#I feel so strongly about persecutor parts | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

afatlotofchance · 11 months

Text

7 deadly sins: All about gluttony (2)

WARNING: I get quite darker with this post. Mentions of murder, rape, incest, and eating disorders await! Those who have a slob kink or a corruption kink will certainly be pleased

III) Some context and consequences, to better explain gluttony

We talked about what gluttony was in essence, we talked about the most commonly shared classification of gluttony and its implications, but there is still a lot to add to fully understand and comprehend gluttony as it was conceived and perceived for centuries and centuries. So here is a little selection of various points:

1) The sin of gluttony was a criticism of Roman society. If you do not know, before the Roman Empire became the first Christian Empire and helped spread the religion throughout Europe and Northern Africa, the Romans were the biggest persecutors of Christians, and they were perceived by the early Church as their number 1 enemy. Heck, it is thanks to the Romans that Jesus got crucified! And so, the early list of the seven deadly sins (which were eight before) was designed to actually criticize and condemn the Roman lifestyle and morals. Gluttony is the most obvious of these attacks, because the Christians were actually demonizing the Romans’ habit of lavish feast and banquets, regularly held in upper classes and as a typical social entertainment – the famous “orgies” we know today. The Romans had cultivated a true aesthetic of the excess, and this was what the original Roman orgy was about – to have the best party of all times, you need to eat a lot, and drink a lot, and have sex a lot. The Christians were especially shocked by one habit of the Romans, something that heavily influenced the “overeating” part of gluttony: the vomitorium. To keep having their orgies, the Romans invented this small room or area in mansions, where the guests of feasts and banquets, feelings too stuffed or too full, went to make themselves vomit, all so they could return to the table and keep eating with an empty stomach!

Small historical edit: I checked back and the “vomitorium” is actually a legend propagated by Christians themselves. Don’t get me wrong – Romans did purge themselves and forced themselves to vomit during their orgies and banquets so they could eat and drink more, this is historically attested. But the “vomitorium” wasn’t a room in the house dedicated to vomiting, unlike what the Christian historians said – in truth it was just an entryway of the house, metaphorically “vomiting” the guests in the main room.

2) Speaking of orgies, Christianity strongly believed that Gluttony and Lust were two deadly sins that went together hand in hand. For Christian thinkers, gluttony always led to lust – again the influence of the Roman orgies, that started as sickening banquets and often turned into sex parties, is felt. Christians classified both gluttony and lust into the “material” sins like greed, as opposed to spiritual ones like anger, pride or envy. But they sub-classified these two as the “sins of the flesh” since both were tied to the body. Even more, theologians and moralist had clearly noticed how these sins “seated” in parts next to each other: gluttony’s stomach and belly area being located right above the genitalia, the “underbelly”, the realm of lust. So it was thought that gluttony always led to lust – and remember when I said the Church had a thing against sauces and spices? Well they truly believed sauces and spices were one of the reasons gluttony turned into lust, since they were convinced (based on the aphrodisiac property of some spices) that sauces and spices were by nature designed to excite and inflame the sexual senses and desires.

3) Tying back into the previous topics: gluttony being related to the Roman orgies, gluttony being thought to lead to lustful and lecherous behavior, gluttony making a man into a beast walking on all fours and rolling under the table… This was being gluttony wasn’t just about food – it was also about alcohol! Drunkards were a type of gluttony sinners, and the excess of alcohol was just as condemned as the excess of food. In fact, it is quite interesting to see how gluttony “evolved” depending on which social class you wanted to mock or criticize: when you did a caricature of the glutton as a rich lord, wealthy merchant or fancy bourgeois, it was all about food (especially since the rich were accused of taking away the food of the poor and the needy below them), but when the peasant, the villager, the low-class man was accused of gluttony, it was him being a drunk – since they were too poor to have lavish feasts, and everybody knows the age-old stereotype of the lower class alcoholic.

4) Gluttony was thought to make you stupid. I talked before of the various “endings” of the “gluttony game”, ranging from bestial behavior to lustfulness. But one recurring belief was that gluttony actually destroyed or remove a person’s intelligence, and made them idiots. Saint Thomas of Aquinas (him again) listed the “five flaws” born out of gluttony as: witless joy, buffoonery, impurity, jabbering, and stupidity of mind. Beyond impurity, all these flaws were basically different ways to say: being a glutton will make you idiotic. Sure, eating and drinking will make you joyful and merry – but it will be the superficial joyful stupor of being full and drunk, not the true, deep, philosophical happiness of living and existing that Christianity keeps searching for. By spending your time eating and drinking, you remove time from more intellectual activities such as reading or studying. Only concerned with satisfying yourself through your body functions and through culinary pleasures, not developing any social existence or craft whatsoever, living in a superficial, temporary and instant happiness that is not true or lasting (since it stops by the next hunger pang), you slowly lose your wit, your caution, your prudence, you stop concerning yourself with higher subjects or topics, you get accustom to acting silly or stupidly due to the weight of all this food on your body and mind, or due to the drunkenness becoming your by-default state of being, and basically for the Christian theologian you become a brainless, smiling blob. A “cow-like stupor” to take back the words of a fellow kink writer. Eating too much and drinking too much makes your thoughts rusty, your movements clumsy, removes reasonable boundaries and cautions (think of the drunk who starts talking about things he shouldn’t talk or spill secrets he shouldn’t spill), and encourages a form of pure disorder – the “buffoonery”, where nobody waits for anything, nobody cares for anything, and everybody just act like drunk clowns and fools in a big sloppy feast.

A sloppy and dirty feast – because as I said, “impurity” is also there. And impurity is here to understand in the sense of “dirtying” and “soiling”. Thomas of Aquinas raises up the topic of making oneself vomit – either unconsciously, just as the result of eating or drinking too much, either purposefully, to have more room to eat afterward. For him this is the ultimate symbol of gluttony, as the glutton literally soils himself to be able to eat even more, abandoning his health and dignity in the process (as you can see, the early Church was actually an anti-bulimia militant). But more generally, it was all related to the “bestiality” of gluttony and gluttony as a “sin of the flesh” – theologians and moralists disliked gluttony because it reduced the human to a mere body, to a mere set of organ, to a digestive track. The glutton, by spending his time drinking and eating, turned himself into a poop-and-piss machine, because all this food had to come out one way or another. It reduced the man to the bodily functions of ingesting and expelling, and it multiplied all the dirty substances a body can produce: urine, feces, saliva… I hear all those who have a “slob” kink screaming in joy in the background, but yes, this was the horrible picture of gluttony for these moralists. I think the video game “Dante’s Inferno” translated this Christian vision of gluttony perfectly well, taking back the idea that this sin turned a human being into a walking digestive system to decorate the level of Hell of gluttony: their idea of the third circle of Hell was a gigantic stomach filled with gastric acid, hungry maws gnawing, tapeworms vomiting everywhere, puddles of feces and even anuses constantly expelling nauseous gazes and fiery farts…

5) While gluttony is a strong criticism of the Roman culture, its roots are to be found in the philosophies and morals of Ancient Greece, more specifically in the system of vices and virtues codified by Greek philosophers such as Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. Aristotle had a system of virtues and vices in three parts: for each domain of the human existence (honor, social conduct, shame, fear) Aristotle considered that there were two vices corresponding to the two extremes of this domain (too much or too little), and one virtue that was the just middle. He considered what Christians called lust and gluttony to be part of the same field of action: the one of “pleasure”, where the first of the two vice was an excess of pleasure – licentiousness, and pure, undiluted self-interest. A selfish debauchery where you are only concerned with your earthly pleasures, such as eating, drinking, having sex… Its twin vice being a lack of pleasure, what is often translated as “indifference” or “insensibility”, a complete rejection and ignorance of the things that physically make life enjoyable and nice. The virtue, right in the middle of the twin vices, was temperance. [And it is very interesting because, as we will see in the next part, the Church itself while fighting licentiousness was often guilty of the vice of insensibility, at least by Ancient Greek ethics). Plato also had some things to say about gluttony: more precisely he explained that eating and drinking in itself was fine. Plato held in his belief that when a man ate a good meal, and drank some wine, it made him more sociable and more thoughtful – as in, it encouraged conversation, it encouraged sharing, discussing and debating, it allowed the thought to be sharper as you lost some of your shyness or inhibitions that wouldn’t have allowed you to say the truth or interesting things… But Plato also pointed out that when a man ate too much, and drank too much, this was where everything was spoiled – when a man made himself heavy, nauseous and drunk, his speech became disorganized and incoherent, his thoughts blurry and foggy, and all he did was fall under the table and roll there like a mindless beast. A bit of food and wine sharpens the wit ; too much food and wine blunts the mind.

6) Gluttony might be the worst of all the sins! At least according to some theologians. You see, there is an Original Sin in the Christian religion, the sin that introduced evil into the world and that doomed humanity: Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. And there is a VERY big debate in the Christian religion as to what exactly is the nature of this original sin. For some it is the sin of pride (which is classified as the king and roots of all other sins), for others the original sin was rather disobedience – but there is a firm position and a large group of theologians that rather claimed the Original Sin was the sin of gluttony, since it was about eating a fruit… This interpretation did not really stick, but it exists, and so if you ever want to include gluttony as a theme in whatever fiction you want to write, you can imagine it as the original sin that doomed humanity if you wish it so, or at the first and oldest of the seven deadly sins!

In fact, there is an English legend that does depict gluttony (in its drunkenness form) as one of the worst sins of all: it is an obscure medieval legend surrounding the figure of saint John of Beverley. According to this tale, before John was a saint, when he was still a regular man, he met the devil and the devil forced him to choose between three sins he offered him: drunkenness, rape and murder. John thought he could trick the devil and so instead of becoming a rapist or a murderer, he chose to be a drunkard, thinking it would be the lesser of the sins. But he didn’t know that gluttony always led to lust and rage… He ended up in such a drunk stupor and such a drunk state that one day, when returning to his bedroom, he entered the wrong room, and found in what he thought to be his bed a woman asleep… Overtaken by lust, John forced himself upon the woman, and when another man entered the room to stop him, John killed him in a drunken rage. Only once the fumes of alcohol had dissipated did he realize he had raped his mother and killed his father… There is a less Oedipian variation of this legend, where the victim of both John’s rape and murder is actually his own sister – but the message is the same. Gluttony might look like a lesser sin, but it always leads to darker and more dire consequences.

IV) Gluttony, through religion and society

As I said above, gluttony is a very social sin – and so to fully understand it, we must understand how it impacted or was influenced by the way Christianity lived and existed, and the way medieval society organized itself. Because back in those days, religion and society made one.

1) Medieval Christian society was suffering from a massive eating disorder. This tongue-in-cheek affirmation actually reflects something very true: the way the medieval European society had organized itself, based on the religious principles of Christianity (Catholicism to be precise), created a cycle of under-eating and over-eating which, in light of the theologians’ view of gluttony, allows one to understand the particular relationship these people had towards food.

The Christian year had two big forty-days period during it, that were fasting periods, where all the Christians had to abandon meat, eggs and other rich products, limit their food intake, reduce their meals, and live a very dry and hungry life. The most famous of those two periods, because it is still practiced today, is of course Lent, which is still known as the “grim and sad part of the Christian year”, and the other is, quite surprisingly, the Advent. Today we think of the Advent calendar with its chocolates, but in older times, the Advent was just a wintery Lent. Officially, these forty-days of fasting existed to commemorate the sacrifice and suffering of Christ and affiliated characters, and to prepare the Christians for the big religious holidays that came afterward (Christmas for the Advent, the Holy Week/Easter for Lent) – but historians and sociologist know today that unofficially, these two-fasting corresponded to the most infertile and hungrier part of the year, where food was very scarce and famines were most likely to explode. So it was actually kind of a religious excuse for the lack of food due to the poor climate and bad harvests.

But in return, each of these fasting periods was cornered by celebrations of overeating, where everybody stuffed their face as much as they could – people stuffed their gut before undergoing the fasting because they knew it was their last time eating good things, and then people busted their bellies once the restrictions were over to celebrate the return to “normal”. The Church of course heavily criticized and complained about these explosions of gluttony, but they realized it was kind of needed for people to swallow the pills of Lent and Advent. As a result, we had the apparition of Mardi Gras, “Fat Tuesday”, the last day of eating meat and fat before Lent, where people guzzled down as much meat and butter and fried stuff as they could, while Easter at the end of Lent was all about a large meal with multiple course, beautiful roasts, and lots of eggs and chocolate. Similarly, the fasting of the Advent was part of why Christmas became a jolly and merry feast where people stuffed themselves as much as the animals they ate, and got severely drunk. As for the last of the “four corners”, it would be Saint Martin’s Day, a Christian feast day that fell in the days preceding the beginning of the Advent and which was known as “The Day of the Pig”, since each farm and household had a pig they had fattened up throughout the year, and on Martin’s Day it was time to kill the pig and turn him into all sorts of meats and delicatessen – a killing that was celebrated by enormous banquets and large meals of ribs, sausages, and other forms of pig meat. So, to summarize it all, the Christian medieval society kept oscillating between belly-bursting festivals and monthly strict diets, switching very brutally between gluttony and hunger.

2) Beyond these big events of the calendar, the regular Christian medieval life was very… problematic when it came to food, and encouraged some strange behaviors.

Many people think that of the three Religions of the Book, Christianity is the easiest when it comes to food, due to lacking the strict alimentary restrictions of Judaism and Islam. But it wasn’t always like that, and Christianity used to be very big on limiting and forbidding food. As you might or might not know, since Christianity demonized gluttony and made of temperance a virtue, for it the practice of fasting was a good and holy thing. Before great religious rituals or important holidays, people underwent some fasting to purify themselves. You were forbidden to eat or drink before mass, so that the ritual wouldn’t be “soiled”. Priests and monks and men of the Church limited their food intake, regularized their meals and did frequent fasting to keep their mind clear and their thoughts sharp. Fasting was also a common penance after confessing a sin – it was a way to clean one’s soul for whatever petty or venial evil you committed. This was tied to specific religious bans on certain foods – you might have heard of how up until a very recent day, Christians did not eat meat on Fridays, rather going for fish due to religious reasons. The ban of meat on Fridays was a very big thing in medieval societies, so much that there were big religious debates about what kind of animal you could and could not eat in Fridays (for example, powerful lords managed to tweak the religious rule by convincing churchmen to claim that swans were not actually true birds, and rather counted as fishes due to living in the water – so that Christians could still eat some meat on Friday). During the Renaissance, as cooking became an art and chefs were recognized as artists, a new trick developed itself: the disguising and sculpting of food. For example, some chefs cooked and reshaped fishes into the shape of a ham or a roast, so that nobles and aristocrats could still have the illusion of eating meat on Fridays.

I know, I know – all these peculiar food obsessions and picky eating are literally the kind of gluttony I described at the very beginning of my last post, the people who are obsessed with limiting their quantities and measuring their portions… It was! But in the Middle Ages it was thought to be a good and virtuous behavior, and we had to wait for our modern times for people to realize that maybe it was just as obsessive and unhealthy as the overeating gluttony. And this unhealthiness notably showed up in the Church itself…

3) You see, originally monks and priests, in the early Church, were really, REALLY hating gluttony’s guts. Being a man of the Church was basically starving yourself constantly.

