leader who's up on the roof, is not the same Team Leader that's down on the ground, who's not the same Team Leader who's in the elevator...the final bodycount was somewhere, oh, was it seventy-five people? Uh, there's seventy-five individual pieces of, of slaughter in this next, in the rest of this episode."

-Victoria laughs and comments "he likes it, ooh" when Alucard starts cackling after Integra's outburst.

-JB and Victoria both comment that they find the little exhales of anime much more difficult than the laughs. Taliesin directly tells the audience that "None of you know what I go through, there is- I have yet- I have yet to meet an English actor who can do a sound-effect, those little breaths and Japanese clicks." Victoria makes an inquisitive noise and he continues "None of them- they're all -all of you are uncomfortable doing it." Victoria argues that "-its a purely Japanese thing! I mean, what we would do is go 'Huh?' 'What?' like I mean, you know, get an American to do it."

Taliesin: "All of my American boys, they come in, they hit them first try."

JB: "Well if we're not good enough for you Tally-"

Victoria: "Yeah, we'll just fuck off."

JB: "Yeah, we'll just resign from this series, you can go screw yourself. I've never been so insulted in all my life!"

Victoria: "No! That's it, let's go."

They then both start what Victoria calls "porn grunting" as all three descend into giggles. JB says "It is porn grunting, that's why we're uncomfortable with it! We're English, sensually repressed individuals." Between breathless laughter, Taliesin calls JB "one of the most deeply unrepressed human beings I've ever met in my life."

-Taliesin and JB had drinks at a weekend once in Texas and JB got drunk enough to do his "gay cop" impression.

-The elevator scene was saved for last, and Taliesin made sure that "if you listen very carefully, there are still screams of pain and murder going all the way down that elevator shaft."

-Victoria misses the music from the original series, calling it "groovy," and Taliesin says that they've gone "kinda classical" for Ultimate. She says that she loved the original music and Taliesin agrees, saying that that was one of the most radical changes from the new series to the old.

-JB says that he really likes Alhambra's VA, even if he doesn't know who it was, and that he's great. Taliesin agrees and says "It's a weird accent, it's kind of a weird accent, its one that can go a little too camp really easily, it's the clean Spaniard? I wanted it to be kinda thin...everybody who auditioned didn't quite get the level of camp."

-JB also comments of anime that "Well, this is the danger, you see: this stuff is melodramatic, and it allows you to go certain places, but I think a lot of American actors, I mean, particularly people who do stuff on screen...they're very worried about being very internal, and this stuff just doesn't sustain that. You have to come out of your shell, you have to push it, you have to be more arch, otherwise you just don't do the format justice."

-Taliesin comments sympathetically on Alhambra's VA who had to "stretch this scream out" when Alucard breaks his leg.

-Getting the lip-flap to work in German was "fun" for Taliesin.

-The "Welcome to this crazy time" song that the Major tosses out at the end is an opening theme for Fist of the North Star. There is also a reference to Gundam slightly earlier, and according to Taliesin, Hellsing is full of similar little nods.

[musicgoon]

Book Review: Raising Confident Kids, by Ed Drew

How can we help our kids cling to Christ and biblical truth in a confusing world? In Raising Confident Kids, Ed Drew delivers a parent’s guide to grounding identity in Christ.

The book begins by asking: What is your family culture? The culture I was raised in is markedly different from the culture I want my kids to grow up in.  The book also caused me to think about the desires, ambitions, and priorities I have for my child — and if I can see them in myself. 

Biblical Worldview

What this book excels at is giving a biblical worldview. For instance, we want our children to see that they are precious to God. While the world says that our achievements and popularity and skillset makes us valuable, God says that we are valuable simply because we are created in his image. This should be enough and it is something we must clearly communicate as parents, for our children should see their worth even outside of and apart from their relationship to us.

I was most moved to read the chapters that say we are forgiven and that we can change. Defaulting to fear, manipulation, or shame can be an easy way to get results — but this does not produce the heart change that only God can give. I was most inspired to read that “with the Lord, change is inevitable.” This is what he does! And this is something I want to start sharing with my kids over and over again. 

New Creation

The book is bold in addressing issues of friendships, sex, and marriage - as well as boys, girls, and gender. Drew guides us in helping our kids be godly in their friendships, while also presenting biblical models of marriage as well as telling the goodness of singleness to our children. While there are definitely some unhelpful gender stereotypes, the Bible is clear that men and women are created differently at a biological level. Drew is clear and does not cut corners in speaking out about these topics.

The book closes with a look at the new creation. Parents have a particular role to play in helping our children walk with Jesus and become more like Jesus. This book will help you with your parenting but also point you to Christ himself and the Word of God as a compass in this confusing world.

I received a media copy of Raising Confident Kids and this is my honest review. Find more of my book reviews and follow Dive In, Dig Deep on Instagram - my account dedicated to Bibles and books to see the beauty of the Bible and the role of reading in the Christian life. To read all of my book reviews and to receive all of the free eBooks I find on the web, subscribe to my free newsletter.

[destinyimage]

Star Prophecies: Seeing God’s Signs in the Heavens

Message from the Editor:

Prophetic signs in the stars? Isn’t that astrology? No. Not even close.

If you remember, Jesus himself tells us that God speaks through prophetic signs in the sun, moon, and stars (see Luke 21:25). Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Yet we do need to be careful about falling into the dangers of astrology. This is where a book like Looking Up can provide teaching and direction.

When I heard about Troy Brewer’s new book, Looking Up and realized it was about stars, I was immediately intrigued. After I read it, I was blown away. Ever since I was a child, I’ve been obsessed with the stars, galaxies, and space. And this message is a powerful and thought-provoking exploration of the connection between the stars, the fall of man, and redemption through Jesus Christ.

Troy presents a unique and compelling interpretation of biblical passages related to the fall of man and redemption, weaving in scientific explanations of celestial events such as eclipses and the Earth’s tilt. His teaching style is clear and easy-to-understand, making the complex concepts accessible to readers of all levels of knowledge. Moreover, he explains the connection of prophetic signs in stars and numbers, shedding light on these ways God is declaring His power and glory every night.

I highly recommend Looking Up to anyone interested in a deeper, biblical understanding of the prophetic signs of the stars. Troy presents a powerful and enlightening perspective on this topic that will leave readers with a deeper understanding of their faith and the role of the stars in the grand narrative of salvation.

Look up, friends!

Joel Marzzarella

Editor of the Destiny Image Magazine

One day, we will all stand before God and the books of our hearts will be opened (Daniel 7:10; Revelation 20:12).

All that is written within us will be revealed and read out loud to the Glory of God. So the thing that you need to know is this: Before the Word was written in our hearts, it was written in the Bible; and before the Word was written in the Bible, it was written in creation.

This is the jaw-dropper for many Christians who don’t read their Bible or refuse to search out the things in it they don’t understand: A big part of the written Word in creation is what the Bible calls the Mazzaroth (Job 38:32) or Mazzaloth (2 Kings 23:5). It’s what the Greeks call the Zodiac, and that my friend, is what this book is all about—the Mazzaroth. We will debunk the teaching of the Zodiac and even take it back for King Jesus, so stay with me!

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Day unto day utters speech,

And night unto night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard.

Psalm 19:1-3

God is speaking and one of the endless number of His voices is the signs in the heavens. It’s never been a taboo subject in the Kingdom but the body of Christ has been driven away from this prophetic word by denominations, church boards and Christians who want to save other Christians from the heart of Jesus Himself. You are just going to have to get past all of the witch hunters and really go after God if you are going to enjoy this revelation.

The Zodiac: The Greatest Deception of Our Time

The devil has led more people to hell through the twisting of God’s story in the stars than almost any other false teaching. What we know today as the Zodiac is his big rip-off of God’s great revelation of Himself and His dwelling place in the heavenly realm. The horoscope? It’s the devil’s sick version of the prophetic voice of God as told in the New Testament:

But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.

1 Corinthians  14:3

We were made with a homing beacon to remind us this rock is not our home. We were made to look to the heavens for the answer to who we are and why we are here.

He has put eternity in their hearts….

Ecclesiastes  3:11

/*<![CDATA[*/ (function () { var scriptURL = 'https://sdks.shopifycdn.com/buy-button/latest/buy-button-storefront.min.js'; if (window.ShopifyBuy) { if (window.ShopifyBuy.UI) { ShopifyBuyInit(); } else { loadScript(); } } else { loadScript(); } function loadScript() { var script = document.createElement('script'); script.async = true; script.src = scriptURL; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(script); script.onload = ShopifyBuyInit; } function ShopifyBuyInit() { var client = ShopifyBuy.buildClient({ domain: 'nori-media-group.myshopify.com', storefrontAccessToken: 'd4019987e189be3ec0cf97ea37531adb', }); ShopifyBuy.UI.onReady(client).then(function (ui) { ui.createComponent('product', { id: '7249085759672', node: document.getElementById('product-component-1673901252528'), moneyFormat: '%24%7B%7Bamount%7D%7D', options: { "product": { "styles": { "product": { "@media (min-width: 601px)": { "max-width": "calc(25% - 20px)", "margin-left": "20px", "margin-bottom": "50px" } }, "title": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "color": "#000000" }, "button": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "background-color": "#ffb400", ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "border-radius": "25px", "padding-left": "26px", "padding-right": "26px" }, "price": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "color": "#444444" }, "compareAt": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "color": "#444444" }, "unitPrice": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "color": "#444444" }, "description": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif" } }, "contents": { "button": false, "buttonWithQuantity": true }, "text": { "button": "Add to cart" }, "googleFonts": [ "Roboto", "Droid Sans" ] }, "productSet": { "styles": { "products": { "@media (min-width: 601px)": { "margin-left": "-20px" } } } }, "modalProduct": { "contents": { "img": false, "imgWithCarousel": true, "button": false, "buttonWithQuantity": true }, "styles": { "product": { "@media (min-width: 601px)": { "max-width": "100%", "margin-left": "0px", "margin-bottom": "0px" } }, "button": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "background-color": "#ffb400", ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "border-radius": "25px", "padding-left": "26px", "padding-right": "26px" }, "title": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", "font-size": "26px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "price": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "18px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "compareAt": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "15.299999999999999px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "unitPrice": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "15.299999999999999px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "description": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "14px", "color": "#4c4c4c" } }, "googleFonts": [ "Roboto", "Droid Sans" ] }, "option": { "styles": { "label": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif" }, "select": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif" } }, "googleFonts": [ "Roboto" ] }, "cart": { "styles": { "button": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "background-color": "#ffb400", ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "border-radius": "25px" }, "title": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "header": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "lineItems": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "subtotalText": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "subtotal": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "notice": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "currency": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "close": { "color": "#4c4c4c", ":hover": { "color": "#4c4c4c" } }, "empty": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "noteDescription": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountText": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountIcon": { "fill": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountAmount": { "color": "#4c4c4c" } }, "text": { "title": "Checkout powered by Faith & Flame" }, "googleFonts": [ "Droid Sans" ] }, "toggle": { "styles": { "toggle": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", "background-color": "#ffb400", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" } } }, "googleFonts": [ "Droid Sans" ] }, "lineItem": { "styles": { "variantTitle": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "title": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "price": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "fullPrice": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discount": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountIcon": { "fill": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantity": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantityIncrement": { "color": "#4c4c4c", "border-color": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantityDecrement": { "color": "#4c4c4c", "border-color": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantityInput": { "color": "#4c4c4c", "border-color": "#4c4c4c" } } } }, }); }); } })(); /*]]>*/

When we look up, we’re supposed to be looking for Jesus in the supernatural. Instead, we settle for what we can see in the natural. The Word warns against worshipping the stars and looking to them as an oracle to plan and live out our lives by. The stars are very poor “gods.” The Bible is very clear: to worship created heavenly bodies is wicked and God considers it idolatry (2 Kings 23:5; Deuteronomy 4:19).

