#Well okay my entire life the fall of the Fairness doctrine is where a lot of this stuff gets worse in particular | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

konglindorm · 3 years

Text

Lindworm Promo Series Repost: The Allegory

*This is a repost from 9/24/17, with minor edits*

I don’t remember the first time I read Prince Lindworm, but I do remember the first time I understood it. It was the spring semester of my freshman year of college, and I was sitting in the left front corner of my British Literature class. As usual, I had two notebooks open—one for class notes, and one for anything actually interesting that I thought of while paying slightly less attention to class than I should have been.

On this particular day, I was neglecting Byron in favor of speculating on why, when the Lindworm’s spell was broken, we just forgot about the dead girls and everything was hunky dory. Then I thought about his mom eating the flowers, and suddenly, the whole ridiculous thing made sense. It’s a Christian allegory.

You start out with a woman eating something she was specifically told not to eat. Hello, Eve. Nice to see you—it’s been a while.

Because of the mother’s dietary choices, the child is born cursed. Fall of man.

Then along comes our girl, and she’s willing to give her life for the sake of her kingdom, because she rocks. And because of her sacrifice (see: Crucifixion), our fallen man is redeemed, i.e. returned to humanity. And when this happens, when he is purified by her sacrifice, all of his sins are forgiven. He is embraced by the father and immediately welcomed home.

The basic structure of this story is drawn directly from the basic structure of the Bible.

And of course, it’s not that simple. There’s more, much more, because this story is just a little crazy. There are definitely Prodigal Son elements in the versions where the queen gives birth to a prince as well as a monster, but I’ll let you think about that on your own time, because I’m much more interested in the spell-breaking, and I’m on a tight schedule—this needs to be ready to post in just a couple hours, and I still need to track down some old research.

What I consider the really big revelation here happened a few weeks after that day in British Literature, though it was also related to the class. I was writing an in-depth analysis of Tennyson’s “The Journey of the Magi.” The Catholic sacrament of penance ended up being a major theme. And that got me thinking more about the specifics of the transformation, which had previously struck me as baffling, creepy, and just this side of suggestive.

(And look, I can make it sound all nice and symbolic here, but when you get to actually writing the scene, I just can’t get all the suggestiveness out. Fair warning. It’s in chapter two.)

So let’s review the transformation. Step one: some seriously excessive molting. (Snakes molt, right? Or is it shed?) Step two: whips soaked in lye. Step three: dunk in a tub of milk. Step four: the embrace. However you wanna interpret that.

Okay. Step one. We cast off the old self, the sins, whatever. It’s really hard and it kind of hurts. Step two is, like, well. The lye is purifying, right? That’s soap? The whips are a little…we can call that penance or something, okay? I promised Biblical connections, but not necessarily theological soundness. Think like hair shirts and whatever. He’s paying for his sins and being made clean.

Not sure why it’s milk, exactly, but step three is obviously baptism. We’re gonna call step four acceptance into the body of Christ, and ignore any sexual undertones we might be picking up.

And then the fallen son is welcomed home with opens arms, easily and fully forgiven, and everyone lives happily ever after.

This leaves us with only two mysteries in this previously completely incomprehensible story. I already told you I’m not sure about the milk, although the google search “milk symbolism”—

Wait. I take that back. It may now be twenty-six minutes after this post was initially intended to go out, but I have an answer to the milk question. Apparently, in Corinthians and Hebrews, it’s symbolic of, like, basic doctrine. So you’ve got baptism and Bible 101. Milk actually has a lot of symbolism attached to it, including purity and, apparently, Nazism, although I vote we discard that one as irrelevant to our current line of inquiry. Let’s call the milk problem solved.

*Added note not included in original post: the purifying nature of milk also features prominently and disturbingly in the 2nd half of the original Danish version of the story. More on that in a future blog.*

Our last mystery: the flowers. We’ve got the scene in general down as representing the fall of man, but let’s get into the specifics. Eat this one if you want a girl, that one if you want a boy. So the mom eats the girl flower, and then she eats the boy flower. She winds up with a boy lindworm, and in some versions also a boy human.

Note the lack of girl here, despite the initial intake of the girl flower. I’m completely down with the lindworm as punishment for disobedient flower-consumption, but why is it a boy? Just further punishment? Logically, if she’s going to have two kids, the first born should be a human daughter, in line with the first flower, and the second should be a male lindworm due to the forbidden flower. If there’s only one kid, why is it a boy? Did the entire request for a girl get nullified by the second flower?

