#Just so many paragraphs of historical context

[si-fii]

Beowulf beginning walked so that Lord of the Rings preface could run

#Just so many paragraphs of historical context #Lit meme #look #i think it’s funny #Lotr #i am trying to read the first book after the hobbit it’s nice #But I know when I was a kid I would have never had the attention span to take it all in #Not because of my intelligence but because of my adhd rip

[matan4il]

To the Nonnie who sent me an ask that started with this paragraph:

For me the most frustrating and easily identified antisemitism is that so many pro Palestinian people will claim any eyewitness accounts from Israelis or jews are lies/propaganda but take eyewitness accounts from Palestinian or pro Palestinian sources as fact.

You're so damn right. That's exactly what it is. Hamas is a terrorist organzation that kills people, both Israelis and its own Palestinian population, and yet for some reason, everything these terrorists say, is believed, most especially the number of dead (without questioning the figure, or the figure of women and kids out of it, or why there are no Hamas terrorists reported among them, or where are the victims of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's failed rockets among the reported dead, or why does it still include the 500 figure from the explosion at the al-Ahli hospital which we now know was caused by a failed PIJ rocket that did NOT kill 500 people, or how many of the reported women and kids were members of Hamas as well). Hamas intentionally makes sure that only its version of events in Gaza is aired to the world, using dictatorial means, while Israel is a free society, with a free investigative press, where there are people who will whistleblow if need be, but no, anything Israeli Jews say is seen as a lie. And it's not just a doubt cast at the government. Civilian women, who volunteered at the morgue to help bury the female victims of Hamas' massacre, spoke about seeing the physical evidence of the rapes and sexual abuse Israeli Jewish women had suffered. And still the world demanded evidence, as if the word of these volunteers is nothing.

Because they're Jews.

Here is an article about the baby that was burned alive in an oven by Hamas. Again, the person who spoke out about it is a volunteer first responder. A civilian. Yet still, he's not believed. Because he's a Jew.

(and if I'm not mistaken, the first person I heard about this from was another first responder, in another article, so there is more than one testimony regarding this)

Regarding the reverse Uno card that the anti-Israel crowd played, it seems to be their general tactic, but I came across the "it was actually done by an Israeli to a Palestinian" when it comes to a murdered baby, in the context of the pregnant Israeli woman, whose stomach was cut open, and then her child was murdered. I wrote here about how Muhammed el-Kurd lied, that an Israeli soldier did that to a pregnant Palestinian woman, but the massacre he claimed it happened in, was not actually carried out by Israelis, it was carried out by Arabs. Easiest lie to debunk ever. And yet, they will lie. Because most people will believe it, and not see the debunking, or not actually believe it, 'coz... Jews are liars. Never mind that these are recorded historical facts. But to your most important point, like I said, you're right. To them, the word of a random guy, posting against Israel on Twitter, is totally reliable, but not that of Israeli Jews, or the proof that Hamas filmed themselves (as you rightly pointed out). It absolutely is antisemitic.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

#israel #antisemitism #israeli #israel news #israel under attack #israel under fire #israelunderattack #terrorism #anti terrorism #hamas #antisemitic #antisemites #jews #jew #judaism #jumblr #frumblr #jewish #ask #anon ask

[jinitak]

Rant about the book Jom is reading

The book Jom is reading from is Khan Chang Khan Phaen, a Thai literary classic. It is folklore from Siphon Buri and was only written down long after it was conceived.

The story by modern standards is quite problematic, I have summarised the story below but there is a TL;DR below this paragraph;

Khun Phaen (previous name, Phlai Kaeo), Wan Thong (previous name, Pham Phi La Lai) and Khun Chang were childhood friends, Shun Chang is handsome whilst Shun Phaen is balding. Wan Thong would fall in love with Khun Phaen and Khun Chang would fall in love with Wan Thong and they marry but he was sent to command an army to Ching Mai. During his absence, Khan Chang came up with a scheme to get Wan Thong to marry him, by lying that Khun Phaen was killed in action, it worked and Wan Thong was unwillingly married to him. When Khun Phaen came back, he found what happened and tried to get Wan Thong back, despite him finding a wife in Chiang Mai already. He kidnap Wan Thong from Khan Chang, getting a 3rd wife in process. Each side would kidnap Wan Thong back and fourth a couple times which led to a trial by Phra Phanwasa (meaning the Queen mother), the matriarch of the Kingdom, which ended in Wan Thong being executed for not wanting to commit to either men.

TL;DR a woman gets stuck in a love triangle between a man she loved which betrayed her trust and a man she didn't love who treated her well but their relationship was based on lies. In the end she was executed for not committing to a relationship. (Who could blame her to be honest)

Parts of this epic is actually mandated in Thai schools (I had this for one of my Thai midterms, lol) and in the education system, they focus on the literary rather than the historical context behind the epic.

Many scholars such as Sujit Wongthes believe that this epic is actually a story about a fictional hero of the Suphannaphum Kingdom, one of the kingdoms that would become Ayutthaya in the 14th century. The Suphannaphum dynasty would rule Ayutthaya for much of its early history, which might explain how the story is so widespread.

Sujit believes that many aspects of the epic is representative of the early history of the Suvarnabhumi (not the airport) region, such as

Khun Phaen being a name for the Hindu god of creation, Brahma

Khun Phaen's magical sword, the "Fa Fuen" is named after an ancestral god of the Nan and Luang Prabang region.

When presenting the "Fa Fuen" to Phra Phanwasa, she placed it next to the Chai Si sword, which is representative of the Lao-Khmer origins of Ayutthaya.

All in all, Sujit argues that this folklore is more rooted in the ruling classes than the popular folk. This analysis of Khun Chang Khun Phaen is not present in the episode though, as this would ruin the mood of it so much.

But its inclusion even though it seems out of place (Suphan Buri is in the central parts of Thailand whilst the story is set in the north), is actually not that weird. In the period of the series, Bangkok has just had a major reforms to local administration, ditching the Mandala system in favour of western style centralisation based on colonial administration in the Dutch East Indies. This had the effect of Bangkok suppressing Lanna culture and a "Siamisation" of Lanna. Yai's family who I presume is local administrators sent from Bangkok shows this very cleary, he doesn't try to blend in with locals, he speak the central (Siamese) tongue and reads Siamese literature.

The inclusion of this epic rather than using something most Thai people already know to create the scene, it also creates the historical backdrop in which the series is set.

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk. I might talk about Sunthon Phu, which Yai recited whilst drunk and also talk about the historical context behind the series too. Please tell me if you are interested.

#thai bl #i feel you linger in the air

[traegorn]

you never read the lilith question from the first edition of lilith magazine you twisted presumptuous fraud and antisemite

So I'm probably giving you more attention than you deserve, but I also hate leaving someone who keeps repeatedly shouting something at me that's so wrong uncorrected.

