#also what i love so much about the grigori is how you can interpret that story and it's implications in so many different ways

[books-and-dragons]

hi, i saw your post about grigori angels and was wondering why this disproves the kokabiel and baraquiel!crowley theories? sorry if this has been asked before, or it's obvious!

hey anon, nothing to be sorry about!!

i wouldn't necessarily say the fact kokabiel and baraquiel are grigori disproves the theory, if only because we don't know how the grigori story fits into the good omens canon- and playing fast and loose with the bible stories is always an option so it's still a possibility, just an unlikely one if we follow the orginal biblical canon; as the grigori arrive much later on, and their 'fall' is not the same one as we see with 'lucifer's angels'

regardless, the grigori are fascinating to consider- especially in the gomens universe! they're unique amongst angels, and still vastly different from demons- the only ones who well and truly get humans

i'll start by quickly sharing the grigori lore, then bring it back to crowley

The Grigori

the grigori are detailed in the book of enoch, and their time is after eden, after the beginning. with sin now being an option for humans, the grigori were created and sent to earth to understand human behaviour

their name translates to 'the watchers'. an apt title for their role: watchers over humanity. the reason for this is debated, but fundamentally we come down to the important fact that the grigori, with their unique position as Watchers, understood humans better than any other angel- which was the whole point. why humans sinned, and how to influence them towards virtue and faith while still allowing humans to maintain their free will.

then, things began to change. the grigori started to interact with humans, taught us of technology and knowledge that we would soon discover ourselves. they later began to marry humans. they copulated with humans- from this, we had the nephilim. i don't need to reiterate how that particular tale ends. at least, not for the nephilim.

The Second Fall

here's the fun part. at least, in the context of talking about 'Fallen Angels'

in the eyes of god, the grigori had left their place of belonging, heaven, in favour of humans and earth. for this act, they were to fall.

except, the grigori didn't fall. at least, not in the sense we tend to define falling.

jude, verse six, outlines as much. 'and the angels that kept not with their first estate but left with their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day'

it would be more accurate to say the grigori were cast out, that they are in 'time out'- for they were not stripped of their grace, nor did they fall to hell/become demons as lucifer's angels did. instead their punishment is to spend the rest of their years on earth, until the day of judgement. for all intents and purposes they are still angels, just not yet allowed back into heaven.

(when we consider that the grigori had already been living on earth, amongst humans, there's something to be said for wondering if this is really a punishment at all. god really fumbled the bag on that one, or maybe it was intentional. the grigori tale is full of interesting debates!)

from what i gathered, this event is [colloquially] referred to as 'the second fall'. it happens after the original fall, the better known one. a long time after- given the grigori are after eden.

the important takeaways about the grigori come down to this: they are unique amongst angels for understanding humans, they are the parents of the nephilim, and they 'fell' from heaven- but not in the same way

Fitting with Good Omens/Angel!Crowley theories

if we're following the biblical canon here, crowley couldn't have been kokabiel or baraqiel for they are both grigori. they didn't fall with lucifer, not as the-angel-that-crowley-was did. by the time of kokabiel and baraquiel, crowley the demon already existed.

the grigori came after the beginning, once humans had already left eden. their 'fall' is referred to as the 'second fall', nevermind the fact that they didn't really fall at all. the grigori aren't in hell, they aren't demons- they're still angels. contrastingly, crowley fell, and very much is a demon- he's part of the first [real] fall, one of lucifer's angels. let's also remember that a very important part of the grigori story is how they fell for, and into bed with, humans- and procreated with them. somehow, this isn't something i envision for the-angel-that-was-crowley

this said, crowley (and aziraphale) were definitely about on earth during the time this was happening. they witnessed the flood themselves (the incident designed for the purpose of destroying the nephilim, the offspring of grigori and humans), and i'm sure at least aziraphale would have heard about the 'second fall', if not also crowley along with the rest of hell (also, imagine how pissed you'd be if you took a million-light-year dive into sulphur, came out a demon of hell, only for these 'watcher angels' to also be called fallen, when all they did was get put in time out for several millenia. the unfairness has to sting)

i like to imagine crowley had a form of healthy tolerance-bordering-appreciation for grigori angels- they value humanity's free will, shared knowledge with humans that often centred on creative and technological developments, even when this meant punishment by god

what makes the grigori so interestingly unique is their understanding of humans and what may drive them to sin. it's a skill that even aziraphale, with his appreciation for humanity, hasn't quite grasped yet

i don't think we'll ever actually see the grigori in good omens, since they're not too widely known of, but they fit so perfect to the good omens theme of discussing human morality and behaviour that we see debated by crowley and aziraphale. they'd both have very different, very strong, feelings about the grigori and their fate- which is fun to think about