If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded.

Deuteronomy  17:2-3

Mockers and scoffers, the ancient mystics, magi, false prophets—and after them, the Greeks—had no prophetic revelation of the story, especially where the story began and where it ended. They may have recognized there was a story in the heavens, but could they understand that story without knowing the author? Daniel makes is clear the answer then and now is, “No!”

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, “The secret which the king has demanded, the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, and the soothsayers cannot declare to the king. But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days.”

Daniel 2:27-28

Those who put their trust in the Zodiac, the predictions of astrologers, or the “wisdom” of the horoscope are on shaky ground for sure. The Word says delving into these dark practices and listening to these deceptive voices first steals your peace of mind:

Hear the word which the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: “Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Gentiles are dismayed at them.”

Jeremiah 10:1-2

Then, these false prophecies lead to judgment:

You are wearied in the multitude of your counsels; let now the astrologers, the stargazers, and the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from what shall come upon you.

Behold, they shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame.

Isaiah 47:13-14

And finally, worshipping the heavens—the Sun, Moon, stars and signs within them—leads to death.

“At that time,” says the Lord, “they shall bring out the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests, and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, out of their graves. They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served and after which they have walked, which they have sought and which they have worshiped. They shall not be gathered nor buried; they shall be like refuse on the face of the earth.”

Jeremiah 8:1-2 NKJV

My friend, do not fear the signs in the heavens or Jesus’ story in the stars that we are about to uncover, or recover! The devil comes to steal, kill and destroy, and he’s used the Zodiac to accomplish this for far too long. It’s time for the people of God to stop hiding from the Mazzaroth and the signs within it, and take back this life-giving revelation from the witches and New Age mystics. The signs in the heavens have always been, and will always be, the story of Jesus.

How the Book of the Heavens Works

The prophetic story of redemption that is told through the heavens is played out for us visually, dramatically, and progressively, and can only be learned through dedication to the Author Himself. This is how all prophetic things work. Let’s unpack this a little bit.

Once you understand that the Word was written in the heavens before it was written in the Bible, you must begin to understand how to read it. Here are three important keys to understanding how to read the written language in the heavens:

It is prophetic

It is visual

It is rotational and progressive

It is Prophetic

Prophetic things are deep for a reason; they have to be searched out. The Lord desires intimacy and relationship. That’s why your interest and passion for knowing God through His creation in the night sky is a key qualifier for this prophetic revelation. The prophetic can’t be taught. It must be caught!

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Proverbs 25:2 NKJV

You don’t understand prophetic things unless you are committed to searching them out. This is what separates the merely curious from true seekers. Be a seeker. Act like a king and search out the matter.

On a more practical note, there are summer constellations and winter constellations. Some are very easy to recognize and some require some skill sets. At whatever level you want to read and interpret the signs of the heavens, there are some things you have to know. The first one—and a big one—is this:

The pictures match the names of the stars within the constellation.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.

Psalm 19:1

The heavens are the broad spectrum and the individual constellations and stars are they rails this revelation runs on. God named the stars. Just like ours, their names are a testimony that tells a story.

Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things, who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might and the strength of His power; not one is missing.

Isaiah 40:26

He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name.

Psalm 147:4

Like I said in the introduction, the ancient names of the stars can still be found today in both Arabic and Hebrew. They are named to give the details of the story. The prophetic numbers associated with stars also reveal details of the story. As part of God’s design, they vary in light-years (distance) and in luminosity. These numbers have a role to play in the story as well. Search out the matter. In the Bible, not only are the words prophetic, how the words are written is also prophetic and must be fulfilled. Jesus said in Matthew 5:18,

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Just like that, not only does the message of the constellations prophesy Jesus our Redeemer, how they are placed from our perspective adds depth and meaning to the revelation.

It is Visual

The signs in the heavens are prophetic pictures. Prophetic pictures are very symbolic. When God does prophetic things through pictures and still visuals, they have to be likened unto something else. Think of Jesus telling a parable. It’s not hard, but the seeker has to be intentional. God has equipped us with a human brain that naturally connects the dots. When you look up at the night sky and see a constellation, you can’t help but see the outline of an image. God made our brains just two days after He made the heavens for, among other things, prophetic signs for us to see and decode.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years.”

Genesis 1:14

Since we are talking about connecting the dots, He has also given us the person of the Holy Spirit to help us find meaningful patterns and sound conclusions in otherwise meaningless noise. It is a scientific fact that predators are confused by patterns. It’s why zebras have stripes. I think the difference the Holy Spirit makes within us separates us from brute beasts. It also causes us to see the patterns instead of being confused by them. God can engage our primitive brains with supernatural understanding through prophetic pictures in the stars. He has been broadcasting His deepest truths through the things He created.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Romans 1:20

Mystery Solved: The Beginning and the End

The story in the heavens is not only prophetically progressive, it is a rotating story. It is always the same with the exception of comets, planets, eclipses, and otherwise unscheduled events. This is why you need to know where the story starts and where it ends. Where does a kid jump on this merry-go-round? The Greeks and the astrologers have it wrong. They can study it, but they just can’t get it because there is a blessing in getting it and they refuse the blessing because they deny the Creator.

Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Romans 1:21

The Greeks who created the Zodiac and peddle the horoscopes that control people’s lives say it begins with Aries and ends with Pisces. That’s not the way it was meant to be. Prophetic stories and timelines are discovered prophetically (1 Chronicles 12:32) and these jokers have no prophetic revelation because the Holy Spirit doesn’t live within them. The grand drama of the heavens has begun with Virgo for thousands of recorded years. When you compare Virgo to the other eleven signs, this is only place it can start. The story of redemption unfolds with the promised Redeemer as the seed of the woman in Virgo, then progressively moves all the way to the Lion of the tribe of Judah coming back for His Bride in the sign of Leo. It starts in Genesis and ends in Revelation!

To prove this was His original intent, God has provided a testimony to preserve His Word that all the world knows about. It is called the Sphinx. Connected to the Great Pyramid, which is an ancient astral structure, the Sphinx is also known as one of the twelve ancient wonders of the world. The word sphinx means “bind together” or to “bind closely together.” It is designed to show us where the story begins, ends, and begins again. The sphinx has the head of a woman and the body of a lion! It is screaming to all the world throughout all ages that the story begins with Virgo and ends at Leo. Bullinger tells us in The Witness of the Stars that at the giant Zodiac surrounding the Temple of Esneh in Egypt, a sphinx is actually placed between the signs of Virgo and Leo. Boom! There it is. Who can argue with the Sphinx?

/*<![CDATA[*/ (function () { var scriptURL = 'https://sdks.shopifycdn.com/buy-button/latest/buy-button-storefront.min.js'; if (window.ShopifyBuy) { if (window.ShopifyBuy.UI) { ShopifyBuyInit(); } else { loadScript(); } } else { loadScript(); } function loadScript() { var script = document.createElement('script'); script.async = true; script.src = scriptURL; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(script); script.onload = ShopifyBuyInit; } function ShopifyBuyInit() { var client = ShopifyBuy.buildClient({ domain: 'nori-media-group.myshopify.com', storefrontAccessToken: 'd4019987e189be3ec0cf97ea37531adb', }); ShopifyBuy.UI.onReady(client).then(function (ui) { ui.createComponent('product', { id: '7249085759672', node: document.getElementById('product-component-1673901129010'), moneyFormat: '%24%7B%7Bamount%7D%7D', options: { "product": { "styles": { "product": { "@media (min-width: 601px)": { "max-width": "100%", "margin-left": "0", "margin-bottom": "50px" }, "text-align": "left" }, "title": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-size": "26px", "color": "#000000" }, "button": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "background-color": "#ffb400", ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "border-radius": "25px", "padding-left": "26px", "padding-right": "26px" }, "price": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-size": "18px", "color": "#444444" }, "compareAt": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-size": "15.299999999999999px", "color": "#444444" }, "unitPrice": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-size": "15.299999999999999px", "color": "#444444" }, "description": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif" } }, "layout": "horizontal", "contents": { "img": false, "imgWithCarousel": true, "button": false, "buttonWithQuantity": true, "description": true }, "width": "100%", "text": { "button": "Add to cart" }, "googleFonts": [ "Roboto", "Droid Sans" ] }, "productSet": { "styles": { "products": { "@media (min-width: 601px)": { "margin-left": "-20px" } } } }, "modalProduct": { "contents": { "img": false, "imgWithCarousel": true, "button": false, "buttonWithQuantity": true }, "styles": { "product": { "@media (min-width: 601px)": { "max-width": "100%", "margin-left": "0px", "margin-bottom": "0px" } }, "button": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "background-color": "#ffb400", ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "border-radius": "25px", "padding-left": "26px", "padding-right": "26px" }, "title": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", "font-size": "26px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "price": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "18px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "compareAt": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "15.299999999999999px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "unitPrice": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "15.299999999999999px", "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "description": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif", "font-weight": "normal", "font-size": "14px", "color": "#4c4c4c" } }, "googleFonts": [ "Roboto", "Droid Sans" ] }, "option": { "styles": { "label": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif" }, "select": { "font-family": "Roboto, sans-serif" } }, "googleFonts": [ "Roboto" ] }, "cart": { "styles": { "button": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "background-color": "#ffb400", ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, "border-radius": "25px" }, "title": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "header": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "lineItems": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "subtotalText": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "subtotal": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "notice": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "currency": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "close": { "color": "#4c4c4c", ":hover": { "color": "#4c4c4c" } }, "empty": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "noteDescription": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountText": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountIcon": { "fill": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountAmount": { "color": "#4c4c4c" } }, "text": { "title": "Checkout powered by Faith & Flame" }, "googleFonts": [ "Droid Sans" ] }, "toggle": { "styles": { "toggle": { "font-family": "Droid Sans, sans-serif", "font-weight": "bold", "background-color": "#ffb400", ":hover": { "background-color": "#e6a200" }, ":focus": { "background-color": "#e6a200" } } }, "googleFonts": [ "Droid Sans" ] }, "lineItem": { "styles": { "variantTitle": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "title": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "price": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "fullPrice": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discount": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "discountIcon": { "fill": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantity": { "color": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantityIncrement": { "color": "#4c4c4c", "border-color": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantityDecrement": { "color": "#4c4c4c", "border-color": "#4c4c4c" }, "quantityInput": { "color": "#4c4c4c", "border-color": "#4c4c4c" } } } }, }); }); } })(); /*]]>*/

[saintedsorcery]

VOCES MAGICAE

I’ve noticed a trend in modern magick that “the words don’t matter, only the intention” and this has never really been something that has sat well with me. If the words in spell craft “don’t matter” then why do we have such a long history of magickal words of power, incantations, prayers, liturgy and charms? The spoken word has always been one of the most potent forms or aspects of my magickal workings.

