Tumgik
#but his religious beliefs say that family is important so he thinks we have to love each other cause were family
fandomination666-blog · 2 months
Text
As someone who lives in Texas (unfortunately) I find it SO FUNNY when people make keith overwhelmingly southern. Like, cmon yall. Texas history 101, the cowboy era ended a long ass time ago, most of us DONT wear cowboy hats anymore. Why the fuck would keith ride a horse???? Nobody does that unless they own horses??? And horses are incredibly expensive???
Like, I understand cowboy aus, and historical aus, but if Texas, in 2024, isn't like that (the stereotypes are so wild) then why would it be like that in approx 2314?
Very few wear cowboy hats or boots. Very few have horses, and NOBODY rides them to school, ffs. Keith is not a farmhand.
Some texas stereotypes that are true, however...
-yeah we say yall nonstop
-ain't, wouldja, couldn't've, etc.
-confederate flag is less common here, normally you see the "come and take it" or the "don't tread on me"
-if keith ever went to public school, 1/3 of his classmates or more are Latino
-most Texans know moderate amounts of Spanish
-we celebrate Cinco de Mayo, and most ppl think it's Mexican independence day (it's not)
-barbecue.
-chili WITHOUT BEANS YOU HEATHEN
-will fight over food, family, or football
-either you support the Dallas Cowboys or the Houston Texans. Any other team is sacrilege. Once you make this choice, it WILL have effects on your social life.
-football is basically king here lol, none of the other stuff in school gets nearly the funding
-people living in rural areas (like Keith's dad) often own guns, and not pistols either-- rifles and shotguns, usually
-NOBODY SAYS YEEHAW. at least not unironically
-Texans will ironically say yeehaw, rootin-tootin, etc bc we are aware of our history and think it's wack
-were not all racist, but everyone knows at least one person who is (usually an older family member)
-mind your gotdamn manners at the table. Get those elbows away from your food
-sir and ma'am for strangers
-open doors for old people. You don't have to be a man to do this.
-please and thank you is SO important, people will assume things about you otherwise
-if you don't have a church, you miss out on a lot of community (coming from a non-religious person)
-most people here are Baptist, on that note (Hispanic people contribute to the Catholic population, but still, Baptist is #1)
-internet service is awful unless you're in a city
-we WILL close all schools for 2 inches of snow/ice
-we laugh at hurricanes, and then do our best to help our Houston neighbors
-but everybody hates Houston and Dallas, unless you live there
-most people are okay with Austin, San Antonio, etc
-EL PASO IS TINY, AND HALF OF IT IS IN MEXICO (and is called Ciudad Juárez there)
-beer is god. And God has no problem with drinking. (According to beliefs here)
-gambling is illegal here, but we love it, so states like Oklahoma have built casinos RIGHT ON THE STATE BORDER so that we can drive a bit and gamble as we please
-everybody's dad drives a truck. Otherwise people assume he's got a small pp
57 notes · View notes
themirrordemon · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Writer James Wong and director David Nutter talking about X-files s01 e13 "Beyond the sea"
Cinefantastique #26 - 1995
“Dana, open yourself up to extreme possibilities only when they’re the truth.”
—Mulder
Beyond the Sea
Gillian Anderson and Scully come into their own in this first-rate script by Glen Morgan and James Wong. Scully’s personal and professional lives collide when, shortly after her father's death, she and Mulder interrogate a psychic death row convict named Boggs (Brad Dourif) who may hold the key to finding a serial killer and his latest victims. In a fascinating twist, Mulder for once is the skeptic, and Scully the unwilling believer, when Boggs claims he can locate the killer—his former partner—as well as give Scully some final words from her father. Director David Nutter drew scorching performances from Dourif. and a deeply moving one from Anderson, whose Scully tries mightily to repress both her grief and her belief, and his orchestration of the prison confrontations is masterful. The sholwhere the door closes behind Anderson, leaving Dourif centered perfectly in a narrow windowframe is quite unforgettable. The teaser is a study in how to communicate family tensions and emotions not spelled out in dialogue. Don Davis and Sheila Larkcn as William and Margaret Scully make an indelible impression.
“Beyond the Sea” originated from a number of sources, one of which, said James Wong, was “a book Glen had read which said that 75 percent of widows within three months have a vision of their husband, and 35 percent of mothers see their sons.” And comments from fans that Scully needed humanizing played their part. “Gillian needed a show to show off her talents,” Wong said. Added Morgan, "It was time to grow Scully’s character, because she was doing the same kind of thing too often.”
The character of Boggs grew out of Morgan’s desire to “do a psychic thing. And you start thinking, well, this guy’s got to have something at stake. Capital punishment was one thing I always wanted to write about.” The network executives were not high on the idea of a Scully/Boggs faceoff, and Chris Carter had to back the idea twice before the they gave the go-ahead. “They said it was too much like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS,” said Morgan, “so in order to not do Hannibal Lecter, this kind of cool intellectual, we had this manic high-strung cracker. I was directly trying not to write Hannibal Lecter.”
Noted director David Nutter, "Brad Dourif came in, and my job there was to create a setting where he could be what he really wanted to be. I would just tweak this and that, but basically I let him have the stage. In a sense, it was a static episode and it was important to let his performance be the moving element. I was also very happy with the work that Gillian and I did together. I thought she really proved herself to be quite a talented actress.”
Religious symbolism is a guiding clement in “Beyond the Sea.” The teaser opens on a Christmas tree angel and the statue of an angel also provides an important clue to locating the serial killer. Mulder's lack of faith in Boggs results in his being shot near a wooden “white cross” which Boggs had warned him about, a contrast to Scully’s evading death when she avoids a painting of a blue devil about which she had received a similar warning. “Scully has that Catholic background,” said Morgan. "I’m not a very organized religious person, but we got a lot of letters from people saying, ‘I need to see my religion portrayed positively.’ So you try to have somebody who was raised with that faith.”