You brought this up back in September (yes, this has been going on for that long), and at the time I hadn't read it so I assumed it supported your argument. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and trusted that it said what you said.

But here's the thing, I've since read it.

And it doesn't support what you're saying at all.

(Putting the rest under a cut since this gets long...)

So going to the actual piece we have to remember what "Lilith Magazine" is. It's a Jewish Feminist magazine writing primarily for a Jewish audience. Cantor-Zuckoff is talking about how Jewish women may want to look at her story differently. I don't find anything in there arguing for Lilith to be some pan-feminist icon for non-Jewish people. In fact, in the article Cantor-Zuckoff says:

What we have to explore are the uniquely Jewish aspects of the Lilith story, and how they relate to the Jewish experience, to Jewish history. After all, Jews lived among many different peoples and were subject to a bombardment of cultural and religious concepts and myths from all sides. What they accepted is important because it shows us what Jews perceived as necessary and appropriate to Jewish life and its continuity. How they transmuted what they accepted is also significant for this reason. The account of Lilith’s revolt in the Alphabet is, to the best of my knowledge, intrinsically Jewish; no non-Jewish source tells of a female struggle for equality or gives it as a reason for the vengeful behavior of a female demon. This is especially important to us in exploring how the Lilith myth connects with our unique history.

The only comments about universality in the piece are when Cantor-Zuckoff says that there are stories with some similarities in other cultures just prior to those last two paragraphs:

These legends of Lilith-as-demon, the vengeful female witch, are, of course, not unique to Jewish culture and tradition. Many scholars theorize that vengeful female deities or demons, like the Greek hecatae, represent the vestiges of the dying Matriarchy or are an attempt by men to discredit the Matriarchy.

What Cantor-Zuckoff is arguing here is that there are myths in other cultures that have been influenced by patriarchy and serve some similar functions. This is not an argument for other people using Lilith, only that there are elements she shares. To claim they're the same though is bizarre, as you wouldn't claim that, say, Kinich Ahau and Helios are the same god just because they're both associated with the sun.

I think this really goes back to the fact that you've started with a conclusion and just reject anything that contradicts it. You really want it to be true. What I have said from the start is that Lilith is a figure who is unique to Jewish folklore. I backed this up with with the evidence we find in the historical record. I debunked the supposed "non-Jewish Lilith" sources.

And I said listen to Jewish people about what's okay or not okay to use from their culture, as they are a closed ethnoreligion, and not listening to them would make someone an asshole. You've been having a bizarre tantrum at me for like half a year now, and it's getting sad.

I don't know why you seem to care that I, a random person you will never meet, thinks you're being an asshole, but this has to stop.

(Context Note: For anyone who is seeing this post first in this ongoing "conversation" -- this anon has been harassing me for months because I dared say in my podcast that Lilith is a figure who comes exclusively from Jewish folklore, and that members of the Modern Witchcraft Movement should listen to Jewish people when they ask us not to appropriate her. That's right -- my saying "listen to Jewish people" is apparently an antisemitic act.)

#witchblr #witch #witchcraft #lilith

[notyourmajesty]

Henry's Dog David, and How RWRB (the Book and the Movie) Explore the Meaning of His Name.

(GIF by @andysapril)

CW: Mentions of deaths, murder attempts, mostly from Bible verses.

An Easter Egg from the book that the film managed to incorporate in an entirely different context.

Henry naming his dog David is one of the things Alex comments on both in the film and the book. He finds the name particularly odd for a pet, and when Henry tells him later that the inspiration was David Bowie, Alex remarks that he could have just used the surname instead.

This is basically just me overthinking the way the book and the film added "David and Jonathan" to two totally different scenes haha.

David Bowie

There has been a lot of debate over Bowie's sexuality since the 70s, and possibly conflicting statements from Bowie himself over the decades, but he did leave quite an impact on queer people in his time (ref: this article). Henry both in the book and in the film has often turned to literature and art for inspiration, and solace, when it came to exploring his own identity as a gay man. All kinds of historical queer identities - both debated and confirmed - show up in the tapestry of people and ideas that have influenced Henry's own thoughts and ideas (Alex's too). So it definitely makes sense that he would name his beloved pet dog after one of those inspirations.

(notably, during Henry's dramatic entrance when Alex comes down to the UK for damage control, the song playing is Bowie's "Up the Hill Backwards". You also see him choose a Queen song for karaoke, which makes me want to really headcanon him as a 70s prog rock fan 😄)

David and Jonathan

In the book, Alex goes over the details of Henry's fact sheet with Nora and his sister June. When he mentions the name of Henry's dog, he claims his dislike for the name is because it sounds more like a "tax attorney" than a beloved pet (Ch 2).

In the film, it's his SS detail Amy who quizzes him. She responds to his quip about Henry's choice of name for a pet by telling him what she's named her own dog. It's a tiny, fun detail with no lasting importance in the film, but I feel it does work within the larger framework of how the film incorporates queer readings and figures too.

I see this as a reference to a popular reading of the Hebrew/Biblical story of David and Jonathan from the 2 books of Samuel. David was a shepherd anointed by the prophet Samuel (through orders from God), to succeed King Saul, and Jonathan was Saul's son who was extremely devoted to David and even saved him from his father's wrath. They were known to have made a covenant to each other soon after they met, and the first Book of Samuel gives us a picture of an immensely close bond between the two:

After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. (1 Samuel 18, 1-4)

Interpretations of their relationship have ranged from close friendship to a romantic relationship, and there have been many, many queer readings on this pair.

In Casey McQuiston's RWRB too, Alex references both a saying from the Book of Proverbs (24:13), and the story of David and Jonathan in the same paragraph. This is in Ch 10, when Henry takes Alex to the V&A museum. This particular sequence is in the inner chamber of the museum, shortly after the couple dance to Elton John's "Your Song".

He compares himself and Henry to "a lost David and Jonathan", and it's pretty obvious why when you think of their devotion, and the tragic end of the relationship of the latter. Like Jonathan, Henry is a prince utterly devoted to one man, and sure that his family too will be against their bond. Like David, Alex is an outsider who the royal family may view as a threat to their stability, and therefore must be kept away. David's love for Jonathan is immense: he makes the covenant with Saul's son soon after they meet, and when he mourns Jonathan's death, he says "Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26).