The last few years of working within Fayerie Traditionalism and the rites within “An Carow Gwyn” and “An Cawdarn Rudh” I’ve come into contact with barbarous names. Also called “voces magicae” these are words that are seemingly meaningless words that are supposedly magickal or powerful in nature. These words were/are usually bastardised words from languages that were not Greek or Latin. Incantations containing barbarous words come to us from The Greek Magical Papyri (Papyri Graecae Magicae or PGM), a collection of spells and rituals and liturgy from Greco-Roman Egypt. The power of these words comes not from any supposed meaning but from their sound of resonance. This can make employing them difficult because the magician must know the proper pronunciation. For this reason I am very thankful to Robin Artisson for giving phonetic spellings of any barbarous names (commonly referred to as “strange words” in the Fayerie Traditionalism material) used in rites and spells.

Other types of magickal words similar to these are ones Robin has given in “The Clovenstone Workings” the words of power given in that book are channeled words taught to him by the fayerie close to him. One such word is the word of the Gateway Ring: NURTANUMO. This word is in itself as spirit as well as an incantation. Speaking it correctly and with the correct ritual actions create a liminal space within which a sorcerer may commune with helpful and “friendly” spirits(I say friendly to mean that the word helps to keep out any spirit that might mean one harm or does not resonate with the purpose of ones magickal working). Along with NURTANUMO and other words of power given in “The Clovenstone Workings” they are accompanied by sigils formed by the letters of the word.

Another form of incantation or words of power that I want to start exploring is charms. I mean by this the spoken charms found in most forms of American folk magic. These re usually rhyming couplets that are believed to contain a power all their own, in some traditions though, one must be born a “charmer” to use them with any effect. Seeing as these come from forms of folk magic, many of these charms call upon the power of God, Jesus, the saints, apostles, or the Holy Trinity. Many pagans within the U.S. are coming into witchcraft and paganism from Christianity and carry with them some level of trauma. This in turn can cause hang ups of one kind or another when employing any types of magick that have any Christian trappings. I personally had these issues early on in my Path. Over time I came to a realisation that helped me (the following is UPG so take it accordingly) Power is Power. I personally believe that charms and and psalms that have a history of magickal use contain their own power that has been generated through belief. Generations of people spoke these words and believed in the power of them and so they have that power. Along that line of thinking is my belief that when I speak a charm it is not just me, but every person before me who spoke it for the same purpose. I am chanting and charming with the Ancestors and they bolster no only my Power but the Power of the charm. You can find collections of charms like this in the braucherei text “The Long Lost Friend”. Another source though not American is the “Carmina Gadelica” a collection of Scottish charms, hymns, prayers and lore. Gemma Gary as also written the “Charmer’s Psalter” a collection of psalms and biblical scripture used in English folk magic. (I do plan on getting my hands on all three of these eventually)

One last note on rhyming charms. I’ve seen a an explanation for rhyming couplets being used in magick as a way to enter into light trances to work magick. You write or find a charm that aligns with your purpose, and chanting it helps to “set your intention’ as you slip into trance. As far as I can tell this is a relatively modern explanation for their Power, it is however no less of an effective method. I have used this technique to help me enter trance, more specifically the level of trance I want when using glossolalia; speaking in tongues (another potent and powerful form of spoken word magick).

Looking back at the idea of belief giving words power. This idea is why I think it is possible to use incantations from media and pop culture in actual spell work. There are cases where a tv show or book will take a pre-existing spell or incantation and reword it slightly to fit the show or scene. In this case the ritual action accompanied by the spoken spell can have great effect. In other cases if you know how the spell operates within the fictional universe, this can signal your own spirit and those spirits you work with what you want to achieve. One personal experience I have with this is using the lost and found spell from Charmed. Anytime I employ this spell I fix an image of the object in my mind, breathe deeply, recite the spell three times, and then set the spell with a sharp clap and a “so mote it be”. In this way I’m not simply reciting the spell and expecting things to appear as happens in the show. I use the incantation in conjunction with real world magickal techniques and have always gotten positive results. Once I do this spell and continue searching I will often find the lost object within an hour, sometimes a day at most.

Regardless of your views on words in magick I think it does our history and Ancestors a disservice to simply dismiss them as an arbitrary or useless aspect of magickal practice.

[gliklofhameln]

The key to the story of the first humans lies in a sequence of three sentences at the end, whose juxtaposition seems to make no sense at all. They begin with Adam’s curse for having eaten the forbidden fruit:

‘By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.’

The man named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

(Genesis 3:19-21)

What is the connection between mortality (’to dust you will return’) and the man giving a new name to his wife? And what is the connection between that and God making the couple garments of skin, as if he were giving them a gift as they left the garden?

To understand the passage we have first to realise that it is not a myth but a philosophical parable about language and relationships, the difference between species and individuals, nouns and names, and about what lifts the relationship between husband and wife from the biological to the anthropological, from animal reproduction to human relationship and love.

The story of the first humans in Genesis 2 begins with God giving Adam the ability to use language to classify things. He names the animal: ‘Whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.’ He sorts and labels them as species. But human beings do not function at the level of species. They are conscious of themselves as unique individuals. They are not merely alone, a physical state. They can also feel lonely, a psychological state. So, ‘for the man no suitable helper was found’. He is not alone, but he is lonely. Animals form species; humans are individuals.

God then creates a partner for man. But if we listen carefully to the poem he speaks on seeing her for the first time, we note something odd: ‘She shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ He names the woman as he named the animals. He uses a generic noun. She is ‘woman’, not a person but a type. She is ‘taken out of man’, ‘helper to man’, but not an individual with her own fears and feelings. Adam does not understand her otherness. She is, for him, merely his mirror image: ‘bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh’.

Eve rebels against this by striking out on her own. The conversation she has with the serpent is the first conversation she has. Adam has spoken about her but not to her. She eats the forbidden fruit. She gives some to her husband, who also eats. She has become the prime mover in the relationship, but still they have not spoken.

Then comes the discovery of their sin. God confronts them both. Each responds by denying responsibility. Adam blames the woman. The woman blames the serpent. Still they are talking about self and other as if they are not free and choosing individuals, but mere things caught up in the forces that operate on things.

Then Adam suddenly hears that he is mortal. Dust he is, and to dust he will return. Suddenly Adam understands the difference between individual and species. Species live on; individuals die. There was a world before we were born, there will be a world after we die, but we will not be here to see it. In the knowledge of our mortality we discover our individuality.

But if Adam is an individual, so is the woman. And God has said to the woman, ‘With pain you will birth to children.’ Within the curse is a blessing. Humans may be mortal, but something of them survives their death, namely children. But children are born only when man and woman are joined in a bond of love. That is when Adam gives his wife the name Chavah, Eve, meaning ‘mother of all life’. The point is not which name, but the fact that it is a name, not a noun. Species have nouns, individuals have names. The woman is now, for the man, not ‘woman’, but Eve. Adam has discovered personhood, uniqueness, individuality, and thus the difference between biology and anthropology. Animals form species, humans are individuals. Animals mate, humans relate. Animals reproduce, humans beget. Animals have sex, humans have love.

The rabbis said that Adam became the first penitent and was forgiven. God then shows kindness to the couple by making them garments of skin. The rabbis said that they were made of snakeskin, as if to say: The very thing that led you to sin (the serpent) will now protect you. Your physicality, which first caused you embarrassment, can be made holy when transmuted into love and sanctified by a bond of trust. Far from ending on a note of condemnation, it ends on a note of divine grace.

The story teaches us about language and love, and about the difference between biological reproduction — a property of the species — and the human family, which is always made up of individuals who are more and other than their similarities. Even clothing, which God endorses with his gift, signals that we are not naked and transparent to one another. There is a part of each of us that always remain hidden. In Hebrew the word chavah, Eve, also has the meaning of ‘hidden’.

There are two subtle hints in the narrative that this is what the story is about. The first, often confused in translation, is that the text speaks throughout of ha-adam, ‘the man’, not adam, ‘Adam’, which is, like Eve, a proper name. ‘The man’ becomes Adam only when ‘the woman’ becomes Eve.

The second is that the name of God changes too. In Genesis I, God is called Elohim, a noun meaning roughly ‘the totality of forces operative in the universe’. In Genesis 2 — 3, he is called Hashem-Elokim, and in Genesis 4, immediately after the Adam-Eve story, he is called Hashem alone. Hashem is God’s proper name, just as Adam is Adam’s and Eve, Eve’s. Our experience of God mirrors our experience of other people. When we relate to other people as persons, we relate to God as a person. Or, to put it differently, God as Hashem is the transcendental reality of interpersonal relations. We love God through loving other people. That is the only way.

The story of the forbidden fruit and the Garden of Eden is less a story about sin, guilt and punishment and more about the essential connection between mortality, individuality and personhood. In one sense it is a pre-emptive refutation of the neo-Darwinism argument that we are all just animals, selfish replicators. We are precisely not animals, not because we are biologically unique — they and we are mere dust of the earth; nor because we have immortal souls — we may, but they are wholly absent from the narrative. We are not animals because we are self-conscious, because we are aware of each other as individuals, and because we are capable of forming relationships of trust. We have culture, not just nature; anthropology, not just biology.

It is also a parable about otherness. Adam’s poem about ‘bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh’ sounds beautiful, but it leads to moral failure because it fails to acknowledge the otherness of the other. Until Eve is Eve, not merely ‘woman’, the man does not know who she is.

The biblical word da’at, ‘knowledge’, does not mean in Hebrew what it is normally taken to mean in the West, namely knowledge of facts, theories, systems and truths. It means interpersonal knowledge, intimacy, empathy. The ‘tree of knowledge’ is about this kind of knowledge. True knowledge that the other is not a mirror image of me, that he or she has wants and needs of her own that may clash with mine, is the source of all love and all pain. To know that I am known makes me want to hide: that is the couple’s first response after eating the fruit. The turning point comes when the man gives Eve a proper name. Love is born when we recognise the integrity of otherness. That is the meaning of love between people. It is the meaning of love between us and God. Only when we make space for the human other do we make space for the divine Other.