The tattoos on Boggs’ hands which read “kiss” and “kill” are reminiscent of Robert Mitchum’s “love” and “hate” tattoos in NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, but Morgan said that although Mitchum was in the back of his mind, the words themselves came from a song by the band X. “There’s a lyric which says, ‘It’s kiss or kill.’ I was trying to think of something other than love or hate and I thought that was kind of neat.”
37 notes · View notes
adipostsstuff · 3 months
Text
So, we know that Es usually takes the audience's reasons for having any given verdict, but there have been times where they don't do that.
Shidou: there were many differing reasons ad to why people voted him innocent, but the main one was that he is hot. Obviously Es 'takes their job very seriously and is also a minor' would not accept this reasoning. This means their own justification for this verdict was entirely their own. I didn't see anyone theorise that Shidou's victims were braindead patients whose organs he transferred to healthier patients like they did so that was probably their own theory. (understandable the popular one was dumb as shit (can you tell I have a strong hatred for organ harvesting theory?)) (it's interesting that the writers went out of their way to have Es state an alternate interpretation of the events in his video to the popular one when no one else gets this treatment. It may be because forgiving someone when you think they did something as awful as what most people think he did is very hard to justify). They say that they assumed he saved as many lives as he killed as therefore decided his crime was forgivable, so they probably subscribe to utilitarianism, or perhaps the idea that one life can be worth the same as another. While most people subscribe to this kind of belief, it's still worth noting this is something Es themselves believe, not something we implanted into them. (As an aside it's really funny this was the first time they call themselves we. No, Es, we did not forgive him for that reason, you came up with that yourself. We forgave him because he's hot.) They also state that they would say this even if it was their own family, but coming from someone who doesn't remember their family this doesn't mean much, and it was a stupid question for Shidou to ask anyway. I'll bet if he used any of the prisoners as a subject instead, Es' answer would change up real quick.
Kazui: the accepted theory at the time was that he cheated on his wife, and I'm assuming (because I wasn't actually there during the first trial) he was voted innocent because most people thought that crime wasn't that bad, at least compared to actual murder. Es, however, makes it very clear the only reason they forgave him was because of lack of information. For whatever reason, they have a strong dislike for 'people who act based on their sexual urges', which is a really specific thing to dislike for someone who's meant to be an audience surrogate. They also appear to have strong views on marriage, which is also really weird since they stated earlier they 'have no interest in [romantic relationships]'. I have no idea what this means but it seems important.
Amane: she was voted guilty in the first trial so "teach her what she did was wrong" (which by the way I still think was very stupid and am forever salty about). In her first voice drama, Es explicitly tates they have no interest in doing that. It's for "firm honest judgements", not to "turn them into functional members of society" (paraphrasing), so it makes sense that they wouldn't agree with this reasoning as it contradicts with their previous statements. They just say that they don't believe murder for the sake of religious doctrine is acceptable. Interestingly enough while they do say the fact that she is a child is an unavoidable fact it seems they didn't take that into account with her verdict. Is it because she asked them not to or because it would be harder to justify a guilty verdict with that in mind? This does make it more interesting that it was a thing they considered with Yuno (especially since, you know, she's older than them). Not sure what to make of this.
33 notes · View notes
Quarter Finals - Catholic Character Tournament
Tumblr media
Propaganda below ⬇️
Shadow
In sonic destruction (the AI generated fan thing snapcube made a while ago) shadow was catholic or something which I think is reallyyyyyyy funny
Ok listen. I know this is a stretch but hear me out. He says “oh my God” in the Twitter takeovers so we know this is a possibility. I see him as a Christ-like figure because I saw his whole confrontation with Mephiles and was like “this is a thing that happened in the Bible??” and the pose Mephiles shows him in is literally like a crucifixion and Mephiles is meant to be a demon / false prophet reference. And also he’s called a demon in Shadow The Hedgehog 2005 then the guy who calls him that is like “I was wrong I’m sorry” and that also reminds me of a thing with Jesus in The Bible. But the biggest reason is his whole thing with Maria cause I think he’d come to earth and hear Ave Maria once and convert to Catholicism idk he’s like we’re comforted by a female familial figure named Mary sometimes called Maria?? And her color is blue????? Heck yeah I’m in because I Will Cry. Also feel free to share this as propaganda obv even if he doesn’t get in the bracket just. It’s funny.
I feel like he’d battle a lot with being seen or portrayed as a demon and how the aliens he’s related to very much look and act like demons idk lmao- and also I feel like confession would just be good for him I think he needs it for his mental health
There is a debate on the lovely website tunblr that Shadow T. Hedgehog is an allegory for Jesus Christ.
He is Jesus, idk what to tell you. He lived, he was sealed away, he was awakened again and deemed the ultimate lifeforms, he’s angry but not evil, does what he believes is best for people and the world at any given time. Total loser.
Vote for Shadow the Hedgehog
There seems to be some confusion in the notes. He is Catholic. It may not be explicit, but it can be inferred.
Shadow was created by Professor Gerald Robotnik, and for the early part of his life, lived with Gerald and his granddaughter, Maria Robotnik.
Robotnik is not a made-up name. Google Search results may only bring up pages related to the Robotniks of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, however, it is a rarely used Polish surname. Poland is a historically Catholic nation, and… come on. Maria is the most Catholic name ever. The Robotniks are Catholic. Shadow was created and raised by Catholics.
Now you may be wondering to yourself: Does Catholicism even exist in Sonic? The answer is yes, at least in the Archie comics, where Protestants are explicitly mentioned.