#ask #i am fascinated by grigori if it isn't obvious enough asdf i'm s o r r y for that #i definitely deviated from the original point #good omens #crowley #angel!crowley #i called them grigori wayy more than 'the watchers' here but they're called 'the watchers' more often in theology/also the bible #i just prefer 'grigori' #it sounds nicer #please please p l e a s e talk to me about the grigori bc obsession doesn't quite cover it #also what i love so much about the grigori is how you can interpret that story and it's implications in so many different ways #i'd l o v e to write something for this but honestly i'd be too invested and it would be too long so i am choosing ~peace~ #ohhh also also when you remember the grigori side it brings a whole new level of angst to the mysopotamia/noah's ark time period- #for both crowley and aziraphale!! #oh the brainworms are brainworming #i'll never stop thinking about this

[strangerthings4theories]

hey, I just discovered your blog a couple days back and I've been devouring your posts like a man starved! thank you for your brilliant work! at the expense of sounding stupid after asking something possibly explained in canon, might I ask if you've got any theories for Billy's first encounter with the Upside-Down, and what that 'clone' of himself he meets is? because I don't recall seeing it before with any other character. again, thank you so much for all this!

Hey @stina-is-a-punk-rocker - I'm so glad you're enjoying our theories! It warms my heart :)

Asking about Billy's clone isn't a stupid question at all. It hasn't been explained yet, not really. I can't tell you exactly what the Duffers will do with it, but I can tell you how it fits in with the symbolism and themes of the show.

Throughout canon, the Duffers have hinted that they based the universe of Stranger Things on Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation. It's the idea that countless alternate universes exist, some wildly different from ours, others almost identical except for a few details. Now, the idea of countless universes implies that countless versions of you exist. Apply that idea to a character like Billy, and you can theorize a universe where he stayed with his mom and not his dad; or, where his family never moved to Hawkins; or, where he was never possessed; OR, most intriguingly, where everything happened just like it did in the show, but he didn't die at Starcourt.

You see where I'm going with this?

Theoretically, you could travel to these alternate universes via wormholes. I believe the Gates into the Upside Down are actually wormholes. If this is true, it follows that one can open Gates into universes other than the Upside Down. Which means it's entirely possible for our heroes to open a Gate into a universe where Billy survived.

In other words... he's "resurrected" because, in another universe, he never died.

How does this fit in with Billy's clone? Well, it's hinting at multiverse theory and the existence of other Billys. The Upside Down has a Billy (in a sense), and other universes will have theirs, all different from the Billy we know to varying degrees.

Clones and doubles are a theme in the show. We find it in scenes as subtle as Mike and Lucas arguing about their Halloween costumes ("I'm Venkmann!" "No, I'm Venkmann!") and as blatant as Billy meeting himself. We also see it in the use of mirrors as symbols (they are EVERYWHERE in the show) and the recurring plotline of characters meeting their dark reflections: Hopper vs Grigori, El vs Heather, etc.

You know how the production's been using clocks and Russian nesting dolls in their teasers? Those are connected to the clones/doubles theme. Wormholes tunnel through space AND time, meaning they make time travel possible. And Russian nesting dolls are the concept of "alternate selves" made into a toy. with an obvious Russian connection. because the Russia where Hopper is imprisoned probably isn't in our universe

It's all super fascinating to me. I fuckin LOVE quantum physics (as much I can understand it), so I'm psyched that the Duffers are basing an entire TV show on it.

I'm drafting a meta series on this and plan to start posting it soon. There's a lot to discuss, oof :)))))

~Julia

#billy hargrove #billy hargrove is alive #stranger things theory #stranger things 4 #answering your mail

[incarnateirony]

I'm curious, do you think that theory that Lucifer is Jottun makes sense? To me it feels weird, but this is your lane and you have way more knowledge about this.

Okay so first of all, wtf tumblr why is your cut INSIDE THE ASK and fucking up my post

Moving on:

I... is this like, a show theory that someone came up with? Or are you talking like, in general mythology?

(Edit: I realized I postured this from the angle of assuming we’re talking about the widely received idea of Lucifer in modern culture; if I was wrong about that, lemme know -- I do drift into the NONCHRISTIAN Greek Lucifer as well, which you’ve seen me talk about with Phanes before on this blog)

I’ve never heard a serious statement (or at least one that held up if gently poked) about this as much as a general correlation (IE, Promethean deities if you will, which would correspond Lucifer to Loki, though I highly disagree with that assessment for other reasons as well) -- or various theory parallels where the Jotun are parallel to everything from Titans to Nephilim. 

Generally the Luciferian/Satanic iconization of Loki came from later transcriptions of eddas by Christian monks. Then again, the idea of Satan himself came from the jews taking on Zoroastrian beliefs after captivity so fuck all flips table

The last thing I’ve seen that tried to draw any kind of correlation about it had some nonsense trying to equate Azazel to Hermes too and a whole other mess of madness.

Without tracking the anthropology and etymology of a situation though, you end up with a mess, and there’s a lot of those out there. If you google long and hard enough, Lucifer is everyone. He’s Cronus, he’s Hyperion, he’s Prometheus, he’s Loki, he’s like half the native american spirits, he’s also somehow half the angels and demons in the bible and apocryphal scripture, depending on how far down a rabbit hole someone wants to go, he’s Santa or a tempting sandwich on tuesdays.