God created the world to make space for the otherness that is us.

     — Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks zt”l, in The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search for Meaning

[jaeheewillalwaysbemyfav]

so since you're gonna do the avatar!mc au with the entities you think each brother would fear the most (SO excited for that btw, my friend can attest to the fact that i've basically been rambling about tma x om nonstop since the first post you made that put the two together), i'd love to hear your thoughts on which entity each brother would *be* an avatar of, if you're cool with sharing! personally i love the ideas of specifically vast!levi and dark!belphie but i'd love to hear your takes on the concept! <3

So because of how time works, despite receiving this ask on July 12, by the time you see this it’ll be August! So the entire Avatar!MC series should be out by now, which I hope you will/have enjoy/ed. I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of Vast! Levi, which I’ve talked about before (as you know ;) ), but I will happily ramble about it again!

These aren’t gonna be short fics though bc I do Yearn to save that energy for The Longfic, which is still in the planning stages because a) I can’t pick a timeline, and b) trying to match up the timelines of Obey Me and TMA is hard, especially when I tend to have a violent disrespect for actually paying attention to the timing of plot events in both. I already fucked up a part of the plotting because I forgot the order we get pacts with the brothers lmao

Content warnings: Mentions/allusions to tma-typical Spookies, yet another installation of my Cursed Crossover idea, lengthy debates about what makes someone choose to become an avatar of fear, spoilers for Lesson 16+ of Obey Me and S5 of TMA

What Entity Do I Think The Brothers Would Serve? (Cursed TMA x Obey Me Crossover)

Lucifer

So I put him as falling victim to the Eye/Beholding bc of his whole thing about Secrets and Pride being about wanting control over your own image

And he does have a creepy tendency in canon to always know when his brothers are up to some Dumb Shit

BUT! You know what we see in Lucifer’s character that we see in a certain Entity?

A simultaneous manipulation of others and submission to being manipulated by a higher power

That’s right, I think Luci would be a Web avatar

But Winter, Lucifer wouldn’t wanna take marching orders from someone/thing else! He’s too proud for that— You’re right! He doesn’t want to. But he will.

He willingly submitted himself and his family to Diavolo for eternity to get what he wanted (saving Lilith)

And from how much we see him work, it’s safe to say that he’s a pretty damn essential part of running the Devildom

If he really wanted to, he could probably successfully pull a coup on Diavolo

But he doesn’t, because he’s trapped himself by his own honour code

Thus, the sexual tension bromance we all know and love/insist is Deeply Problematic and blacklist (depending on how much you like/hate dialuci lol)

10/10, would fill with spiders again

Mammon

I put Mammon as falling victim to the Buried for pretty obvious reasons

But admittedly picking a fear he’d serve is trickier

I had to get a bit abstract with it, but I think the Hunt might suit him

Not necessarily the primal *cough* and police brutality *cough* parts of the Hunt tho

More like how Basira was considered an avatar of the Hunt in the fearpocalypse because of her mission/promise to Daisy

See, Greed can stem from fear

Fear of losing what you have, of no longer being able to support yourself, of being preyed upon by others

So people become greedy as a defense mechanism, to protect what they have

If they’re on the offensive, they won’t be targeted

Also, if you’re constantly pursuing more more more, there’s no time to think about anything else

Like consequences, or guilt, or Feelings

If Mammon let his little tough guy act go too far for too long, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say he could start heading down the path to avatarhood

After all, people pay big money for hitmen and bounty hunters…

Leviathan

As I said last time, I can see why people would associate Levi with the Lonely first: he’s a shut in, he acts like he wants nothing to do with people/would rather be alone, and I get it

BUT! All of that actually stems from the fact that Levi has terrible self-esteem and thinks he deserves to be this gross shut in loser

While envy can make you want to bring others down to your level, so to speak, Levi tends to just shun “normies”, not actively conspire to sabotage them

He actually does crave understanding and to have people in his life, he just doesn’t know how to go about it

Boy’s got Mega Social Anxiety is what I’m saying (funny how both the Lonely and the Eye can be real bad for that, huh)

But the Vast? Nihilism? Takes all the pressure off

If everyone is a small, insignificant speck in the face of an uncaring, unfathomably large cosmos, who cares what you do? Who cares what people think of you?

Yeah, you’d be kinda weird too if you stared into the infinite abyss of the ocean and realized it was just the maw of a gargantuan sea monster too, Karen, lay off

Plus aesthetically, the great Awful Deep most people fear in the ocean is a comfort to Levi

And again, THE VAST IS MORE THAN JUST THE SKY

I WENT ON A BOAT ONCE

LIKE REAL FAR OUT, SO I COULDN’T SEE LAND FOR DAYS

IT WAS JUST ENDLESS B L U E

AND I WAS ON A CRUISE IN THE CARIBBEAN

I SAW A FRACTION OF THE OCEAN’S S U R F A C E AND IT WAS I M M E N S E

Did you know we’ve only explored like 5% or whatever of our oceans? Think about that! Every Single Thing we know about what’s in there is just the tip of the iceberg!!! GOD KNOWS WHAT’S DOWN THERE!!! PROBABLY FUCKED UP FISH IS WHAT

*ahem* anyway, fishee

Satan

Another tricky boi

I marked him down as fearing the Desolation, as a reflection of what he fears most in himself

I probably could have also gone with Slaughter, but I’d say that’s more baby/early-Satan

Desolation is also about destruction of potential, and Satan has very carefully built himself into a non-rage-monster person

So tearing that all away from him is :)))

But what would Satan give himself over to?

Ceaseless Watcher, I want that twink OBLITERATED—

Satan clings to knowledge and erudition to distance himself from the rage he was born as

“Watch and learn” is literally how he became a person

I find it deeply funny that it could also easily be how he becomes a monster once again

Also if you think the avatar of Wrath wouldn’t have a use for supernatural blackmail you’re just straight up incorrect

Couple that with Satan’s various connections and he’d be a Force to Reckon With

Asmodeus

I put him as a victim of the Corruption bc I found it extremely fitting considering the duality of his romanticized image vs the “dirty” fluid-filled nature of Lust.

Lust can be really nasty, but as licentious as Asmo’s supposed to be, he’s surprisingly coy

(now part of that comes from the fact that Obey Me isn’t strictly 18+/full-on porn, but still)

There’s a lot of Interesting Ideas to unpack there with attitudes towards sex vs sensuality and idealisation vs reality

Now as for an avatar… I debated this for a very long time, tossing around Eye, Stranger, Spiral, even Web for like one second

But I think I’ve got it

Slaughter!

Specifically the musical/random outbursts of violence side (not so much the war side)

Why? Well for one, Biblical Asmodeus is said to “"transport men into fits of madness and desire [...] with the result that they commit sin, and fall into murderous deeds (Testament of Solomon, verse 23).”

But also, Obey Me Asmo’s affair with that portrait chick from the earlier lessons started a whole ass war

Like it or not, the boy is very good at instilling manic violence in people

They don’t call it bloodlust for nothing

Beelzebub

I paired Beel with an End avatar MC bc the boy fears losing his loved ones like he lost Lilith

You could argue that Desolation would fit there too but I liked how it fit Satan better

Now as for a Vibe…

I’m tied between Flesh and Corruption tbh

Though corruption is mostly bc buge :)

So I’ll talk about the Flesh

So uh, mass consumerism, meat is meat, cannibalism… see where I’m going?

Ignoring the Hans because that was super racist, the two Flesh avatars I remember best are Jared Hopworth and The Guy Who Stuck His Arm in a Spooky Meat Grinder To Feed His Buds

I think of Jared in relation to Beel not because of the gym thing, but because his very chill/apathetic attitude towards his patron is similar to how I’d picture Beel’s approach to all this

Like “well, guess I’m here now”

I love Beel as much as everyone else, but he’s not exactly apologetic about his… habits

Not to the degree that he’d actually try and change them anyway

So if he got started on the path to Flesh avatarhood, he’d be pretty fucked

Belphegor

I put Web for him as a fear almost entirely because of the concept of Uno Reverse Card, ngl

It does technically tie into his whole thing about being trapped in the attic, since he’d denied all agency and freedom in there, but… Uno Reverse

Dark!Belphie is an interesting concept, and MAG86 “Tucked In” is iconic, but tbh I don’t really… Get the Dark

Don’t get me wrong, put me in a dark place and I will be scared, I don’t like not seeing things, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around why one would become an avatar of the Dark

It’s not a very “primary” fear imo? Like, I’m scared of the dark bc I can’t see what’s there, ie. a threat could be there and I wouldn’t know, but intellectually I know it’s just the absence of light. That’s not really spooky on its own.

I guess what I’m saying is I can attribute spookier things related to the Dark better to other Entities, so I’m not sure what its draw is specifically

According to the Entity Sexiness Survey I did a while back, there’s apparently some Catholic stuff going on with the Dark so maybe that’s why i don’t get it lmao

Anyway I’d put Belphie down for Spiral

“What lies behind a smile” indeed cowboy

Apparently it’s getting choked

Is it because MC’s entire relationship with him is originally founded on a lie?

Is it because the Spiral deals with distortions in your perception, gaslighting gatekeeping girlbossing, as well as foggy liminal mental spaces like between sleep and consciousness, death and life?

Is it because I think Belphie would absolutely delight in driving someone bananas by fucking with their dreams until it bleeds into their waking life?

Is it because being a person or consistent being at all is too much effort, consistent internal geography is hard, fuck it, just be an endless twisting series of hallways?

Yes :)

[deco-devolution]

Sexuality & Gender In Columbia 

Okay, so this is a frankly huge topic to cover, and because there is so little direct reference to any non-heterosexual/cisgender culture in the games, a lot of this will be me sharing/explaining my headcanons/worldbuilding. My ideas will be based on historical record of LGBT+ struggles at the time (1890-1915) and mostly US-centric, as Columbia seems to be fairly westernized. in addition, I will be focusing purely on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities to cut down on post size and research time. Here we go!

 Note: These all refer to Columbia (Rapture has a separate post) culture in the peak of the city’s life- a snapshot into queer Columbia circa 1910, roughly speaking. As such my talk about the culture is purely as I’d imagine it to be at that specific time only with no details as to the cultural development to that point.

cw for homophobia, transphobia, q slur

Sexuality In Columbia

If you’re not straight it’s over for you

Quips aside, just from playing the game you can tell Columbia is ruled by the most staunch of conservatism. The Edwardian Era in real-world history made heavy emphasis on modesty and a sense of duty but Columbia takes it a step beyond, and this can be seen in most every example of media or dialogue found in-game. Having such traditional Biblical leanings, it can easily argued that this also extends to sexuality.