Tumblr media
Couple this with the fact that several characters, including Shadow, have canonically taken the Lord’s name in vain, it is reasonable to infer that Christianity, and therefore Catholicism, exists.
So… while Shadow’s own religious beliefs may not have been explicitly addressed… at minimum:
Catholic is a cultural designation that Shadow will always be allowed to claim based on the family that made him.
Whether he’d actually want to claim that designation is a different conversation, but the other propaganda does a fine job of explaining why it may be appropriate to headcanon him as a practicing Catholic.
Now that we’ve established that Shadow has as much of a right to be in this tournament as anyone else, there’s one very important reason you should vote for him:
It would be funny if he won.
Thank you.
Tumblr media
Essays are done!! Here’s some Shadow propaganda because the propaganda we currently have sucks and I need to fix that. While yes, Shadow being Catholic is a meme, there is more to outside of the simple “fandub said so” and its not quite stated its Catholicism but just how he behaves and his actions. There’s a lot of Sonic content so I will try to keep this brief. Gonna get headcanons out of the way.
Shadow is Chilean and so are Maria and Gerald Robotnik because I fucking say so and they’re Catholic. He definitely had un rosario next to his like. Bed or test tube whatever he slept in. So did Maria btw. Alright let’s move on because I am 100% correct.
Let’s start with some background for Shadow. Shadow was created as a cure for a girl called Maria and he grew to care for her as a sister and loved her deeply. He was artificially created but still holds a soul that is similar to Maria’s. Long story short, Maria is killed protecting Shadow who watches as she’s shot in front of him. He has his memories tampered by Maria’s grandfather, Gerald, who manipulates him into carrying out revenge on the Earth, even if Shadow ends up as collateral.
Shadow struggles with frequent identity crises, even before Maria’s death and always wondered what his purpose was, what he was made to do. Was he a weapon? Was he a cure? He’s the Ultimate Lifeform, but what does that truly mean? ? He’s Shadow, but what more is there to him? He doesn’t know what his purpose is other than what others have prescribed to him, and he guides himself through the will of others (something that he breaks through afterwards but not yet). Shadow at his core is self-sacrificing and constantly punishes himself. This is where you can see some of that good old guilt that everyone has been using as propaganda, but we also see someone who is giving and kind.
He is snarky in the game, especially when interacting with Sonic, but he’s having what is essentially an ongoing mental breakdown but keeps moving because it is his duty to his sister. He doesn’t believe himself important enough to continue on after her and sees it in himself to act out on “Maria’s wishes”. After the revelation that Maria’s final wish for Shadow was for him to make those on Earth happy and to protect them, he immediately sacrifices himself to do so.
Okay, that’s a lot and you’re probably asking “Okay, you mentioned he is a giving person and yeah he has guilt, but that’s not really Catholicism” and yes you would be right! So let’s go into the more important part of being Catholic. The charity, the community, the kindness, etc. Shadow is a very reserved person and has the habit of being a dumb teenager because well. Yeah. Anyways, he definitely has a soft spot for those he cares about and while his whole arc (in my opinion) is about finding the freedom of self-autonomy, it is also Shadow growing as a person and deciding not to save people because others have told him he needs to, but because he wants to. It is born from his soul and its his nature to care for people. It is who he is, and he knows it now. He’s not doing it because he’s a hero or because he is told to do so. Shadow is a very giving person and I think people tend to forget about that especially due to bad writing from the past decade or so. He is also stated to help out at food shelters and volunteers a lot. He is proud and a bit prickly, but he cares so deeply about those he loves. He is stronger with his loved ones and will always do his best to protect them. These are minor, yeah, but you don’t need sweeping and enormous acts to get attention for the good deeds you do. Most of what you apply of Catholicism is done at the personal level, between your friends, family, and community.He also goes to Mass whenever he can and if he can’t he goes to the capilla and also does the sign of the cross whenever he runs by a church. Cutting this off because this is already 740-ish words and I had to send these across multiple asks I am so sorry Catholic mod
Harrowhark
I'm pretty sure you've already got plenty of submissions for her so I'll just say she was raised in what is basically a cult (technically a nunnery but let's be real) dedicated to keeping the body of the thing that will kill God behind the rock. One of their prayers is actually "I pray the rock is never rolled away". Harrow is extremely devout as penance for her earlier heretical actions in the tomb as a child (spoiler!) so the Catholic guilt really comes through
imagine being a catholic nun and you meet god, but it turns out he’s a twitch streamer from new zealand who became god because everything got a little bit out of hand. and just before you met him you gave yourself a diy grief-fuelled lobotomy with the help of your best frenemy. imagine how insane you’d be. now multiply that insanity by nine. that’s the fictional love of my life right there.
she meets god. she’s not inspired
she’s number one practitioner of space Catholicism. The locked tomb is chock full of Christian (catholic) imagery themes metaphors etc. just look at her she’s got a bone rosary
They're Catholicism with extra bones. Everyone is a nun. They have what is basically a rosary made from knuckle bones. They technically worship the same God as everyone else, but they're waaaay more focused on The Body in the Tomb (Mary) and we get a moment where we find out that while everyone else prays the equivilent of The Lords Prayer, they're doing the equivilent of Hail Mary. And they paint their faces with skulls.
She thinks leaving dry bread in a drawer is taking care of someone. She's in love with a 10,000 year old corpse (the same one they worship). She spent ALL NIGHT digging with her bare hands to make sure a field had bones every 5 feet so she could fight her girlfriend - I mean, greatest enemy. Spoiler territory: She's been puppeting her parents corpses since she was 8 years old. Instead of grieving her dead girlfriend, she gives herself a lobotomy. She makes soup with bone in it so she can use the bone IN THEIR STOMACH to try and kill them.