This amazing post from @elipheleh explores this metaphor more in detail (as well as St. Chiara, and a quote from Oscar Wilde, who is referenced both in the book and the film as a writer Henry is fond of). It also speaks about the verse from the Book of Proverbs that Alex remembers, partly in Spanish, partly in English - Eat honey, my son, for it is good; honey from the comb is sweet to your taste. (Proverbs 24:13-14)

(Jonathan in 1 Samuel also has his own reference to honey - there is a story that chronicles a tense moment between Jonathan and his father, King Saul, due to Jonathan eating wild honey on a day when the troops were bound by an oath to fast (he had not heard the oath himself). He almost faces death by Saul's hand for breaking the oath the latter had made, but is saved by the other people in the troops. (1 Samuel 14: 24-46). I've seen different ways of this passage being interpreted - as either Jonathan being judged for disobeying an oath even though he was not around when it was announced, or Saul being viewed as foolish for making such an oath in the first place. The main point is, Saul is ready to kill his son for breaching a certain protocol, and it is the people who save Jonathan.

Similarly IMO, Henry is prepared to live his whole life in the closet viewing his sexuality as something that would bring shame to his family, but eventually recognizes that he has support. Both within his family (in the form of his mother Catherine and his sister Bea), and in the public eye)

At this point in their lives, Alex and Henry see very little hope that things will get better soon enough for them to unite. It is more than likely that - in their minds - this one romantic visit will be their last for a long, long time. Of course David and Jonathan - who parted ways in the hope of being reunited after the battle with Jonathan's father, and whose friendship/love met a tragic end - would be considered a fitting parallel for the situation Alex and Henry find themselves in.

The book has the space and scope to explore many, many images and symbols that could fit Alex and Henry. Whether it's in the letters they send each other, the references Alex learns more about as he figures out his sexuality. The book can - at the V&A museum - describe the statues the two men linger at in loving detail, making us more aware how poignant their temporary separation will be and how bittersweet this last dance is.

The movie's focus is different - the V&A scene is a (presumably) final, deeply intimate moment that lets Alex see for real the weight of his role in Henry's environment, and how little he expects to see his dreams come true. It also lets Henry see how determined Alex is to make his every dream a reality.

Most moments of highlighting queer literature or history are pocketed away in smaller sequences in the film, as small references and Easter eggs (eg. the books they recommend each other), as the film focuses more on the relationship and it's effects both on the men and the world around them. The V&A is more a visual backdrop for that bittersweet last moment where the two can find equal ground and truly understand each other. I think mentioning the names of the statues would take away from that.

The movie didn't need to include David and Jonathan. Why is why I'm truly, truly grateful that they still did. Even as a tiny, cute Easter egg that is supposed to be banter about weirdly specific pet-naming protocol 💖

#Youtube #Spotify #rwrbmovie #red white and royal blue #alex claremont diaz #henry fox #henry george edward james hanover stuart fox #rwrb movie #henry fox mountchristen windsor #firstprince #taylor zakhar perez #alex x henry #nicholas galitzine #rwrb thoughts

[featherymalignancy]

Okay like if you agree, but….

here are 3 trends that I wish the fantasy genre would take a break from for a little while.

*Quick disclosure, this isn’t meant to feel overly negative, I mostly want to hear other people’s opinions on these trends and others!*

Hungry Games-esque “a competition with deadly stakes” plot lines. On the one hand, I get it, because like the rest of the world, I was totally enthralled by this premise when it was first introduced in the 2000 Japanese film Battle Royale and later, the Hunger Games. However, at this point the idea of the main character entering into a deadly competition feels a little tired and predictable, and unlike Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, the many of the latest iterations lack the searing social commentary which made the premise so compelling. Notable Examples: Serpent and the Wings of Night, Lightlark, The Jasad Heir

Motherfucking EPIGRAPHS. You know, that line or paragraph of text which proceeds every chapter. In the fantasy genre, often it is an except from a historical or religious text from the world in which the book is set. And here’s the thing—it’s not that I hate epigraphs, or that I don’t understand their purpose. They can be an elegant way to add context to the story without burdening the main narrative with too much exposition, and they can also help the created world to feel more “lived in”. Having said that, I feel like they are starting to get way overused, and for me, they’ve gone from feeling like a cool way for the author to provide context and add meta commentary to their story to serving as a slightly less clunky vehicle of info-dumping. Like…am I supposed to be remembering the characters of this lore which I only ever hear about through these epigraphs, because I can assure you, I am not. In other instances, they can feel like an authors lack of faith in the reader, as if they are afraid we might miss the point if they don’t include an unsubtle cue as to where we ought to focus our attention at the start of every chapter. I respect the role epigraphs have played in fantasy classics like Dune and Wheel of Time, but I currently feel the number of novels employing them has become fatiguing, and I hope the trend of including them decreases, at least in the short-term. Notable examples: Fourth Wing (Empyrean Series, Swordcatcher, Furyborn (Empirium series)

A [Blank] of [Blank] and [Blank] Not much to say here other than…when are romantasy authors going to let this go?? 😮‍💨😮‍💨 While you could argue the true genesis of this title naming convention could be GRRM’s A Song of Ice of Fire, I think we can all agree that—for better or worse—it was the popularity of ACOTAR that sent this title style into the stratosphere, and at this point, it has become ubiquitous to the point of literal disorientation. To me there is nothing inherently wrong with this title style (though I would also argue there is nothing particularly gripping about it, at least not enough to warrant a trend of this size) but it basically renders all of these books—which are already of a similar vibe and style—virtually indistinguishable. As a reader on the hunt for new books to scratch that romantasy itch, it’s nearly impossible to tell the dozens of titles bearing this title apart, which means I have no sense which which ones I’ve read, which I haven’t, which caught my interest, which I started and didn’t care for, etc. I have idea how much of this is a consequence of publishers trying to capitalize on a known entity in order to make the most money and how much is just the fact that naming a book is really fucking hard, but good lord, what is it gonna take to stop this madness? Notable examples: quite literally too many to name

What do yall think? Do you agree, disagree? What are some fantasy trends you’d like to see go away/make a comeback

#feathery asks #fantasy genre #fantasy trends #iron flame #SJM

[pluralsword]

An Essay: Trans History and Retcons Regarding IDW1 Arcee and Her Spotlight

As we've slowly learned more and deeply immersed into IDW1 Arcee's writing over the years, finding much more than just kinship to her, we felt this urge to dig further, to understand, feeling threads that were there regarding trans history, but not having much knowledge regarding historical transmedicalism, so we dug. We dug because we wanted to show that Arcee's writing from 2012-2018 not only is a beautiful trans story unique in science fiction, but that her personality there and in part in her Spotlight (which absolutely did not intend trans stuff and walked into a minefield in that regard that inadvertently opened up the opportunity for the writing and consulting team in Phase 2 and Phase 3 to figure out beautiful character arcs for her) are direct successors of the original personality frameworks for G1 Arcees, and to show the impact and legacy of both Sunbow/Marvel and IDW Arcees along with more Arcees combined on many versions of her thereafter.