The first monk who created the list of the seven deadly sins, Evagrius Ponticus, was part of a community that lived in the desert, far away from fields, farms or cities, isolating themselves in a dry and arid land purposefully to find God. This reduced them to a very poor and lacking life – and Evagrius based his original list of vices based on the flaws he noticed among his fellow desert-monks. Gluttony was then a big problem because these communities purposefully secluded themselves in a life with limited rations of food, and so whenever one monk hogged it all to himself, he condemned the others to starve.

For a very long time, the Church was so intensely decided to fight off gluttony they want to the extreme of declaring that merely enjoying food was bad! Yep, they were convinced that (just like with sex) if you felt the slightest pleasure or joy when eating, you were a sinner doomed to hell. Eating (again, just like sex) was supposed to be a body function like breathing, and thus not supposed to be enjoyed. Eating was supposed to be merely to survive, it wasn’t supposed to be a game, an entertainment or a passion. For these fanatics, the pleasure of eating was in itself a sin of gluttony, and food had to be swallowed, not tasted, eaten but not enjoyed. Saint Augustin for example (yet another big authority on the deadly sins) held this belief, that finding pleasure in food was an insult or offense to God since (in his very warped view), one should only find pleasure in God and nothing else.

This resulted in extremely strict table etiquette in monasteries – for example in some places you were ordered to chew your food a given amount of time before swallowing it to avoid yourself becoming too “fancy” when eating. In many orders you only had two meals a day, in the morning and evening, with a ban on all meat (or just the meat of four-legged animals), and an interdiction to speak during the mealtime. In order to avoid those harsh restrictions, monks found a ruse, especially those of the Saint Benedict order, that created in their monasteries a special room called the “misericord”, a room inside the religious building that was thought to represent and embody, the outside, secular, non-religious world. As a result, since the food restrictions were only supposed to be applied INSIDE the monastery, the monks could go in this room to stuff their face and eat the forbidden food, since this room was technically “outside” of the building.

Of course this rejection of food did cause a problem to all those church men and friars when they were invited to a feast or a banquet by a lord, king or nobleman, since they were forced to eat, it was the rule of hospitality – if you rejected your host’s food, you insulted him… Saint Francis of Assisi, who founded the mendicant order (begging friars) of the Franciscan, was especially concerned with this, since his entire religious model was based on depending on the charity and generosity of others, and when the others wanted to thank you with large, fatty, heavy meals, it was the road to gluttony… So he invented the solution of carrying with him a bag of ash everywhere, so that when he (or his brothers) were given a meal too rich for them, they would sprinkle the ashes on top. Like that they could eat everything… But without enjoying it! Because again, the Church has a massive obsession with just not enjoying food. This was the early times of the Church and the Middle Ages, when monks and priest were basically walking colorless skeletons… The perfect image of Lent. In fact, this was something very specific to monks: “the perpetual Lent”. Monks were forced into an eternal state of Lent, which meant they could never in their life eat things such as meat or butter.

Things changed when we reached the late Middle Ages! Things changed a LOT. On one side, the Church became more lenient towards food stuff. The eternal Lent vow was removed, so that monks and priests could eat meat and fatty products. The Pope Innocent XI asserted that no, enjoying food was NOT a sin, that it was natural to enjoy food, and that it was impossible to eat without some sort of pleasure – and that saints like Augustin might have been a bit too fanatical. Plus, if food was placed on Earth by God, and if God created our bodies so we had to eat, and if God organized things so that we would enjoy food, it doesn’t make sense – and is almost heretical – to believe enjoying food as God planned would be insulting God… Innocent clarified that it was normal to feel pleasure and joy when eating good and tasty food, and that the real sin derived from when people enjoyed food that was not good, pleasant or morally acceptable – and that similarly, meals were to be enjoyed, and only became a sin if you partake with enthusiasm in a “wrong” meal (organized for the wrong reasons, at indecent times, etc…).

Finally, the Church became filthy rich, as they became vast land-owners, turned into merchants (since monasteries were farms and craftsmen shop), seated with lords and noblemen in their castle, and imposed taxes left and right. So, less food restrictions, their boss telling them it as okay to enjoy eating, and a new wave of riches… The “fat monk” comes in. This very famous and widespread cliché of the monk as a fat drunkard was a stereotype spread by the very literature and arts of the late Middle Ages, but it was because indeed monasteries started to become embodiments of gluttony, as the monks started to feast and party on all the good food they had, and since all they did all long was sit around, pray and read, all this excess of wine and food quickly went to their waistline. It was actually part of a wider phenomenon where the Church through corruption became its own antithesis, since monasteries also started to have monks inviting women or prostitutes in, and the higher-ups of the Church being bought with money. In fact, it was this burst of gluttony, lust and greed that was part of the Reformation and the Protestants splitting from the decadent Catholic church: Luther criticized the theologians that had turned into “theologastrists”, worshippers of their own belly who wouldn’t recognize Lent even if it hit them in the face, and who celebrated masses in their kitchen.

4) Another example of how the early extremes of “sacred starvation” were VERY unhealthy, and it is a good thing they changed, is the case of a few saints, female saints, known today as the “Holy Anorexics”. Back then, these women were heralded as saints for taking asceticism to its most extreme, but today we can look back and identify all the symptoms of anorexia, that religion wrongfully glorified. You can find it under the term “Anorexia mirabilis”: it was this firm belief by young girls and women that by starving themselves they could share and honor the suffering of the Christ, and the practice of creating hunger-induced hallucinations to have visions of the “glory of God”. The most famous of those “anorexic saints” was Catherine of Siena, who rejected all forms of food to stay pure, only ate what was given to her at the Eucharist, refused to obey her superior’s orders to eat (since they saw she was getting ill and told her she was going too far), and even induced vomiting with a twig. This was the extremes the fear of gluttony could bring one to.

And this allows me to fall back on a fascinating parallel: the destruction of one’s body. This is one of the argument that the Church raised against the sin of gluttony, that one of its nasty effects was the sickening, soiling and destruction of the body, which is supposed to be a gift of God and a thing one should take care of. Nausea, digestive problems, diarrhea, gout, obesity, indigestions, heartburns, heart and liver diseases, were all condemned as the “evils” and “diseases” of gluttony by religious men and doctors alike. This was one of the warnings against gluttony: do not keep on this path, or you’ll end up in a bloated, sick and painful body. But in a paradoxical way, the destruction of the body was also the argument that served to destroy and oppose the opposite extreme the Church went to. Continuing with the topic of the “holy anorexics”, they were very divisive cases because very often they became very obviously sick, and by their stern refusal of eating they doomed themselves to die. While some glorified them as “saints”, another part of the Church rather condemned them as doing the exact same thing gluttons did with their body, ruining it and self-harming it due to an obsession with food. In fact, in the Renaissance, there was a group of theologians that created a specific sub-type of gluttony focused on phenomena such as this “holy anorexia”.

It is a lesser, not-well-known type of gluttony known as “spiritual gluttony”. It might seem very abstract for non-religious people, because its official definition is “seeking in exaggerated and obsessive ways the pleasure of God and the comforts of God, the same way gluttons seek obsessively and exaggeratedly the pleasures of food and the comforts of meals”. What does it mean? In practice it means for example – accumulating fasts and keep fasting despite your religious superior or religious authority’s orders of stopping, because it is clearly bad for your body. It can also mean, keep accumulating penances, even when you don’t need it anymore, just for the perceived pleasure of “purifying” yourself through them. It can also be translated as, for example, continuously praying and praying so much you start ignoring your actual job or your other duties; or, reading so much religious texts and studying so much religious topics you neglect your family, your friends or the human/social aspect of your life. Or growing an addiction to things such as confession, never getting enough and constantly getting confessed. This is very interesting because it shows that the Church itself, through time, ended up recognizing that gluttony could exist outside of food and drinks, under the shape of forceful and obsessive accumulations and addictions to pleasurable and comforting things. Because it is the very essence of gluttony: self-pleasure, self-comfort, but taken to such a point, such an extreme, that the pleasure becomes nauseating and the comfort harmful or wasteful.

5) More of a trivia than anything else, despite the early Church’s hatred of food and eating, the New Testament (aka the purely Christian part of the Bible) is notorious for being filled with banquets scenes and descriptions. Some people go as far as call the Gospels “the books where people eat all the time”, and Jesus himself is noted to take part in a lot of those feasts. There’s the Wedding at Cana where the Christ turns the water into wine, there’s the feast at Zaccheus’ house to which the Christ participates, and there’s of course the miracle of the multiplication of breads and fishes to feed the crowd… But, as theologians observed, in the last example, despite Jesus summoning enough food to leave an entire crowd satisfied, there are still leftovers once everyone’s hunger is satisfied, and people do not force themselves to continue eating. The crowd eats its fill, enough to not be hungry anymore, but doesn’t just devour everything gluttonously. Heck, the first temptation Satan uses against the Christ when he spends forty days in the desert (the forty days commemorated by Lent), is the temptation of food, as Satan suggests Jesus could just turn stones into bread to satisfy his hunger – showing that Jesus was a guy who could be won over by food.

Theologians did use stories and tales from the Bible to illustrate the sin of gluttony – but they usually did so by taking elements of the Ancient Testament, not the New one. The most famous “gluttony stories” of the Bible are Esau selling his birthright for a dish of lentils, Holofernes’s love for drinking being used against him by Judith, and the drunkenness of Noah which led to him humiliating himself and then cursing his own children. Given we are on a kink topic, I will also mention a fascinating secondary character of the Ancient Testament, which also embodies gluttony: king Eglon, who was a notorious glutton only living for eating, shitting, and then eating some more, and renowned as massively obese. When he was killed by a murderer who plunged his sword inside his belly, the sword was literally sucked up in the fat of the king, his murderer unable to retrieve it – but this also made the weapon of the crime disappear. And the death of the king wasn’t even noticed for some times, as his servants mistook the position and behavior of his dead body, hunched over his chair, for their king relieving himself as he so often did…

#seven deadly sins #gluttony #christianity #history of christian #christian theology #medieval society #medieval calendar #greek philosophy #biblical stories #eating disorders #vices

11 notes · View notes

what-if-i-dee-eye-do · 2 years

Text

so, a system update...

Not pictured: a part named Angry, pronouns they/them

so I guess at this point we have at least 9 parts? Angry and Valerie have said that there's more in here than Liz (the host) thinks... I suppose I should do an introduction of all of them. Only three of us have proper names bc that's what we've responded to

Angry: just the emotion of anger. the physical feelings as well, feeling long through the arms and wide through the shoulders and nostrils. Feels ageless and genderless

Goofy Sexy: a sexual part that only comes out around my current partner (but would probably come out around anyone I'm sexually comfortable enough with) feels somewhat feminine but largely in a gender nonconforming way. Highly connected to my other sexual part but feels less performative and more like I'm actually engaging with my partner instead of Giving Them What I Think They Want

Happy Child: a little, unsure what age they are but in the 8-12 range. Hilarious, goofy, weird. Will fuck right off if I notice them. Connected to the Breakdown Kid, but I don't know how yet. Just feels like it. Mostly fronts when Oliver isn't cocon so he can't Zip Them Away

Liz: host, 22, in connection with emotions but not super strongly, doesn't experience anger, highly connected to Oliver

Maggie/Mom/Mama: age ??, an introject of our mother. Persecutor. I don't like the way she talks to people but I guess she's a social alter

Oliver: used to be called Operator Mode, emotionless, ageless, genderless, just exists to have No Emotions And Complete Tasks. Will zip away an EP bc 'we don't need to deal with all that it's fine' which like dude. even our therapist said to chill out

Sexy: my biggest sexual part. Feels slightly younger than I am (maybe 19? 20?) engages in sex work, the embodiment of confidence, comes out in social situations sometimes. Does not front frequently anymore now that I'm 'in the closet' about sex work which can cause problems with our partner bc I largely don't want to engage in sex unless she's out (and unless she's out first, Goofy Sexy Will Not Front)

The Breakdown Kid: a little (8-12? 14?) that feels all the grief, loneliness, sadness, etc. of a lost childhood. Terrified of our abusers (current and non.) fronts almost exclusively for us to cry. I don't think I've cried in years unless they've been fronting. I don't have a lot of access, like if I notice them before/after they front it feels like they're hiding things from me

Valerie: 17-19 middle, mostly our late high school anxiety and sadness and starting to realize our mother is just as deeply abusive as our father, the entirety of our high school eating disorder, some kink stuff while feeling disconnected from sex, like it's more the attention she wants? Idk I don't like feeling her bc I don't like thinking abt high school

#for later me #who's fronting?#parts talk #actuallydissociated #did osdd #actuallydissociative #did community #dissociative disorder #dissociative identity disorder #otherwise specified dissociative disorder #dissociation

4 notes · View notes

incorrectnessduskwood · 3 years

Text

A/N: Alright, here it is! Part two of the story I posted here (I guess I should come up with a title for it, huh?) There a few hundred words less than the other one but I liked the way it ended and I decided to go with it. I still have ideas to keep it going so let me know if you're interested in it. Hope y'all enjoy it!

Pairing: Jake x MC

Word Count: 2.7k

Warnings: spoilers for ep. 8 (still), a little jealous!Jake, and you can see some of my own theories there but nothing much

Falling asleep was never something that came easily to Jake; the constant fear and anxiety of being found were always in his head and every little noise outside of his room would startle him awake, no matter how long he had been sleeping. Even when things were relatively safe and he knew there wasn’t anyone after him, sleeping was something Jake rarely did. He would sleep as little as humanly possible and usually only when he couldn’t bear to be awake any longer.

So it was a pleasant surprise when he quickly fell asleep by MC’s side. She had asked him to lay with her so she wouldn’t be alone because she was afraid of having more nightmares and Jake could never deny MC anything if there was the possibility of saying yes. They laid side by side, MC resting her head on his arm, her own over his waist, one leg between his, and her face mostly hidden in his chest. Jake had threaded his fingers through her hair, heard her sigh and relax against him, and she was asleep within minutes. She looked like the most gorgeous person he had ever seen and he was more than content in watching her throughout the night, to just keep her safe.

Still, Jake’s eyelids got heavy half an hour in, his hand tiring and resting on MC’s shoulder just before he finally gave in and let himself fall asleep, not wanting to fight to stay awake one more night.

When he woke up, it was to the smell of coffee and food, two things Jake wasn’t used to. His heart beat fastly as he sat up, looking around the room with wide eyes until he spotted MC sitting on the table with a mug in her hands and her tablet in front of her, and he remembered her showing up there the last night. She only raised one questioning brow, taking a sip from her mug as Jake finally breathed out, allowing himself to relax, and laid back on the bed. He heard MC chuckle and he only waved her off, closing his eyes and placing his arm over them. The bed was soft and still warm and Jake wouldn’t say no to getting some more sleep, even if he felt more rested than he had ever felt in years; he also wanted to bask in the feeling of being relaxed for a while longer.