The author is/was Catholic and the entire series had heavy Catholic overtones. https://www.tor.com/2020/08/19/gideon-the-ninth-young-pope-and-the-new-pope-are-building-a-queer-catholic-speculative-fiction-canon/ A good breakdown of how it's Catholic
Anti-propaganda (spoilers)
I love the Locked Tomb series but Harrowhark has daddy issues with God, had a childhood crush on God's cryogenic partner, and is in love with God's daughter, not to mention that she's essentially a bone-bender. The religion on her home planet exists in a way that is technically against the will of the canon in-universe God, even. All of this to say, Harrowhark is heretical at minimum if not an outright witch. Terrible Catholic. Burn her.
55 notes · View notes
gaiusbunnymask · 1 year
Text
the divine right of kings and the old religion: why arthur pendragon is the one and future king, and what the "two sides of the same coin" thing is all about
(disclaimer: this is my opinion and point of view, you are welcome to disagree. if someone else has already talked about this before, please let me know!)
throughout the show gaius displays extreme loyalty and servitude to uther and later arthur, the pendragons in general, though that loyalty doesn't inhibit him from lying and acting behind their backs if he thinks he has to. but his belief system establishes that even if uther is a tyrant, he must obey him, for uther is his king. gaius could have run away during the purge but he chose not to. was it because he considered uther his friend? or is there another reason?
later merlin will do things following gaius' example and instructions: act behind his king, protect him in secret with the use of magic, and put his loyalty to the king over everything else.
...but why????? (long meta below the cut!)
when gaius is asked in 1x01 if he practiced magic, he says "uther banned such work 20 years ago", meaning, what's important is what uther has sanctioned as monarch of camelot. yet he still thinks magic is a gift that must be used to do good, and somehow in his mind this equals to supporting the pendragon family, which has banned and persecuted magic for two decades. it also means that he finds merlin using his magic to support and protect arthur, the future king, perfectly plausible and aligned with his philosophy of life, even in a kingdom where being caught using magic will get you killed. his beliefs seem very contradictory and it's no wonder that a lot of sorcerers and the dragon hated him.
but i think there's something more to it
even with magic being outlawed gaius still thinks that the only magic that should be done is the one in service of his monarch. so if merlin does magic to do his chores is "bad", but if he uses sorcery to save uther that's "good".
this is why i think gaius was, intentionally or not, developed as a character with an intrinsic belief on the divine right of kings. at some point before the beginning of the show he must have sworn an oath of fealty to uther, which ties him indefinitely to the pendragon family. taking into account that the old religion was THE religion camelot lived by before the purge, that means that when gaius became uther's servant/sorcerer/court physician at the time, the old religion was pretty okay with the pendragons ruling. nimueh, a priestess of the old religion, was friends with uther, and was ruling alongside the king at the time. with this in mind we can safely conclude that, before the purge, in the eyes of the old religion, the triple goddess and its representatives, uther was a legitimate king.
this means a few things:
-gaius is a follower of the old religion; even if he has stop practicing magic, he grew up in it
-it was probably the custom that a monarch would have a priest/priestess in their court ruling alongside them; at the very least the magical/religious representative would have an official position in the court and a seat on the monarch's council. the ancient round table has a seat for magic placed on the right side of the king, which as the merlin wiki says, it "suggests that magic was held in great esteem in the time of the Ancient Kings".
-said magical/religious representative would legitimize the king's power, and in turn, said king would give the magical/religious representative status and power.
-because, functionally speaking, the old religion can be understood like any other religion in medieval times, meaning that the doctrine of the divine right of kings also applies here
-all this to establish that the subjects and authorities of the old religion, and the triple goddess, believe in the pendragon's divine right to rule over the land
-and that the old religion gave uther the right to rule before the purge
-but since uther has rebelled against the old religion and threw the balance into chaos, he must be punished and someone else must take his place and right his wrongs, bringing the world back to the goddesses'-ordained natural order (yey shakespeare reference!)
-uther's replacement must be legitimate, recognized as a rightful heir in the eyes of the old religion and the common people;
-and who are the easier candidates to choose from? the pendragon children, morgana and arthur
-but morgana is an illegitimate child in this feudal worldview, and therefore in the eyes of the old religion too. however, she is still a better prospect than uther, and even arthur, because she's both a pendragon and a priestess of the old religion, so she's able to gather subjects through the course of the story
-this brings us to why the old religion and it's followers believe that arthur must be the king to unite the land of camelot and "bring magic back to the land", which is code for legalizing and reinstating the old religion to its previous status:
he was born from magic, literally, which means he's literally a son of the old religion and its godesses and source of power (jesus parallelism lmao)
he is a pendragon, a family that had ruled with the blessing of the old religion in the past
he is a legitimate heir
and the role that merlin plays in all of this? he's supposed to guide arthur to do "the right thing", what the old religion wants him to do. he already comes with great status, what with him being emrys, which means his power and influence will be immortal. he is to take a position of authority, the same place that nimueh used to have, so that united with arthur the two of them will constitute a sort of dual power (secular and magical) that legitimize each other and bring back the natural order of things.
in this aspect, s3 morgana and morgause could be seen as arthur and merlin's counterpart; they encapsulate another dual power with the potential to rule rightfully. if only they hadn't chosen to kill so many innocent people...
and with arthur being the once and future king, and merlin being immortal, this means that they could hold this positions in the distant future, when arthur comes back. In conclusion: they have the potential to be perfect dual power, legitimate and eternal.
i think this is what the prophecy of the once and future king is about and where the two sides of the same coin thing comes from.
kilgahrrah, who loathed uther with all his enormous being, believed in arthur's divine right and the necessity of a dual power. gaius also believed this. the druids believed this, and the same can be said of almost every subject and creature of the old religion that we encounter throughout the show. most of the non-magical people also believe in the divine right of kings.
this is why it was so easy for merlin to believe his destiny is to serve arthur. the society, the religion and the environment he lived in reinforced these beliefs.