Why isn't the lindworm a girl? If the lindworm is a boy, why doesn’t he have a sister? Specifically, an older sister? I don’t have an answer. It’s been years and years of intermittent research, and I don’t have an answer.

#lindworm #prince lindworm #king lindworm #king lindorm #folklore #fairy tales #fairy tale analysis

10 notes · View notes

prairiewitchy · 5 years

Note

What kind of magic do you actually do? I know your bio says folk magic, but I see you reblogging stuff about grimoires and demons and ceremonial stuff too. I'm sorry if it's not okay to ask this I'm just curious

I was gonna punt on answering this but changed my mind, so hopefully it’s useful to see how someone falls into a magical niche without, idk, picking a random “witch label” from some list with too many emojis. It also wasn’t something I’d thought about in a while, and it turned out to be kind of interesting to consider the various intersections between my interests, which are at once diverse and fairly singular, and how they’ve evolved over time.

I got into folk herbalism initially, which is something I still do a lot of. This by itself is kind of a quasi-magical practice, particularly where it engages things like the doctrine of signatures or the syncretization of spirits and plants (e.g. angelica and angels, a variety of plants with Mary, High John the Conqueror with the plant that now shares his name, and so on). There’s a fair amount of science to it too, but I found I was really interested in the origins of particular stories, rhymes, and folktales that attested these herbs’ utility.

Eventually, I became particularly interested in baneful plants. This was in part due to a series of weird interactions I had with a giant thistle over a few months one summer that made it clear to me that not only did plants have active, communicative spirits, but that their desires, needs, and interests can be just as complex as ours. That folklore began to intersect much more directly with american folk magic as well as sabbatic witchcraft, which deals more specifically with banefuls than a lot of the folklore I was finding. I started tracking the similarities and discordances between the two as they understood specific plants and plant spirits and trying to make sense of them through a variety of experiments using both folkloric and “traditional” methods.

Through this, I started investigating other forms of spirit work that would enable me to better understand the plants I was growing and using. I got in over my head here quick, unsurprisingly, and made some bad calls that I won’t go into. Through this circuit I became involved with the witch father, who wears many masks (though, as the theory nerd in me reminds, the simulacrum is always true). I’d half-jokingly called my shit “witchy” before that, but I consider that the transition where what I was doing actually became witchcraft.

It took a few years to get my shit straight after that--beyond the purple prose of crooked path stuff, there really isn’t a linear way to get good with the man at the crossroads (plus, I’m just not that smart in a lot of ways, I’m sure I shot myself in the foot over and over here). To cut to the end, these days I work mostly with Cain as a face of the witch father for the fairly obvious reason of: good at plants. This isn’t to suggest I only do plants, but the actual magic and mysteries have never strayed much further than improving my own and others’ material conditions via the use of roots and leaves (and sometimes flowers). I don’t keep a large spirit court or dabble in too many forms of occultism that don’t directly deal with that.

I’ve experimented with calling my magic bioregional (kind of, by ease and necessity, but not imperatively); sabbatic (yes, but not only that and also not entirely that); regionally folkloric (I’ve spent almost all of my life in the midwest and most of my folklore and history come from there, but it’s not the only place I’ll ever be); none have them have quite suited. Like most folks who’ve been doing this a while, it’s pretty idiosyncratic. I’ve also had the excellent luck to make some interesting friends here and elsewhere online, so if you see grimoiric shit or ceremonial whatever here it’s almost certainly just reblogging their work, which is always fascinating.

#Anonymous

26 notes · View notes

stolligaseptember · 5 years

Note

Sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just want to ask: how accurate do you think Matpat's theory on Article 13 is? A lot of people have been panicking about it (including me), but now that I've seen your posts on the subject, I'm really starting to doubt if there is anything to be afraid of. It's just hard to focus on looking for facts when the entire website is panicking, so I hope you can kind of clear this up for me (and a lot of others). Again, I hope I'm not bothering you! Have a nice day!

It’s no bother at all! I said I was here to answer all of your questions, so that’s what I’m going to do!!

But. Oh god. This whole mess started with a YouTube video, so I guess it was only inevitable that it would finally circle back to another one.

Okay so. I’ll be honest, it took me about 3 hours to get through this video. 18, if you count the fact that I started it before I went to bed last night. And like. He’s not wrong about a lot of things. But he’s not a lawyer, or a law-maker. And he’s definitely not a European one. Which you kind of need to be to understand what the hell is going on here.

He’s just misinterpreting a lot of things. And he’s misunderstanding how the entire EU-law system, and Europe's law tradition in general, works. Which, like, he’s an American, and not even an American lawyer, so no one can really blame him for that. But what frustrates me, and what actually makes me really fucking angry, is that he’s somehow claiming that he does understand this and that he somehow holds the authority to explain it to others. Which he clearly doesn’t.