This got long so I’m putting it behind a cut -- it seems to drift but to truly answer this ask, or more answer why I don’t even have a direct statement to answer it, required some -- explanation and history

Helel is a stronger thing to lean into for example. The anthropology tracks, the mythos tracks, etc. Hell, look up Jewish beliefs on fallen angels, satan, lucifer or whatever and realize Christianity has really taken judaism for a joyride while gluing shit over their homework. Hell like, check out the history of jewish captivity under Nebuchadnezzar II and how Zoroastrianism influenced judaism/the very belief of satan/eventual conflation with Lucifer -- there’s debate on whether the Morning Star, mentioned as the King of Babylon, who made them work and toil, was Nebuchadnezzar himself. Which would make, Lucifer, um. Some king dude that died 2600 years ago, give or take. 

I am-- very slow to draw angelic associations. That’s not to say they don’t happen. You can, say, track the fall of the grigori and follow their mentioned path to egypt where they "became kings”, and follow which ones disseminated into which cultures how by comparing their attributes, sure. But with something like, say, Lucifer, which is a mythological clusterfuck to itself, considering everything in the public mind about Lucifer modernly is an amalgam of everything from multiple names in the same sacred text to adaptations from influencing religions/weird reads on the transcriptions from people that didn’t know their history/etc, I’m not gonna be like LUCIFER IS JOTUN any more than LUCIFER IS A TITAN or LUCIFER IS A NEPHILIM. 

Could there be a correlation for that? Sure I guess. But of the many things I have studied or dealt with, I’ve seen some shit. I’ve seen some SHIT. And never once have I encountered a Lucifer that was legit, if you believe in spoopy shit. Various shit loves using the name as a quick cred card but that’s the equivalent of a nigerian prince facebook scam that’s totes in the US Army Doug David Donnie Darko Davis, very believable.  But you know what? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s Lucifer these days. Whoever was identified as it originally 1. probably put on magical witness protection and changed names by now 2. has been utterly lost by time and has been replaced more with a /concept/ than a /being/. But the modern concepts are so vague it’s like hiding a blue chip in a pool, have fun finding it, and I’ve definitely never been compelled to do so.

I’m sure racially speaking one could say “angels might be aesir” “demons might be jotun” and draw a reasonable argument about it with enough effort, but that’d be more like... systemic translation of thousands-years-old stories traveled over the lands, at which point the question is less “Is Lucifer Jotun?” and more “What would the Aesir and Jotun be in abrahamic text equivalency?”

Curiously I’ve never seen anybody go bananas over this shit to find correlations for anything ~other~ than Christian-outward -- Christian texts always want to make their people everybody else’s people, but nobody is fighting to be referenced by christianity and even less are trying to compare say, Zoroastrianism or Islam or anything else to what gods THEY might be -- even though Zoroastrianism is literally where half this stuff came from, where ideas of archangelic-like creatures and archdemons came from, where the afterlife, where it all came from. So I struggle, deeply, to associate Lucifer with anything specific for a long, long list of reasons but find this a particularly weird thing. Like when’s the last time you heard a muslim or taoist or any other major world religion right now go out and be like “YOU KNOW WHO I THINK (ENTITY) IS, I BET ITS THIS GREEK/NORSE DUDE RIGHT HERE”-- it’s just a Christian culture thing?? IDK???

And again sometimes it’s even /valid/ but I just-- Lucifer is such a Topic(TM) to me. Because to me, he’s a concept, an idea, an archetype, but if there ever was an individual Lucifer that dude got himself a face transplant and fucked off a long time ago IMO so good luck 

cuz like

 Interpretations of a similar term in the Hebrew Bible, translated in the King James Version as "Lucifer" as a proper name, led to a Christian tradition of applying the name Lucifer, and its associated stories of a fall from heaven, to Satan, but modern scholarship generally translates the term in the relevant Bible passage, (Isaiah 14:12), as "morning star" or "shining one" rather than as a proper name, "Lucifer".

As a name for the Devil, the more common meaning in English, "Lucifer" is the rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל‎ (transliteration: hêylêl; pronunciation: hay-lale) in Isaiah (Isaiah 14:12) given in the King James Version of the Bible. The translators of this version took the word from the Latin Vulgate, which translated הֵילֵל by the Latin word lucifer (uncapitalized) meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".

As a name for the planet in its morning aspect, "Lucifer" (Light-Bringer) is a proper name and is capitalized in English. In Greco-Roman civilization, it was often personified and considered a god and in some versions considered a son of Aurora (the Dawn). A similar name used by the Roman poet Catullus for the planet in its evening aspect is "Noctifer" (Night-Bringer).

You’d probably have a better chance of coherently inferring that Lucifer is actually Inanna or Ishtar the goddess, as Venus, or that Lucifer is Aphrodite. ORIGINALLY IT WAS FUCKING HELEL. 

A suggested methodology on this: Never ever ever start from Christian texts. Like ever. Much less without at least a single Daf Yomi run to actually understand the jewish texts before it got super renovated and had white-out slapped all over it. Christianity generally perished anything after it, or at best attached like a symbiote until the host entity or belief was gone. Hell, sometimes the greecoroman Lucifer is the son of Eoster. Sound familiar? Hot take: Lucifer is Easter confirmed Easter is Satan worship.