93 notes · View notes
tanadrin · 7 months
Note
Does Dan McClellan ever explain how he's a Mormon? I started listening to Data Over Dogma the other day, thanks your regular comments about it, and I'm absolutely boggled that this dude can say this shit and then go to church on Sunday.
he talked about his biography in his Mormon Stories appearance. he converted as an adult, around 19 or 20--he describes himself as feeling kind of aimless in life, having social connections through friends and family members to the mormon church, and being drawn to it that way. inferring a little bit from the context, he seems to have landed within a pocket of mormons that were either pretty pro-lgbt or not strenuously anti-lgbt--enough that that didn't put him off, given his agnostic and not particularly conservative background.
he's an interesting case, for sure! he explicitly avoids talking about his personal beliefs, so i can only guess what his exact though process was. but the impression i get is someone who 1) was strongly drawn to the social aspects of organized religion (and mormonism is very tight-knit socially), 2) was willing to suspend judgement on the more out-there elements of doctrine (the really off-the-wall historical stuff), and 3) isn't too pressed about the truth claims element of religion, or doesn't personally find that the most important part of religious experience and feeling.
and yet it is still kind of strange to me to listen to someone who is very thoughtful about the cognitive science of religion, who deeply understands the textual history of religious scripture, and who understands why you can't use faith-based arguments as part of any coherent methodology in the analysis of that scripture, to try to mount a defense of religiosity in general. i mean plainly people can do it. but i can't imagine how, unless there is some deep cognitive dissonance at work. i think that even if the truth claims of religion aren't the most important part of religion to you, they're plainly incredibly important when it comes to, like, how religious traditions are differentiated--if the truth claims don't matter, there's much less reason to be mormon vs episcopalian vs baptist.
i could see salvaging out of all that some kind of general moral therapeutic deism, or ultra-reformed judaism, or other spiritual-but-not-dogmatically-religious worldview--but belonging to an avowedly dogmatic, hierarchically organized religious institution, with the kind of internal discipline that means members like dan are (let us be charitable) less than entirely open with their criticisms less they face larger-scale social consequences--a problem not even modern Catholics face--and one which is nonetheless built on an unusually recent, and unusually disprovable set of truth claims like mormonism is--like, idk. it's really hard to imagine someone who knew all the stuff he knows about biblical history being drawn to mormonism if he had learned that stuff first. and if that's true that feels kind of like an indictment of the religion? like it really is mostly contingent features we don't care about in any deep way.
that makes more sense for ethnoreligions like judaism, and out of all american religions, mormonism is probably closest to being an ethnoreligion itself. it's pretty culturally insular compared to mainline protestantism. even most flavors of fundamentalist evangelicalism. the closest analogue is maybe the primitive baptists? and they're a tiny denomination. but if it was really a self-sustaining culture it probably wouldn't need a centralized hierarchy that excommunicated dissenters who got too big a public profile for criticizing the church.
18 notes · View notes
barnbridges · 8 months
Text
On Denomination Semantics, Church Authority, Bunny, Marion and Julian
I'll say that much, the Greek class is predominantly Catholic, with it being noted that Richard is a non-denominational Christian and Bunny being an Episcopalian.
"Bunny’s family was Episcopalian, and my parents, as far as I knew, had no religious affiliation at all; but Henry and Francis and the twins had been reared as Catholics;"
This established dynamic is a setup to a later conversation in the book, where Julian questions Richard on the changes in Bunny's behavior, attributing them to a possible conversion of either Bunny or Marion, wherein we learn she is a Presbyterian. All fun and good, we just learn that Bunny is so panicked Julian thinks he's having a mental breakdown, right? This is just foreshadowing to Bunny writing the confessional letter to Julian, right?
Tumblr media
Upon closer inspection... why would we need to know, in particular, the specific denomination that Bunny holds, when his social status as a Protestant has already been established, and even less so Marion, who Richard doesn't even know?
Well, that is because the confessions are a metaphor for the structure in their lives.
The Roman Catholic Church is one of the three major divisions of Christianity in the Western World. It has a known structure, and it bases its belief both on the Christian Bible and the Papacy, with the structure of the Church as important as the religious text itself. It is a very rigid structure, and it is indeed, as Julian says, "a worthy and powerful foe".
Episcopalians on the other hand, are seen as a "halfway" point between the structure of the Catholics and the relative interpretative freedom of other Protestants. While the Episcopal Church is a Protestant denomination, meaning it does not hold the Pope as any authority, it has structures of authority (mainly, bishops and cardinals) and holds different views on sin as opposed to Catholics (as Francis ironically points out in the Epilogue).
The motto of the Episcopal Church is "Protestant, yet Catholic!", I kid you not. EDIT: The phrase "Protestant, yet Catholic" has been associated with the Episcopal Church and their beliefs.
Not relevant to the theological discussion, but the Episcopal Church also was founded in the US and is a very American phenomenon, being one of the most common denominations for American Presidents and wannabe DC political larpers as well.
A noteworthy detail is also that... the central book of Episcopalians is The Book of Common Prayer... Which Charles desecrated at Bunny's funeral service by using it to kill a wasp. This shows both the particular lack of respect the other characters have for non-Catholic tradition, but also their lack of connection to the gravity of such an act. Charles desecrated a religious text in a church, and it was a comedic moment. They are very in touch with reality /s.
"Charles had killed it with a resounding thwack from The Book of Common Prayer."