So okay. What is going on in MatPat’s video. A lot of shit.

What first struck me is that he misses the bots. Like, his entire fear mongering tactic is based in this idea that all media platform would have to develop content ID bots. And that would indeed be a bad thing. But what he forgets to mention is that the bots have been removed from the new draft text. The draft that he, by the way, quotes himself. So I don’t know if he forgot to read the entire article, of if he just forgot to mention it. That’s very unclear.

But what really struck my nerves, and what made me so upset that I actually couldn’t fall asleep last night, was that he claims that the term “good faith” is somehow too vague and is because of that bad legal writing. And I’m not going to lie, that got my goat.

“Good faith” is like the least undefined term within all of European law doctrine. It’s about the most important principle we have. Bona fide, anyone? YEAH. That’s good faith. Trust me when I say that all lawyers, and everyone that has even gotten close to working with rights, know what “good faith” means. God, we have over 400 000 books and articles on “good faith” just in my uni library. “Good faith” is so far from an undefined term.

And no, “good faith” doesn’t somehow mean that copyright holders will have the final say in what will and won’t constitute as a copyright infringement. What “good faith” means, very simply put, is that you have to have trust in each others good faith while dealing with each other. You must be able to trust that the copyright holder is indeed the copyright holder, and that the media platform is indeed able to fulfill the obligations that’s put on them. When the directive says that they should cooperate in good faith, it means that they must cooperate in a way that the legal barrier for good faith is reached. I get that this is all sounding very weird, but that is kind of what you have lawyers for. We’re supposed to have read those 400 000 and more books to be able to conclude if something has been conducted in good faith or not. But no, this writing does not in any way open up for an arbitrary interpretation of copyright law. It does make things a lot more legal-technical, but that’s the way copyright law is looking right now.

And then. I don’t know what happens next honestly. He somehow manages to connect the “good faith” requirement and the conclusion that content ID bots will somehow stop content from being uploaded??? That’s a mental jump that I really can’t follow, but okay.

First of all, because the bots are no longer on the table. Second of all, because dealing in good faith has nothing to do with the bots. But if we forget all about the bots altogether, good faith will still never give copyright holders the right to file unfounded copyright infringement claims. Either something is copyright infringement, or it isn’t, and the copyright holders and media platforms should cooperate in good faith to make sure that copyright infringement doesn’t happen, and you always have the legal framework in the back to make sure that unfounded claims of copyright infringement doesn’t happen, and that the requirement of good faith is met.

And this is complicated, I get that, but that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. Copyright law is weird and complicated as fuck.

He also can’t make up his mind if content ID recognition is a good or bad thing. Like first he says that if they had kept the bots in the text (and that’s where he says that the bots have been removed from the text, but he doesn’t clarify that further) then everything would have been a-okay, but then like 5 minutes later he says that the content ID (which!! Isn’t even in question anymore!!!!!!!) is the work of the devil. And I’m sorry, but I’m on a bit of a personal vendetta against YouTube right now, and this is exactly the stance that YouTube themselves have taken. They’re going “oh, article 13 is literally hell brought to life!!!!” but then in the next breath they go “BUT BOTS ARE A GOOD IDEA”, and I’m getting whiplash just trying to keep up with them. It’s contradictory as hell, and I can’t even figure out what people are really worried about or not these days.

I think a lot of people are just screaming because they want to scream, but that’s another story.

He also says that the directive will be “implemented by the end of this year” which is just an outright lie. Even if you’re generous and stretch that to the end of 2019, it’s still an outright lie. The next round of votes happens in early 2019, and EU bureaucracy is a literal hellscape, so that’s just not happening.

He also compares this to GDPR, but I’ve already explained why can’t do that. Regulations and directives are completely different legal documents, and unlike regulations, directives have to be actually implemented into each member state’s national law system. And you always have an implementing period of at least 2 years for this. But like, that’s the lower bar. You can push the high bar pretty goddamn far. It’s not unusual to see member states take up to 5-6 years to implement directives, and the commission can’t really do anything about it, as long as the member state can prove that they’re working on it.