Here's the introductory paragraph:

In much of the last decade, a lot of people familiar with Transformers’ trans stories appreciate Arcee being trans and her arcs in that regard from 2012 onwards. But during those six years from 2012-2018 where her narratives that firmly navigated her agency as a trans gal were being established by a number of writers, with consulting help in 2015 for Ask Vector Prime and 2018 for IDW1, there was and remains uncertainty over how exactly that works for her, specifically for her comic iteration where her transness was first hinted and then plainly stated. The variety of understandings in this regard in part originates from her introduction to the IDW1 run, Spotlight Arcee, in 2008, which was received rather turbulently because of how it portrayed her gender and transformer gals at large. Writing years after would navigate resolving this rather beautifully as showing Arcee having struggled with transmedicalism, isolation, abandonment, loneliness, and alienation, the brutality of a violent (and androcentric) world, as many trans people across gender and parallel spectrums or lacks thereof have in real life. Her story is done in a wlw trans gal context in particular. She is shown getting closure on all this, finding her happiness by the end of that continuity that would along with her story at large as a sweet, ferocious, outspoken old warrior sage help set the tone for her portrayals afterwards. Much of this overlaps with how she was described in her The Transformers Universe bio all the way back in 1986. In these regards, we (the writer of this is plural, we'll have a note about that near the end) think it is pertinent to take another look at how her story played out, what was actually written and shown vs. what was intended, to navigate transmedicalist history that overlaps with her story, and to show that Arcee’s trans iterations are directly part of the legacy of G1 Arcee overall

also a brief fact check edit regarding HRT:

we said HRT only effects hormones but realized we should fact check that, and apparently for some people HRT does effect their genes!! (this is separate from the discussion of gender journeys and epigenetics which we personally know next to nothing about) this a deeply understudied topic you can read about it here:

Gender-affirming hormone therapy induces specific DNA methylation changes in blood

#transformers #maccadam #Arcee #trans arcee #idw arcee #g1 arcee #idw1 #idw 2005 #transformers idw #transformers g1 #trans robot #trans scifi #trans science fiction #trans transformers #arcee/aileron #aileron #anode #lug idw #exrid #robots in disguise 2012 #idw the transformers #transformers optimus prime #idw optimus prime #transformers unicron #trans history #transmedicalism #anti transmed #(obviously) #spotlight arcee #essay

[eleemosynecdoche]

Hecatia and the Lunarians

Blame/credit @sukimas for expressing interest in this...

Okay, so, Hecatia gets to talk for a few paragraphs in Alternative Facts in Eastern Utopia about Hell's history, and by implication, her own. Eirin and Toyohime each get a full chapter in Cage in Lunatic Runagate and they convey quite a lot of things about the Lunarian mindset and worldview. One thing that's struck me recently is that, although Hecatia is explicitly anti-Lunarian on a far deeper level than any other character who's gotten dialogue (Yukari's probably equally anti-Lunarian but she's less talkative about why), Hecatia is also positioned as a similar kind of entity to the Lunarians.

Firstly, they both tell origin myths about their associated locations which are straightforwardly contrary to both the familiar mythology and a more secular historical analysis. Hecatia talks about Hell originating not as a place of punishment and rehabilitation, but as a construct by powerful people who were uninterested in living according to conventional virtues.

What Hecatia probably means by Hell here is the Greek Tartaros (or Tartarus), which undergoes a historical transformation from an abyssal realm where defeated godlike powers are imprisoned indefinitely (eg in Hesiod) to a place where mortals and some minor immortals who transgressed against the gods were condemned to ironic torments in the more Classical Greek mythological writings.

But Tartaros is just a primordial place in Greek myths at every point. Like Kaos, or Gaea, or Aether, or Ouranos, it's both a deity and a space, part of the early structure of the universe before there are really personalities. Nobody built it.

Similarly, Toyohime tells a story about how the Lunar Capital was created by the great sage Tsukuyomi and their* desire to avoid the spread of impurity and death, and also tells a story identifying the Lunar Capital with the undersea Dragon Palace of Japanese folklore. And this is, in its way, consistent both with the textual tradition in which Tsukuyomi is the killer of the food goddess Ukemochi out of disgust with how she vomits food out, and also the fact that Tsukuyomi is a god without much cultic presence, a figure mostly in primordial mythology, unlike their very active siblings Amaterasu and Susanoo. (There are a couple shrines to them, especially as subordinate parts of large Amaterasu shrine complexes. But not many.)

But it's also not really derived from the mythology directly, and it's not quite drawing upon a clear historical transformation- Tsukuyomi-no-Mikoto seems to have always been primarily a literary figure, distant from practical religion.

Now, the Lunarians reject divinity, in the sense of rejecting the obligation to humans that being a kami in a shrine requires, the interactions and subordination to ritual. Hecatia also describes her original Hell as a place where people reject rules they don't like. So we also have this interesting convergence- these two sets of figures who assert a separate history of their own existence, disconnected from what ordinary humans thought then or now, also share in this kind of symbolic disconnect.

So one way of looking at their alternate histories is to treat them as assertions about the world and the universe more than statements of plain fact, which is definitely workable within the fictional context as well- Hecatia is manipulating Aya in her interview, Toyohime doesn't know the full details of the "history of the moon" and is to an extent repeating what she's been told. There's been quite a lot of good meta about those worldviews you can go read.

But another similarity that falls out of this analysis is that both sides of this pair exist in a state of relative freedom within Touhou cosmology, because the Lunarians are figures of literary myths who don't have to be reconciled with their behavior at the shrine, and Hekate is a famously confusing and difficult figure within the Greek and later Greco-Roman mythological complex- Hesiod presents her as a kind of universal helpful figure, as does the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, but other sources from early periods present her as sketchy or hellish. Still later, she would become treated as a nearly-omnipotent goddess in some of the Greek Magical Papyri- but what we know about her cult and position today is limited and even contemporary writers seem confused.

Hecatia is thus free in the cracks, because human imagination and human history have left her with great latitude, just like the objects of her distaste, the Lunarians. I suppose in a way it's the contempt bred of familiarity- you have all this freedom and this is how you use it? etc.

*Tsukuyomi's gender is unclear, according to Wikipedia in English, even given early poetic sources that refer to them in masculine terms. So I suspect there's some real uncertainty going on in the scholarship too.

#touhou #hecatia lapislazuli #watatsuki no toyohime #long post

[thesoftestcowboy]

Do you think Bavarian counts as its own language, or just a dialect group within (High) German?

