#twhf

[tomato-bird-art]

Why must holy spaces always be dark spaces?

(I reread Til We Have Faces and it is up there as one of my favorite books still…)

[littleitaly94]

Realizing how self-centered my love and care for others is... I'll sacrifice my time and energy for my husband and my kids but the whole time I'm keeping a tally of all the nice things I've done and how much they should be grateful to me, and the moment they do something to offend me, the scoreboard comes out in my head and I tell myself what an injustice is being done to me. I wallow in self-pity and hold a grudge, and that's all the things love shouldn't be.

"Love does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrong-doing."

-1 Corinthians 13:5

A reminder for myself.

"To say that I was Ungit meant that I was as ugly in soul as she; greedy, blood-gorged." -Till We Have Faces, CS Lewis

"If there's anything that would immediately cool my 'active' love for mankind, that one thing is ingratitude. In short, I work for pay and demand my pay at once, that is, praise and a return of love for my love. Otherwise I'm unable to love anyone!" -Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky

Thank God for his mercy and grace, which he wants to extend to me and is only waiting for my to realize how desperately I need it.

"I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?" -TWHF, Lewis

"Avoid contempt, both of others and of yourself: what seems bad to you in yourself is purified by the very fact that you have noticed it in yourself." -BK, Dostoevsky

Lord help me to love without seeking validation for what I've done.

Help me not so much to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, and to be loved as to love. For it is in giving we receive, it is pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born into eternal life. Amen.

[bitterbareface]

I’m also reminded of one of my favorite concepts from C.S. Lewis. In Till We Have Faces, he says: 

“Holy places are dark places. It is life and strength, not knowledge and words, that we get in them. Holy wisdom is not clear and thin like water, but thick and dark like blood.”

Lewis had the idea that some religions, especially old ones, were thick religions, full of mysticism and spiritual experiences. Others were clear, all logic and philosophy with no emotion at all. A good religion ought to be both thick and clear. I just like when I find another piece of media that has this battle between the two, people suffering for not being able to synthesize them. 

I saw nosferatu yesterday.

I did not saw how implicit abuse was.

Now the little girls screaming about the monster under their beds makes more sense.

I saw Ellen as a woman that had been chosen by nosferatu years ago (i didn't think she was very young) to be with him therefore has this "ectasy" moments where she is shown as a woman who is extremely lustful and how shameful that is to society.

Thinking about it as i write this, my understanding (when i was watching the movie) was that this woman was being punished by using desire to ridicule her in public therefore people thought she was crazy.

When the doctor said she was chosen because she couldn't manage her animal instincts better than the rest i thought "was she like this from the beginning, as in this woman was left by god or is a "born sinner" or were her sexual needs just more intense than the ladies of her time. I also remember nosferatu saying he was in the dark but not anymore, he was just an apetite. Like is this apetite natural or diabolical? Like the snake lurking eve to eat the apple. Is it natural desire or is this desire the result of the devil taking control.

Was the virgin that was riding the horse sacrificed as well so that group of people could leave the place before the dawn came but if so, who did they stab in that coffin or what does that mean?

I'm just writing this because right now i feel like i saw that movie like any random movie and i cannot understand how i couldn't see what was really saying 😔

I want to start first with the Roma folk Thomas met at the Inn, because I love them. I think they offered the alternate path that our “heros” failed to take. They named the evil, agreed it was evil, and as one group went to destroy it together. They were a community, acting in one accord and belief. 

When we come back to our heroes, they are acting in discord, none of them believing one another, and all with different ideas of what to do. They can’t name it, they can’t agree where the evil comes from, if it is evil, if Ellen is truthful. Does evil come from outside or within? Irrelevant. The evil is here, now, and we have to name it, make it visible, and destroy it. 

I tried to do a little digging into German philosophical and religious movements at the time, but it’s far from my specialty. I did come to a concept that I think fits this movie–and Egger’s whole filmography–neatly: the buffered self: 

“Almost everyone can agree that one of the big differences between us and our ancestors of five hundred years ago is that they lived in an “enchanted” world, and we do not; at the very least, we live in a much less “enchanted” world. We might think of this as our having “lost” a number of beliefs and the practices which they made possible. But more, the enchanted world was one in which these forces could cross a porous boundary and shape our lives, psychic and physical. One of the big differences between us and them is that we live with a much firmer sense of the boundary between self and other. We are “buffered” selves. We have changed.” 

Ellen notably isn’t. She is unbuffered, she is capable of being a priestess of Isis, failing to be a properly modern rationalist. It’s not so much that the devil can take control as that the devil is there at all, and her lack of support from her community who refuses to agree the devil is real or how to deal with it only sends her deeper into the darkness, a mirror of Thomasin’ tragedy in the VVitch. But while Thomasin’s family thinks she is sinful and in the devil’s grasp when she isn’t, Ellen’s community thinks she is NOT in a devil’s grasp, that she is suffering from an un-enchanted malady that can be treated by rationalist means, until too late.