See how that can be kinda... faulty? If you want to understand it though-- figure out where the same concept went? GO BACKWARDS. Never go FORWARDS. Pick up those christian and jewish texts and go. BACKWARDS. Akkadian. Babylonian. Because once you realize what was clipped out of other faiths, you can go back to that core deity and start figuring out where it branched off in other directions than eventually being kidnapped into the messianic cult bag. THEN go forward in time and realize that christianity is just an itty bitty teeny tiny branch of our history, it just swamped us over time via extermination. So you can find Lucifer as just about anyone, because respectively, ask a room full of rabbis and pastors to write down every time Lucifer is mentioned by name in original text form in the bible before translation and rendition. The rabbis are gonna giggle and the pastors are gonna be deadass wrong, sorry.

You wanna play a game? “Is Asmodeus Aesir?”

folds arms I’ma let you sit here scratching your heads about that for a while.

Because it’s gonna take going backwards. Who was the babylonian form of Asmodeus? When did the name ASMODEUS happen? What name did it have even in jewish texts? Or which branch of names? What did that deity evolve into in less calvinistic or messianic circles? Yes, you can track this. Yes, you CAN find how it translated into greece far and away from abrahamic or calvinistic influence, or to the vikings, or anyone else if you chase the crumbs enough, but again, there’s-- entire things to review about systemic beliefs and translations/hot takes. Same shit, different label in most places, sure, but-- eh. 

Ranting a bit at this point but if anyone takes anything out of this:

Pinpoint when/where/why names originated

Go backwards first, not forward

Find the anchor belief/origin/story

Find where it branched

respect the branches and deviations as unique renditions within cultures while equally respecting the fact that there’s some truth in all beliefs and we’re all trying to describe the same shit. So could Lucifer be Jotun, I guess. But we’d have to hold nuanced discussion about the journey of the narrative from A to B and how the Aesir and Jotun correspond at large.

Anthropology and etymology are key. Where did people travel, how did they write, what did it mean. Don’t look only for very specific affiliations.

Hell let me take a quote from-- a place. 

Here is how a pantheon actually comes together.

First deity: “Shit. My people were conquered and my religion just blowed up. I’m out of a job”

Second deity: “Me too.”

Third deity: “Hey, you look like that Lightning God the mortals in that place over there are telling stories about.”

Two deities at the same time: “We’re lightning gods too, though!”

Third deity: “Well, shit. You, on the left, you’re better looking. Best you be in charge.”

First deity: “Screw you! I’m bigger than all of you!”

Second deity: “Whatever. You’re a thug. Go rule the sea.”

First deity: “What? I’m a god of paternity!”

Second deity: “Paternity’s moist. That’s very similar.”

Meanwhile, you guys on Earth are all like, “Oh, Hermes is younger than Apollon.” Like its a fact. Like I wasn’t some Proto-Indo-Eurpean god of Penises and Serpents and outcroppings of stone long before anyone was ever speaking Greek.

And while we’re at the bastardized rerolling of mythologies, most heavily performed by christianity, I point you to that last line, regarding Baal Peor, and raise you:

If people noticed that video was sassier than normal, there’s a reason.

Let’s say you had a super interesting life and people kept telling your story, but over time, as it spread around the world, the telephone game got warped into several very different things. In some you’re even the villain, in some you have a giant dick, and in others you saved the world. All of these were somehow inspired by you and your story, but none of the people at the end of the story are necessarily ~you~. But someone has to figure out where the story started to find who ~you~ are, even if there’s tales of things you did, or supposedly did, all over the place. And sometimes people also take any word that sounds like your name and make it you. So if your name was Ted, you’d also end up with all kinds of shit like Bed Dead Fed Head Jed Lead Ned Red Wed and Zed when they come up suddenly all get replaced by the word/name Ted and that’s it, that’s your mythology. 

#pagan life

[nerdylittleshit]

Thoughts about Spn 15x12

SPOILERS AHEAD! BEWARE!

And here we are again. And I know I repeat myself (again) in pointing out that this is still the most meta season we ever head… and that I love every minute of it. We have an episode that ties up what “Wayward Sisters” probably would have been like, which again feels like fanservice, but in a good way. We also learn some important truths about Sam and Dean, their roles within the story, and Chuck, who is both author and part of his own story.

But, as always, let’s take a closer look.

Carry on my Wayward Sisters

I’m not sure if this was the last time we saw Jody (and if we will see Claire again), but they made sure to tie up the Wayward Sisters plot, or what would have been the plot of the spin-off (in an episode that starts with Chuck talking about failed spin-offs nevertheless). Personally I would love to see them all one more final time – Jody, Donna, Claire, Kaia, Alex and Patience. Still I appreciate that for now they at least brought this particular subplot to an end (and again we had Chuck at the beginning who told us that from now on there would be no more subplots).