Presbyterianism is not a church, but rather a set of beliefs and principles. It is one of the most reformist of Protestant beliefs, and does not at all recognize the need for any religious authority or church to practice. Presbyterians believe in a personal relationship with God rather than a need for a house of worship or sin to practice. Presbyterians are also stereotyped as low class, again as our judgemental professor puts it "
"He had a habit of attributing all of Bunny’s faults indirectly to her—his laziness, his bad humors, his lapses of taste."
What this primarily means for interpreting our characters and their morals, is that Bunny finds himself at a middle-point between the strict hierarchy of the Greek class and the personal freedom afforded to him by decentralized beliefs. He has all his life existed in a state of "in between" authority and lack thereof, and Julian is questioning if the main force in his life that feeds the "contrary" impulse in Bunny is gone with Marion's hypothetical conversion.
This speaks mostly to that... our Julian was probably reared Catholic himself (calling it The Church... yeah he totally also was Catholic at some point), but has turned his back on the particular beliefs of the faith to where Richard finds him today. This also implies that of his 6 students, ironically enough, Bunny would be the one that has a relationship to religious authority most similar to Julian's own, and that has been since he joined the Greek class. This contempt would only grow larger as Bunny engages with people who care even less about religious authority than he does, which Julian might not like or respect, but certainly affirms Bunny as... uniquely able to challenge authority, and certainly the most "liberal" of his students on matters of authority. Bunny is the only one of them who indeed, has a girlfriend. A girlfriend that has been a problem to the Greek class that they simply do not want to even address her at all, to the point where Francis goes into prayer that she leaves Bunny.
It's also quite a touch ironic that after Bunny's death, the next one to question the hierarchy of the group, Charles, is coincidentally the one most influenced by Marion herself. Symbolically, Marion represents the "normalcy" and "gateway" from the Catholic-like structure of the Greek class, and Richard, Henry, Camilla and Francis' disregard and mockery of her presence is just a sign that they are quite far removed from any notion of leaving the cult of Julian or challenging why the belief in Classicism needs Julian for a God and Henry for a priest.
23 notes · View notes
armavnd · 1 year
Note
Do you think Armand will still be Ukrainian if they changed his race?
I've answered this before in a twitter thread but now that I’m unshadowbanned let me systemise my thoughts here again ♡
Firstly, it’s important that people can differentiate between race and ethnicity Ethnicity refers to the cultural group that individual identifies with. This includes language, customs, religious beliefs. People of the same race MAY belong to the same ethnical group, but they don't always go together. A culture or ethnicity may consist of people of different races. It follows that someone who’s white may belong to an ethnical minority in a country but not racial minority AND a person of colour may belong to a racial but not ethnical minority. OR they may belong to BOTH at the same time.
E.G In Lithuania Polish people an ethnical minority, Koreans are a racial AND ethnical minority etc. Some Lithuanians are actually ethnical Lithuanians but are a racial minority as they were born in a mixed or multi-racial family! This means that Armand being POC does not prevent him from still being Ukrainian! Although his race is not that of a “typical” Ukrainian, he may still belong to Ukrainian ethnical group.
Now, I agree that it’s quite low chance for Armand to NOT be white if he was born in 1481 GDL lands (it was predominantly white). HOWEVER there WERE many racial minorities in the south-eastern part of the country and he could very well be of mixed or non-white race! It was a huge state and the neighbouring countries weren't all white so depending on AMC Armand's backstory, he might as well have been POC in a predominantly white country (I call it country, even though that's not really the correct term lol).
I’ve seen people say that him being Ukrainian or not doesn’t make a difference. That’s a very insensitive thing to say. This would mean that erasure of ethnicity is acceptable and that’s just WRONG. Ethnical representation is important same as racial representation. In fact, to me as someone that comes from Lithuania, racial issues are by large quite unknown. I’ve never had encounter with that in my real life! Ethnical minorities, however, are a BIG deal here. Changing someone’s ethnical background here is similar to whitewashing. You erase their unique identity. I come from a country which's ethnicity and customs were attacked so many times that I can't even count, and I know that a lot of Europeans may relate to this. As there are so many countries neighbouring each other and we are mostly distinct in our customs and traditions as well as language rather than race, changing someone's nationality is quite a big deal.
Armand’s ethnicity is a complex discussion in general. He was born in the lands of Grand Dutchy of Lithuania but identities with ukrainian values since Lithuania was an occupant. If he had a passport it’d say “Lithuanian”. Anyway. Not Russian. Say Armand is Russian and you’ve got yourself into one big trouble fiend.
And I realise that this might be different in say, America, where racial minorities are quite common. However, this doesn’t make either representation more or less important. THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY RELEVANT. This is why I’m happy that Armand is POC (and Assad looks damn much like Armand!!!) BUT I also hope that his Ukrainian identity is retained. If it isn’t and people will see absolutely no issue in that, I’m going to be very disappointed. I've also seen some comments of "ukraine has no culture" or "it's the same as in Russia" and my dude, if that's the 'knowledge' you have I really encourage you to do some research.
Many Ukrainian fans have expressed their concerns and I think their voices are relevant too. The bottom line is that we can enjoy BOTH ethnical and racial diversity in one! However if you are alright with erasure of EITHER, that’s very questionable.
113 notes · View notes
theblackqveen · 1 year
Note
Hi!What do you think about Aemond from the show so far?
Don't you think they've made him more sympathetic than he should be?
Especially when there is a contradiction between what the actors say and what Ryan says.I don't completely remember what Ryan said, however I remember him saying something similar about how Aemond was supposed to grow up to become a great leader but him getting bullied and lost an eye has destroyed the possibility of it. While the actors (Ewan, Olivia) have called him psychopath, simple as that.