So uhh I'm not a linguist (nor am i bavarian) so this is a bit random... I am interested in languages but my areas of expertise are history and culture so, idk, i guess I can write down some thoughts? Sorry I really tried to be short and coherent but uh. well

afaik the division between dialect and language isn't set in stone and social aspects often come into play there. Also, often things evolve from official rulings and law, politics and culture can be fairly closely connected (maybe if Bavaria had become a different state centuries ago, this would be a whole different discussion?). Of course, officially, it is considered a dialect. So are (for example), Austrian German further down south and things like Platt (up north) - but not Dutch, which many northern germans can understand fairly easily.

We can't exactly base it around borders (the same language being spoken in different countries is really common, plus then it wouldn't make sense to include bavarian but not austrian, which share more vocabulary than bavarian and northern german dialects). I could also ramble for entire paragraphs here about the historical idea of having a country based on shared language, but this is already too long. If we try to base it around mutual intelligibility, it would get even more complicated - as a southern person who doesn't speak bavarian, I still think it's not too hard to understand, but some northern dialects can seem like a different language to me. I guess Bavaria and its culture is generally just... well known and has this feeling of separation (again, I'll spare you the history rant), but there's plenty of areas that have a culture (and language) of their own.

So I guess we can base it on either the official definition (yes, it's a dialect) OR just try to make it fit the context - if we're talking about regional german cultures, I'd consider bavaria and its language just one out of many. If you're a learner, I'd say treat it like a separate thing with it's own vocabulary that you probably don't have to learn or understand.

#sorry for the non-answer i suppose. then again you did ask a non-linguist #idk what brought this on but like im open to talking about these things? it's interesting? i just don't know and its complicated #reply

[theromaboo]

6 and 8 for the history ask meme!

I sorry I took so long to answer this! I kept putting off answering and then I kind of forgot.

6. HF I never expected to like as much as I do

I think it has to be Claudius. For context, we're going to have to back up a few years.

When I was a little hellaboo and loved ancient Greece and stuff, I vowed NEVER EVER to like ancient Rome. I HATED ancient Rome and I was always like "Omg I'd never forgive myself if I started liking Roman history! Ancient Rome is the worst and ancient Greece is the best and it's everyone's problem!" Yes, I was that type of ancient Greece fan :(

And then I found out about Claudius and fell in love with him. Lol!

8. An obscure HF who needs more love

Britannicus!

I'd kill for a historical fiction novel—or any historical media for that matter—from his perspective. It would be so interesting! He's often kind of forgotten in the late Julio-Claudian dynasty. If he ever shows up in historical fiction, he's mostly just used as a little side piece to show how evil Nero and/or Agrippina are. We never often get to see what he thinks and details about him and stuff like that, which is a shame.

I think historical fiction about him has so many opportunities to be amazing and interesting! I liked Kento Ankokuden Cestvs because it actually got into a bit of detail about Brit and his emotions and his relationship with Octavia. Alas, Britannicus is only a minor character in it.

With actual non-fiction historical works, not going to lie, I can't blame them for not going very in depth with Britannicus. Because honestly, we don't know that much about him. He was also a child and not very important most of the time. So I totally understand why the modern sources about him are a little sparse.

But, I am yet to find a true deep dive into whether he was poisoned or not in English! At least, one I'm happy with. Anthony A. Barrett doesn't count; he wrote like one paragraph and failed to go into detail. Anyway, I do think maybe we Anglophones should step up a little with Britannicus in academia. The French are beating us!

"Well why do you like Britannicus so much?" you might ask. And I don't know honestly. I liked him for a reason, but at some point, I forgot that reason and continued liking him. And now, I've just been liking him for so long that of course I'm going to continue liking him.

#ancient rome #roman history #britannicus #just-late-roman-republic-things #history asks #asks

[zoobus]

your post on female-targeted isekai subgenres listed as one subgenre: "I woke up in a porn game/novel and I refuse to fuck"

how do i find those 🥺

Why would you want to >:(

I can't think of any off the top of my head besides I Fell Into A Reverse Harem Game,

which is a comic I regret not talking about on here as I read it because I liked it sooo much and I *think* it was heading towards a rather subversive conflict that would punish the heroine for refusing to fuck her harem (you have no idea how common introducing a harem just to reject them is, it drives me up the wall)

Additionally it felt like there might be consequences for imposing her 21st century values on this vaguely historical european world without considering the greater context or how "kindly" actions from a malevolent being might be perceived, and that's a premise I've been starving for since the beginning. I wanted to see someone isekai into a woman who's not just a villainess, but an actual colonizer, a war criminal that the world is correct to despise, and I wanted to see someone try the "I'll just be nice to everyone from now on" school of fixing things only for that to be the worst option.

There's a moment I can only describe as like, imagine Hillary Clinton telling a small child who lost their parents and became a victim of trafficking in the aftermath of the Honduran coup that she's super sorry, to make it up to you she's enrolling you in the finest private schools so you can one day become her personal assistant, maybe even secretary and the face that kid made was so perfect lmaooo. praying this comic ends in it all blowing up in her face. Also it's femdom fr. Before and after the isekaing.

Oh and while writing the following paragraph I remembered Protecting the Female Lead's Brother/Roxana

which I highly recommend if you like problematic girlbosses, good fucked up stories, femdom stockholm type relationships, and a little bit guro! I forgot about this one because while it's still pretty horny, they open it like this

but the actual vibes are more like this

But in general I can't think of many other examples because the otome isekai prompt "I'm suddenly in a +18 dating sim game" is almost always written by someone writing rated-G material. It's pretty annoying. A good percentage of them have so little to do with the original porn story, it's unclear why that was even the premise, like there are teen rated dating games? Why make it about a porn game other than to underline how innocent and pure the main character is. Even the two I'm praising aren't actual porn. It's often a sign that I won't like the book.

Now, I've read a couple actual porn stories using the theme but tbqh they're not good and I'm not posting them. Recurring issue where you realize the mc was brought into a real, existing story that this author hated and said author will interrupt their own story to remind you how much they hate the first author for being such a trash ass hack fraud. Mid-coitus.

#roxana #i fell into a reverse harem game #the way to protect the female lead's older brother #protecting the female Lead's order brother #god i hate how many alternative titles there are for each story #otome isekai #regret not talking about Roxana even more what an unexpected gem #lmao let's read this cringe bs and laugh->HOLY SHIT LET'S GOOOO FUCKED UP TOXIC WOMEN STAY WINNING #if you're taking this from the tags dio or dex or w/e his name was is a dork and if you like him you have projected a cool yandere persona #that is not supported by himself #recommendations

[demi-shoggoth]

2022 Reading Log pt. 21

101. The Rise and Reign of the Mammals by Steve Brusatte. This book covers mammalian evolution throughout synapsid history, starting in the Carboniferous and ending in the present day. There’s a lot of good information in here, both about the species themselves and the history of their discovery and discoverers. But I found the authorial voice consistently off-putting. Brusatte writes about evolution alternately like a war or a poker game, and there are constant references to dominating, beating or tricking other lineages, particularly dinosaurs. After crowing about how mammals survived and thrived in the Mesozoic by exploiting small body sizes and niches like eating seeds and insects, he dismisses all of bird evolution (which in the Cenozoic did the same thing) in a paragraph, and never talks about Cenozoic animals other than mammals at all. What’s weird is I don’t remember his previous book, The Rise and Fall of Dinosaurs, being so mercilessly jingoistic about its focus clade. Maybe the publisher told him to write more enthusiastically about a “less exciting” group; maybe it’s the zeal of the newly converted (Brusatte was primarily a dinosaur paleontologist until relatively recently); maybe the first book was this annoyingly written and I have forgotten.