The story itself was simple enough and perhaps felt a bit rushed, then again it was supposed to be told over the course of an entire season, if they had picked up “Wayward Sisters”. They intervened it with the current big plot of the season – Bad Kaia’s world turns out to be one of the many other ending worlds, Jack’s loyalty to Death is tested, which ultimately leads to Billy telling Sam and Dean about their destiny.

Bad Kaia turned out to be… not that bad. She never meant to hurt our Kaia, she made sure she would survive in her homeworld, and now she does everything she can to save her. She is not a villain per se, so her death would not have made sense in any other way than her choosing to stay behind, to choose death, on her own terms, in her home.

On the other hand we get our Kaia back and we get a confirmation that Claire loves her, and by the way Kaia asked about Claire surely the feeling is mutual.  Dreamhunter is official canon.

I also loved that Jody and Cas finally met and how they bonded over Claire. Cas is still aware how much pain he brought to Claire, that there is no way to redeem himself fully, but also that Claire found a new home, a new family, and that she needs Jody in order to survive. Cas has come a long way, he sort of became a parent himself with Jack, and he knows that Jody would do anything for Claire, but also how important it is to keep yourself safe for the ones who need you in your life.

How to kill God (a step by step tutorial)

I already mentioned Chuck’s entrance scene, with him mentioning subplots and spin-offs, with the episode finishing a subplot that was supposed to be a spin-off. The big news we learn within the first minutes is that our Sam and Dean are the original Sam and Dean. That all the other worlds are just versions of the same story, the same characters. Which is a very meta-ish statement. Because it somehow puts the audience in the same role as Chuck – to us our Sam and Dean are the original ones as well, and the other worlds we saw are just Alternative Universes, the same way every fan fiction is just another version of the same story, the same characters. (And clearly Earth 2 is a “fix it”-story, where Hilary Clinton became president and the Paris agreement gets restored) But the Chuck the only story that does count is the original story. It does not matter if Sam and Dean get the ending he wants in all those other worlds, as long as they don’t get the ending in the original world. I’m not sure how to interpret this in terms of the audience and transformative works, if it says the stories/endings we create don’t matter as long as the source material does not have the ending we want. Then again Chuck is the villain, so perhaps we should not listen to him.

It also seems like Chuck is afraid that Dean is perhaps right in saying Chuck does not gets the ending he wants. We later learn that Chuck is not only the author of the original world, but also part of the narrative in order for the world to work. He is not omniscient, he does not known what is written in Death’s book about him, which is why he has not the full control over this world. (But it seems this ‘mistake’ happened only in the original world, so he can end all other worlds easily)

Sam and Dean (but especially Sam) still don’t know whether they can trust Jack and Billy. They know too little about the plan and jack of course still has no soul. Cas reacts a bit different. He trusts Jack, and therefore trusts Billy. He believes in Jack, that this is Jack’s destiny, that this what Kelly saw in her son, that when Jack died he felt his story was not over and this is the proof. Of course from a narrative point of view he is right. Jack’s story indeed felt not finished when he died, there were to many open questions surrounding his character and story arc. Cas tries to see the bigger picture, though he calls it destiny, which is always a difficult thing in the Winchesters world. They tend to screw with their destinies.

Jack himself turns out to be a true Winchesters. He is aware of his own value, knows that Billy’s plan only works with him, so he uses Merle for his own advantage. He is trapped between his loyalty to Billy, knowing that their plan only works if he does not use his powers, and doing what he feels is right. He feels responsible for what happened to Kaia. He tries to find a way where he can still save her, without risking to be exposed. Billy reminds him that he risked their plan, the bigger picture, in order to save one life. But this is… well… Winchester stupid, risking everything in order to save one life, because no one gets left behind.

Billy is portrayed in this episode almost like God. Jack mentions to Merle that when the Grigori trapped him and he prayed to her she did not show up. Merle only tells him to trust Billy, that she must have known he would handle it, that Cas would help him. Billy is therefore omniscient and given that she inherited Death’s knowledge and library, she kinda is. She knows things Chuck does not, because she knows how everyone will eventually die, even God himself. Even though she did not write the books in Death’s library (they write themselves), she is the only one able to read them, making her the true author. She alone knows what role Jack, Cas, Sam and Dean will play in God’s death. She tells Sam and Dean that they are the messengers of God’s destruction, which are big words, but we still don’t know details. Sam mentioned the fact that some sort of cosmic balance has to exist, that Amara can’t exist alone without her brother. Dean’s trust in Billy is based on her playing by the rules, but I’m not sure she still does. But for now all we can do is wait and see what they have in store for our boys.

Until then <3

#supernatural #galaxy brain #spn meta #my meta #spn 15x12

[vvivacious101]

I’m Tolstoy

Supernatural had a really good streak going with the last three epiosdes but this one wasn’t at that level. We have Sam and Dean, whogo try their luck at a pool hall run by the Roman Goddess of Luck, Fortuna.

We have the Winchesters arrive at the pool hall and learn that the only way to buy-in a game is to bet your luck and if you win you get the luck of the person you beat. So Dean starts playing a woman named Moira and Sam starts figuring the place out.