[lady-merian]

3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15-19, and 25 for the Rocky Read asks, please?

3. A concept or plot that you thought was squandered in a story

the initial concept of The Circle Trilogy is one I like. (For those who don’t know, the protagonist falls asleep in our world and wakes up in another. Every time he falls asleep he switches worlds.) One thing I don’t like is how the other world is seemingly just the future. But a very weird future. And then there’s more I don’t like about it the more it goes on. (Dreamwalker by K. M. Weiland has a similar thing going on except it literally is another world and I much prefer that, but theres something else weird about that story and it doesn’t quite scratch the itch. I want something in between, maybe.)

also

I think I have mentioned this one trilogy that was set in a fantasy world with 18th century technology (roughly, if I remember right). The Legend of the Firefish, by George Bryan Polivka involved hunting these elusive creatures called firefish (inspired by the Leviathan, I believe,) using baited explosives… or something like that. It’s been a while. The thing I hated about the trilogy was it seemed to be trying to prove pacifism was always the right thing, taking scripture out of context, and yet in the end it relied on someone else (not the preachy main character) committing the act of violence that saved the day. And it still treated that as a bad thing despite the lives that were saved. The thing I think was wasted was the setting, as well as the idea that, though ostensibly the firefish were hunted for their meat, in reality people were salvaging the skins and using them as lightweight, flexible, but incredibly tough armor. yeah, I just wanted to rant about that one again. xD

4. An underutilized setting or world

I mentioned the setting in the previous example, but while I think it was wasted on that story it wasn’t really underutilized. Hmm. I do think more could’ve been done in Dreamwalker by K. M. Weiland with this other world. I sure did hope she would finish that sequel but I don’t think she did.

6. An author you want to rescue from the story they told

Sigmund Brouwer. Sir, it’s time to move on from Magnus. Mr. Brouwer please. You’ve tried redoing it three times now and it’s not fixing anything because the first version is actually the best. Please. (He’s not redoing it *again* that I know of, but this was the only thing that came to mind.)

7. A book you wanted to or thought you would love but didn’t

The Songkeeper Chronicles by Gillian Brontë Adams. The author’s blog was one I’d found while blog-hopping through writing advice blogs (said blog is how I first found out about Dare, by Tricia Mingerink) and I liked what she had to say on writing. I was excited when I saw that the library had gotten her books… and yet I remember almost nothing about the series besides it being vaguely interesting but not enough to reread.

10. A book you finished but wasn’t worth it in the end

Kind of thinking A Time to Die, by Nadine Brandes fits the bill. The main character annoyed me in the beginning but I persevered only to find that she was just as annoying at the end.

11. A book you struggled with but was worth persevering through

I did struggle a lot with War and Peace, and yet still intend to attempt the full version. Maybe this year.

15. A book that was better the second time around

Let’s see.. there’s the Wingfeather Saga, and oh, I loved picking up on bits of foreshadowing in the City Between series the second time around. :D A lot of my favorites get better each time I read them (Narnia, and LotR in particular) but I can’t actually remember the first time I read Narnia so I can’t say when I read it the second time. I do distinctly remember the first time I read LotR, but it was also a long time ago and I don’t distinctly remember the second time I read it.

16. A book you hold a grudge against, read or unread

Outlaws of Time: The Last of the Lost Boys by N. D. Wilson for portraying Kit Carson like that. *hisses* I’ve also never quite forgiven Harry Potter for being everywhere.

17. A book that you were spoiled for

Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers had an element spoiled for me, because I mostly read The Mind of the Maker before I read Gaudy Night and she talks a bit about it in that. I think I narrowly missed getting the identity of the culprit spoiled for me because I paused that book to go ahead and just read Gaudy Night first.

18. A book where you like the adaptation or an element therein better than the book itself

By rights I ought to love Treasure Island, but really I like just about every adaptation of it that I’ve seen better than the book itself. Especially Treasure Planet.

19. A book that you don’t really like but have kept for other reasons

Sense and Sensibility, kept because it’s Jane Austen and because it’s part of a set (though I am missing two in that set, so I’m not sure why that stops me).

25. A book you feel more negatively about now than when you first read it

The Circle Trilogy by Ted Dekker. There’s a real problem with the way Jesus is portrayed there which I didn’t realize at first because I was distracted with a personal dislike of something that happened.

thanks for the ask, these are such fun questions!