Right off the bat, I feel like this is Heterosexual (& Cisgender) Land™. Any other sort of attraction, be it gay, bisexual, or anything else, is considered reckless experimentation at best and ungodly and deserving of punishment at worst. Aside from the religiously-motivated belief that only straight relationships are legit, there’s another reason they’re so heavily emphasized- population growth. Columbia, for all its pomp still has a relatively small population on a national scale- just from some educated guesses I’d put it around the borough to town region, as indicated on the settlement hierarchy of ekistics. While the limited space of the city means that the population can’t just continue to grow, a certain rate of births is needed to keep the population level.

Interestingly enough, even though Columbia is a hotspot of religious zealotry, the city still follows the conventions of Edwardian/Early WWI society- very proper, highly formalized in its ideals. Aside the propaganda and fearmongering, personal details are still taboo in polite conversation.

Cruising is done in places where social conventions are significantly different from formal events or even everyday conventions- namely the beach, pubs and lounges. 

In the same vein, hookups, flings, and dates are called vague things like “going out to lunch/drinks”, “going for a stroll” or “having a picnic” and same-gender partners are typically referred to as close friends. It’s all very underhanded, the result of both Edwardian discreetness and closeted language.

Gender In Columbia

Like most of Columbian society, the queer groups in Columbia tend to gather based on gender. Lesbians share space with bisexual women, and gay men stick with bisexual men. As far as trans communities go, however, the cisnormative, rigid interpretation of gender predominant in Columbia means that they tend to be misunderstood among the other queer groups. Typically not in a blatantly hostile way but rather an obnoxiously condescending “poor confused dear” way.

Gender is not so much an identifier as much as an determinator; whatever you are assigned will be the factor driving not only your upbringing but your life choices as well.

There are quite a few social clubs that operate as safe spaces for the community- they typically rotate between the members’ houses and frequently merge or splinter with or from other groups, going from book club, to knitting social to any other politely banal gathering. 

For those looking to dress how they’d like in safety, ‘costume clubs’ are popular among gender non-conforming, trans people and those interested in crossdressing. They present themselves as sort of novelty dance halls with every day being a masquerade. While technically legal, their image is strongly connected to immorality and looseness in Columbia and as such they’re rare and subject to higher levels scrutiny then other halls. 

Because of the rigidity of the culture, the LGBT+ culture in Columbia uses nonverbal queues to state their identities- for example men place certain flowers in buttonholes or alternatively pin them to their lapels to let outsiders know they’re in the community. Women can put these same blossoms in their hats, brooches and hair. These include flowers such as lavender, violets, pansies, carnations and daffodils.

There are HRT gene tonics for sale- they’re marketed under the guise of improving a woman’s femininity or man’s masculinity, they’re sold in pharmacies in the health and beauty aisles without the need for a prescription. This helps some looking to transition do so much easier, though the issue of financial barriers for those who are younger and/or living in poverty still linger. As far as options like SRS go, the procedure is entirely underground, practiced by surgeons of varying repute. While being able to do so successfully is considered a show of skill, most practitioners and citizens are morally opposed to the idea. 

Unlike Rapture, there’s not many fun or quirky terms for LGBT+ citizens. Those with same gender attraction are rudely referred to as “victims of unnatural passions” and those who ID as anything other then cisgender are accused of “falling into delusions of identity”. Among themselves though, WLW call themselves “Lady Lovers of Liberty” (as in the statue based on the Roman goddess Libertas) while MLM call themselves “Sons of Antinous” while trans citizens typically refer to themselves as “Children of Agdistis”. (Note that while Agdistis was portrayed as intersex in Roman mythology, their nonbinary existence and transformative identity made them a relatable icon for most trans people in Columbia)

Questions or comments? Let me know! Thanks for reading.

[imsorryimlate]

Specific references in Pomegranate Seeds, sorted by chapter

Title of work: Pomegranate Seeds

A reference to the myth of Persephone and Hades, where Hades is the god of the underworld who kidnaps Persephone – the daughter of Demeter, goddess of agriculture and harvest – and makes her queen of the underworld. He gives her a pomegranate to eat, and for every seed she swallows she has to spend a month with Hades in the underworld. During the months she is with Hades, she is gone from her mother, and that’s why autumn and winter exist (since Demeter is grieving the loss of her daughter). Spring and summer are the months when she is back with Demeter, and Demeter is once again happy. The myth has lots of interpretations, but my favourite is the one where it is said to be based on the trauma of both daughter and mother as they are separated when the daughter gets married and enters a new household.

Even though Giorno’s mother didn’t treat him well, her death was most likely traumatic to him. He enters the new household of Dio (Hades) and every time they touch each other in a way that isn’t befitting father and son, one could say that Giorno swallows another pomegranate seed, and it binds him to the underworld. In this case, the underworld would both represent the criminal world, but also the trap of their incestuous relationship that he then cannot leave, should he want to.

No specific references in chapters 1 & 2.

Chapter 3:

Demetra – Giorno’s mother doesn’t have a name in canon, so I made one up. Demetra is the Italian version of Demeter, which is the name of the Greek goddess of agriculture and harvest. The goddess is the mother of Persephone, and the title of this fic – Pomegranate Seeds – is a reference to the myth of Hades and Persephone.

The biblical paintings in the church – John the Baptist (martyr) was beheaded, and Judas (traitor) hung himself. The imagery around Eve, the snake and the red apple, well… depending on how you interpret the story in the Bible, this could mean that the scene doesn’t represent a fall from grace, but rather that it was God’s intention to have humanity step into the broader world.

Dio’s books – I mostly just had a look at my own bookshelf, but I purposely included Nabokov, Machiavelli, and Plato. Nabokov, of course, references his infamous novel Lolita. Machiavelli was an Italian politician and philosopher during the Renaissance, and he’s most famous for his book The Prince, where he gave rulers quite… devious advice, not shying away from unethical and corrupt means. Therefore Machiavelli and the derived term Machiavellian often denotes (political) deceit. And Plato, well, in his text The Symposium he speaks of the ancient practice of pederasty in a very positive manner, and claiming that it is the purest form of love.

Aniara – I picked the book because it’s my sister’s favourite. It is a book-length epic science fiction poem that narrates the tragedy of a large passenger spacecraft carrying a cargo of colonists escaping destruction on Earth veering off course, leaving the Solar System and entering into an existential struggle. This is the “space-travel” Giorno later reflects on while in the bath.

No specific references in chapter 4.

Chapter 5:

The next reference to Machiavelli – Giorno thinks about Machiavelli and the question if it is better to be feared or loved, which is something Machiavelli writes about in his book The Prince, where he states that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved, if they cannot be both.

No specific references in chapter 6.

Chapter 7:

Reckless – Giorno notes that Dio wants him “recklessly, passionately”. This is one of the two times the word “reckless” is used in this story; the only other time being in the first chapter when Giorno’s mother dies after her car collides with a reckless truck. Dio’s desire for Giorno is tied together with that accident, as if it’s equally dangerous.

Jewel – “Yes, Giorno would like something like that; to show Dio that he was a prized jewel, cut to fit perfectly in the curve of his palm.” This line directly references the Song of Songs 7:1 “Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand.”

Eden – “How truly unfortunate, that the most tempting fruit should be found in the middle of Eden.” The garden of Eden, in the Bible, is where life is first created by God. It can therefore also symbolise family, where life also is created. So what Dio essentially says here is “what a shame the most fuckable person is found in my family”.

Draconic tendencies – Giorno having “draconic tendencies” is a reference to his earlier thoughts about Abbacchio hoarding Bucciarati like a jealous dragon.

Chapter 8:

Buttercups – Giorno picks a bouquet of buttercups for Dio, and buttercups have traditionally been associated with childhood. It is meant to express that Giorno, no matter how mature he himself is convinced that he is, still has a childish edge to his affection. As a fun aside, the Latin name for buttercups is Ranunculus, which means “little frog”.

Leda and the Swan – the painting Dio has in his study. It is, of course, an erotic yet controversial motif in itself, but there are some references to the Greek myth it is based on. In it, Zeus disguises himself as a swan and copulates with Leda. It is not entirely clear if it is by rape or seduction. Zeus, of course, is known for his sexual escapades, his violent temper and jealousy, but here he disguises himself as a swan, which is an animal that in European culture often has symbolised love and fidelity. This story of a shady person disguising himself as someone loving, to enter a relationship where consent is dubious at best, well… I think the implications are clear. As a fun aside, the name Zeus and the name Dio are directly connected.

Uneasy lies the head – the whole quote is “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”, a saying from Shakespeare’s play Henry IV, Part 2, meaning that someone with great responsibilities won’t be able to rest properly.

The prodigal son – it’s a reference to a parable in the Bible, from Luke 15:11-32. The story goes that a son requests his inheritance early, spends it all irresponsibly, and then returns home to beg his father to let him work for him. His father, however, welcomes him home with open arms and throws a feast, which indicates that he has hopefully waiting for the son to return.

Nakedness – the scene in Giorno’s room, where he lowers his duvet to display his “nakedness”, the word choice here is important. Except for Genesis 42, all biblical occurrences of the common idiom ”to see the nakedness of” or “to uncover the nakedness of” are explicitly sexual, usually referring to incest. The Classical Hebrew word 'erwā is not “nudity” but “nakedness”, in the sense of something that is unseemly or improper to look at or expose; often used to denote forbidden sexual relations.

Chapter 9:

Wine-dark – Dio’s eyes are described as wine-dark, which is a reference to the use of “wine-dark sea” in Homer. It’s an epithet used in the Iliad and the Odyssey, of uncertain meaning. What exactly does it mean that the sea is “wine-dark”? Is it a reference to the stormy sea being unpredictable, like someone who’s drunk on wine? Or does it tell us something about how ancient Greeks perceived colours, where maybe depth and opacity levels were more important than hues?

Ambrosia – Giorno compares the taste of Dio’s seed to ambrosia, which is the food and drink of the gods in Greek mythology.

Lollipop – Giorno is sucking on a lollipop while he’s out shopping. This is a shameless reference to the most culturally recognised image of Nabokov’s Lolita, where Sue Lyon, the actress who portrayed the character Lolita in Stanley Kubrick’s film adaption of the novel, is sucking on a red lollipop while wearing heart-shaped sunglasses. It’s worth noting, however, that the character Lolita doesn’t eat a lollipop in the novel or Kubrick’s film, and the images were only used for promotion. Either way, the lollipop has nonetheless become a symbol for playful, youthful temptation.

No specific references in chapter 10.

Chapter 11:

Dio’s alarming beauty – Giorno reflects on how beautiful Dio is, that he is alarmingly beautiful. This is a reference to a quote from The Secret History by Donna Tartt: “Beauty is rarely soft or consolatory. Quite the contrary. Genuine beauty is always quite alarming.”