I really loved Sam for this. No matter where he goes he always tries to help people and he wants to figure out what is up with everyone in the pool hall and the bartender gives him an insight. Everyone here plays and wins but sooner or later their luck runs out and they start to lose so you got to know when to fold them.

When Dean beats his second opponent, a cowboy, his luck runs out and he starts to die. Apparently, the cowboy was using his luck to buy him time against his cancer. But, they soon realise that even though Dean beat two people his luck is still pretty average. Sam theorises that technically Dean beating the cowboy means he should get all the luck of everyone the cowboy beat but he didn’t which implies that somebody might be skimming luck off the top and who would be a better suspect than the face on the coin of luck, Fortuna. They try to get the bartender to tell them where Fortuna is but she doesn’t know who Fortuna is she only knows that Pax, the guy who tells them about the rules of the pool hall is her son and so Dean threatens to kill him which draws out Moira who turns out to be Fortuna.

When it becomes obvious that she doesn’t care if Pax dies, Dean tries to play her for her luck but she refuses to play against Dean because apparently he’s a beach read, entertaining but skimmable. But, she agress to take on Sam who says that he doesn’t want to play for his luck, he wants to play for the lives of everyone unable to stop gambling away their luck in the pool hall. Fortuna refuses and says Sam will have to play for his luck but if he loses she gets both their lives.

Sam wins the first round when Fortuna challenges him again, to a double or nothing but Sam tells her he wants to play for the lives of everyone in the pool hall. If he wins this she has to let everyone go and shut down the pool hall. But they lose and they have to leave without their luck. They move out but Sam still can’t leave everyone else in the pool hall, so Dean tells him they can work the case and figure out a way to kill luck when everyone starts leaving the pool hall and the bartender comes up to Sam and Dean and tells them that Fortuna has a message for them, she gives them their luck back because she thought heroes had gone extinct but she realises that she was wrong and she tells them to not play Chuck’s game but make him play yours.

Well, Sam and Dean had to get their luck back and this was a unique way of giving it back. What I loved is getting to know how petty Chuck is as Moira and Sam played their game. He created humans but they worshipped the sun and the stars and he was wrathful but he soon relaised he could use these gods to take the blame for all the bad. Which is all just so in character for Chuck.

On the other hand, we have Cas who returns to the bunker to find this.

Cas is shocked but he gets a call from a police officer who tells him that he is tryingto get in touch with a Agent W who started a file on a murderer, Jack Kline and he said to call with any information on him and apparently Jack’s back on Earth killing people and eating their hearts. So Cas goes to investigate and he finds out the doctor Jack killed was a Grigori.

I don’t know what the hell a Grigori is, the recap with a Grigori in it seemed to be from an episode that I have never seen and I have seen every epsiode. Apparently, I’m really really blanking out season 10 for some reason as I don’t remember the concept of Grigori at all.

Anyhow Jack’s killing them and he tries to kill another but the Grigori gets a hold on him and tries to torture him on information about why Jack’s killing the Grigori. The Grigori are hardly innocent it seems but it still doesn’t explain why Jack’s after them when Cas arrives and kills the Grigori who captured Jack.

Jack and Cas back together is one emotional scene like I was just so happy to see them together. I feel so happy for Cas. He got Jack back.

Also, I love Cas. He has been pretending to be the FBi for how long and he still can’t get his batch right.

Sam and Dean get back to the bunker and Cas is there with Jack and Sam immediately starts moving towards Jack and I was so scared for a moment. This was the litmus test and Sam just hugs Jack and I was so relieved. I finally let out the breath I didn’t even know I was holding. Then Dean starts moving towards Jack and he doesn’t hug him but I think for now everything’s forgiven if not forgotten.

I mean the person who seems to have forgotten it the least is Jack. He seems really terrified when faced with Sam and Dean, rightfully so. I like how Jack comes out the moment Dean’s cribbing about not getting a little extra luck over and above their luck as heroes as if implying that Jack’s that extra piece of luck.

So we have Dean who goes up to Jack and cups his neck and he is looking at Jack and then he looks at Cas and their is this weird implication in that moment.

Jack tells them that Billie sent him back now because Chuck was off world and they couldn’t risk bringing him back while Chuck was still on the planet or else Chuck would have killed Jack... again. He also tells him that Billie gave him a set of instructions on how to get stronger, strong enough to kill God.

I feel like this is a red herring. I’m really leaning towards a peaceful resolution to this conflict. Killing God doesn’t seem like a good idea especially when we have no idea what being strong enough to kill God looks like for Jack. Also, killing God would mean someone would have to supplant him for the position and is Jack really ready for that. I mean this is too much pressure on a toddler who has already been resurrected twice.

Anyhow, let’s get back to this post’s title, Fortuna calls Dean a beach read to which he replies, “I’m Tolstoy.”  and I couldn’t agree more. I guess Fortuna is just reading the surface and she has no idea about the depths. Which makes for an interesting interpretation, it’s easy to dismiss Dean’s character if you only see the veneer but you got to go deep with this one to really discover the Tolstoy and Dean comes out and says it, he’s the Tolstoy. He isn’t what a superficial impression of him would make you believe and if you haven’t uncovered that you don’t know Dean.