[herbofgraceandpeace]

my pulse will be quickenin’ with each drop of strychnine we feed to a pigeon, it just takes a smidgeon, to poison a pigeon in the park! 🎶🎶🎶🎵🎶

[andros-paidophonoio]

My take on TSOA and Miller in general just to put it out there is that I like her writing and the way she describes a kind of idyllic, kind of proto paradisial love, it is very evocative and shows a very elegant and intimate presentation of affection in a way that I can see why ppl resonate with it. And the difference between her and some works attempting to imitate that style is....pretty stark lol. I think the stories are executed well in what they are going for, it's just that what is being executed--the approach to comfort and romance, the particular fantasy and desire being displayed is not something that suits my personal tastes or general approach to stuff at all. And this doesn't have to do necessarily even with historical or mythological "accuracy" but more how the stories themselves work for me, as works within their own universes.

(Some of my breakdown of my opinions under the cut. It's not "hate" bc I genuinely do not hate or even really dislike the works. I'm more trying to express my personal thoughts, and I'm happy when I do read things that make me have a lot of thoughts. Also I talk once again about Til We Have Faces)

I think what gets me about both books and the depiction of the ideal love vs cruel world etc is that they are stories that want to believe in the Inherent Internal Goodness of the characters despite their actions and seeks to kind of justify them morally by emphasizing their vulnerability and kindness in the society and world. Which is fine and all, but one thing that I personally find interesting is when one can be interested in and sympathize with characters but also you can see the way they hold and exercise and exploit power over others. Especially in historical settings. I get that especially for more romantic genres, there's a need for some handwaving of this so we can focus on happiness and arc of the focus characters, but it feels honest to me if they're appropriately terrible and unlikeable at times.

I get the fantasy that's kind of being presented is wanting to Be Good and Just and Beloved and have a blissful harmonious familial dynamic but that being in conflict with The Society...if I had to sum it up its very much that 2010s Tumblr "We Deserve a Soft Epilogue my Love" sentiment. Along with a desire and and love for men who are gentle and well-meaning and who have primarily *emotional* reciprocating expression... I get it ...but once again it doesn't really dig deeply into the discomfort of certain dynamics aside from the more acceptable "we must identify with the protagonist so they must be the Persecuted, and those outside are the Persecutors" aka the Homophobic/Toxic Masculinity/Rapist archetypes who are out there, Other.

Personally, after I read and was thinking about these books for a while I pulled out my copy of Til We Have Faces and revisited that. Now, I'm biased bc it's one of my favorite books, but it strikes me a lot as an interesting book to read parallel to Circe. Both retelling a classic myth from the perspective of an antagonistic figure, where a female character is regarded as ugly and abject (and a big source of the abjection coming from an abusive, powerful father) and because of that abjection, find and take comfort in other sources of power and influence. The stories are very different of course in both intention, but I felt like one thing I liked about TWHF is how it allowed its main character, Psyche's ugly stepsister Orual, to both be a rejected figure and one who suffers, but also show well, the way she also exercises privileges and power over people. She is treated terribly, rejected from being gendered as a desirable "woman" and a woman's role bc of her ugliness (while also being denigrated for being a woman), she desires love she has been denied violently, and it's not surprising that she acts in unsympathetic and judgmental ways. Throughout all this, She is also a princess, and later queen who believes she is descended from the gods, and in her society controls and sometimes takes the lives of her slaves, servants, and subjects. There is no contradiction; one can be a victim and also Lord power over others that you do not even realize. Her story and emotional journey is very interesting because it does not shy away from this complexity and discomfort, and it presents a world that is (in that novel, fictitious) but feels very ancient and alien in its practices and values.

In contrast, the worlds of Circe, Circe is not really given a chance to exercise power uncomfortably over anyone in the same way--she does do her cool Witch Behaviors but they are always Justified Actions, against once again The External Persecutors --violent rapist men, or Heartless gods. We don't need to face the discomfort of what it would mean for her to say, have attendants or servants or have a kind of hierarchy or what it means to. She basically Bootstraps herself into her power and is the Underdog the whole time.

Similarly in tsoa, we are presented with the kind and peace-loving Patroclus who is once again the Persecuted (by this time the External Homophobic Mom lol), and it goes out of its way to show his empathy with the womensuffering and the pain at The Society that causes the forbidden love to be forbidden. And maybe all this dancing around makes it easier for the average person to identify with the main characters bc whew who would want to identify with anyone who does anything BAD or in any way right???

But the thing is for me is that maybe we DONT "deserve" the Soft Epilogue, maybe, like Orual, we as people are a mix of shitty and exploitative in ways we refuse to acknowledge, even as we are tormented by our own Persecutors and traumas and lack of power in our lives and etc. but that doesn't mean u can't desire and seek happiness or be someone interesting and worth empathizing with... Idk I'm just not interested in the artistic tendency to want the character to be The Good Person, and the way we show someone is The Good Person is to show How Persecuted They Are, to be worth understanding and loving.