Chapter 12:

Kisses – there’s a lot of descriptions of kissing in the beginning of this chapter, and it is all a reference to the biblical book Song of Songs. “Honey-sweet kisses that melted his tongue” is a reference to Song of Songs 4:11 “honey and milk are under your tongue”. On a more complicated note… “those kisses, Giorno drank them from his mouth like they were life-giving water” is a reference to Song of Songs 1:2 that should be “I want to drink kisses from his mouth”, however, most translations will read “let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth”. It’s really complicated as to why I and others would translate it differently, but in general it has to do with the manuscript and the Masoretic editors’ vocalisation, which in turn has a lot to do with evaluating Classical Hebrew grammar and poetic conventions… I am going to spare you that lecture, but I still wanted to let you know that you won’t find that wording in most English translations of the Bible.

The garden, Eden, and juvenile sex – this all ties together. The garden of Eden is, in the Bible, where life is created and before “the fall of man”, it is a place of peace and innocence. Now, it might seem strange to refer to innocence in a story like this, but there still is a certain kind of innocence to their relationship, especially on Giorno’s end. They are described as “easy and unafraid, in full view of God”, which again is a reference to the biblical creation story; after “the fall of man”, when Adam and Eve have sinned, they are suddenly afraid of God and tries to hide from him, and for the first time shield their nudity, since they have now lost that innocence. So, Dio and Giorno being unafraid in full view of God is another reference to them being fairly innocent. At least that’s how Giorno conceptualises it.

Satyriasis – a word for excessive sexual desire, and an outdated term for hypersexuality. The word was developed in relation to the satyrs of Greek mythology, who were lustful woodland gods.

Nipple play – Giorno sucking on Dio’s tits, well… quite obvious reference, but if you missed it; it’s a reference to breastfeeding and nourishment.

Sunlight – in Stardust Crusaders, Dio tells Polnareff that he too has pain in his life because he can never see the sunlight, since he is a vampire. In this story, Dio isn’t a vampire, but I still wanted to include this pain. Dio’s love for the sunshine, and the depravation of it in his childhood, is my attempt to reconceptualise it.

Chapter 13:

Ice cream – elder flower sorbet has a tendency to taste like laundry detergent if you’re not careful, so Mista definitely picked the wrong flavour that time.

Know thy enemy – “know thy enemy” is a famous quote from The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

Chapter 14:

Paradise burning – more Eden references, they never truly stop.

Loins – in Classical Hebrew, one specifically emphasises that a child has sprung from someone’s loins to indicate that it is a biological child rather than an adopted one.

Deadly sins – Giorno notes that one of the seven deadly sins, sloth (that is, excessive laziness and indifference), doesn’t come as naturally to him as others would (such as lust or pride).

Know thy self – another reference to the famous quote of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.

Companion – Giorno thinks about how the universe has blessed Dio with a companion that can keep up with him, which is a subtle reference to the creation myth in the Bible. There, God creates the first human, Adam. Adam attempts to find a companion amongst the other creatures, but cannot find an equal until God creates another human – incidentally, God creates another human from Adam (by his rib), which of course parallels with Giorno being created from Dio, since he is his biological child.

Clay – the dream Giorno has of Dio forming him out of clay and breathing life into him is another direct reference to the creation myth in the Bible, where God forms the first human out of clay/soil/dust from the ground and breathes life into his nostrils. Similar creation myths are found in several ancient Near Eastern religions. If you want a little more “fun” fact, the first human is named Adam, a name he gets from the Classical Hebrew word for “man” (as in human – not male), which is adam, and the word for “ground” is adamah, which ties to all together quite nicely.

Nakedness – Dio uncovers Giorno’s nakedness, and just like in chapter 8 it’s a biblical reference. Except for Genesis 42, all biblical occurrences of the common idiom ”to see the nakedness of” or “to uncover the nakedness of” are explicitly sexual, usually referring to incest. The Classical Hebrew word 'erwā is not “nudity” but “nakedness”, in the sense of something that is unseemly or improper to look at or expose; often used to denote forbidden sexual relations.

Chapter 15.

Cuddling – after having breakfast, they cuddle, and their position is described as Giorno resting his head on Dio’s left arm, and Dio draping his other arm over Giorno’s waist. This position is a reference to the biblical book the Song of Songs 2:6 “His left arm is under my head, and his right arm embraces me.”

Angel lust – Dio gets hard after Giorno chokes him, which he says is a perfectly natural reaction to being choked. Which it is! “Angel lust” or “death erection” refers to the phenomenon of men executed by hanging having an erection, because of the increased downward blood flow. After observing this, doctors in the 17th century started prescribing choking sex to men with erectile dysfunction, and that’s partly where erotic asphyxiation comes from.

England – the phrase “lie back and think of England”, alternatively “close your eyes and think of England” is an old-timey reference to unwanted sex that one doesn’t enjoy – specifically used for sex within a marriage, which at least back in the day was more of an economic arrangement than a love affair. Disgustingly, it means “just lie back and endure it”.

Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh – this is another reference to the creation story in the Bible. The specific verse is Genesis 2:23, when God has created another human to be a worthy companion of the first one. Adam, the first human, has searched for a companion among the animals but been unsuccessful to find an equal. But when he meets the newly created Eve, the second human, he exclaims “At last! This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (since she was created from his rib). That “at last!” is very sweet – and fits in this story too! Dio has finally found a worthy companion to share his highest highs and deepest lows with.

Chapter 16.

Roses – Giorno buys a bouquet of roses for Dio. This is intended as a contrast to the buttercups he picked for Dio in chapter 8, being that roses are a much more “mature” flower than buttercups, therefore showing that Giorno has matured. Also, the fact that he buys the bouquet of roses while he picked the buttercups indicate a certain loss of simplicity and naturalness in their relationship.

Fin.

[hecallsmehischild]

Recent Media Consumed

Books

War Nerd by Gary Brecher. I have a lot of conflicting feelings about this book. First off, I had to try three times to read it, because the first two times I read it, I was in an emotionally unstable period, and this is NOT a book to read in emotionally unstable periods. On the third try, I blew right through it. Second thing is about the way it’s written. On the one hand, I wish all history texts were written with HALF the color and vigor and humor of this writer, because I would have retained way more information. On the other hand, it was incredibly difficult for me to come to terms with this style of angry, bitter humor combined with a worldview I can’t really understand. Which, I suppose, leads into some of my major take-aways from this book: human nature is not basically good (I already believed that, but this is a pretty good secular argument for it), human nature seems to crave war and peace is the exception, and there literally are people in the world who I will never understand no matter how hard I try because they want things that are antithetical to absolutely everything I deem important. I don’t mean minor things or even the things we all know come into conflict, like religion. I’m talking about things like peace. If you look at what peoples’ actions tell you over their words, it seems like some people (individuals AND nation groups) genuinely thrive on death and war, and that that was in fact the state of things for far longer than attempts at peace. It’s a difficult book on all fronts (except readability, it’s quite readable and certainly more enjoyable than most history texts as I’ve said), but it makes you think. I also can’t speak for how accurate this book is, but it is written by someone who clearly has a hyperfixation, so...

Inside The Robe by Katherine Mader. Judge Mader, a criminal court judge in LA County, kept a court diary throughout 2016. This book is the result of that diary, and is her attempt at giving an “insider’s view” on being a criminal court judge. She is a colorful writer with very clear descriptions and a distinctive voice. This book was a pleasure to read and gave me a better understanding of the incentives and constraints on judges through her daily vignettes.

Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. I read this in the wake of my second reading of Basic Economics and thought this would be a good follow-up read. There’s a lot of overlap here, but this book delves more in-depth into some concepts that Sowell had to give less attention to in Basic Economics for the sake of providing a broader overview. As usual, there are some concepts that get a little too abstract for me to hang onto very well, but the majority of his work is very understandable and makes sense to me. I am grateful for the clarity with which he writes.

A Man of Letters by Thomas Sowell. This is actually a good accompaniment to his memoir, A Personal Odyssey. He collects several letters he wrote (and a few select ones addressed to him) to sketch his reactions to various events in his life. He has quite the dry wit. It was a treat to get a further glimpse into his life.

Books I had to drop and why

Battles of the Bible by Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon. Sometimes I have to admit I made a mistake and not keep trying to force myself to spend time on a book I’m not enjoying. I thought perhaps this book would help me understand some context of the Biblical stories more, but really what this is is comprehensive step-by-step war strategy (complete with diagrams and TERRAIN MAPS) of each battle in the Old Testament. And… that’s not what I’m looking for.

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. I’m kind of sad about this one. Thomas Sowell has referenced Hayek reverently and I was told The Road to Serfdom would be a good read for me. Unfortunately what I’m coming to understand is that it’s very difficult for me to grasp ideas when talked about ONLY in the abstract. This is why Sowell is usually a much better read for me, because he tends toward giving concrete examples, so after about 3 chapters of barely getting what Hayek wanted to convey, I switched over to…

Marxism by Thomas Sowell. And I was also crestfallen here. From the fragments I gather, Marx (who Sowell studied extensively and followed wholeheartedly in his college days) broke things down almost exclusively to their most abstract concepts before building back toward concrete ideas and tended to look down on any economist who only examined things as they appeared. Prior to this I had some vague notion that maybe I could eventually read Marx and understand the root texts of socialism/communism, but according to Sowell, there’s a lot of pre-requisite reading involved in really understanding what Marx & Engels were talking about. He also criticized most interpreters of not bothering to do their homework on surrounding texts and that many have mangled some of Marx’s points. I was not able to make it past chapter two of this book because I was floundering pretty hard. It’s a little discouraging to feel the limits of my comprehension so sharply. I’m going to take a break with some fiction.

Video Games

Bendy and the Ink Machine. Want to talk about being late to the bandwagon? I mean, I got on the bandwagon when everyone was talking about it, but then I got through chapter 3 and there was a graphics reboot, so I started playing from the top and then kind of… dropped off? Never got past chapter 3. Finally, I felt like I was in a good place and could take the jump scares, so I blasted through the first three chapters in about a night. Then for the next couple days I played through the last two chapters. I have to say, chapter 4 is my favorite and has probably the most disturbing image that, while disturbing, was epic and fantastic in its own creepy way (merry-go-round-and-round, anybody?). I didn’t really understand the ending, but there were some interesting theories to be found on Youtube about what it all means. This was an enjoyable game for someone like me who can’t really handle high level horror and isn’t too adept with controls because it had simple controls and the horror was… toned down, I’d say. I played through Soma and I tried (and absolutely ditched) Amnesia, and Bendy is at about the level of horror I can deal with. Good game.

Confess My Love. Started and ditched it. I was very, very annoyed at the girl by five rejections. In the end, I rejected HER by uninstalling the game.