It was really good to see the family back together again.

Can you believe there are only nine more episodes to go, this is happening way too quickly.

#SUPERNATURAL #supernatural season 15 #spn 15x11 #the gamblers #spn #myposts #dean #cas #jack #sam #fortuna

[marlutterianae]

Dragon’s Dogma Monster Appreciation. IT’S DAIMON.

Well, let’s get this out of my system already... Here’s everything cool and great about Daimon’s design and why I love it so much. 

Demons are my favorite creature in media. They are so versatile and adaptable to any setting. You can have medieval demons manifested in reality through spiritual magic, like in most Fantasy stories, and you can even apply them into Science Fiction with some pseudo science/magic, like Warhammer’s Warp Chaos Daemons. The point is, demons can take any form, any origin, and any nature they are literally a ‘free real state’ concept to work in fiction. I love writing about demons. I love drawing them. And I love seeing their varios forms and interpretations in media. And now, we have this amazing display of demonic power in the form of Daimon, the final antagonist of Dragon’s Dogma expanded world, the big bad of Bitterblack Island and a true force to be reckon with. 

His Lore (SPOILER WARNING). 

Avoid part of this section if you want to discover the truth behind Daimon’s origin by yourself. Take it as a recommendation to play the game. It’s worth it! If you don’t mind hearing about it and still want to play the game (I don’t blame you) then hear me out. 

As I mentioned in my Evil Eye post, Dragon’s Dogma manages to link the origin of some of their monsters to the theme of Dragons. Daimon is no exception. 

Daimon used to be a human. Not just any human, but an Arisen like the player, named Ashe. He fell in love with the Arisen that saved his life long ago, but after that Arisen, named Grette, was killed in her attempt to kill the Dragon, Ashe was chosen to be the next Arisen, destined to slay the beast. 

Once he stood before the Dragon, he gave him a choice (a similar choice the player must take when facing Grigori, the Dragon of their time). 

The choice was fight him, or sacrifice his most important thing in exchange of a wish. At this moment, he fell in love with Grett’s Pawn named Olra, who inherit her master’s heart after dead and learn to love, soon becoming the lover of Ashe. He refused to choose, and damned the cycle, the world and it’s creator. The Dragon interpreted his words as a wish and granted it in exchange for the life of Olra, turning him into the hideous demon named Daimon. 

As for Bitterblack Island? His new domains? It turns out the massive dungeon island is actually an illusion, drawn from Daimon’s memories. There are several hints throughout the exploration of the place that reveal this detail. 

That’s all I could understand not only from the game, but from investigating further online. Now, getting all of that lore out of the way, let’s get into the meaty design... 

About Medieval Demons. 

Daimon is a fantastic representation of a medieval demon given new flesh in a modern work. If you take a look at Daimon’s design, you’ll see incredible similarities with medieval depictions of demons in old books, art and illustrations. 

Medieval demons always had that surreal and grotesque “Chimeric” look and feeling to them. Freakish abominations mixing several animal parts, and lots of faces and heads where heads and faces absolutely shouldn’t be. You can see that represented in Daimon’s body, complete with avian talons in both hands and feet, furry legs, bat wings, a human face and a grotesque monstrous face in his chest. Which isn’t just a monstrous face, it’s the Dragon’s face! Again, Dragon’s Dogma links their designs to the theme of dragon’s once again with this, but I’ll get into more detail about the dragon chest face when I talk about the fight in game. 

The Fight. 

Daimon is an extremely tough opponent. This is a two phased fight. In the first one, the Arisen and their party arrived at some ominous hall, where Daimon awaits patiently, sitting in the back, obscured. He rises, flies and lands closer to the adventurers, standing up in his full hight, towering over the Arisen. Then, the fight commences. 

Daimon is a formidable foe who has control over magick, and he will cast numerous powerful spells as a means to attack. Both projectile spells of all elements and others of closer distance. He will charge at you, taking flight and ram you, doing massive damage, and he can still deliver devastating punches and swings with his claws and even agile kicks. He is also capable of grabbing the Arisen, crushing them with his massive grip, and incinerate them, all in one move. He is a master of brute force and magick. 

This is a fight of genuine epic proportions. The columns around the hall will collapse after Daimon breaks them apart with an attack. Depending on your class, you can climb on top of him and go for specific body parts, struggling for dear life as he flies around fiercely. 

All the while, during this phase, a beautiful song plays in the background called Coils of Light, that sounds like a lullaby. 

Depending on the Arisen’s skills, Pawns and level, this fight can last from 10 minutes to 30. But I’m just using estimates, since I’m aware there are people who will go face him underleveled, and those who will unload all of their overpowered skills against him, ending the fight faster than expected. It’s all to the player. 

But this is just part of his first form. And depending on the players choices, the fight might end after beating him like this, or else... 