Like, I don’t remember just what it was we were supposed to regulate, but I remember we studied this one directive that Sweden took like 7, if not 8 years to implement. And we where honest to god just stalling, because we didn’t really want to regulate what the directive said that we should regulate, and we needed the time to find a way to work our way around it. So when the commission came knocking to check if we had implemented the goddamn directive yet, our government was all like “oh no, you see, this is very foreign to our law system, and we have a very hard time seeing where it could fit in, but look at all these reports we’re writing and at all these experts we’ve hired to try and work it out”, and as soon as the commission had left again, seeing how we were at least giving the impression of trying to solve it, they were all like “OKAY BACK TO STALLING”. So depending on your member state’s outlook on this directive, there’s really no telling on how long it will take before it’s implemented.

The claim that the European copyright has a narrower definition of “fair use” is also just an outright lie. This is the exceptions and limitations to copyright that the InfoSec directive allows;

(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;

(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;

© reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible;

(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;

(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;

(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, except where this turns out to be impossible;

(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;

(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;

(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event, excluding any other commercial use;

(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;

(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;

(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;

(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2© of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;

(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.

That’s way more than the few exceptions that MatPat lists. And he’s also completely incorrect in European copyright law not somehow being flexible? Like, we’re not idiots, c’mon.

EU law isn’t stagnant; they’re living instruments, and we always interpret them in the light of the contemporary time. This is a skill all European lawyers are mercilessly trained in. EU law documents are worded “vaguely” and openly because we need the space to be able to make different interpretations depending on the situation. Like, the claim that point k, that lists caricatures, parodies and pastiches is somehow narrow? No?? This is where memes, and all other forms of parodies and caricatures and pastiches falls in. But just because you call something a meme doesn’t mean that it can’t be copyright infringement. You still have to make an evaluation of the actual situation. And that’s where lawyers and judges in every single member state come in; lawyers and judges who have been trained in both copyright law and EU law, and who knows how to interpret both the national law and the directive.

Because, once again, this isn’t aiming at making Europe into one coherent law system. It’s aiming at harmonizing the European law systems, but at the end of the day, it’s still always up to each and every member state of how they want to implement the directive.

Then there was the safe harbor issue. In this he actually is correct. The very aim of article 13 is to remove the safe harbor and to put a share of the responsibility of the copyright infringement on the media platform. Like, that’s the entire idea behind the article. So, once again, if you think that this is a bad idea, then yeah, go ahead and keep fighting article 13. And I’m not here to get political, but just why is the idea of removing the safe harbor such an egregiously bad idea? You as an individual is not going to be affected by it. It’s these big, multi-billion companies that will have to pay content creators their fair share of illegal copyright infringement. And why is that bad for you? Just food for thought.

And as usual, I have no idea how understandable this whole mess is, so don’t be afraid to ask me follow up questions, or anything else that you’re wondering over, and I’ll try to answer as best as I can!

#article 13 #swearing tw #alllevelsrobin #storytelling september

157 notes · View notes

konglindorm · 7 years

Link

You start out with a woman eating something she was specifically told not to eat. Hello, Eve. Nice to see you—it’s been a while.

Because of the mother’s dietary choices, the child is born cursed. Fall of man. Then along comes our girl, and she’s willing to give her life for the sake of her kingdom, because she rocks. And because of her sacrifice (see: Crucifixion), our fallen man is redeemed, i.e. returned to humanity. And when this happens, when he is purified by her sacrifice, all of his sins are forgiven. He is embraced by the father and immediately welcomed home.

The basic structure of this story is drawn directly from the basic structure of the Bible.

(And look, I can make it sound all nice and symbolic here, but when you get to actually writing the scene, I just can’t get all the suggestiveness out. Fair warning. It’s in chapter two.)

Not sure why it’s milk, exactly, but step three is obviously baptism. We’re gonna call step four acceptance into the body of Christ, and ignore any sexual undertones we might be picking up.

And then the fallen son is welcomed home with opens arms, easily and fully forgiven, and everyone lives happily ever after.

This leaves us with only two mysteries in this previously completely incomprehensible story. I already told you I’m not sure about the milk, although the google search “milk symbolism”—

SPECIAL BONUS PROMOTIONAL TACTIC THAT I JUST THOUGHT OF NOW AND MIGHT VERY WELL COME TO REGRET BUT I’M TOO EXCITED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OUTCOME TO CARE: Comment with a good answer to the lindworm gender question and I’ll send you a free, hand-bound copy of my chapbook thin. No limits on how many people can win; you give me an answer I like, I give you a book. Limit one per player, although I’d love to hear as many theories as you can come up with. (P.S. Remember to sign up to read Lindworm on Patreon for $1/month, starting on October 1st!)

#writing #my writing #lindworm #prince lindworm #shameless self promotion #thin #folklore #fantasy #books #patreon #fairy tales #fairy tale analysis #Fairy tale retellings #contest #free book

1 note · View note