102. The Accidental Ecosystem by Peter S. Alagona. This book is a short overview about how wild animals have moved into American cities, why American cities developed into places where animals can thrive, how humans are reacting to these and how we should in the future. The tone is generally optimistic but realistic—that cities can serve as oases of biodiversity during climate change and extinction events, but a world with only rats, crows and sparrows would be a depauperate one. Most of the book is organized around an incident of some charismatic megafauna making the news (like Pedals the bipedal bear of New Jersey, or a nesting pair of bald eagles blithely feeding their chicks fresh kitten), and then talking about that species in greater context. I’ve read several other books recently about human/animal interactions, and this one did the best job at being inclusive, talking about how parks can and have been used as agents of gentrification, the impact of economic decisions on the fate of cities and animals alike, and existing biases within ecology and evolutionary studies. Highly recommended.

103. Travels to the Otherworld and other Fantastic Realms, edited by Claude and Corinne Lecouteux, translated by Jon E. Graham. This is a collection of medieval European fantastic literature, although not all of it is necessarily fantasy in the modern sense. Some are religious visions, others historical fantasies, others excerpts from novels and folk tales. All of them are wild. Both as a look into the medieval mindset and for their various bizarre creatures and occurrences. Some highlights include multiple versions of the adventures of Alexander the Great, the Vision of Tundale, a German journey through Hell that’s much gnarlier than anything in Dante, and the adventures of Marcolf, the Sherlock Holmes to King Solomon’s Watson (!). Also highly recommended; this might be the most fun I’ve had with a book this year.

104. Empire of the Scalpel: The History of Surgery by Ira Rutkow. Just what it says on the cover. The book starts with trepanations of cavemen and progresses to the modern era. Rutkow follows the Great Man school of history, and many of the chapters are biographical sketches of a surgeon who was important in developing the field. It feels somewhat incomplete—not only are non-surgical advances in medicine basically ignored, the development of the modern American insurance state is glossed over, even as the book discusses how hospitals became prestigious institutions and surgeons very wealthy. The book also uses weird kennings, as if it were written by an Icelandic skald—surgeons are “scalpel wielders” or “students of the knife”, etc, as often as they’re just surgeons. I definitely learned stuff from this book (like the quack “orifical surgery”, which posed that all diseases could be cured by cutting out irregular shapes from the mouth, nose, anus and genital openings!), but found the book rather less than the sum of its parts.

105. Monster Anthropology, edited by Yasmine Musharbash and GH Presterudstuen. This is a collection of academic essays about monsters as cultural signifiers and participants. After a very good introduction (the Works Cited of which will keep me busy a long while), the bulk of the book looks at particular cultures and particular monsters. The book was published in Australia, and several of the essays are on the same group of Indigenous Australians, the Warlpiri, and their monsters (most of which have not penetrated Western consciousness, but the pankarlangu is starting to make some inroads). One minor note I found interesting—there’s an actual folkloric monster that fits the D&D concept of a rakshasa! The tepun of the Eastern Penan people in Borneo is a shapeshifting hedonist that has aspects of humans and tigers.

106. Scent: A Natural History of Fragrance by Elise Vernon Pearlstine. Gave up on 50 pages in. The book purports to be a natural history—what molecules are made by what plants, why, and how those plants live. The actual contents contain some of that, but much more cultural histories. I’ve read and enjoyed several books about the cultural history of plants recently, so I’m not inherently opposed to the concept. But the book is incredibly poorly organized. The narrative skips back and forth through time and space and species, words are used and then defined several pages later as if it’s the first time we’re seeing them, concepts will be repeated multiple times to the point of redundancy, and the preface and introduction contain the exact same sentences, twice! The fact that this book was published in this state is frankly embarrassing.

#reading log #bad books #botany #cultural history #paleontology #stem mammals #prehistoric mammals #anthropology #monster books #surgery #medical history #european folklore #medieval folklore #ecology #urban ecology

[inqorporeal]

Hi! Sending this as an Ask instead of reblogging the post that prompted it because I’m worried that a) I may come off as antisemitic or just trying to Start Shit, or b) even if I don’t my question might prompt it from someone else. I want to start by making it clear: I am not Jewish, and also I am trying to be respectful while learning, so if I mess up I would greatly appreciate it if you have the capacity to tell me what I need to change.

Anyway.

You posted about Zionism and its definition in Christian vs Jewish contexts. I knew about the end-of-days antisemitism but the Jewish take was new to me. I was hoping you might be able to clarify it a bit? You mentioned that it’s about the “simple right to exist, with their own culture intact”.

I am 100% in favor of this!

But, you also said something about the concept of a nation, as distinct from a state. Their “own claim to the land of their faith’s origin” bit doesn’t make sense to me AS PART OF the right for ongoing existence and culture. Would you be able to elaborate at all?

I might be totally misinterpreting the post. I read the idea of them having a “claim” to the land as inherently meaning that other people don’t and shouldn’t be there, but I think that might be my background (Aussie, so colonial history, and people continue to get real butthurt at the suggestion that Indigenous Australians have any kind of claim to the land we’re on, because I think it’s understood as an “us or them” thing)

Again, I’m not trying to start anything or take your words out of context or anything. Please feel free to ignore this ask and/or block, or to respond either publicly or privately, whatever you feel is most appropriate and will protect your wellbeing! Thanks for your time, sorry this Ask is a bit long!

(Link to the original post in question)

Thanks for asking! I actually had a paragraph on this in my initial post before deciding to keep that one simple and on-topic. I'm not Jewish myself, so my own understanding is very broad and general. I welcome anyone who wishes to fill in the gaps or correct anything I get wrong.

Simply put, Jews have as much claim to land in the historic Levant as Native American and First Nations tribes have to land in the Americas, as Māori have in Aotearoa. It's the land of their cultural origin just as much as it is the Palestinians'.

The concept of Land Back is a difficult one to address in even the most optimal of situations. Human history is a long list of migrations, conflicts, invasions, and resettlements; one people's foundation is often built literally upon the bones of another. State boundaries have shifted over and over again throughout history, often without the consent of the people who actually live there.