A few minutes had passed when he felt the bed weigh down by his side and Jake felt MC’s hand in his hair, so he moved his face until her hand cupped his cheek. He took his arm off his face to look at her, smiling when he noticed the soft blush that covered her cheeks and placing one of his hands on her knees, running his fingers in random patterns.

Neither of them said anything for a while and Jake was more than content to just watch her, to memorize the soft lines of her face, the way her hair fell over her eyes, making them slightly darker but all the more beautiful. Her presence still didn’t feel real and Jake was afraid of it all being a dream—even if he wasn’t creative enough to come up with all of that—so he would take all the chances of having the reassurance that she was indeed there, he would take all the touches she deemed him worthy of having, he would enjoy all the looks she would spare him; anything that would allow him to have her as close as possible. He’d be happy to just look at her from across the room, to just know she was there with him and that she was real and safe and—

“Jake?” MC’s voice broke through his concentration and he blinked a few times to focus on her face again, finding a smirk on her lips.

“I’m sorry, MC. You were saying?”

“I just asked if you were hungry,” she answered through chuckles. “I made breakfast with some of the stuff you had in the fridge. I’d guess you’re just as hungry as I was when I woke up.”

Jake smiled, nodding before sitting up again. “Starving, actually. Do I smell coffee, too?”

“Of course you do. What do you think I am, a savage?” she pointed at the coffee pot on the table she was sitting at. “I wasn’t sure how you’d take your coffee and I didn’t try and guess it either.”

MC stood up and offered him one of her hands. Jake took it and let himself be pulled up by her, finding it all the better when she didn’t let go of his hand and walked with him to the table. She sat at the chair she was before, grabbing her mug once again. Jake poured himself some coffee on another mug and slowly sipped it as he watched MC read something on her tablet, her brows furrowing as she went along whatever text she had open. She would sometimes write something on the piece of paper she had by her side, then she would stare at it as she tapped her pen on the table, her lips moving as she reread some sentence or tried to make sense of something.

Jake realized he could stare at her all day, just watch as she did nothing out of the ordinary but still looked like the most amazing person in the whole world. That was until his stomach growled and he realized he actually needed to eat something and that he should get back to work. MC smiled at him when he raised from the table and walked to the kitchen. She had managed to put together some eggs with what seemed melted cheese and tomatoes, and Jake would be lying if he said it didn’t smell amazing. He took the whole pan and a fork with him before walking to his computer and turning it on.

There were a bunch of notifications from the group chat, mostly everyone keeping each other up to speed about how they were doing and that they were okay. MC had answered for both of them without actually saying they were together, but it seemed to be good enough for the rest of the group; she never ceased to amaze him with how well she dealt with people and how quickly and strongly she had managed to earn the trust from the group. Not that it should surprise him so much when he was also between the ones that had started to trust her so easily.

He hadn’t gotten any notifications about his persecutors nor any news about the police. Apparently, they were still investigating Hanson’s house and trying to find anything because, unsurprisingly, everything was gone by the time the police had gotten there. Good thing Jessica thought of taking pictures of everything so they could at least have some kind of proof; Jake wouldn’t be surprised if the police tried to turn it around and blame it all on the group. He opened Thomas’s videocall to try and see if anything stood out, if he could better the image of the kidnapper’s physique or face or anything that could tell them who it was behind the mask.

Sadly, there wasn’t much he could; even his extensive knowledge couldn’t magically unblurry the whole video or get rid of the mask. There were a few things he could take from the writings and pictures on the walls—not everything because it moved too fast—and he could say for sure that the kidnapper was strong and quick. Thomas had a hard time holding him when he yelled for Jessica and the kidnapper ran almost as fast as the two of them. Even if Michael had kept up with taking care of his physique and trained, he still would have a hard time keeping up with Thomas and Jessica.

Staring at the better screenshot he had managed to take from the kidnapper, he called out, “MC? Could you do me a favour?”

There was no answer and Jake turned his head to look at her. MC seemed deeply concentrated on whatever she was writing on the paper, her hand moving quickly and her head moving from the tablet to the paper and back to the tablet. He quietly stood up and made his way to her side, looking over her shoulder at the paper. Her handwriting was messy and things didn’t seem to follow an order Jake knew about, so he had no idea what she was writing. On the tablet, however, she seemed to be going through some police reports and their discoveries from the cloud. The only thing that stood out to him was the name ‘Phil Hawkins’.

Jake sighed, sitting on the chair next to her and placing a hand on top of the paper she was writing. MC pushed his hand enough so she could finish writing whatever she was writing before raising her head to face him, placing the pen on the paper.

“Everything okay, Jake?”

“I called you and you didn’t answer, thought I could take a look at what you were doing.” She dropped her eyes to the tablet and seemed to realize Jake knew she was searching for something about Phil. “What are you looking for, MC?”

“I’m trying to find out what they arrested Phil for and if we have anything that could prove his innocence.” She hesitated for a few seconds, her eyes darting down to her tablet before focusing on him again. “And I actually wanna ask a favour from you. Could you give me access to Phil’s phone?”

“Why?” Jake heaved a heavy sigh out his mouth, pulling his hand closer to him and staring at her. “Why are you so worried about him?”

She closed her eyes for a few seconds, straightening her back before looking back to him. “He trusted me enough to call me for help, Jake. Not a lawyer or his sisters, me. We still don’t know for sure what his connection to Michael is or how much they actually knew each other back then, but I believe him.” MC sighed, running a hand through her hair. “I know you don’t like him and I truly appreciate the fact that you want to protect me, but there’s a reason why you trusted me to help find Hannah.” She turned fully to him, placing a hand over his, her eyes soft and caring. “But you also have to trust my intuition. We both know it’s been right when you weren’t and I truly believe Phil is innocent concerning Hannah and Amy.”

“But you don’t know the whole truth either, MC. How can you be so sure you can trust him and that you won’t be helping a murderer get out of jail?”

MC smiled sadly, her eyes dropping to their hands. “You know, a while ago, when we first started researching about the man without a face, Richy asked me to be careful and not to turn it into a bigger thing than it was and I told him that I’m looking for facts and not monsters, and I am. I won’t get Phil out of jail by my intuition only. I need proof for the police to actually let him go and for me to be right. But I also need to look for the proof, I need to go through everything I can to make sure I’m right and for my conscience to be clean about freeing him. And if we’re going for not knowing the whole truth about something or someone,” she raised her eyes to him and Jake had never seen her look so serious before, “I also don’t know the whole truth about you but that doesn’t stop me from trusting you, does it?”

Jake didn’t have an answer to that and he couldn’t take looking at her eyes and seeing the hurt there. He knew she was right; he was, indeed, hiding things from her and, even if it was to protect her, it didn’t make it any less of a lie or an omission. How could he judge someone about hiding something when he was doing exactly the same, especially to her?

“Hey,” she placed a hand under his chin and raised his head so she could look at him. “I’m not saying it to make you feel bad. I’m sure you have your reasons to be hiding things from me, even if it’s just because of your hero complex, though it doesn’t make it any easier. But I also know everyone in the group is lying about something to me, too, just like you and Phil are. No one is one hundred percent honest all the time and I can’t force anyone to be. It just doesn’t stop me from wanting to help any of them or you. None of them have given me a bad enough reason not to try to help or to trust them. Even Lilly did her best to show she’s trustworthy. I don’t see any reason why it should be any different for Phil, especially if your only excuse is not liking him. As much of a flirt as he can be, it’s not enough for us to just let him rot in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, don’t you think?”

He sighed, nodding against her hand before turning his head to rest it on her palm, her thumb caressing his cheek. “Would you believe me if I said I’m actually feeling slightly guilty of going against proving Phil’s innocence, now?”

She chuckled, leaning in to kiss his forehead. “Have you forgotten who you’re talking to? Of course I believe you.” MC’s fingers trailed over his arm, leaving goosebumps in their trail, her eyes soft as she stared at him. “Will you give me access to Phil’s phone, then?”

“That’s not fair. You know I couldn’t deny you that, MC.”

“I know you can’t but it doesn’t mean I can’t ask nicely. Me proving Phil’s innocent isn’t about choosing between him and you, Jake. Believe me, Phil may be nice and flirty, but he’s not my type. I’d rather keep insisting on this stubborn hacker I know.”

Jake chuckled, placing his hand over MC’s and turning his head so he could kiss her palm. “If he’s as stubborn as you are, I’m sure you’ll have a hard time getting through him.”

“You have no idea.” MC smiled, tilting her head. “Will you do it?”

“Of course I will, on one condition.” She sighed and muttered something Jake couldn’t make out, though he was sure it was something sarcastic. “Promise you won’t put yourself in danger over this. Or in any more danger than you already are. Freeing Phil will never be more important than keeping you safe to me.”

“I promise. I mean, if we’re both careless, who the hell is going to make sure we’re not caught?” Jake laughed and shook his head at her. MC leaned closer to him, their foreheads touching, her other hand sliding up his arm until she placed it on his shoulder. “Jake?” He hummed, not being able to look anywhere but her eyes. “Can I kiss you?”

“Not if I kiss you first.”

But MC was faster in closing the distance between them and Jake got caught in how soft her lips felt under his and in how her hands moved to wrap around his neck and play with his hair. He moved one of his to MC’s waist and the other to her cheek, wanting to pull her as close as he physically could, wanting to share the same space with her, to keep her from moving away from him.

Sadly, his lungs didn’t seem to get the memo and they soon burned and forced him to part from her. When they broke apart, Jake panted a little, letting his forehead rest against hers and keeping his eyes closed. It took a few seconds before MC talked again, “You know, making out with me won’t rid you of hacking into Phil’s phone for me.”

Jake chuckled, opening his eyes to stare at MC, and he thought he had never felt as happy as he did at that moment.

#duskwood #duskwood everbyte #everbyte studios #jake #duskwood jake #hacker boy #mc #duskwood mc #jake x mc #duskwood jake x mc #duskwood fanfiction #duskwood ep 8

147 notes · View notes

strangertheory · 3 years

Note

Hello, I wanted to share my thoughts on the Mindflayer being an alter from the perspective from someone with an alter like that. First, I must clarify that while I have a traumagenic system, I do not have the memories of our split, though I have strong hints that they are there. Secondly, we have a somewhat collective memory, and I don't have any memories of our inner world, so I cannot help in that part. All that aside, I want to talk about the mindflayer. 1/6

You might have touched on this before, but I recall there being a discussion on the Mindflayer being kind of a 'shadow of the self'? Essentially being the parts of Will that he disowns so strongly that they manifested in one of his alters. Like, Will is a very kind, somewhat collected person, and thus any especially angry and cruel thoughts (that would naturally occur due to him being traumatized), would manifest in the Mindflayer. 2/6

But the emotions that the mindflayer feels aren't... wrong, exactly? Like, obviously the mindflayer is extremely destructive and harmful, but the feelings themselves aren't what makes it dangerous. What makes the mindflayer wrong was that those feelings of anger and rage were repressed for so long, that when the mindflayer was finally powerful enough to release them, they were strong enough to make it homicidal. 3/6

Although, it's worth mentioning that the mindflayer hasn't really hurt anyone who isn't probably an alter. It seems very self-destructive, and doesn't seem to harm those outside the system. In both my alter and the mindflayer, they're both consumed with rage, unable to feel other emotions, and extremely destructive. However, with this in mind, there is a way for the mindflayer situation to be resolved without it integrating back into Will. 4/6

The first step would be for Will to learn about his trauma memories. Not necessarily unlock them, though that would be ideal. More so he needs to know that they exist. He also needs to know he is a system, obviously. Finally, he needs to understand that the mindflayer's rage come from repression and his trauma. That those feelings of anger are not bad themselves, but that how the mindflayer expresses them are. I believe that the mindflayer, above all else, wants to be heard. 5/6

If the mindflayer knows that it is being listened to, and is not othered and demonified, there is a chance that it can almost be 'purified'? As in, it would still be angry, but that anger would be put into defending Will, not harming the system. To sum this up, the mindflayer is extremely angry and destructive, but if he's listened to and understand, there's a chance he can become the wizard again. 6/6

Hello, anon! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and insight regarding the interpretation that the Mindflayer is an alter in a dissociated system.

I share your interpretation and speculation that the Mindflayer is not "bad" at heart but a very traumatized and upset *shadow self or persecutor alter who is dealing with a lot of suffering and who might be a persecutor alter currently within the series but who can heal and change and ultimately become an ally and a protector to the other alters. This has been the perspective that both myself and other bloggers who are discussing the theory that Stranger Things is about a dissociated system have taken (like @kaypeace21, who has written a very detailed blogpost discussing her thoughts about Stranger Things and the alters and their roles.)

*You might be thinking of this thread that I reblogged a while ago which was written by @hawkinsschoolcounselor and @tsugarubecker and that is discussing the concept of a shadow self in Jungian psychology and its possible relevance to Stranger Things.

"Although, it's worth mentioning that the mindflayer hasn't really hurt anyone who isn't probably an alter. It seems very self-destructive, and doesn't seem to harm those outside the system."

Yes! This is my thought, too. This is part of why I currently believe that many moments in the series haven't happened in the external world but are rather taking place within internal worlds and taking place exclusively within the system.

I think that it makes so much sense for the "deaths" in Stranger Things to not necessarily be a physical death but rather perhaps some other experience or processing of trauma memories within the internal workings of the system that is represented metaphorically like "death" currently in the eyes of the alters.

“I felt… I felt this evil. Like it was looking at me.” / “Well. What do you think the evil wanted?" / “To kill.” / “To kill you?” / “No. Not me. Everyone else.”

I am intrigued by the way that the Mindflayer is represented like The Thing in season 3 and how Steve and Robin discuss that it is made of "melted people." Do you think that it might be possible that the Mindflayer is trying to cope with trauma by forcing alters to integrate? Or perhaps the Mindflayer subconsciously simply associates the system's fragmented nature as being something "monstrous" that has become part of its own current appearance in the system? Perhaps in the same way that El thinks of herself as a "monster" in season 1 but Mike insists that she is not a monster and that she saved him, the Mindflayer perceives of itself as a monster currently and draws inspiration from The Thing.

"If the mindflayer knows that it is being listened to, and is not othered and demonified, there is a chance that it can almost be 'purified'? As in, it would still be angry, but that anger would be put into defending Will, not harming the system. To sum this up, the mindflayer is extremely angry and destructive, but if he's listened to and understand, there's a chance he can become the wizard again."

The idea of the Mindflayer becoming a protective and good "wizard" within the system by the end of the series is so very beautiful to me. I do very much currently share kaypeace21's theory that the Mindflayer was at one point in time known as Will the Wise, or at the very least is connected to Will the Wise in some way. The Mindflayer is currently a persecutor alter but he might not always have been antagonistic, and he probably started out as a protector and can return to being a protector in the future with acceptance and communication and healing.

I speculated in an older blogpost that perhaps the Upside Down can become a much more beautiful place in the future once certain trauma is acknowledged and there is more healing and peace within the system. I think this could tie in with your idea of the Mindflayer being 'purified' or healed? Is the transformation of the Upside Down into a safer and more welcoming place something that you see as hypothetically possible if it's a location within the system?

...