Movies

Wolfwalkers. *inarticulate noises* f-f-found family…. nnngh…. *gentle sobbing*

[ginnyggginny]

Francoise Gilot painted “Adam Forcing Eve to Eat An Apple” in 1946, the year she moved in with Picasso to become his young muse. In a New York Times article, Alexandra Schwartz quotes Gilot saying that this is no accident. The painting depicts a woman looking at the viewer with an apple forced into her mouth by an angry man with furrowed brows, and the Biblical title implies a sense of lost innocence and hindsight realization of her own unfortunate situation. The description of a “forced” act calls to mind descriptions of sexual assault, a nonconsensual penetration. Gilot is keenly aware of this connection, as she compares Picasso to the monstrous pirate Bluebeard, who 

… didn’t cut the heads [of his wives] completely off… he preferred to have life go on and to have all those women who shared his life at one moment or another still letting out little peeps and cries of joy or pain and making a few gestures like disjointed dolls, just to prove that there was some life left in them, that it hung by a thread, and that he held the other end of the thread. (Schwartz)

Gilot clearly delineates the emotionally manipulative tactics that Picasso used, with his desire to keep all his women at arm’s length. Her description of him keeping his muses “hung by a thread” (Schwartz), which he holds in his hand, shows the way Picasso treated her and others as doll-like objects that he could use however and whenever he wanted, and that he had a sense of entitlement towards their bodies, due to a successful career and an inflated career. Even today Picasso is cited as one of the most famous artists in the world, with Guernica and Weeping Woman being some of his most well-known. It is worth noting that Francoise Gilot was a painter in her own right, and she became a muse in an effort to make connections within the art world that would improve her own career by association. She expected that working with Picasso would bring her artistic opportunities, though likely did not expect the mistreatment she received. And yet she is not famous. The tradition of the muse is named after the Greek goddesses who blessed men with inspiration, but it is most famously used referring to the women who posed for portraits, dating back to the Renaissance when classical-style realistic paintings came back into fashion. The essay “Sexual Violence: Baroque to Surrealist” by John Loughery claims that the proliferation of nearly-nude women in Renaissance painting, so ubiquitous in art museums, comes from a more sinister tradition, describing that the paintings “speak volumes about the power factor inherent in the post-Renaissance tradition of the female nude, and, with their riveting straightforward glance, they point ahead to Manet’s Olympia, Zola’s Nana, and an avalanche of prose and imagery that affirms women’s comfort with their own sexuality, or male projections about that level of comfort” (Loughery 299). This essay sees these centuries-old masterpieces not as ethereal works of art that transcend sexuality, but as works of pornography that were designed to titillate the viewer and bypass the highly religious era they came from with their classical setting. Putting aside the oil brushstrokes, Edouard Manet-- and Pablo Picasso-- are simply depicting the nude body of a young woman. While in many cases this situation may have been consensual, Loughery claims that it would be hard to put aside the inherent power dynamic. Like a high-ranking executive of a film company taking advantage of a young woman, a famous and well-connected artist would certainly hold sway over an ambitious young girl. It would be hard to ignore the age difference between the muse and the artist, the often married man and the often-underage ingenue. Also, the idea that “male projections about that level of comfort” discounts the assumption that the women involved would be comfortable with her depiction. Women are often expected to be beautiful and available, Andrea Pino-Silva argues in the essay “I Believe You, Como Eres”, with their “success determined by the boys we charmed at our quinceaneras, of the lengths we took to prepare ourselves to be wives (Pino-Silva)”. There is a clear gender division, visible in every situation from a muse sitting for a portrait to a girl in a ball gown at a quinceanera. The man is expected to have power, he is masculine, the one who asks the girl to dance, the one who moves his model into the position he wants to paint. The woman is just beautiful and must work to keep herself that way. Not only can the artist use his own power and position to take advantage of the muse, he can choose to make her appear however he wants, like a posable doll-- he can make her look like she deserves whatever attention she gets.

Nowadays, the world of artist-and-muse shows itself differently, as the prominent art forms have shifted with time. The familiar story of a man exploiting a woman for creative gain is now most often associated with the film industry, in particular with director Harvey Weinstein and his actress victims. In the case of Weinstein, this is put in a very sinister light with Salma Hayek, who wanted to star in a movie about the artist Frida Kahlo but was forced to include sexual scenes in order to appease Weinstein’s own sexual desires. The muse and the model are very similar, in age and in public perception-- being a beautiful woman paid to look good and inspire works of art. One such model/muse is Kaori, a sitter for the Japanese photographer Araki Hirohiko. During the time of the #MeToo Movement in 2018 and 2019, when millions of women came out with their stories of sexual harassment and assault, Kaori told her story to the New York Times, describing how the photographer emotionally abused her. She describes Araki as treating her “like an object (Kaori)”, when “he asked [her] to do abnormal things, and [she] did them as though they were normal. (Kaori)” Kaori described an incident in which the photographer took nude photos of her, and then published and distributed them without her permission, as described within the New York Times article . It is clear that Araki has taken advantage of his position of power, both as an elderly man in a patriarchal Japanese culture, and in his successful career as an artist allowing him to take liberties with the normal steps of asking for permission and consulting her. This is an extremely similar scenario to Salma Hayek’s experience with Harvey Weinstein, as along with his sexual harassment, Hayek endured extreme emotional abuse. Hayek states in her op-ed for the New York Times that “the range of his persuasion tactics went from sweet-talking me to that one time when, in an attack of fury, he said the terrifying words, ‘I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.’” Like Picasso pushing the apple into Gilot’s mouth, and treating her like a poseable doll rather than a real woman, Kaori and Hayek face emotional abuse from creative men. In fact, the distribution of Kaori’s images could be compared to revenge porn, in which images that have been captured with consent of the body depicted are released without permission, usually for spiteful reasons. Revenge porn is considered a Class A misdemeanor in many states and is considered a form of sexual harassment. The fact that this is such a widespread problem, to the extent where it has been banned by Ireland, shows that the idea of distributing non-consensual nude images has evolved far beyond the Victorian boudoir images of young women resting in nothing but a necklace-- the “male projections about level of comfort” that Loughery mentioned, where male pleasure in viewing a woman’s body is more important than her own comfort and consent.

Women throughout history are often disbelieved, ignored, and left to their own anger and rage. Francoise Gilot channeled her anger into her own Cubist paintings, following a tradition started by Artemisia Gentileschi among other underappreciated female artists who suffered from sexual abuse. Gentileschi is best known for the iconic painting Judith Beheading Holofernes, another example of a Biblical motif being used to convey another meaning. In this image, Judith is bent over the man’s helpless body, her sleeves rolled up over her elbows. muscles outstretched to drag the sword through his neck. Blood spurts out gorily, as Judith is attended by her maidservant. Though the woman in the painting is Judith, it is likely Gentileschi as well-- a woman who was raped by her father’s friend as a teenager, and who was subjected to a humiliating rape trial, according to John Loughery’s essay. The story of Artemisia Gentileschi’s life shows how little her life differs from that of a modern-day rape victim, although Judith was finished in 1621. The painting becomes a revenge fantasy, a way for Gentileschi to release her pent-up rage, visible catharsis as Holofernes becomes her rapist, and her maidservant holding the basket for his severed head becomes a metaphor for the women who unite over a shared enemy. Pablo Picasso and Gentileschi’s rapist were both artists who took advantage of their success and power, in addition to their position as creative men-- as art has been considered a feminine pursuit, creative men may compensate for their choice of career by acting with masculine bravado.  Rebecca Solnit writes about the patriarchy’s discomfort with women, and desire to erase feminine attributes among men. 

If emotion must be killed, this is work that can make women targets. Less decent men hunt out vulnerability, because if being a man means learning to hate vulnerability, then you hate it in yourself and in the gender that has been carrying it for you. Girl and pussy have long been key insults used against boys and men, along with gay and faggot; a man must not be a woman. (Solnit 30)

[justfinishedreading]

The Diary of Adam and Eve by Mark Twain

Spoilers (Sort of)

Before reading this book I had never read anything by Mark Twain, but I had heard that he was a great comedic writer and I was looking forward to my first experience of his writing. The Diary of Adam and Eve is his somewhat comedic and satirical version of the biblical legend, told in diary entry form, alternating between Adam and Eve. It’s important to explain that The Diary of Adam and Eve is not actually a single work of fiction; during his lifetime Mark Twain wrote seven short texts on the theme of Adam and Eve, published in different literary journals. These texts focus on different ideas within the context of the legend and do not always follow the same storyline or describe the same events in a consistent way.

The first text contains ‘Extracts from Adam’s Diary’ and ‘Eve’s Diary’, we’re first introduced to Adam (of course), he talks about the arrival of a curious and chatty creature who calls herself Eve. Adam is a solemn and territorial recluse; his diary entries are brief and mostly talk about how annoyed he is that Eve keeps hanging around him and thwarting his frequent attempts to run away. It is Eve who introduces the word “We” to Adam, before her, the possibility of the concept of a collective never occurred to him.

Eve’s diary entries are much longer and philosophical, in them she questions the existence of the creatures in the garden of Eden, their nature, and her own existence and feelings. She examines lions and tigers and tells Adam she believes their teeth look like they were designed for killing and consuming flesh, yet these animals currently eat grass and flowers. Adam tells her that animals killing each other would bring Death to the garden, which is something that has not yet happened. Eve’s observation is telling us that if animals were already “designed” this way, to inflict death, then it is with the anticipation of an event the creator already knows will happen. According to the Bible, Disease, Pain and Death were released onto the world once Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit, however if God’s world was already designed and created in preparation for such an event, was it ever Eve and Adam’s fault for disobeying an order given by a being who already knew the order would be disobeyed? With time recluse Adam warms up to Eve, although he doesn’t seem to have many redeeming qualities, one thing I will say for Adam is that I don’t recall him ever even thinking about blaming Eve for their “downfall”.

There are some amusing scenes in this first set of texts, for example Eve gives birth to Abel while Adam is away travelling, when he comes back Eve explains nothing and Adam is perplexed by the baby and keeps trying to conduct experiments on it. He is also obsessed with trying to capture another one from the wild. Twain gives both Adam and Eve a child-like wonder and amazement at the world and entertains us with stories of Eve trying to fetch stars from the night sky and wondering who stole them when day approaches.

Eve is convinced that she is some sort of experiment. The way the story of Adam and Eve is interpreted is usually that Adam was made in God’s image, God then took a rib from Adam and made Eve, therefore Adam is closer to God, and Eve is somewhat inferior because she is a copy of a copy. But if we think about what happens with anything that is created, the first creation is never the best version, usually with each new creation it is better than the last, it is improved. In this light we can view Eve not inferior to Adam but superior.