Who has the right to the land? Who has the right to govern it? There are no easy answers to these questions without sliding into hypocrisy.

This is why there are many proponents of a single-state solution: in theory, if both Jews and Palestinians have their origins in the same place, they should seek a way to coexist in parity. In practice, this is rather more contentious. As with the differences between Zionism and Evangelical Zionism, the matter of a cultural connection to the land is easily misunderstood because Christian culture and Jewish culture view land rights in entirely different ways.

The difference between, for example, me going to Germany now with 200-year old property records to claim the right to build a house there, and diaspora Jews returning to the land of Israel, is that I have no cultural connection to my ancestors' land, while a key aspect of Jewish culture is an eventual return to Jerusalem. The cultural root of European-colonized nations is one of total assimilation to a culture determined by historical Christian ideals, where land is viewed solely as a financial transaction and source of wealth, and my family's only connection to Germany lingers in a paternal surname that's been mangled beyond recognition. The theoretical property records I mentioned do not exist and if they ever did, I have no legally recognized right to claim them (and if I asked people living there now to leave, I'd get laughed at). The idea of a cultural connection to the land my ancestors once lived on is an alien one, which is why it's difficult for many people from European-heritage cultures to understand its importance.

Jewish culture has a very different relationship with its history than Christian culture does. Judaism views Israel in three parts: the state (government), the nation (people and culture), and the home (the land of cultural origin). Just as indigenous groups have cultural connections to parts of the land, just as Muslims revere Mecca and have a culture of pilgrimage, so Israel is to Jewish culture. If we're going to recognize the importance of one culture's local connections, we need to recognize them all.

The transactional nature of property in Christian culture -- which forms the foundation of capitalism, which is now dominating the global economy -- is why we often view Land Back as an Us Or Them issue. It doesn't have to be that way, but it's very difficult to conceptualize a third way that treats all parties with respect.

Like I said before, there are no easy answers. Human geography is a messy field full of metaphorical land mines; just when you think you've come up with a good general solution, you get hit by variables you didn't account for. We can't even say that it's a matter that should be addressed solely by the parties who have direct concerns and everyone else needs to butt out, because some parties that hold power have no interest in compromise (I'm thinking specifically of the US government's handling of indigenous concerns, but that's far from the only imbalanced conflict ongoing), and because our global economy is so deeply intertwined that a conflict in one part of the world affects other parts.

(This is why the United Nations was founded -- to try to resolve such conflicts before they erupt. A noble ideal, although the UN often fails to live up to it because of international power politics.)

I'm trying to remain as neutral as possible in these posts, but I do think that the US's proprietary attitude towards Israel -- which is in very large part due to the Evangelical concept of Zionism (which, as I explained in the previous post, is creepy and antisemitic) -- is not helping the situation at all.

I am not qualified to opine a solution -- and as an individual with zero personal stakes in the matter, my opinion counts for nothing except with regards to the US's involvement. But I hope this helps you understand what I meant!

#man i used 'culture' a lot in here but it really is a cultural issue #long post

[good-wine-and-cheese]

Writing Patterns (Tag Game)

Rules: list the first line of your last 10 (posted) fics and see if there's a pattern!

Tagged by @lethotep <3

I am also going to write more than just the first line since I too am a "very short snappy intro line" writer and want to include some more to the context. So you get the first paragraph instead. (I will bold the first lines though)

Generally speaking I try to include "commentary" in my first lines; usually from the character we will be following, but sometimes about the character we will be following. I either want to introduce a little bit of their attitude toward whatever is happening/has happened, or more broadly define what other people think of them.

However if I'm writing a story that either is an AU which requires some world explanation or involves specific historical (fiction or otherwise) events I will often try to identify those to set the scene and center the audience in the time/place.

But yeah usually my very first sentence is pretty short.

1. the indomitable human soul (Astro Boy): Tenma was not one who kept track of the days. Dates, yes; he remembered dates. Important dates like birthdays. Anniversaries. Deaths. But not the days themselves; they were all the same, a singular ebb and flow of time that occasionally involved sleeping, occasionally involved eating, but most often involved working.

2. His Many Multitudes (Astro Boy/PLUTO): So much death. So many tragedies. Every life belonged to someone that was loved, and it was those loved ones who bore the consequence of death. In Gesicht, there had fostered hatred so intense that he had taken human life. In Abullah, his hatred sought to swallow the entire world. And the one to stir that hatred…the one who had stirred it within Atom, too…

3. what world we wrought (PLUTO): ”In recent months, the President of Thracia has leveled heavy criticism toward the Kingdom of Persia for its barbaric treatment of its robotic population. President Alexander has sparked controversy for his approach to foreign policy, taking on a more aggressive approach than his predecessor during an already tumultuous time. Yet, on the issues of robot oppression, the President is said to be…”

4. Cogs and Machines (PLUTO): It was not in the nature of the meekly-mannered inventor of Zeronium to make a fuss. Many - most - knew him to be amicable, sometimes fast-talking, a little bit softspoken in the presence of more imposing faces. Yet even the meek and the quiet had limits, and those who caught sight of Dr. Hoffman hurrying down the hall to the director’s office would claim to recall three things: the stormy glare that made a monstrous thing of his face; the white-knuckle grip he had on a particular folder under his arm; and the heavy force of each stride taken that belonged to someone usually so light-footed.

5. Don't Turn Around (Monster): There weren’t words for this feeling. None that Tenma could even approach to represent it as an emotion. If anything, it was characterized by lack.. It was almost surreal; as he watched Grimmer’s life come to a close, he was the one who was losing touch with what he felt. If Grimmer had just now received a letter that was filled with all of his lost feelings, then Tenma’s had been sealed inside an envelope and lost someplace out of sight. He could do little more than stare, watching as everyone but him broke into mournful weeping and ragged wailing. He found himself questioning why his heart was the only one that felt empty. Why it continued to feel empty, why that emptiness stayed with him even after Johan’s surgery. Had those feelings of his been stolen? Had Grimmer reached out and taken them, in his final moments alive?

6. Ghost on the Shore (Monster): The waves were pretty rough sometimes. Worse when the rain came with them. But it was still beautiful in a way. Just the sound of water crashing and breaking on the rocks, wearing them down slowly, so slowly with time. From the lighthouse it was safe just to watch and listen. Not as though there was much else for a man to do. So, Wolfgang Grimmer kept his own quiet company watching the waves, humming to himself as he waited for the storm to pass. The rocks would be slippery after all that downpour. He’d have to be careful, venturing out and…

7. it takes a lot to understand (Monster): They called an ambulance. It didn't take very long for the sound of sirens to register, but by then it was time to leave. Doctor Tenma wasn't keen to take his chances to be spotted by authorities, but it was understandable given the run-in with those folks at the border that had nearly cost him his passage out of Germany.