Thank you so much for your messages, anon! What you shared resonates with so many of my current understandings of the story in Stranger Things and my thoughts about the Mindflayer, and your message offers so much additional insight, depth, understanding, and nuanced interpretation of the Mindflayer as an alter that I appreciate and value very much. I hope that you have a wonderful week!

#thank you for your messages anon!#long post #I should tag all of my blogposts as long post probably #stranger things theories #the did theory #stranger things meta #stranger things

68 notes · View notes

parrishh · 3 years

Text

i'm like, 90% sure all of the anons in my inbox right now are actually the same person so, if that's you, i'm just going to answer all of your mister impossible questions in this post since there are a lot of them and this is going to be really very extremely long

"Wait what why is Jordan awake?"/"Is the sweetmetal of declans picture helping jordan stay awake?"

i don't know why she's awake but i don't think it's the painting, because at the end of the book she's outside declan's apartment, not her own. i guess it's possible that she succeeded in making the painting a sweetmetal powerful enough to sustain her even there, but i feel like there's probably a different explanation. i've seen theories that she's inadvertently made herself into a sweetmetal by finally seeing herself as her own person rather than just a copy of hennessy, which is interesting

"And the things about the ley line Idgi? Hennessy wants to stop the power but for what"

i think hennessy thinks shutting down the ley line is the best (or even only) way to get rid of the lace. she hates herself for the lace to the extent that she doesn't even want to live anymore, so of course that's her primary motivation. she feels hopeless so long as the lace has power. she's desperate

"Why did he think adam was in on declans plan? I think the "oh" was more like oh you want to come with bryde of course...."

the "oh" is in response to ronan saying "i'm calling now. i need to see you", before there's even any mention of bryde. adam says "you're here? oh", not "you're here? why are you here?" the fact that he didn't ask why ronan was in town, the fact that he said an "oh" of realization instead, implied that he already knew why ronan was in town. and he could have only known by speaking to declan. i think it was a reasonable conclusion on ronan's part

"Ronan are you being serious????? Why should Adam/Declan drop everything and come fight with you - they didnt even know where you are, they don't know the plan. Then you accuse them of that Moderators plan without questioning them. And I mean, yes, Ronan is easily manipulated and he thinks everyone is against them and Bryde is the only one who cares but come on!!!!!!! Seriously, doesn't he get that he might be in the wrong????"

i mean, i think you hit the nail on the head when you said "he thinks everyone is against them." for a long time, he's been struggling with feeling alone, like he's a burden, like the people he loves don't really understand him. he's never had a healthy relationship with another dreamer, so it makes sense that he feels so isolated from literally everyone he cares about. and now he just found out two of the most important people in his life went behind his back to conspire against him (even if he doesn't have confirmation about adam, declan does admit to it over the phone) which is just...salt on a wound he's had since he was a kid. i'm not saying he's in the right, but i do understand why his immediate reaction was what it was. when you've been hurt like that, it takes some time before you can like, calm down and reconsider your own role in the situation

"Ronan basically dreamt Bryde in his worst dream right? Why does he still trust him"

i mean, i don't know how much we can believe what bryde says, but when he reveals himself as being ronan's dream he basically says that everything that he (bryde) wants, ronan already subconsciously wanted before he even dreamt him. that bryde wants it because ronan wanted it. to admit that bryde is in the wrong, ronan would have to admit he, himself, is in the wrong, too, and that's not easy. especially because a lot of his motivation is saving matthew and not wanting to live with the weight of matthew's life on his conscious anymore. especially because he's felt alone for so long, and now he just found out the first dreamer to truly make him feel less alone is his own creation. he's hurting. a lot. he will admit to being wrong in the third book, i think, but like i mentioned above, that kind of growth takes some time

"I think Ronan actually doubts Brydes plan too bc he thinks stuff like people built the dam, there are living things here, it cost a fortune..... and i personally never see a purpose in what they're doing bc bryde never tells them and ronan obviously doesn't know or he thinks he doesnt. I think he doesnt and he just trudts bryde blindly for now and his insecurities aka bryde take over and rule over ronan. Thoughts?"

i mean, i think ronan sees the purpose. here are his thoughts, directly quoted from chapter 17 when bryde is talking about restoring the ley lines:

"A world where Matthew could just live. A world where Ronan could just dream. A world where every dream was clear and crisp and easy to navigate, so there were never accidents or nightmares. He wanted it."

he wants, as i mentioned above, for matthew's life to not be reliant on his own (which i understand. that's a really heavy knowledge to live with.) he also just wants to be able to exist wherever he wants and with whomever he wants (thinking, for example, about how he wasn't able to get an apartment in boston in cdth), without constantly worrying that the nightwash is going to kill him. poor guy just wants a normal life

"Also did we ever actually see bryde get something out of a dream? Most work did Ronan"

this is interesting. now that you mention it, i don't think we do. supposedly he dreams the orbs, but i can't recall ever seeing that happen? i could be wrong, though

"And why is the nightwash mostly ronans problem? I mean hennessy and rhionna (?) had it very little and who knows if the other dreamers have it"

i think ronan is a much, much more powerful dreamer than any of the others. there's something...More about him. something special about being the greywaren. i don't know what it is, specifically, but i anticipate that's something we'll find out in the final book, and i expect it'll explain why the nightwash affects him more than it does the others

"Who the hell dreamt the mods"

i don't know! i think the most popular theory right now is that it was nathan farooq-lane. i'm not sure how that works, though, since they killed nathan and bryde took the sweetmetal off of lock pretty early in the book (unless nathan isn't actually dead, somehow) (or bryde is nathan, which is another popular theory). another theory is that it was ronan. like, he was feeling so alone and misunderstood that he accidentally dreamt his own persecutors? or it's possible that they were all just dreamt by random dreamers and that's why they felt strongly enough about the "cause" to become moderators, but that's kind of boring

"And why are R B and H so dangerous? Bc of what they're doing?"

yeah, and, i mean, according to liliana's visions, they have the power to end the world

"Can I point out that Idk what everyone is talking about, I dont get pynch possible breakup vibes at all from this book"/"Am I trippin or did I read another book? Because some fellas say there's no pynch"

i think when people say there's no pynch, they just mean that there's very minimal pynch interaction, specifically. because, yeah, even though they're both constantly thinking about each other, it is true that we only get one moment of them actually interacting (the phone call), and it's obviously not a positive interaction

i don't think anyone actually thinks they'll break up. at least, i haven't seen anyone say that and i've been feverishly reading everything under the mister impossible tag, so

"What struck me as really odd was that Adam bought this stupid 14$ waffle which he would have never done a few months back and I dont think he would do it now? 14$ is a lot of money esp for a waffle so why spend it on something as useless as this? And why do the others need Adams money? Are they all on scholarships? Was it just bc he had cash and the others didnt? And why is he treating them like his followers and they treat him as their guardian or whatever like he clearly needs to be honest with them"

okay, first off, i will say, as someone who grew up poor and, like adam, absolutely busted my ass in high school to get a good scholarship so i could go to college, the relief of actually getting that scholarship is...powerful. my financial anxiety definitely didn't disappear once that happened, but there was, at least in my experience, this feeling of "i made it, it's going to be okay now" that made it a little easier to spend money. i don't think it's that unrealistic that he, now having the security of a harvard education, would spend fourteen dollars on something he doesn't need every once in a while. it would be completely out of character for henrietta adam, yes, but it's a bit different now. plus, it wouldn't suit his faux Harvard Adam persona to refuse the waffle because of how much it costs

i think his friends are all a lot more well-off than he is. it was just that they didn't have any cash on them and the waffle truck didn't take card (also realistic, i never have cash on me so i always have to ask someone to spot me when a place turns out to be cash-only)

i think (a) they all look up to him because he has this really calm, cool and collected persona. more importantly, we can assume that they were all struggling with something when he met each of them, since they were all crying. now in swoops this guy who saw them upset and came to comfort and befriend them. of course they see him as something like a hero. and (b) i think he likes that. in high school, he was the one being rescued, not the one rescuing. i think he enjoys being the kind of person he used to wish he could be (ie. gansey. he's being gansey)

"I thought it a bit funny in a weird way that Declan talked about marrying Jordan…I can't imagine he was being too serious about it?"

no, i mean, i don't think he was literally proposing, not yet. he's just really happy for the first time in a long time (maybe ever) and, after a lifetime of pain and trauma and more responsibility than he ever signed up for, i don't blame him for wanting that feeling to last forever, even if he's not really thinking clearly

"Also I think it's amazing they make each other so happy but the ending makes me a bit sad or surprised bc shouldn't Matthew be his nr1 priority now?"

we only have jordan's perspective at the end, so when she thinks that it was clear declan had come out of his apartment looking for her, i don't think that necessarily means he wasn't also looking for matthew. i don't think it's fair to say that, in that moment, he should prioritize either matthew or jordan. he loves two dreams, so he can and should be concerned for both of them equally. i don't think one love is inherently more important than the other just because it's lasted longer or because it's family

#WHEW THIS TOOK FOREVER #thanks for the questions! sorry i don't know what i'm talking about half the time!#mister impossible #mister impossible spoilers #mi spoilers #w's mi asks #answered #anon

10 notes · View notes

hafanforever · 4 years

Photo

King Runeard, the Lying Hater

Introduction

When I saw Frozen II on its opening day of November 22, I purposely did not read any specific details about the plot because I wanted to be surprised and not come across anything that could be major spoilers (although weeks before, I did come across a brief leak of the ending, but I’ll save that for another time). I went in thinking that the film might not have a main antagonist, especially because the trope of surprise villains in Disney animated films was waning and becoming somewhat predictable. Needless to say, I was very shocked to find out that the film did indeed have a villain: King Runeard, the father of Agnarr and grandfather of Anna and Elsa!

Six years ago, when Frozen first came out, one of the things I enjoyed most about it was how Hans was set up as the main antagonist. Unlike in their past animated features, rather than subtly showing him as the villain from almost the beginning, Disney purposely and completely misled viewers into thinking Hans was the (initial) male hero, another typical heroic prince, like their previous fairy tales. His true colors were finally revealed in the third act, and until the very end, Hans had continued to fool almost all other characters with this facade. At the same time, though, there were subtle clues of his villainy during many of his earlier scenes, so his revelation did not come totally out of nowhere. Still, the concept and twist of a hidden main antagonist, one that was a prince, no less, was a part of the film that I thoroughly enjoyed because it was something so different and unexpected.

So in the years since Frozen, Disney continued a trope of surprise villains (which began with Wreck-It Ralph and was also included in Coco and Incredibles 2 from Pixar), But after a few years, figuring out the villains started to become easier and less exciting, at least it did for me. And in Ralph Breaks the Internet last year, the Arthur virus that duplicates into clones of Ralph after scanning his insecurities didn’t exactly produce the same effects of setting up and revealing a true hidden villain. This is why I wasn’t at all anticipating for there to be a villain, hidden or not, in Frozen II. So when I realized that Runeard was the villain, I was very shocked. Not like how I was when Hans’s true nature was revealed, but for a variety of other reasons (which I will explain below).

And because I had SO much fun writing analyses about Hans and his villainy (especially this one big analysis) for the first film years ago, I am excited to share with all of you my first analysis about Runeard and my thoughts and opinions on his villainy! And who knows? Perhaps I will be able to write more about him after this!

King Wrong

Like with Hans in the original film, I have read about some critics and fans’ criticism of Runeard’s villainy in the film, most especially about there being no explanation on just what made him detest magic in the first place and how it seemed that his treachery came out of nowhere. I think some fans were also upset that this villain is directly related to Elsa and Anna, the main heroes. Even though I agree about there being a lack of true motivation on Runeard’s attitude towards magic, I can overlook this flaw because the few words he speaks showing his dislike of magic and distrust towards the Northuldra for following magic tells me A LOT about his true personality, just like I could see that about Hans when he betrayed Anna and reveals to her his entire plot to take control of Arendelle!

Although Runeard appears briefly in flashbacks when Agnarr tells Anna and Elsa the story about visiting the Enchanted Forest when he was a child, we hear the majority of his speaking lines as a moving ice manifestation in Ahtohallan. It is here that Elsa encounters him and other figures of people from moments in the past, in or around Arendelle. When she does, she quickly discovers his true feelings towards the Northuldra and the real reason why he had the dam constructed in the forest. As I explained in this analysis, Elsa goes from delight to shock to confusion, and finally to anger as she listens to Runeard say the following words to his second-in-command:

“The Northuldra follow magic, which means we can NEVER trust them. Magic makes people feel too powerful… too entitled. It makes them think they can defy the will of a king!”

Runeard’s words regarding his description and views about magic provide enough information for me to interpret and visualize what kind of person he really was in life. For starters, as a king and a monarch in general, Runeard was in the highest social class; therefore, he had the most amount of power over anyone else, even though he was normal (at least in terms of what is considered to be normal as a human being, by being non-magical). Since he was a king, he was very power hungry. He thought all the power he ever needed as a monarch was in his own status as one. In being a king, he saw himself as supreme, superior, the greatest person of all in rank. He saw himself as someone who was at the very top, and he wanted to remain at the top. Runeard did not want anything (and presumably anyone) to stand in his way of power, so much so that he would go to any length to ensure he always stayed on top, to ensure that his own authority and legacy as a king was not challenged, threatened, or ruined.

Being that way, Runeard detested and feared magic, most likely not just because it isn’t normal, but because it is the only form of power considered by some to be greater than that of any monarch, the only type of power that could stand in his way as a ruler. With his fearful, hateful views on magic, Runeard was further prejudiced and closed-minded by privately having instant distrust and dislike towards anyone who either possesses magical powers of their own or has any kind of associations with magic. Regardless of what their social classes would be, he felt that people who had connections to magic would view themselves as superior, as the most powerful people of all, far superior and more powerful than a king like him. As a result, Runeard wrongly believed that the Northuldra, who were peasants and thus belonging to the lowest social class, thought that their relations to the magic of the Enchanted Forest would make them believe that they were greater than him, that they were more powerful than him. Perhaps he even believed that because they followed magic, the Northuldra could and would one day plot to usurp him, try to overthrow him as king and take control of Arendelle. This would mean that Runeard was SO consumed by his fear and hatred of magic to the point that he was extremely paranoid about it, too.

And the more I think about it and absorb his words, the more I realize that Runeard was most likely a hypocrite as well. He says that magic makes people feel too powerful and entitled, and yet when he makes this declaration, HE is the one who is acting too entitled! Like I said before, in being a king, he sees himself as supreme, at the top, and so he feels he has the greatest amount of power of all! Does he even realize this? I am sure he does! He sounds so arrogant, so haughty, and so confident, probably in thinking he is the greatest and most powerful being of all because he is a king! He may detest magic, but he really ought to eat his own words since he’s showing major hypocrisy here!