Hi! I definitely have an issue with how they whitewashed Aemond on the show given that I've read Fire & Blood, as well as how Condal want us to see him.
Aemond is introduced to us in episode 6 as a lonely boy, the outsider in the group of kids since back then Aegon apparently got along with Jace and Luke, and because he's the only one who doesn't have a dragon. Our first introduction to his character is when Aegon, Jace and Luke made that cruel pig prank. Obviously, everyone is gonna feel for him unless they're cruel themselves. I don't have an issue with the scene itself, but the fact that they chose it as the starting point for Aemond's character. Because it seems that his entire personality, his reactions, his choices are all based from this, which is bad writing. Yes, it had consequences on him, it's not uninteresting to explore this. But who was Aemond before? A nice kid? No, he wasn't. Everyone who has read Fire & Blood could say he didn't become a psychopath because his big brother and his cousins once made a cruel prank. However, chosing this as the starting point for Aemond seems to be a writing choice to introduce Aemond as a victim.
The next episode is the turning point for Aemond. We first see him talking with his brother about Helaena, telling him he would marry her if their mother had betrothed them, that it would strengthen the family and keep their Valyrian blood pure. He also tells Aegon that Helaena is his future queen, which gives is more insight on what happened among the Greens off screen: the treason is, as everyone knows, already planned since Helaena can only be the future queen if Aegon if the future king after Viserys’ death. Aemond doesn’t have an issue with usurping Rhaenyra, but he does have an issue with being the second son and not the one who will be king.
Then, Aemond claims Vhagar, and fights with the four other kids, which led to the loss of one of his eyes. I talked about this here: Alicent had been telling their sons they’re trueborn Targaryens and that Jace, Luke and Joff are bastards. Aemond, conceived between two married people, with a Targaryen father, one of the sons of the King and Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, doesn’t have a dragon. Rhaenyra’s sons, conceived out of wedlock, with only a Targaryen mother, all have a dragon. Alicent is surprised their dragons’ eggs hatched, both because of her religious beliefs (they’re the result of adultery) and because of misogyny (since Aegon, Aemond, Helaena, Jace, Luke and Joff both have only one parent with Valyrian blood, the only difference is that her children have a Targaryen father). But somehow, Rhaenyra’s bastards as his mother call them are worthy of a dragon while he’s not? So when Aemond manages to claim Vhagar, this is literally the best moment of his life. He’s not just worthy, he’s better than them because not everyone could claim Vhagar, this legendary dragon. And those bastards had dared to mock him when he’s clearly superior to them? Of course he welcomes the opportunity to confront them when he lands. The girls who just lost their mother aren’t important either: he’s become the bully here and can insult them too. It’s his turn. Jace and Luke want to defend them? They’re nothing. They’re bastards, and he’s just proven he is more worthy than them, he is a trueborn Targaryen unlike them. He enjoys the fight, especially since he’s still feeling the adrenaline rush after riding Vhagar.
I will note that they did whitewash him in that scene too, since he attacks 3 years-old Joffrey in the book, but anyone watching the scene can still see he’s not a poor victim. In the next scene, we see he does care about his mother when Viserys demands to know where he heard that Rhaenyra’s sons are bastards. He looks at Alicent first, who’s absolutely terrified (and for good reason), and says it’s Aegon.
Episodes 8 and 9 are pretty on point with who Aemond is too: after everyone made an effort during the last family dinner with Viserys, he choses to start another fight with Jace and Luke. He teams up with Criston Cole to find his brother, and those two were also fighting together in the book. Ever since episode 7, they started writing Aemond pretty much like his book counterpart. But in episode 10, Condal made a mistake by relying on another accident, when they had the opportunity to keep writing Aemond as the person he truly is. That’s even when they do at first, when Aemond demands that Luke gives him one of his eyes for his mother and he then follows Luke on Vhagar. His intention seem, at first, as clear as in the book, but Condal decided that it was more “nuanced” and brought “more depth” to Aemond’s character to make it an accident where Aemond tries to stop Vhagar.
Aemond is first introduced as a victim, because they chose that cruel prank for us to discover his character on the show. And his finale scene in the first season is an accident, where he’s a victim of consequences because Vhagar doesn’t listen to his commands and is the one killing Luke. Not only is it terrible writing to rely an accidents as Seth Abramson pointed out in his review, but Greens stans keep thinking of Aemond as a victim, who became a bad guy because he was bullied for years as the writers said (where is it on the show? nowhere), but not a psychopath. Proof being that even after what Luke did to him, he didn’t really want to kill him.
Condal said in his interview with The Hollywood reporter that:
Aemond is definitely not blameless in what happened to Luke. But Aemond was also a kid who was bullied and was made a mockery for part of his life for not having a dragon. Now he does, and he rides the biggest dragon in the world. I think he was showing his rival that he will not be intimidated and trifled with is probably more in play there than trying to become a kinslayer – that would be very un-calculated and stupid of Aemond to do at the outset when the pieces are moving about the board and loyalties are being set and figuring out who is going to make marriage pact to guarantee whose army …  for Aemond to launch nukes right out of the gate and go for an all-out dragon war would be very foolish, but that’s exactly what he ends up doing because things get out of hand and out of control. It’s a complex scene. Aemond is not blameless, but he’s also not a psychopath without a logical line of thinking.