Eve tells us that she sometimes acts silly, or she conceals things from Adam in order to save him from feeling embarrassment, she realizes that he lacks some of the abilities she has and she does certain things to dumb herself down in order to not hurt his pride. This is something many women can relate to, myself included: needing to tip-toe around some men who have fragile egos and high tempers, this is one of the amazing things about this text, it was written a century ago, and by a man, and yet it is refreshingly feminist. We’re currently going through another feminist revival, and during a time when a lot of machismo and sexual harassment by celebrates is being exposed on social media, and we are losing faith in men in the public eye, it’s hopeful to read a work like The Diaries of Adam and Eve and find a male voice not blinded by ego, not threatened, but with an understanding nature.

Regarding humour, there are certain jokes that aren’t very funny, that are baffling and which I can only presume are related to some event or common joke specific to the time and place Twain was writing in. However there are other amusing scenes, for example interactions with dinosaurs are always funny, in this text and the others we see that Twain has an interest in science and the scientific method, the existence of dinosaurs is proven and Twain is not about to leave them out of Eden, so we get Eve trying to ride a brontosaurus, he “followed her like a pet mountain. Like the other animals. They all do that.” Eve, bright as she is, is also humble, she notices that several animals, particularly the dog and the elephant seem to understand her, and talk, but she does not understand them, and in this case they must be her superiors. In a later text Adam and Eve find a pterodactyl. They name him Terry.

This first section ends on a bit of a sad note, Eve theorizes why she loves Adam, that it is not a product of reasoning, she naively states that she would still love him even if he abused and beat her, words which made me very sad to read. In the end she says she is “only a girl, and the first that examined this matter, and it may turn out that in my ignorance and inexperience I have not got it right.” It is a true portrayal of First Love, of thinking that it’s noble to love someone even if they hurt you, and yet Eve has the wisdom to perceive that her understanding of this may change with time. In a later text Eve describes meeting Adam for the first times and thinking he must be some sort of reptile based on how emotionless and inactive he was.

From Adam’s analysis of their love we have simply, and touchingly, these few words written on Eve’s grave: “Wheresoever she was, there was Eden.”

The above points all relate to the first text in this collection, and it was the one I liked most, the one that gave me what I most expected. I would have loved a full novel written in this style, with themes and events expanded upon, but I can understand how it would have been financially and socially damaging for Twain to write such a book in the early 20th century American south, the novel would have ended up banned and part of book-burnings by religious groups across the country, then and now. It’s a shame, there’s are so many good ideas here, surely somewhere someone has written a novel on Adam and Eve – I should do some research on this.

Now regarding the other six texts, they all have differing tones, they were clearly written with specific different themes in mind, written as one-off literary amusements, imagine the opinions section in a newspaper, with articles bouncing off ideas contemporary to the time. I’m just going to mention a few aspects that I found interesting without really describing each individual article.

Eve writes “For we were children without nurses and without instructors. There was no one to tell us anything.” Throughout all these texts by Twain, God is absent, we hear Adam mention once or twice that he was instructed by God to not eat the fruit, but that’s it. Later when Satan appears, Adam and Eve are full of questions. In this imagining of Eden there is no dialogue between God and Adam and Eve, and before those of you who are more religious rush to protest, why should Twain not write their relationship as it currently is for so many of the Christian faith today? Sure there are some who say they speak to God, have a special relationship with him, but for the vast majority there is no clear two-way conversation going on. As Eves says, they were left alone, they discovered, HAD to discover, things by trial and error.

There’s a moment when just before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve have a discussion about what is Good, what is Evil, what is Pain, Disease and Death. Since they have experienced none of these, since they have seen none of these, they have absolutely no concept of what they could mean. How do you explain colours to someone born blind? So, whilst they were warned that eating the fruit would release a bunch of these (completely unknown) concepts, they decide to go right ahead.

Some other humour to note: Eve writes “the ability to spell correctly is a gift; that it is born in a person, and is a sign of intellectual inferiority. By parity of reasoning, its absence is a sign of great mental power.” As someone with a level of dyslexia myself, I welcome this thought. A good story from Adam is when he and Eve asked Noah what happened to all the dinosaurs? “he coloured and changed the subject.” After some persuasion he blames it on his sons for not carrying out their duties correctly, he then says that the dinosaurs and some other animals were left behind because they knew they would be needed for fossils one day… and also there were some miscalculations regarding the ark…

Amongst the jokes and the theological theories, there’s also commentary on the current state of affairs: Eve muses that the human population is too great in number and will consume the earth to devasting effects. This written by Twain a hundred years ago. Wow, what would he think if he saw us now?

There is a truly gut-wrenching and touching moment when Adam and Eve experience Death for the first time; Cain and Abel fight, Abel is hit, but none of them know what death is, they do not recognize or understand the moment he dies, instead they take him to his bed and wait, and wait, for Abel to wake up. All they comprehend is sleep, and therefore they presume that that’s what’s happening. Eve writes of spending hours by Abel’s side, covering his cold body with wool in a futile attempt to warm his body. There’s another diary entry describing her anguish as Eve begins to suspect that this might be what Death is.  

I’d like to end with a small but significant sentence, Adam writes about Eve: “She was never able to keep her composure when she came upon a relative; she would try to kiss every one of these people, black and white and all.” Apart from the fact that all other people of colour are ignored and humanity is basically divided into just white people and black people, and that nowadays the need to specify black and white people in such a sentence almost has the oppose effect and actually sounds racist, but given the time, and the fact that Mark Twain was born in the south, it is a sentence that has good intentions behind it, it is a sentence that is saying: we are all relatives of Adam and Eve, independent of colour. We are all family.

Review by Book Hamster

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

I've been struggling with the idea that God is perfect and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Between covid and racial injustice, I've been finding it harder and harder to believe that God is perfect. I know that a lot of these issues stem from human actions, but I just don't understand why God lets it happen, or why God made us this way. The worst part is, I don't know who to talk to about this. I can't bring myself to tell my mom I believe God is good but not perfect. (1/2)

I told God how I felt as soon as I felt it, even though it feels blasphemous or something. I still believe that God is ultimately good, but if we are made in God's image and are so deeply flawed, how can God be perfect? I kinda think that God is ultimately one of us, just trying their best. (2/2)

______

Hey there, anon. Thanks for reaching out; I’m happy to hear you’ve been able to tell God about your feelings and questions, and I pray They will guide you towards the answers you yearn for.

I will be honest with you and tell you that I certainly don’t have all the answers about why there is so much suffering and pain in the world if 1) God is perfect / all-powerful and  2) God is Good, loves us and longs for our flourishing. It’s something I wonder all the dang time! In fact, I even have a poem about how the first thing I’m gonna ask God is why suffering exists. 

I’ll share what I’ve been able to find on this issue of God’s role or lack thereof in suffering (often called “theodicy” by theologians) and welcome you to the journey!

_______

First things first, I recently responded to someone asking about whether it’s okay to question God by saying, yes! Indeed, asking questions of God and reconsidering what we’ve been told about God is a vital part of our faith lives and can enrich our relationship with God. 

So if you’re worried that it’s wrong of you to wonder about whether God’s perfect, that it’s blasphemy to consider it, see the ask for more on that.

_______

One other thing I’ll also say before getting into the meat of this post -- I invite you to reflect on what you mean when you talk about perfection. What does it mean to you to hear that God is or is not “perfect,” or that a human being is or is not “perfect”? 

Is it about omnipotence and/or omniscience, God’s ability to know and see and control everything? (This is the idea I’ll be focusing on most in this post.)

Is it God’s sinlessness? When you wonder whether God isn’t perfect, is that about God maybe being able to make mistakes, to mess up, to be wrong?

In biblical Greek, the word “perfect,” τέλειος, is more about completion or wholeness. When the New Testament speaks of God being “perfect,” therefore, it’s about how God is complete, not broken up, not lacking any part of their “essence,” of what makes God God. How does this idea of perfection play into your idea of God as perfect or imperfect? Must God be all-powerful in order to be whole or complete? 

And what are the consequences of God not being perfect? Of God being less than whole, or of God being capable of messing up, or of God not having full control over creation? How does that impact us as beings created in this God’s image, and as worshippers of this God? All stuff I invite you to reflect on over time! But let me get back to the point of this post before I go too far down this rabbit hole! 

_______ 

Time to share lots of posts with you that talk about this theodicy issue, this issue of God’s place in suffering:

This post offers a quick introduction to the issues at play in the question of theodicy -- including whether it’s possible to conclude that God is not as omnipresent or omniscient as we are told!

So, as you see, you are not by any means the first person to wonder whether God is “perfect” or omnipotent. 

This post goes into more detail about the idea of a self-limiting God. 

The asker to whom I respond is curious about how God’s omnipotence relates to human free will. I list out options for what we can believe about God based on the suffering we see around us -- that God isn’t actually all powerful; that God doesn’t actually care as much about us as we thought; or that God imposes limits on Her own power. 

Is [X bad thing happening] God’s will? -- more on God limiting Their own power because of how deeply They respect our free will. 

In this post, I describe my understanding of suffering as often being a result of God’s respect of our free will. I say that God grants humanity a whole heap of freedom. While yes, God has the power to control how every little thing turns out, we may reason that God does not exercise that power, does not choose to work as a puppetmaster over us, since that would mean that even acts of suffering are willed and caused by God. Free will gives us a hand in how events turn out.

This concept may be one you want to explore as you wonder why God made us as Xe did -- free beings who often misuse that freedom to harm ourselves or others, to exploit Creation, and so on. 

Is suffering a sign of us losing God’s favor? Does God ever turn Their back on us? 

To sum up that post, I argue that much of the suffering of the world is human-caused and systemic; to look at an issue and claim it means God is punishing us or turning God’s back on us denies our role in the suffering or the experiences of those who suffer for wrongs not their own. God is with us, God longs for justice and our freedom and prosperity, but we are the instruments that can work to end suffering both on individual and systemic levels. 

I think this speaks to your idea of God ultimately just being one of us and trying their best -- while that is not my own understanding of God, you and I share the idea that God is right here with us and struggling alongside us. 

A couple other posts of interest:

This quote talks about how God’s power doesn’t have to look like imperialist ideas of power -- if God is omnipotent, does that have to be about total control?

In this post I talk about how one reason many people, including many of the biblical authors, interpret suffering as a punishment from God or otherwise directly caused by God is that it helps them feel a sense of control over a situation that they are otherwise helpless to stop. There are other quotes about God’s self-limiting and co-suffering. 

A reflection on God’s place in grief

“Suffering is one of the places where God is most intimately present”

________

Hopefully exploring some of these linked resources will be useful to you as you continue to bring your questions to God! 

The last thing I’ll suggest to you since you are intrigued by the idea of a God who is ultimately one of us and just trying their best is to explore the humanity of Jesus, who is God incarnate as one of us. I’ve got a tag on #the human Jesus that can be a good place for you to start exploring! And you might enjoy how the Gospel of Mark really emphasizes Jesus’ humanity (as opposed to really honing in on his divinity). 

Feel free to come to me with more questions as you journey; it’s important for all of us to be able to share our questions not only with God but to be able to share them with one another. There is so much we can learn from each other.