Despite his lack of proper time on screen to give him a strongly developed personality, all of these interpretations I have about Runeard give me the impression that he was two-faced. Obviously, his feign act of kindness and gesture of “peace” with the Northuldra made them and the Arendellians see him as a kind, noble, benevolent, generous ruler. This was a false, artificial image he created for himself that he always showed when out in public, one that he made sure to protect. But in private, behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, Runeard was in reality a dictator, a persecutor, an oppressor. He was truly nothing more than a cruel, arrogant, manipulative, ruthless tyrant who was determined to expand his kingly power, and secretly abused it at any chance that came his way. And the worst way he did this was when he tricked the Northuldra leader into letting down his guard after the latter voiced his suspicions over what the dam was really doing to the forest, then murdered the unarmed, unsuspecting man in cold blood.

Unlike Grandfather, Unlike Granddaughter

Another major point about Runeard that I want to address is my thoughts and opinions on what he may have thought of Elsa since she has magical powers. I said before that, when Elsa witnessed the kind of attitude her grandfather had towards magic and people connected to magic, there is a strong possibility that he never would have accepted her, despite their blood ties. Now if he had actually known her, perhaps there is a chance that Runeard would have learned to accept and love Elsa, just as her parents and sister did, even though she was magical and it was what he detested more than anything. Perhaps just because she is his granddaughter, his own flesh and blood, he would have learned to love her unconditionally, unquestionably.

However, what we see him tell his second-in-command about his thoughts on magic and distrust of the Northuldra gives me a strong feeling of doubt about the chance of him seeing Elsa in any kind of positive light.

When the memory of Runeard orders the officer to bring in Arendelle's grand army to prepare for an imminent attack, the officer wisely points out that there is no reason why they cannot trust the Northuldrans. But then he says his infamous words that the Northuldra can NEVER be trusted simply because they associate with magic. “Never” is the key word here. It pretty much tells me that Runeard was firmly, arrogantly, and stubbornly set in his prejudiced ways about magic, with his hatred, fear, and paranoia consuming him enough to cloud his judgment, so much so that it seemed like nothing could ever convince him otherwise, that nothing could have been said or done to change his mind. I feel this theory of mine is supported when he scowls at the officer before making his declaration. He clearly completely refuses to heed the man’s advice, effectively showing his arrogance, strong stubbornness, and outright refusal to ever trust anyone who is connected to magic.

So is there a chance that Runeard would have accepted and loved Elsa even with her powers, just because she was his granddaughter? Maybe...but I have a lot of serious doubts that he would. It wasn’t just the words he used to describe magic that give me these doubts, but the tone of voice he used. He sounded very gruff, very cold and callous, aloof, and especially haughty. Runeard just sounds like he was too blinded by his own fear, by his own hatred, and by his own feelings of supremacy as a monarch to be more open-minded, to have better judgment, to give magical people a chance, especially if they could prove themselves to be trustworthy in the first place.

Nope, since Runeard just sounded too aloof, too hateful, too prejudiced, and too firmly set in how he described his feelings about magic and what it does to people, I seriously don’t think there is a good chance that he would have accepted Elsa, ever.

My Personal Thoughts

Since seeing the film a couple more times and putting everything together, I got to thinking that Runeard being the main villain was a very good twist, even though Hans’s revelation worked better for me. Yes, I agree that Runeard’s revelation does have some shortcomings, including a lack of further development in his character, but I have some specific reasons why I feel this way about him.

Despite his appearance being among the briefest (if not the briefest) for a villain in any kind of Disney film, the way in which Runeard plays his villainous role is very rare for Disney, or even in almost any film. Runeard is unique because he is a posthumous main antagonist, the first one to be featured in a Disney animated film. And despite being dead years before the main events of Frozen II take place, his former actions are still what drive the entire story, both in the past and in the present. He affects the flow of the story from the very beginning of the film, and is one of the few Disney villains to do so.

Furthermore, when you watch both films in order, you realize that his heinous actions of building the dam to weaken the forest, murdering the Northuldra leader, and instigating a battle between the Northuldrans and Arendellians that caused some to be killed and others to be trapped in the forest due to the impenetrable mist not only led to the main events of Frozen II, but also to the events of the first film. Because Iduna, a Northuldran girl, heroically saved Agnarr from the battle that Runeard had started, the elemental spirits rewarded Agnarr and Iduna (who later married and became the next king and queen of Arendelle) by giving Elsa, their oldest daughter, ice powers. In Frozen, after her coronation party, Elsa accidentally reveals her magic to the people in Arendelle, which allowed both Prince Hans and the Duke of Weselton to turn Arendelle against her. But because Anna sacrificed herself to save Elsa from being murdered by Hans, Elsa realized that love helps her control her powers, and her people eventually learn to accept her for them. Three years later, after Elsa hears a mysterious voice calling to her, she awakens the elemental spirits and they wreak havoc in Arendelle, forcing everyone to evacuate the kingdom. After Elsa discovers Runeard’s crimes and freezes while doing so, she reveals this to Anna, who has the dam destroyed, releasing the Northuldra and Arendellian soldiers from their imprisonment in the forest. Anna’s actions also lead to Elsa thawing out, then saving Arendelle from being destroyed by the flood caused by the dam’s destruction.

After seeing the movie for the first time, one big thing I noticed about Runeard was that he was entirely omitted from pre-release storybook merchandise (except for the junior novelization, which came out a week before the film). All of these books ended with the vague explanation that Elsa “found the truth” and nothing more. This was clearly done to keep his role in the film a complete secret, to shroud anything that referenced his true part in the story. When I first discovered his role as the villain and realized how Disney kept the revelation about the character a total secret until the release, I had no negative thoughts. It FASCINATED me! I mean, the fact they covered his tracks even in the promos and the books by not mentioning him at all? I was totally ASTONISHED! Additionally, Jeremy Sisto, Runeard’s voice actor, was never previously mentioned or listed among the names of other actors who were announced as portraying new characters. In fact, it was only when Sisto attended the worldwide premiere of Frozen II that his role as Runeard was first and finally revealed. This further told me that Disney went to even greater lengths to keep Runeard’s role as the villain a complete secret, and again, it took me by complete (positive) shock.

It didn’t take me long to realize this setup was meant to be similar to the original film, in which emphasis in the advertising campaign and earlier film scenes was put upon Elsa and the Duke of Weselton as the potential main antagonist, all just to cover up the truth about Hans. Not only did Hans have few scenes and little dialogue in the trailers, but the first main trailer labeled him as “The Nice Guy”, obviously to keep his real nature a total secret from viewers until the film’s release date. And despite seeing some clues in his earlier scenes that made me suspicious about Hans, I was still stunned when he was revealed to be the film’s true villain. When I let it sink in that he was a hidden main antagonist, something so different and unexpected, and how well audiences were misled about the character before, I thought it was just an EXCELLENT twist, and one of the best parts about Frozen!

Conclusion

Because of the unique and different type of villain that Hans was in the original Frozen, he was definitely one of the main reasons why I loved and still love it. And I love Frozen II, I really do. I thought it was a very worthy sequel, especially because of how it set up the story to explain just where Elsa’s powers came from and made her the protagonist this time, since Anna had her turn in the first film. I went to see the movie with strong expectations of it featuring several parallels to the original movie, and they far exceeded my expectations, especially since Runeard’s revelation as the hidden main antagonist showed that Disney was really trying to recapture elements that were originally done in Frozen!

Unlike how I felt about Hans in the first movie, I’m not sure if I’d say that Runeard’s hidden villainy and subsequent treachery was one of the very best elements of Frozen II. His limited time shown on screen makes his characterization and true motivations very underdeveloped in sharp contrast to Hans. But still, considering the qualities of him being a posthumous main antagonist, one that drives the film’s story (and even the one of the predecessor) from the entire start, and the major lengths that Disney went to completely cover up his true role are definitely the things I do enjoy about the character. Not necessarily about who he is, but what he is, which is how I also feel about Hans. Hans is certainly not a likable character since he tried to murder Elsa and Anna, and of course, Runeard is worse because of his extreme prejudice and coldblooded murder of the Northuldra. Perhaps both films could have done just as well without having Hans and Runeard as villains. But I think villains can be a great way to help move stories along, especially with bringing in conflict, and both of these villains played their parts in their respective films well. They helped to drive the plots without having the plots being solely focused on them.

This concludes my thoughts on Runeard for this entire analysis, and man, is it LONG! I hope you all like it, and if you like Frozen II as much as I do, go see it again! Have a great day! 😄

#Frozen 2 analyses #Frozen analyses #Disney #Disney Frozen 2 #Disney Frozen #Frozen 2 #Frozen #King Runeard #Disney Villain #villain #evil king #killer #murderer #fear #hatred #paranoia #my stuff #mine

454 notes · View notes

mrlnsfrt · 3 years

Text

Mercy on Your Enemies

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. - Matthew 5:10-12 NKJV

Jesus told His followers that those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake are blessed. It is important to highlight here that the blessings stand only when you are innocent, when you are being persecuted for being righteous, for being faithful to God. If you are persecuted for doing something wrong, for cheating, for being dishonest, for being abusive, then there is no blessing. But this text also points to a reality that God’s faithful followers face in this world. We live in a world where someone can be persecuted without ever doing anything wrong. Jesus goes so far as to say that you can be persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for being good, and honest, and well, righteous. Jesus promised a special blessing, but that does not mean that you feel blessed as you are being persecuted.

David composed two Psalms from a cave while being persecuted by Saul (at least there are two I was able to find). They are Psalm 57, and Psalm 142. In these Psalms we can tell David is not feeling particularly blessed.

Attend to my cry, For I am brought very low; Deliver me from my persecutors, For they are stronger than I. - Psalm 142:6 NKJV

But David never forgot about the Source of his life and salvation,

I cried out to You, O Lord: I said, “You are my refuge, My portion in the land of the living. - Psalm 142:5 NKJV

So it is possible for us to be persecuted, to feel distant from God, and like we will be destroyed by our enemies. Yet we should never forget that reality is not limited by what we can see nor by what we feel. This is where faith comes in, and we can know that even though it might look and feel like we are all alone and about to be destroyed by our enemies, God is with us, and ultimately it is our enemies who need mercy.

Personal Story

I remember when I was young there was a big commotion at the apartment where my grandparents lived. I was young and I do not remember all the details, I do remember my mother and grandmother and other family members being very agitated. My grandfather had been robbed. I do not remember if it was a gunpoint or knifepoint, but he was robbed. I believe he had been on his way to the bank to deposit some money. My mother and others were upset about the whole incident and insisted that he press charges with the police, and there was a lot of talking and crying and I don’t remember all the details. But one thing has stuck with me, my grandfather wanted to pray, and as we prayed he thanked God that his life had been spared, next, he thanked God that he had not been the robber.

That is something that always stuck with me. I expected him to pray more of an imprecatory prayer, calling for God to curse the men who had taken his money. I do not think that my grandfather was against justice and the proper punishment of the men who did wrong, but my grandfather understood that it was better to be an innocent victim than a criminal. My grandfather knew that he was saved, he had a personal relationship with Jesus. But those criminals were living a life of sin and causing terrible suffering to others. Anyone living a life of sin does not have the peace that only God can give (John 14:27) and need salvation. Without God, there is no true joy and no eternal life.

Saul Persecutes David

Saul returned from pursuing the Philistines and was told that David was in the Desert of En Gedi. Saul decides to take three thousand of his best men from all of Israel and went to look for David and his men near the Crags of the Wild Goats. As King Saul searched for David he came by some sheep pens and a cave. This was exactly what Saul was hoping to find. He had been needed to relieve himself and needed some privacy. I imagine Saul telling his men to sit and rest for a bit, and then going away by himself to the cave to take care of his needs.

The King James Version says that “Saul went in to cover his feet” (1 Samuel 24:3), which is a literal translation. "This Hebrew idiom refers to the Israelite practice of disposing of human excrement in a sanitary manner through covering it over with dirt." (Bergen, R. D. (2002). 1, 2 Samuel. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. p238 (footnote)). Little did he know, David and his men were inside that same cave farther towards the back of the cave.

An Unexpected Opportunity

Then the men of David said to him, “This is the day of which the Lord said to you, ‘Behold, I will deliver your enemy into your hand, that you may do to him as it seems good to you.’ ” And David arose and secretly cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. - 1 Samuel 24:4 NKJV

Saul coming in by himself to the cave where David and all his men were hiding was clearly an act of God. David’s soldiers interpreted it as such, and even mentioned a prophecy that is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. This is a mystery, was it an unrecorded prophecy, or just wishful thinking. I have heard many supposed Bible quotes that are nowhere to be found in the Bible. It is surprising and dangerous how we can believe so strongly that Bible says something that in fact it does not. (Side note: one text that often gets misquoted is that Paul supposedly says that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” but the Bible does not say this anywhere, you can read several translations of 2 Corinthians 5:8 here)

What the soldiers say sounds biblical, but it is not recorded in the Bible, at least I was not able to find a record of this being written anywhere else.

Seizing the Moment

David stealthily approaches Saul and cuts off a corner of Saul’s robe. There are those who assign great significance to this act. Some believe that this symbolically transferred power from Saul to David. Support for this is found when you take into consideration the Torah requirements that include Numbers 15:38-39, and Deuteronomy 22:12 which require the wearing of tassels on the corners of one’s garments. The reasoning goes that without the corner and its tassel Saul’s most obvious symbol of kingship was made unwearable. Personally believe that it is a bit of a stretch to say that with this act David had symbolically invalidated Saul’s claim to kingship, but it is a view that Bergen mentions. (Bergen, R. D. (2002). 1, 2 Samuel. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. p239)

V. H. Matthews adds a significant historical and cultural insight to the interpretation of this passage saying that

The rather elaborate hems with suspended tassels found on most garments in the ancient Near East symbolized the ranks of kings and their advisers as well as the military. - Manners and Customs in the Bible [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988], 119).

The strongest evidence that I see for the symbolic significance of what David did is the remorse David feels for his behavior. David realized he had raised his hand against “the anointed of the LORD.”

Vengeance

Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say, “I will take revenge; I will pay them back,” says the LORD. - Romans 12:19 NLT

‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their disaster is at hand, And their doom hurries to meet them.’ - Deuteronomy 32:35 Amplified Bible

David does not want to be the one who causes Saul to fall, he does not want to cause the fall of someone the LORD had anointed.

And he said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.” So David restrained his servants with these words, and did not allow them to rise against Saul. And Saul got up from the cave and went on his way. - 1 Samuel 24:6-7 NKJV

David is not saying that Saul deserves to be king, nor that Saul is guiltless. David simply does not want to be guilty of spilling Saul’s blood. David chooses to leave judgment to God, even if he had the perfect opportunity to take his revenge. Even if it looks like God has delivered his enemy in his hands, David will not be the direct cause of the fall of his enemy. David refuses to spill the blood of his enemy, even if his enemy would not hesitate to spill his blood. David behaves in this way out of respect for God. It is nothing that Saul did, David is not afraid of Saul, but David respects God and God’s anointed.

The Confrontation

The interchange that follows is remarkable. The section of text stretching from verse 8 through 21 contains the longest recorded quotes by both David and Saul found in 1 Samuel. (Bergen, R. D. p239) The amount of space dedicated to this exchange suggests high importance. This seems to be the central part of the text and two key themes surface in this exchange.

David is loyal to King Saul.

David will be Israel’s next king.