That's just my insta-thoughts, may expand later (I would like to write a more in depth analysis of TWHF bc I'm tired of the Very Christian analysis being the only one) but yeah. Idk in how this translates to my fanwork or whatever I'm not interested in justifying anything anyone does or "defending" or attacking faves. I'm interested in what I'm interested in, and it won't always line up with everything else. But that's ok, there's always room for different things, I'm carving out my spot of fun here like everyone else.

[thomasstaples]

Narnia, Till We Have Faces, and Joy Davidman

After reading Till We Have Faces either 4 or 5 times in about a year, and having recently read some of Joy Davidman's poetry, I really wonder what the Narnia series would have been like if it had gotten the same amount of influence from Joy Davidman that TWHF did. I mean, I look at how perfectly Orual is written, and if I am to be honest, as much as I love Lewis, I don't think he was capable of that on his own. While I would argue against people who say that Susan, Lucy, Polly, or Jill were badly written characters, I do think there is room for improvement, and I think Joy could have helped a lot.

[giffingthingsss]

Joy on the TWHF process

We're all hard at work here; the house is practically a book factory. Warnie’s deep in the life of Gramont (dashing 17th century bloke), I’m putting Mme. M. together, and Jack has started a new fantasy — for grownups. His methods of work amaze me. One night he was lamenting that he couldn't get a good idea for a book. We kicked a few ideas around till one came to life. Then we had another whiskey each and bounced it back and forth between us. The next day, without further planning, he wrote the first chapter! I read it and made some criticisms; he did it over and went on with the next. ---------- If you ever feel it would be any help, don't hesitate to consult me on any plot you're having trouble with, and we can maul it over all night by air-mail! I don’t kid myself in these matters — whatever my talents as an independent writer, my real gift is as a sort of editor-collaborator like Max Perkins, and I’m happiest when I’m doing something like that. Though I can't write one-tenth as well as Jack, I can tell him how to write more like himself. He is now about three-quarters of the way through his new book (what I’d give for that energy!) and says he finds my advice indispensable.

[thomasstaples]

One of my favorite parts of TWHF

C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces [originally published 1956]

[bellasbookclub]

have we got faces yet? ✨ʕ◉ᴥ◉ʔ

TWHF discussion starting now over on Discord!

[sallysetoncore]

i cared about the whole world bc of you... what twhf ucm

[littleitaly94]

I've finally read Till We Have Faces and it is without a doubt forever my favorite book. I can't even describe how much I loved it. And I loved it so differently than I've lived other books. I just enjoyed every moment of it and wanted to take it in slowly. I wish I could erase my memory of it and start reading it all over again. I'd do that endlessly til the day I die.

[domesticated-feral]

Make Me Write!

thanks for the tag @wolfboy88 and @rhyslahey i waited until my exams were over to post this because now, I've got the time and a list of fics that i'd like to complete asap!

I also have some art i wanna do so this is gonna be a make me write and make me draw game :>

😏 - twhf projects (randomly assortment of 3 fics and 2 art)

🤠 - stackson cowboys wip chapter 15

☀️ - any one of my cowboy/ranch AU wips

🖊️ - scackson working as bhhs PE coaches AU

🖌️ - scott & peter somatoformic thingy that was supposed to be done for scottuary back in february but... i may have forgotten about it

tag: free for all, i think everyone i know has been tagged in this recently i think 😅 but if you wanna do it, go for it AND tag me!!

[asburyparkreporter]

Foundation launched to bring together landlords and tenants

The Welcome Home Foundation (TWHF), a new non-profit, “dedicated to bringing together property stakeholders with the unhoused community to make lasting connections,” held its launch event at Boston Way Village Community Center in Asbury Park on Saturday, November 16. Ayanna Adams, founder and CEO, says the goal “is to start building relationships and educating landlords about the program.” Adams…

[milesworld96]

BAYLEY NO WHAT TWHF CUIABVJAJ

WHAT THE FUCK BAYLEY GIRL# IM ACTUALLY SOBBING THERE IS NO WAY THAT NIA JUST FUCKING WON

WHAT KIND OF BULLSHIT IS THIS AGAIN

[thomasstaples]

Another lover of TWHF?! Day is made! I don't think I can choose a favorite myth. I've gotten it down to two though, Icarus and Cupid and Psyche.

Whats your favorite myth?

This might be a boring answer if you were expecting me to say, like, a classical myth, but it's the Chronicles of Narnia. Which I think counts.

But, if you want me to be more academic about it, it would be Cupid and Psyche. But even then you can't divorce my like for Cupid and Psyche, or even East of the Sun and West of the Moon, or Beauty & the Beast, from their connection to C.S. Lewis' "Til' We Have Faces" 😂

Followers reblog with your favorite myth 🤷‍♀️