Daimon will back off away from the Arisen, coughing blood, trembling. And eerie glow will start to shine within his chest, a light that resonates with the Arisen’s chest scar. Then, the flat grotesque face will sprout from his chest in a mighty roar, as a head. This head resembles the Dragon’s own head, even to the sinister glowing eyes. Daimon will lose control over his body, floating like a lifeless puppet with loose limbs, with the head presumably assuming direct control. 

During this phase, Daimon will float around, and continue to attack using powerful magick. The music changes to something more intense. And the most spectacular display of his power is that when he attacks swinging his arms, two enormous spectral dragon arms will manifest around him and inflict devastating damage to anything it gets in his way. Almost as if he were summoning the power of his full dragon form. 

Conclusion. 

After doing some research about the boss to refresh my memory, I stumble upon some opinions of other players about how Daimon is such a bullshit boss, the worst boss even, and that this fight is more of a matter of luck than anything. I just want to clarify that I make this appreciation posts more to praise the design of the creature, it’s aesthetic, the feel and atmosphere of the fights against them and their lore. I don’t want to say Daimon is an amazing boss, gameplay wise. This is just me talking about how much I like it conceptually, and personally. What it makes me feel. 

Daimon is definitely one of my favorite designed demons in media (though it matters little since it’s a very large list already) and the noticeable links to medieval demons actually impressed me a lot, since those are demons that you don’t see very often. Demons tend to be fucked up and brutal dinosaur looking monsters, abstract spectral beings, horned humanoids, or eldritch abominations. Among many other designs that, don’t get me wrong, are all good in their own right. 

But it’s cool and refreshing seeing modern media depict the surreal and almost silly and absurd looking fiends from ye old times, where demons where these lanky grotesque goblin men with animal parts, faces on their asses, exposed genitals and creepy smiles. I hope we can see more medieval inspired demons in future works. Who knows in what context. Will we fight and slay them? Will they haunt us from the dark? Or would we drink a beer with them? The possibilities are endless... 

Also, I see that Devil May Cry 5 already knows what I’m talking about... 

God, gotta love that demonic Belly Maw™

#dragon's dogma #monsters #demons #medieval demons #videogames #creature design #monster design #monster appreciation

[sendforbromina]

what are your fave/least fave things about hamlet??

this is such a good question…i assume you’re talking about hamlet the play, hamlet the character is a whole other fish tank…

i would say the two main things i love about hamlet are:  that it simply is just an enjoyable work to read (maybe this is my inner english major speaking). my last year of college i had multiple copies of hamlet laying around my room for different classes + my thesis and sometimes i would just go over and pick one up and start reading at random, for fun. the language is incredible. the characters feel modern, and very real. if you read plays by shakespeare’s contemporaries, even by what are considered to be good playwrights, they really don’t measure up, not on the level of the intricacies of the language nor on the human depth granted to the characters. you feel (or, i feel) as though they have been constructed as characters for a play. shakespeare’s characters, i feel as though they have been fully realized as “people”. this is pretty much true for all of shakespeare’s plays but what makes it stand out moreso in hamlet is that hamlet is such a character-driven, word-driven play. you don’t really have grand, magical, or weird actions taking place in hamlet like you do in macbeth or some of the comedies that can distract/cover up deficiencies in language, so the main “action” comes from people speaking, confronting other people, giving soliloquies etc.

in terms of performance, i think hamlet is very unwieldy to perform in its entirety and also that that’s very boring to do (this is why i don’t really care for kenneth branagh’s 4 hour long, unabridged hamlet). what i love is that generally you need to chop out parts of it to make it manageable, and that means that every director is going to craft her (or his) own “vision” of hamlet. which is always fascinating. some people go the super-personal, “hamlet has an oedipal complex and issues with his dead dad/dealing with grief and loss” (lawrence olivier). some people go the “hamlet is a political prisoner/freedom fighter” route, making the play super-political or using it to critique/protest against politics in their own country/era (grigori kozintsev). the play is really versatile. it doesn’t really have an overt, unified “message” in the same way that macbeth or othello do (and i love those two plays, macbeth is actually my favorite shakespeare play, but it’s much harder to come up with radically different interpretations of them since they seem to have a certain worldview already built into the text).

it’s hard for me to come up with a least-favorite thing “within” hamlet. i would say obviously, the depictions of gertrude and ophelia. what i find most galling is actually not even so much how shakespeare wrote them, but how they have been interpreted by (largely male) critics in the centuries since. hamlet (character) has such a richly layered psychology, everyone, and particularly every man (or every male critic, anyway) sees himself in hamlet and adopts his worldview. so hamlet’s misogynistic view of women is deemed automatically correct—you have critics who can write scholarly essays about literally, the guards who show up at the beginning of the play, but then whose opinions about gertrude and ophelia boil down to “gertrude was a mean slut. ophelia was dumb, and also kind of psycho.” shakespeare definitely could have written these women more richly, but at the same time there is actually interesting material there to be analyzed, male critics have just decided it’s not worth the effort. and that has kind of trickled down to even the modern-day, where up until basically very recently with the advent of feminist literary criticism there has been a total dearth of scholarly discussion about them.

#asks #i could...go on...