As Saul makes his way out of the cave David calls out to him. This was a risky move since in doing so David would give away his position to King Saul. However, it seems that David was closer to Saul than Saul was to his army, so worst-case scenario David could always capture Saul and hold him hostage.

David also arose afterward, went out of the cave, and called out to Saul, saying, “My lord the king!” And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed down. - 1 Samuel 24:8 NKJV

David addresses Saul as lord and king and bows down. David is signaling his loyalty to the king, and next, we have what can be considered the most passionate and eloquent plea for reconciliation between persons recorded in all ancient literature. (Bergen, R. D. p240)

David carefully structures his arguments in a way to give Saul an easy out.

And David said to Saul: “Why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘Indeed David seeks your harm’? - 1 Samuel 24:9 NKJV

David does not blame Saul for coming after him, but rather some unknown, misinformed individual who lied to Saul. David proceeds to lay out eyewitness and material evidence to make the case that he is not the king’s enemy.

Look, this day your eyes have seen that the Lord delivered you today into my hand in the cave, and someone urged me to kill you. But my eye spared you, and I said, ‘I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.’ Moreover, my father, see! Yes, see the corner of your robe in my hand! For in that I cut off the corner of your robe, and did not kill you, know and see that there is neither evil nor rebellion in my hand, and I have not sinned against you. Yet you hunt my life to take it. Let the Lord judge between you and me, and let the Lord avenge me on you. But my hand shall not be against you. - 1 Samuel 24:10-12 NKJV

David points out how Saul had seen with his own eyes that David could have killed him but refused to raise his hand against the Lord’s anointed. Saul was the key witness, he knew that the Lord had delivered him to David and David has spared his life. Saul’s life was spared to because of anything Saul had done but rather because of what God had done. God has anointed Saul and David’s regard for God kept him from harming His anointed.

If Saul had any doubts about how close he came to dying at David’s hand all he had to do was take a look at his garment and notice the missing corner. David has shown by his actions that he was not an evildoer, since he refrained from evil (Matthew 7:16,20). In other words, if Davids had truly wanted to take the kingdom from Saul he would not have refrained from killing him when he had the chance.

However, if David is innocent, and it was just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that David was loyal to Saul, then Saul was guilty of trying to kill an innocent and just man. By pointing this out David is trying to keep King Saul from bringing divine wrath and judgment upon himself.

Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked. - Exodus 23:7 ESV

David now keeps going and accuses the king of squandering precious national resources.

After whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom do you pursue? A dead dog? A flea? - 1 Samuel 24:14 NKJV

David concludes by calling upon God to judge between them. It is obvious that David is innocent and that God is with David. Saul is not only unable to defeat David but to continue to pursue this will only lead to his own destruction.

The Realization

So it was, when David had finished speaking these words to Saul, that Saul said, “Is this your voice, my son David?” And Saul lifted up his voice and wept. - 1 Samuel 24:16 NKJV

Saul is forced to confront reality. He finally says David’s name, something he has not done in a very long time (1 Samuel 20:27, 30-31; 22:7-9, 13). Not only does Saul say David’s name, but he also calls him his son. The full emotional weight of current events finally hit Saul and he wept out loud.

Then he said to David: “You are more righteous than I; for you have rewarded me with good, whereas I have rewarded you with evil. And you have shown this day how you have dealt well with me; for when the Lord delivered me into your hand, you did not kill me. For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him get away safely? Therefore may the Lord reward you with good for what you have done to me this day. And now I know indeed that you shall surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in your hand. Therefore swear now to me by the Lord that you will not cut off my descendants after me, and that you will not destroy my name from my father’s house.” - 1 Samuel 24:17-21 NKJV

Saul realizes and admits that David will be the next king and that Israel will flourish under his leadership. Realizing that David is a righteous man Saul asks David to spare his descendants. David swears to Saul and they go each their separate way. Saul goes home, but David goes up to the stronghold.

Conclusion and Application

David is not king, David does not have three thousand soldiers at his disposal, much less three thousand chosen men from all Israel. Humanly speaking, Saul had all the advantages. He had position, title, resources, power, experience, he was tall, what else cold Saul need? Sadly he did not have what matters most, or the only thing that matters, Saul did not have a personal relationship with God.

David on the other hand was a fugitive, an outcast, on the run, living in the wilderness, with a group of disgruntled men who decided to follow him (1Samuel 22:1-2). But God was with him and that made all the difference.

Please notice this, the king without God has no chance against a “nobody” who is on God’s side. David was the one who had to have mercy on the king, not the other way around. David is the powerful one, not because he has any special power, but because Almighty God is with Him.

You may feel persecuted, though you did nothing wrong. You may feel like your faithfulness to God makes you a target, but remember, that having God is ultimately all that matters, the only thing that matters. Whatever may come your way, just make sure to stay with God and everything will be okay.

Be strong and of good courage, do not fear nor be afraid of them; for the Lord your God, He is the One who goes with you. He will not leave you nor forsake you.” - Deuteronomy 31:6 NKJV

#Old Testament #David #Saul #Persecution

4 notes · View notes

gilmesc1 · 4 years

Note

Do you have any thoughts on fictional portrayals of DID, like danganronpa, spl!t, and others?

Yes, I usually would take time to do research but lucky for you I already did XD

I looked into Danganronpa a while ago since we have 1 or 2 system mates from it, and in that case, prepare yourselves for a hot mess of my opinion and facts I got from a google fest.

So, to start out, I guess I might share spoilers?? So you hath been warned. Additionally I’m not going to sit here and rephrase the entire story so, honestly why am I even explaining this. Anon at least knows what’s going on XDD

So Danganronpa is a psychological mystery anime that focuses heavily on the themes of hope and despair, where in most versions of the story characters are forced into a killing game where they have to kill each other. Bet you couldn’t have figured that one out on your own XD

One thing I like about it is that the characters overall are written fairly well. Many of them are complex multi layered gems of writing with good development and story arcs. One thing that I found interesting is the semi accurate portrayals of mental illness and how it impacts the characters in this insane situation.

So, let’s break into that. I focused on the portrayals of NPD and DID specifically, and I could go back and look into others, but we’ll focus on those for this post. And just going to throw this out now, I think it’s interesting and also kind of a bold move to tackle those kinds of things in an anime.

So let’s look at the DID portrayal. The character’s name is Toko Fukawa, and she is a fucking wreck. Confirmed emotional abuse gives a lot into her character, and we see her as this timid, deflective, honestly broken shell. Later in the series we are introduced to her alternate personality, I know, exciting.

However it’s a literal serial killer. So like. Yeah.

I don’t love that part. I mean, out of all of the portrayals for this alter, you had to go with serial killer? And not only that, but a really famous, generally acknowledged as insane serial killer. Thaaaanks writer.

To recap what a lot of tumblr says, this kind of portrayal is dangerous because the majority of DID portrayals are of crazy violent stereotypes. It was quite honestly disappointing, and I wish that the writers hadn’t used this as their big reveal.

But hey, neutral standing here, let’s look at why he did do that from a different perspective. Since the theme of the game/anime is killing, it does make sense plot wise to have a serial killer. Additionally, it’s a clever way to get said serial killer into the game in the first place. Plot wise and with a few things I’ll mention in a second, it does make sense in a twisted way.

But let’s get the bad out of the way first. One thing I really don’t love is her appearance. It’s like someone took the original character design of fukawa, took some drugs, and then drew a nightmare creature. Seriously, there’s crazy eyes, hair flying everywhere, and this freaky inhuman tongue that the alter has out no matter what she’s doing. Like whaaaaaat the fuck.

Firstly this spreads misinformation that we can change appearance at will. Like don’t get me wrong, I wish I could, but the best I got is changing clothes if I have the time. Also the tongue I really hate because it gives the impression of the alter being this inhuman monster. Also again with the impression that we can morph stuff when we switch. I mean, if I had that, I’d be having a lot more fun in my day to day life than I do now.

Do what you will with that information.

Additionally we do see Fukawa’s tongue, and it’s not a weird demogorgon kind of thing, so, yeah, the tongue thing is weird.

Finally her name. It’s Genocider Syo/Jack/Jill. Not a normal name, no the only name we have for her is her serial killer name which I feel serves to continue to show her as this inhuman thing where we all go, Oh god oh fuck time to be afraaaaid.

But hey, let’s look at what they did right.

The backstory of how genocider came to be is really accurate to how it works. Fukawa has a history of abuse at a young age, and genocider eventually comes into the picture to protect her.

Let me explain: So this is a theory on my part (Check out Weeby Newz’s youtube video, that’s where I got this) but Fukawa was revealed to have suffered massive emotional abuse at the hands of a boy who she had romantic interest in. Since he was moving away, she decided to confess her love to him in a letter before this happened. Turns out the boy pinned the letter in her classroom so everyone would make fun of her. Dick move.

I think genocider formed after this specific event, firstly because this is a huge defining experience for Fukawa. Additionally, the way genocider acts serves to prove this. Her target victims are boys, and her first victim was the boy who hurt Fukawa. I mean yeah, killing was waaaay extreme, but bear with me on this next part:

I’d say that genocider is a protector. A lot of her initial actions were to protect Fukawa from getting hurt in the same way, and protectors do have a history of going to the extreme to protect their hosts and systems. Even though she seems like a persecutor, I don’t think any of her actions have been directed at herself and Fukawa, they actually seem to have a decent relationship, and to end this theory that is completely non canon and just me pretending I’m smart, I’d call her a protector.

Next, looking at the relationship they have. Genocider at one point tells the protagonist that they have a “non disclosure policy” when they switch when the other is in the middle of something. (like murder??) And I personally really liked this, as it was a kind of realistic DID humor in my eyes. Take it or leave it, that’s my opinion.

And that’s really all I have on that behalf. Genocider really isn’t shown as a “normal person” often, which I guess is the point but also leaves me with nothing to evaluate. (Side note, this is only V1 of the series and I’m aware she changes but dear god go easy on me)

Finally, here are a few things that I find a little weird tbh.

At first glance when they switch, it’s a touch accurate, if over dramatic. Losing consciousness and coming to as a different alter is possible so I do like that, however they also have her constantly switching when sneezing, which is a little out there.

I mean, I think I’ve done that before, but for it to be a consistent theme, idk. Maybe overdramatized again.

Secondly, there is a voice change, which is accurate, but it really just serves to fit the crazy image, so I’m conflicted on that.

So that is really all I can say on that specifically, to end things I’m going to talk about one other character Fukawa has interactions with, Togami. (He has a first name but I can’t spell/remember it.)

So I gravitated towards him while watching the series because he reminds me of me, hence me saying that he seems to be a dead ringer for npd. Let me explain.

He’s very cold and distant from others and obviously feels superior, additionally he is willing to fight tooth and nail to consistently be on top and win in any situation, leading to him doing some fucked up things.

But like I feel for him. It’s like watching me XD

His past was a very competitive cuthroat environment, where he was taught that losing is worse than death. Additionally he was almost groomed to be this untouchable figure so it’s no surprise that he believes that. I might make a second post about him because there’s a lot more I can say, but I’m going to double back to Fukawa now.

So Fukawa gains a very unhealthy obsession with Togami, despite him wanting literally nothing to do with her. He’s verbally abusive to her and does go out of his way to attack her, but she thinks it’s a sign of love. Poor Fukawa.

This also kind of fits with NPD, because we can have some pretty gravitating personalities. I think the attraction has a lot to do with Fukawa’s mental state, but I just found it interesting that the emotional abuse victim gravitates to Togami of all people.

So I brought him up for that above thought I had, and also to compare this last point. So Fukawa was confirmed to have DID, like it was specifically stated. To my knowledge it was never stated that Togami has NPD, but I strongly assume that he does. (key word assume, I could be wrong.)

So I found it interesting that Togami has this very accurate portrayal of NPD without ever confirming that he has NPD, while Fukawa is specifically confirmed to have DID while having a semi accurate portrayal. I think the writer really wanted to include mental illness in his story line and I doubt he intended anything to be intentionally harmful.

Writing mental illness into a story is very very very tricky, and it’s practically impossible to satisfy everyone, but the fact that he did do it is in my opinion, very bold.

He made good and less good choices, but overall he did make very compelling characters. Genocider admittedly fits better in this plotline as a crazy killer than she would as a realistic alter, but this is fiction.

So final statements: Toko Fukawa is not a bad character. I like a lot about her and overall I think she is very well written. Genocider is very less developed and more of a surprise plot twist than a character, which is unrealistic. The writer made some very awkward choices from a realistic standpoint despite it fitting well with his story.

So overall, she really isn’t a good portrayal of DID. You can enjoy her character like I did, but the main takeaway here is to not take her as a realistic portrayal. I know it seems obvious but this is the kind of thing that forms unhealthy ideas in viewers.

I’m not hating on Danganronpa or Toko, I actually really loved both. I’ve tried to stop ranting about fictional works that I hate. I used to be a loose fucking canon but I realized that I had been bashing a few autistic friend’s special interests, so now I try to be hyper aware that a fictional work might mean everything to someone even if I personally disliked it.

But that isn’t the case here because again I loved Danganronpa XD

So friends, that about does it for me. I liked doing this kind of analysis so if you want me to do more, send them my way XD

My next post will probably be the syscourse analysis if I can get that done before I get an easier topic. So thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed, thank you for the ask anon.

And I’m now out of words. You all should be happy. XD

#did #did tag #dissociative identity disorder #actuallydid #actuallymultiple #actuallydissociative #actuallytraumagenic #danganronpa #toko fuwaka

13 notes · View notes

angorwhosebabyisthis · 4 years

Text

so i'm torn about how to write kirell.

(heads up: here be 7 days spoilers, for anyone who hasn't played the game or found the scene/s i'm talking about yet. also discussion of ableist tropes.)

so, first of all: kirell is strongly coded as having DID. not only is there the obvious--balaam being part of her--but the circumstances of her early life, the way she presents in snapshots of her backstory, and the role that balaam plays, seem to line up a lot more accurately with DID than your average exploitative portrayal.

however... there are also some not-good tropes involved, the implication that he's talked to/influenced people without her involvement before, and at least one glaring inaccuracy--you can't 'kill' an alter. which happens to balaam in the majority of the game's routes.

some of the tropes may or may not be subverted or balanced out; the alter we see is a murderer, but the host is also a murderer. not because she's evil, unhinged, or bloodthirsty, but a) out of self-defense, b) because it's her job, and c) her life circumstances pushed her into that position.

not only that, but balaam isn't a murderer for the evulz either. he has a conscience; he wants to live; he has goals to achieve by killing in real life, and spends the game convincing himself that's what he needs to do; and he's specifically putting on an act to provoke people so he can defend himself. he's not really all that much more murderous than kirell herself, pre-character development, and there's a lot of emphasis put on the fact that the two aren't so different. he could also easily be interpreted as a protector, a persecutor, or both.

the problem i have here is this: i don't want to erase rep, even just coded rep, for a character with a stigmatized mental illness. but given the tropes and inaccuracies involved i feel really uncomfortable with trying to work around them, as someone who does not have DID. also i would feel really weird and out of line making up OCs to give her more alters, since from what i understand people don't really tend to have just one.

for the time being i guess my solution here is to interpret it as a thematic and/or supernatural thing, in the same vein as how i interpret other characters like philio, and adjust accordingly if someone with DID comes along eventually to add their two cents.