8. hello, my old heart (Monster): “Welcome, sir. If there’s anything you need help with, please let me know.”

9. Monster's Abyss (Monster): The case of Peter Jurgens was, by all accounts but one, textbook in its nature from start to finish. Numerous interviews had allowed Gillen to delve into the mind of the killer, shaping anecdotes of memory into the human that existed as he was known today. Indeed, it was easy enough to write Jurgens off as a “monster”, sick and depraved with a hunger for power and sexual thrill. But that was simply a shallow label that held no meaning outside of distancing oneself from the natures of such a man. After all, if Jurgens was simply a “monster”, then he was no longer human. Categorizing violence as monstrous inherently removed it from humanness, and so the average man and woman could sleep comfortably without self-reflection because they, of course, were not monsters.

10. maybe it's the way that i'm supposed to grieve (Monster): I’m worried about him. After everything...do you really think he should be left alone? … I...I know. But I just...I want to be there for him, if I can.

I'll tag @strawberryclementine @duckoffury and anyone else that wants to do it!! I do not know a lot of folks that have 10+ fics I think but please feel free to take this from me if u want <3

#writing things #tag game #monster spoilers #for some reason this did nawtttt want to publish when I had the fic links put into a blockquote so uh. whatever lol #I may start with a short first sentence but uhhhh the paragraphs themselves? long lol #also fuck I needdddd to get back on monster's abyss. I need to finish that #want to write gillen being a bitch again. hrgh #but i have to finish sad (umataro)tenma story first #and also the pluto AU #those are the ones rattling my brain the moooost #punching my own teeth out over some of these fic names. i need to get fuckin better at that sis

[dolphin1812]

This chapter is super short, so I’ll just go paragraph by paragraph:

“This book is a drama, whose leading personage is the Infinite.

“Man is the second.”

The Infinite is back! Technically, it never leaves, but it’s been a while since we got an explicit reference to it. Its placement as the “hero” is interesting; this novel is very focused on “Man,” both in the sense that we follow people dealing with structures made by other people and in the sense that the apparent protagonist, Jean Valjean, is the “Everyman” in everything aside from his strength. The Infinite is less visible (although Hugo brings it up often), but with this order of heroes, it suddenly makes sense that we began with the bishop and not with Jean Valjean. The bishop is a person, of course, but as a religious figure, his role is to contemplate the Infinite even as he helps others. In some ways, he’s a bridge between these two “heroes.”

“ Such being the case, and a convent having happened to be on our road, it has been our duty to enter it. Why? Because the convent, which is common to the Orient as well as to the Occident, to antiquity as well as to modern times, to paganism, to Buddhism, to Mahometanism, as well as to Christianity, is one of the optical apparatuses applied by man to the Infinite. ”

Here, Hugo argues that analyzing the convent was necessary because it’s “universal” as a way of approaching the “Infinite.” While this is debatable (it seems like an oversimplification), it’s interesting to see this attempt at universalizing the novel (if the Infinite is the hero, then its message applies everywhere). Hugo’s done this before, in the preface; he stated that the novel will be relevant as long as poverty exists, universalizing it across time. Here, he does so across space. It’s also fitting that this happens in a digression, as although the book’s themes can be transferred across many contexts (there’s a reason so many people still enjoy it and its various adaptations today, in many different places), the book itself is very much a product of 19th-century France. This is part of the appeal as well; the places Hugo describes are so specific (whether they’re fictional or not), and the way the historical context is linked to characters and events really enriches the story. By moving towards an exploration of the “Infinite,” we’re also zooming out on this French context, allowing Hugo to remind us of his novel’s broader aims.

“ This is not the place for enlarging disproportionately on certain ideas; nevertheless, while absolutely maintaining our reserves, our restrictions, and even our indignations, we must say that every time we encounter man in the Infinite, either well or ill understood, we feel ourselves overpowered with respect. There is, in the synagogue, in the mosque, in the pagoda, in the wigwam, a hideous side which we execrate, and a sublime side, which we adore. What a contemplation for the mind, and what endless food for thought, is the reverberation of God upon the human wall! ”

I can’t tell what Hugo is referring to when he says this isn’t the place to develop "certain ideas” “disproportionately;” is this tied to the novel (avoiding yet another digression)? The state (censorship if he elaborates)? Himself (not wanting to support a total rejection of religion)? Also, while I recognize that his comments on other religious buildings are meant to mean his comments here aren’t specifically targeting Christianity (even if this is a Christian structure) but are instead part of the issue with religions that encourage good (engaging with the Infinite) while having unjust structures, it’s very uncomfortable to only see non-Christian buildings singled out in this paragraph as sites deserving of “execration” and “adoration.” Part of the issue is that, as much as this book can speak across time and space, Hugo is still very much a 19th-century French man. Hearing him reference other places (particularly outside of Europe) and religions besides Christianity could go very badly.

#les mis letters #lm 2.7.1 #the Infinite #I've read Hugo's Napoleon poetry and that's why I get very worried when he starts mentioning other religions #and other regions #I know his views are pretty horrible and unpleasant to read #but I'm also relieved to be leaving the convent digression in some way #this is still convent-related but at least it requires less convent-specific knowledge #I understand what he's saying more easily

[seeminglyseph]

I love giving characters really generic names.

But I have also found that like. When I’m in fandoms with characters that have really generic names…. I will be like two paragraphs into a post before realizing I’m reading about a different character from a different fandom than I thought I was half the time.

James is one of my favourite names of all time. Just like… in general. How many characters in fiction are named a form of James, and how many historical figures are people on tumblr fully willing to just refer to in a first name basis with not context named James? I bet it’s a lot.

How many posts have I read about John/Jon and been part way through and realized “…. No, I don’t actually know who the fuck this is talking about.” Because like. There are a lot of Johnathan’s in media and do you know fucking what?! Half the time we do not clarify which one. You might think something smug about Sherlock and tumblr right about now but it hasn’t been 2013 in over a fucking decade. And let’s not forget there’s a John in fucking *Supernatural* too. Probably Doctor Who but I’m less familiar with that branch of the unholy triad despite ultimately watching more of it back in the day.

My *point* is. Mostly I have read so many posts about things that without context make no fucking sense, but so often I will keep reading like I will eventually realize which Nathan this motherfucker is referring to. You’d think I would learn that if I have no *idea* what that shit means I should just give up, but *no*. I just confuse myself more with information but no context about things in a series I have not engaged with and a media I have not consumed and a discourse I have no stake in.

I am a fool. A clown. A man made of logical fallacy.

I’m thinking of going by the name Jack.