(the role philip plays in all this raises a lot of questions that, with any luck, might be addressed in the argo story coming up--how did he know balaam already if balaam's only ever been in her head? why the similarities to philio, from his name to his power? who is he?--but for now i'm ??????? about it and what it means for kirell and balaam's relationship to each other, so for the time being the best i can really do is throw darts at the wall)

#7 days decide your story #7 days! decide your story #7 days balaam #7 days kirell #7 days philip #7 days tag #whosebaby talks #meta #headcanons #theories #i have a great many thoughts about these characters #need to write up more of them sometime #ableism cw #dyn: the compass of the dead

8 notes · View notes

liongoatsnake · 5 years

Note

For the DID ask - 🖤,💀,💋? ~Rani @a-dragons-journal

🖤 - How many alters do you have? Can you tell me about them? Honestly, it's hard to give an exact number. Not because we don't know how many headmates are in our system currently but because we have a lot of people in our system of whom we don't know if they are alters or spirits. Most of these people are those who we know have been around since our body was little and back then we didn't keep track of how someone came to be here. We know for certain that at least 30 or so of us are formed by direct trauma, but there is at least that many who we have zero certainty into their exact origins. We keep trying to work out who originated how, but our trauma is so confusing to us we can't still quite make good since of it. It doesn't help that we can't decide where the headmates we know are or suspect were created by our issues with maladaptive daydreaming. (They're a lot like involuntary tulpas in how they came about, but the maladaptive daydreaming they spawned from was caused by dissociation due to trauma. So... mind scrabble and brain is weird.) Maybe one day we will make since of our past but for now it is still a work-in-progress of getting over denial, piecing together memories, accepting things happened, and organizing our own thoughts. We treat our known or suspected alters the same level of respect and voice as we do any other headmate. Of course, given their connection to our body's trauma they have certain needs and require certain accommodations. Many of the known spirits in our system tend to try to help out as much possible though they are not as strongly connected to traumatic memories in our body because they weren't there and aren't as connected to our body due to their origins. 💀 - Have any of your alters ever integrated or disappeared? Integrated? Yes though only once. Kardegray is the merger of two alters. One was a persecutor by the name of Demon (how original /sarcasm) and another alter who had no name. It occurred when our body was only 14 so a lot of the details of the circumstances are lot to us. We do remember that Demon was tormenting others in our system both internally and via things he did while fronting. He and the other alter got into a fight, words were said, and somehow out of all of that mess Kardegray resulted. Kardegray himself early on still was kind of a persecutor but over time he has calmed down into more of a devil's advocate and now he is more of an older protective brother to most of the younger alters but still a bit of an loveable asshole/devil's advocate to everyone else. As for disappeared sadly yes, though we have been correcting that. Long, long story short when we were in our late teens (circa 16-18) we first learned of multiplicity which sent us into a tail-spin of denial. Everyone tried to suppress everyone else as an 'imaginary friend" our amnesia issues hit its worst ever in our life, our depression got worse, our anxiety got worse - basically everything went to hell for several months. When the dust settled all but Earth Listener and Cavern-Risen had went into finding/suppression to get away from the self-destruction. Realizing how badly we messed up in trying to deny our multiplicity, Earth Listener and Cavern-Risen began to try to patch things up. They began to work on sharing memories, working together, building trust, started seeing our first therapist. Slowly people started coming back out of the woodwork. It took nearly a decade but we think we finally found everyone, but given how disorganized we're not positive. Either way, that event in our lives stands as a constant reminder how badly our life could turn if we were to ever turn on each other again and remind us why we have to work together.

💋 - How does your DID affect your relationships?

Our multiplicity hasn’t effected our relationships so much as our trauma itself has. Our relationship with our mother (a person who accidentally, but still did abuse us when we were a child) has improved though we still have a lot of trust and social intimacy issues with her. (But we have extreme social intimacy with basically everyone.) She knows about our multiplicity but doesn’t like us to bring our existence up. She also knows well about our gender dysphoria but won’t acknowledge it (which probably hurts worse because part of our childhood trauma was her punishing us for “claiming to be a boy”), which makes it feel like she still hasn’t truly changed. Friendship was always going to be difficult for us as it is because of our our autism but our trauma really messed up our comfort levels in sharing anything person. And a solid part of friendship is being personal and socially intimate with other people. We do have friends, one of them we’ve been friends with for over 20 years, but we find it hard to make new friends or have a lot of friends. We’re getting better at trusting people again with therapy and time, but it is a struggle. Wishing people to accept and be okay with our multiplicity as part of a friendship is a hurtle, however. Sexual/romantic relationships are out of the question to us. Our trauma is tied to sexual matters on at least 2 if not possible 3 different men/instances. We’re just not comfortable with the idea of sexual and romantic intimacy even after over a decade of therapy. We also don’t have any skills on how to socially interact in that way due to a combination our our autism and our childhood trauma that caused us to be socially shunned and stunted. We mostly just consider ourselves too “broken” to be in a sexual/romantic relationship outside of our own system and leave it at that.

Extra: --I miss saw the emoji and answered the wrong question so have a freebee question answered--: 👄 - How does your DID affect your communication? We used to have the usual issues with communication between alters. Amnesic barriers between people for those who fronted and inside everyone mistrusted just about everyone else so there was no sharing of anything. Not too long after accepting our multiplicity we began to really eat away at our amnesic barriers and internally we got better at sharing information. Sharing information internally came rather quickly due to the fact there were so few of us actively around and as people slowly came back we were able to gain their trust and work though feelings of betrayal and fear at a gentle pace. By about age 21 is about when we started to achieve some level of co-consciousness and by about age 24 we attained near perfect constant co-consciousness. (This progress was greatly helped by Lacunae, the librarian of the library that represent our memories in our innerworld reappearing and starting to maintain our memories once again.) More or less nowadays every memory someone has is available to everyone else in the system without much if any issue. We still occasionally have hick-ups, but thanks to our level of internal communication we easily smooth out the occasional fumbles. It isn't perfect but we're a work in progress in so many ways and we're proud of how much we have improved ourselves.- Miushra

#mental health #dissociation #actuallydissociative #dissociative identity disorder #ddnos #osdd #did ask game

2 notes · View notes

dissociatedabyss · 5 years

Text

i’ve always had these thoughts from a different part that follow my fears/paranoia/abuse memories and they’re usually very violent in a way that’s supposed to be comforting.

for example, after being bombarded with thoughts about assault, not just my own but others’ as well, this part ensures me that the answer is to massacre the men that do this, wipe them out completely. that’s the only way.

or i’ll be having flashbacks, and suddenly it’s no longer a flashback because it’s changing. i’m fighting. killing my abuser. it’s bloody and violent and i can’t control what i’m seeing.

i used to think it was jeremy, our persecutor, because he is violent. but it’s not.

i used to think it was vixen, because she feels very strongly about abuse, child abuse especially and is a feminist. but she’s not violent like that.

so it happened as i’m driving today, and i put my attention on it, wondering who it came from and i get “alexander the great” .. lmao

so either someone is just fucking with me.. or we have a part based on an ancient king & military leader who believes mass murdering all abusers is the only answer which i don’t necessarily disagree with completely 🤷🏽‍♀️

#personal #i just started laughing when i heard it #like what #excuse me #we’ll see where this goes #osdd1b #dissociative identity disorder #violence tw #blood tw

5 notes · View notes

hermessy · 6 years

Text

Why Rajan/Kala/Wolfgang does not work in the Sense8 Finale

Warning : I apologize in advance for my English, please bear with me as it is not my first language.

I would like to preface this by saying: I liked the finale. Even more so: I LOVED the finale, which came as a strange surprise to me. I was spoiled some time ago, as many in this fandom after the premiere in May, and to be honest, I was not anticipating the Sense8 Finale as frantically as I would otherwise have. I was not even excited, and I was ready to wait a few days for the hype to go down before watching it – and to think that last year, I was furious, enraged and crying after the cancellation and that after that, I danced and screamed with my siblings when I heard there was going to be more Sense8… But the Kalagang spoiler quite tampered my enthusiasm, and I went from passionate to downright skeptic. But Friday night, my father came home with a bottle of white wine, and as he is a Wachowski Superfan, he insisted to watch the finale – so we sat down together to drink and watch the finale.

I had a great time. I was surprised by how much I still felt so strongly about these characters, the story, and most importantly, I found the “Sense8 feeling” again: a sense of euphoria, excitement and wonder that no other show could radiate for me.

I cried several times, and I have to admit: Lana Wachowski has a unique gift for transmitting the feeling, untamed, the raw and pure emotion, and blissful happiness. The transcendence of feeling, the great wave of being. The miracle of love that is not a utopia, but a power most real and palpable. The Wachowskis made me grateful for my human existence and experience. I cannot thank them enough for that.

That being said, I still have some criticism, and while it did not spoil my enjoyment of the finale, I found afterwards that my concerns were still valid.

In most of their filmography, the Wachowskis have this one weakness: they tend to prioritize discourse over story. Most people say about Sense8 that it is more about the characters than the plot, which is true in a sense – but to be more exact, the Wachowskis prioritize ideas over plot. Everything is an illustration, a demonstration in service of a great idea, an existential message about our perception of reality and the world we live in. Nothing with them is left hanging, nothing is implicit or ambiguous. Part of their charm for me, and part of what makes them unsubtle, broad or naïve for others, is that nothing is left in silence: everything is articulated, every purpose of a scene, an arc, a character, is said out loud and exposed in the open. The Wachowskis characters are walking philosophers and comment the meaning of their own action all the time. And, personally, especially in Sense8, it was one of the aspects that I loved.

But sometimes, the downside with it is: the big idea takes precedence over the character’s and the story’s inner coherence.

Lana Wachowski has a big idea, uses this character to illustrate it, but in doing so she’s taking the risk of ruining said character, by making him or her do something that does not fit with the pattern and the personality previously established. Discourse plastered over characters, regardless of the story’s coherence, is never a good thing. It is a subtle and frankly quite a hard balance to maintain between the creator’s purpose and the character that takes a life of his own, with his own and strange independent growth.

And unfortunately, Kala’s arc was sacrificed to demonstrate the show’s final point. There were a few other incoherencies in the finale, but her character is where this problem was the most obvious.

I understand that Lana and the other writers wanted, for this miraculous finale, a happy ending for everybody. But good intentions do not always equate good storytelling. I am myself a strong believer in happy endings, but in coherent ones, not scattered and confused like the Kala/Wolfgang situation.

And before anyone accuses me of conservatism, or whatever: it’s not a question of polyamory. You may say: representation is important, and I completely agree. But when you decide to provide some representation, I hope you always do it with care, even more so if it is something that means so much, like for the LGBT community for instance. Precious representation should be treated as such. Here, I cannot think of another word than “careless”. I recognize all the good will, the originality of the twist, but it is at the expense of two seasons worth of storytelling and character-building. It was rash and unwarranted.

I kind of get what they were going for, and I think the key to understanding the meaning behind the Kala/Rajan/Wolfgang “throuple” is to find in the words of River El-Sadaawi at the Nomanita wedding, a speech that is a sort of manifesto, an afterword by Lana Wachowski for the show and its significance:

“No one thing is one thing only. How people endow what is familiar with new, ever-evolving meaning and by doing so, release us from the expected, the familiar, into something unforeseeable. It is in this unfamiliar realm, we find new possibilities. It is in the unknown, we find hope.”

And so, Kala’s dilemma found an unexpected solution within a new, unfamiliar realm. Instead of opting for the traditional route taken in similar romantic plots, Lana Wachowski resolved the problem by changing the perspective, cancelling the structure of the love triangle itself by rejecting its rules, and enter a new possibility we never even considered, far more satisfying, on the surface at least.

I fully recognize the merit of such an undertaking, but the end result was nevertheless underwhelming, instead of filling me with the intended sense of relief and triumph. I expected a triumphant love, what I got felt like a tepid compromise.

And more importantly, I feel like Lana involuntarily ruined what was always a cornerstone in the Wachowski philosophy: we are our choices.

“Is it we that make the choice or the choice that makes us?”

Kala has always been avoiding the responsibility of the choice that presented itself to her, the choice that would define her as a human being. Her whole arc was to get her to that choice, to find the courage to make it, at last. Her challenge was not the fear the choice, but to embrace it wholeheartedly. To be brave. To have the courage to determine her own destiny.

It is no coincidence that Wolfgang represented that for her. By choosing him, she’s awakening her own courage. Wolfgang is the one who awakens her to her warrior side, who unveils the power of the woman inside her. He’s the one who gives the fearful and hesitant Kala the strength to be brave and determined, just as she makes him vulnerable and trusting. He IS her courage, just as she IS his faith.

But here, in the finale, Kala escapes her choice. It is left open, hanging in uncertainty, and we were instead served with contentment on all sides: everyone supposedly got what they wanted.

But sometimes, I say: you don’t always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.

Kala got what she wanted, the cancellation of her choice, but not what she needed: to face her fears, the image of herself that this choice reflected back to her, and embrace it. This choice was a necessary threshold for Kala as a woman, but now I feel like she’s stuck in limbo. “No rules” does not equal no choice.

I feel like there has been a great misunderstanding: Kala’s struggle was indeed linked with all the rules she internalized and the pressure she put upon herself (for her family is obviously very loving and gave her the freedom to make her own decisions). The societal rules were never a direct oppression, but more something she, a person with a high sense of responsibility, integrated on her own. She was, in a sense, her own persecutor, her own moral oppressor. It is interesting to see that as a woman, her first priority was to accommodate everybody before herself, and Rajan never questioned during the first season whether or not she reciprocated her feelings. To be fair, she never even dared to prioritize her own emotions in the first place. Because she still has a sense of obligation, to follow the scenario set by society and expected by the man in front on her, and in the end she does not dare to upset anybody.

The question of choice is the question of one’s own free will: it makes sense that in the end, Kala defies the rules she felt compelled to follow, the pressure to follow society and man’s desires and expectations before her own. But to make the choice, to be truly free, each one of us also has to let go of some part of ourselves: we have to let go to become something greater, and to live is always to die a little. Kala had to let the dream of being Rajan’s wife die, to embrace what she truly strives for.

But here, the alternative is: maintain everything. Maintain the status quo.

It does not work. The rule Kala should have let go was not the idea of exclusivity in marriage, but the idea of holding on to the structures that bound her to a man she did not love, because she internalized the societal pressure and felt compelled to respond to his advances. That the solution, in the end, is to say: “you will come to love him after he proves himself to you” sounds quite ridiculous in that sense.

Kala needed to find her own voice, articulate her own desires, not settle in a “in-between” space. She does not end with two full relationships, but a cheapened version of both. It is not in favor of Wolfgang, it is also not in favor of Rajan, a character I really enjoyed.

I think the fact that Rajan evolved, changed his perspective, went from a rich nice guy who pursued the woman he loved without asking if she loved him back and said “you look so beautiful when you’re angry” when said woman confronted him with his shortcomings, to the ride-or-die husband, ready to change and accept anything, was supposed the change the setting. If Rajan could change, the marriage could change and the rules with it.

But quite frankly, it cheapens the character of Rajan. I really like him, and he, like Kala, deserved better.

And it gets even more absurd with Wolfgang: Wolfgang Bodganow, the man that always confronted Kala with her own contradictions, who never compromised on his own feelings, always told the “ugly truth” that she avoided but needed to hear, that man gets on with it? In what universe is that believable?

The cornerstone of their relationship is: “What the fuck are you doing? You’re not in love with him.”

Sometimes, it’s as simple as that. “You’re not in love with him”.

What is a lover ? Because I do not question the fact that, in the end, she does love Rajan after a fashion. He comes to earn her respect, her gratitude, her estime. He is “more than the man (she) thought she married”. All that is true. It is love, a great love even, but in my opinion it is not the kind that builds and sustains a couple. It makes for a strong and faithful friendship, an undying loyalty, a partner. But not a lover. Rajan and Kala are not lovers.

And nobody will ever convince me that Rajan & Wolfgang will work within this arrangement. I will not even address that. It’s nonsense.

What makes me kind of sad, is that I truly enjoyed Rajan in this series finale. But he was reduced to a poor third wheel in a relationship that goes far beyond him. He deserves better.

I mean... What compare to this ?

Kala needed to find her voice of courage. She still needs to take a true leap in the unknown. A leap of faith.

I think that Lana is aware of that, in a way, because nothing seemed definitive in the finale. The only conclusion to which came Wolfgang and Kala was: “I don’t know”.

So that choice is still before her.

But, in the end, I still wanted to thank Lana Wachowski. Her love and dedication was truly palpable in this series finale.

And by the way, I refuse to consider this a series finale. So I say, until the next time, Cluster-family, and until the next time, dear Lana. You brought much joy to us.

Thank you.

#sense8 #series finale #amor vincit omnia #kala dandekar #kala rasal #wolfgang bogdanow #rajan rasal #kalagang #kala x wolfgang #kala x rajan #kala x rajan x wolfgang #rajalagang #lana wachowski #meta

120 notes · View notes

crossedbeams · 7 years

Note

Hey! I only really got up to date with all the crazyness today and just felt like I had to send you a warm hug and testify to the fact that certain parts of this fandom seem to have lost any empathy towards famous people, real people, tumblr people - well people - and they seem to not notice how their words are sexist and vile. One part of what I wrote before is still true, I think: That These people also tend to behave as if none would see each and every word they PUBLISH. (1)

(2) They appear to be caught in their own obsessions which btw seem to have nothing to do with the people they obsess over anymore. (Well you could argue that it never REALLY does as most of us don’t really know these folks in real life.) So yeah - before we can go to zen again - before I’ll go to zen again - I felt I should take a side. I wish these folks would also find some zen. By which I mean being respectful towards folks they don’t even know.

I know I sat on this for a while but I’ve been all over the shop on my thinking on this and I wanted to find some chill.

I tend to run hot on things I see that are wrong, and sometimes that gets me into trouble. I’m outspoken, forceful and sometimes I go too far in my desire to defend or protect those I love/my ideals/myself, and I get that public displays of “fuck no” are not for everyone.

I understand that for many, if not most, fandom is a place of escapism and bringing the ugliness of conflict and bullying into the light disrupts that, even when the purpose of publishing an ask or writing a post is to counteract the bad behaviour, and so it’s an incredibly difficult line to draw between standing up for oneself and perpetuating a discourse that has damaging effects to the fandom haven. I would never judge or want to shame anyone for not speaking up, for prioritising their own wellbeing over the ridiculousness of drama, and yet I have to admit at times I find the deafening neutrality hard to bear.

And that’s because I have felt, first hand, what it feels like to be the victim instead of the bystander. Tumblr drama is often an annoyance. It clogs your dash and interrupts your gifsets and that sucks when you just want a big dose of Mulder and Scully in your eyeballs, but what sucks worse is seeing a message pop up on your dash and feeling a sense of dread that its someone come to call you something unthinkable behind the mask of anon. It’s a visceral gulp I still feel on bad days.

Tumblr used to be my haven. It was a fun place, my first taste of fandom and I used to scroll for hours, skipping over hurt and hate because it wasn’t my business except suddenly it made me its business. Suddenly my place of fun was full of people calling me names, accusing me of lying, trying to discredit me, threatening my anonymity, my job, trying to claim ownership and spoil my interaction with Gillian. I still don’t really know why it happened but I do know that the result was, overnight, my relationship with tumblr changed.

My comfort puppy had grown teeth and the bite hurt. And the silence was deafening.

Luckily, I have a group of friends here who have stuck with me though it all, supported me on and off screens and often been damned for doing it. But if I didn’t have them, I probably wouldn’t still be blogging. When I read one of the various essays about why I was a terrible person who needed to be punished I noticed that many of the people who liked and reblogged it were people who, up to that moment, had been commenting and liking the fic I shared. They were people with whom I’d discussed life, shared interests. Months of sharing my life and my work suddenly seemed meaningless, how could they believe such vile lies, and just like that my safe space shattered.

For every person who messaged me support there was one who liked that post.

And for every person who liked that post there were ten who just said nothing and kept interacting with both me and the people hell bent on driving me out. In the midst of the hurt and the worry, this was almost impossible for me to comprehend. Was I loved or hated? Or was I truly so unimportant that my tumblr torture was just an annoying blip for people? Was I being unreasonable? The thing about silence is that it creates even more room for self doubt, and however strongly you know you are in the right, the vacuum of neutrality between hate and support does amplify the bad rather than the good.

Anyway.

I’ve rebuilt a tumblr experience for myself now where I feel secure. I have learned not to take the silence personally, found out who my true friends are and realised that honestly, the fandom don’t deserve as much of me as I was giving. I’ve learned to care less and stop worrying about pleasing everyone (which is impossible). I enjoy being here still, but it’s not the same as it was. I will never truly feel “zen” and that is why I find the people saying “shhh” when I do choose to speak up so frustrating.

If you have never had the rug ripped out from under you then please don’t “shhh” me. I don’t post to ruin your day, or to “stir up drama”. I post when I decide that my silence is a greater injury to those being persecuted than a weapon to the persecutors. And sometimes maybe I get the balance wrong, but it’s important to me that when the hate spreads out beyond the area that I have designated “no mans land”, when the irrational hatred of a few starts to be shared and seep into the likes and circles close to me that I stand up and say “NO”. Because I was lucky. I’m mentally resilient, I had support and I didn’t fall apart, and I think it’s important to lend that strength to whoever is next in line for the kind of crappy treatment I experienced.

And that’s all I really want of others, not a mindless bandwagon of drama crusaders to call on, but just the acknowledgement that your safe space may have become someone else’s nightmare, and that they’re doing their best to get back to a happy place. Support and solidarity and awareness of the situation, go a long way to help that process, resolve it faster and make it easier to forgive, if not forget what has happened.

Which I guess is a really long way of saying thank you for this message. I really appreciate it. And to all the silent ones out there, it’s okay, you don’t have to like my rants but maybe also consider not liking the stuff posted by the people who tried to burn me as a witch ya know? Be neutral but be truly neutral, and show compassion, your annoyance will pass faster than the effects of a stint as the fandom pinata.

10 notes · View notes

klein-archive · 7 years

Text

Omnipotence, survival and hope

20th July 2016

I have unearthed some very interesting material in the archive, concerning Klein’s emphasis on the child’s need for some ‘mania’ and ‘omnipotence’ as part of normal development. That is, she seems to want to stress not just the defensive need for omnipotence, and its potentially destructive consequences, but also its potentially reparative (or ‘restorative’) and developmental functions. She also makes an important link between omnipotence and hope. This nuanced and balanced view already comes out in some of Klein’s published writing but it seems to me that it is somewhat more emphasised in other, unpublished work to be found in the archive.

In her 1935 published paper ‘A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States’, and further in ‘Mourning and its Relation to Manic Depressive States’ of 1940, before her final idea of the paranoid schizoid and depressive positions was established, Klein proposed a ‘manic position’ oscillating with the depressive position. To quote from her 1940 paper: “The fluctuations between the depressive and the manic position are an essential part of normal development. The ego is driven by depressive anxieties (anxiety lest the loved objects as well as itself should be destroyed) to build up omnipotent and violent phantasies, partly for the purpose of mastering and controlling the ‘bad’, dangerous objects, partly in order to save and restore the loved ones…omnipotence, denial and idealisation, closely bound up with ambivalence, enable the early ego to assert itself to a certain degree against its internal persecutors and against a slavish and perilous dependence upon its loved objects…” (Klein 1940, p.349).

I have so far found in the archive two examples of unpublished work in which the need for, and thus sometimes the positive value of, omnipotence is stressed even further. There is a sense of Klein worrying away at this problem, wanting to be fair to both sides, so to speak. The first fragment appears in PP/KLE/D4, and consists of three typed pages, with a heading in Klein’s own writing. It may have been intended to be part of a lecture. It is a theoretical note, which appears amongst a large collection of material (D1-D17) mostly relating to technique.

Extract from D4

Although the extract below is undated, Klein probably wrote it between 1940 and 1946, as it refers to material about the depressive and manic positions as it appeared in her 1940 paper, but not to the paranoid schizoid position, which is described only in 1946. Some of the phrasing is identical to that used in the 1940 paper, (for example ‘slavish and perilous dependence on its loved object’). The three-page fragment reads as follows:

[Title in Klein’s handwriting, and underlined]

Manic Position

[The rest is in typescript]

I want to stress the fact that the change over from the depressive to the manic position and the fluctuations forward and backwards between these positions are a condition for normal development.

As I mentioned in my paper, the manic position indicates an important advance in development. To deal with its anxieties and grief arising out of the phantastic destructions of its loved object, the ego must employ omnipotent phantasies- partly for the purpose of controlling and mastering its dangerous objects, partly in order to save and restore its loved objects. Thus, the first activities and sublimations of the infant are linked up with his omnipotent phantasies.

Another important element of the manic position I stressed is denial, which is also an indispensable condition for development. Without partial and temporary denial of his psychic reality the ego cannot bear the disaster he is confronted with when it becomes identified with the whole and loved object.

Omnipotence and denial thus enable the ego to assert itself to a certain degree against its internal persecutors and against the slavish and perilous dependence on its loved object, and thus to make further steps of development, such as ambivalence in connection with the real objects- by the ego’s splitting them into good and bad – that is to say into loved and hated ones – together with a reinforced operation of the mechanisms of projection and introjection – mechanisms all of which allow the ego to gain more trust in some objects and to carry out reparation in connection with these, that is to say to develop sublimations. Thereby anxiety and guilt become diminished and the strengthened ego is able to make further steps towards the unification of his imagos and towards facing more its psychic reality and again more up to the depressive position with the sufferings this implies.

It is clear that the outcome must be entirely different whether or not the ego fortifies its manic position in a stronger or lesser degree. If the manic position is strongly held further steps towards facing its psychical reality with all that this implies are impeded. Much depends also on the ways and directions in which the manic defence is being used. Whether omnipotence is predominantly used for destroying or for aggressive mastering and controlling the objects, or for purposes of restoration much lead to entirely different results both as regards sublimations and relations to objects. As one can easily observe, very strong feelings of omnipotence, if they serve predominantly purposes of restoration, can result in real great achievement and in a fairly good relation to objects, if the development of the ego can keep pace with the phantasies.

Then again, as regards denial: what is the chief content of the denial? Is it the extent of the subject’s greed, hate and guilt, is it the strength of his feelings of love, or is it the importance and value of his objects? And here again, of objects in general, or of some particular object? Is it the greatness of the destruction and the danger of the persecutors which is to be denied, or the ego’s incapacity to restore? And so on. All these details being the result of an interplay between omnipotence, denial and a multitude of other factors, have a strong bearing on the relation to people and to sublimations.

Considering the manic position in connection with object relations and feelings of love, I should say that it does not necessarily do away with them, but always restricts and impedes them in one way or another. Besides diminishing the strength of feelings altogether and disturbing the capacity of a good object with people in general, there are usually brought about special conditions under which positive feelings towards objects can come out. For instance, some persons can have friendly feelings towards only if they get praise or reassurance from them, or if they can master them. This mastery can be either predominantly aggressive or predominantly restorative. Or, the object which can be taught or helped in one way or another, and which the individual thereby controls, can be loved to a certain degree. An important characteristic of this position, if it is developed to any strength, seems to me to be the difficulty in understanding people as they are and appreciating their objective value, apart from the object’s attitude towards the subject. This implies that the manic attitude is lively to blur judgement and to impede a deep insight.

In her last paper, ‘On the Sense of Loneliness’ (1963), published after her death, Klein explores the relationship between omnipotence and hope. She says: With integration and a growing sense of reality, omnipotence is bound to be lessened, and this again contributes to the pain of integration, for it means a diminished capacity for hope. While there are other sources of hopefulness which derive from the strength of the ego and from trust in oneself and others, an element of omnipotence is always part of it (Klein 1963, pp.304-5).

Extract from C29

In the archive there is additional material in C29 connected with Klein’s work on the ‘Loneliness’ paper. This material was written in the late 1950s, near the end of her life. Here, in her unpublished notes and jottings, Klein goes even further in underlining the vital relation, as she sees it, between omnipotence and hope. She scribbles various notes to herself. Some of them are headed ‘For book’, and the impression is that she intended to write a whole book on loneliness. One such memo, typed on a page to itself reads:

For Book

The importance of omnipotence: without it one cannot live. Hope is impossible without omnipotence. If you have not the feeling that you can carry something through, you cannot carry through anything.

[In another note she writes (in typescript except where noted)]:

Note re Omnipotence [added in handwriting] For Book

Optimism and the feeling of being able to wait is supported by omnipotence. This need not be omnipotence to such a degree that it falls under the heading of megalomania – it can be of a much more moderate form and degree. But it is part of that feeling “never mind, I shall achieve what I want, I shall preserve my good object, etc.”

This feeling, like idealization, goes when integration is achieved.

The feeling of flatness is not only that glamour is gone, but also what glamour consists of, and that is omnipotence.

One never loses omnipotence. Any omnipotence still derives from that original source. This element persists, and links with hope. There is a stimulus towards hope derived from omnipotence.

References

Klein, M (1935) A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States. The Writings of Melanie Klein, Vol 1 London: Hogarth Klein, M (1940) Mourning and its Relation to Manic-Depressive States. The Writings of Melanie Klein, Vol 1 London: Hogarth Klein, M (1946) Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms. The Writings of Melanie Klein, Vol 3 London: Hogarth Klein, M (1963) On the Sense of Loneliness. The Writings of Melanie Klein, Vol 3 London: Hogarth

Note: I have also used some of this material from Klein’s ‘Loneliness’ archive in a discussion paper at the Melanie Klein Trust conference held on 4 June 2016, the material of which will be posted on the Melanie Klein Trust website in due course.

#melanie klein #psychoanalysis #omnipotence #mania #depressive position

1 note · View note