He doesn’t see Aemond as the psychopath he is in Fire & Blood, but as, again, a victim of bullying, and as a very smart character. However, Condal also changed his own version of what happened in his interview with Variety as, once again, Seth Abramson pointed out in his review:
Between one sentence and the next, Condal suddenly (a) denies that Lucerys’ death was an accident (suggesting that Aemond exhibited some sort of criminal mental state preceding Lucerys’ death, whether purposefulness or recklessness or negligence) but then (b) insists that Lucerys’ death was “not... what Aemond intended” and that it is because we’re supposed to assume Aemond in no way wanted Lucerys dead that “it adds complexity and nuance” to his character. So which is it? Either Aemond is the sort of young man who knowingly took actions that would lead to a death or he very much did not want that death to occur and did all he could to stop it; it is not possible for complexities and nuances to be drawn out of his character in the midst of such wildly unproductive vagaries. As literary critics have known for many decades, ever since the New Critics of the early to mid-twentieth century, there is a wild gulf of difference between ambiguity (which can be both narratively fraught and generative) and mere vagueness.
What I’m taking from all of this is that a) Condal doesn’t seem to know what he’s writing himself, b) he seems to love Aemond and just as Alicent “misunderstanding” Viserys’ last words to her, he’s absolving another Green of his responsability with another “accident”, and c) the fact he and Hess kept repeating that Daemon isn’t a hero (we know, we’ve read the book) makes it seem like they want, just like most of Aemond’s stans, for Daemon to be Aemond’s foil instead of the opposite. Because in the books, Aemond has two main traits: being a psychopath and being Daemon’s foil (I talked about this previously). Meanwhile, I don’t know what Olivia said, but Ewan did describe Aemond as a “whole other monster” (source). Both Ewan and Matt seem to be the only ones who don’t say a lot of crap in interviews, honestly.
68 notes · View notes
jalebi-weds-bluetooth · 8 months
Note
Hey Jwb,
How are you?
I was watching the dadi track when Dadi was exposing that Arnav and Khushi didn't take pheres, And I really loved the way Arnav took a stand for Khushi, but idk why Arnav didn't tell everyone that it was a contract marriage, He only mentioned that "Me jaanta hu meri aur khushi ki shaadi kin halaat me hui", He should've disclosed that he married khushi for 6 months only and he should've explained the reason behind the contract marriage infront of Raizadas and Madhumati, I feel like if Arnav would've disclosed it at that moment, Then no one would've dared to say anything about khushi especially Dadi, Madhumati and Garima. So i really wanted to know your opinion about this? Don't you think the idea of disclosing about 6 months marriage contract would have saved Khushi from facing humiliation in front of everyone!?
Hey Anon,
Two things happened on the night of elopement.
1) Arnav forced/blackmailed Khushi to stay with him for six months
2) he drafted a shady six months marriage agreement with Khushi
The first one reflects his terrible actions. The second one nullifies the marriage after six months.
We are to assume Arnav has told everyone how the marriage came to be. Nani is aware because of Arnav saying “I made the biggest mistake of my life” and Buaji is furious, she yells at Khushi later that Arnav is as rotten as his grandmother because he forced her into marrying him and she will not let her child be humiliated again.
Arnav is completely fine being insulted over his lack of character and morality.
But given dadi is in the house, who is waiting to tear Khushi away from him and essentially remove any and every Raizada right from her - Arnav would never disclose the contractual marriage because it would harm Khushi more than Arnav.
The very fact that just because one Hindu wedding ritual didn’t happen - his whole family invalidates the wedding. Even Nani - who knows the circumstances of the wedding! (Which is why Arnav is so disappointed in his family for keeping quiet when Dadi spew crap against Khushi).
The only way Arnav gains control over the situation and still demands respect for Khushi in the house is with the fact that they’re legally married. (Which makes me believe they never signed any contract papers at all, they were just regular wedding papers that Arnav would’ve annulled after six months and one of the ways to annul a marriage is to claim there’s been no consensual physical relationship between the spouses thus the hut scene and the attempted suhaagraat is technically so important cause it then pushes the annulment into a divorce which can only happen one year after, not six months. It solidifies their marriage in more ways than one*).
This is a patriarchal world and Khushi is under a lot of protection by legally being Mrs. Raizada. From financial to legal protection. People think twice before commenting because she is the wife of one of the most powerful person in India. Do I like this concept in terms of my feminist ideas - no. Is this reality? Yes.
Removing the protection of marriage over Khushi’s head would give him no right to defend Khushi before Dadi and no right for him to prevent her family from taking her away from him. Also he would have no way to give her financial protection either. With her as his legal wife she has right to his assets and properties.
And at that situation his Dadi (and Shyam) are waiting for Khushi to be “single” again because then they can rip her character to pieces. It is point to be noted that Dadi does come against Khushi viciously with the belief that Khushi isn’t Arnav’s wife because they’re religiously invalid (perhaps Shyam told her they’re legally invalid after six months but Dadi being a traditionalist thought the Hindu wedding rituals mean more so despite her wishes she has to acknowledge Khushi as Arnav’s wife).
So when she learns that the Hindu weddings rituals didn’t happen, she unleashes her venom. She believes Arnav is lying when he states Khushi is his legally wedded wife because Shyam has told Dadi otherwise.
And what was aggressive bullying before (when she believed Khushi was Arnav’s religiously wedded wife) became full character assassination against Khushi by Dadi.
Arnav’s family though are emotionally hurt by the fact that their Chotte didn’t have enough grace to respect Khushi and his family with a valid marriage when he is aware how important religion and rituals are to them. They’re coming from their own pov that Arnav’s actions are disrespectful to the Hindu institution of marriage and to Khushi.
Which is why they’re overjoyed when Arnav tells he’s going to marry his own wife again. And you can notice that no one in the family - except Dadi - takes the marriage seriously either because they all know Khushi is Arnav’s wife. It’s about the rituals and giving Khushi the respect. They relax the mehendi ceremony with the couple celebrating together. No one questions ArShi sneaking off in between the wedding and even plan the Haldi together and a meet up after Haldi! Because they know that they are ultimately a married couple.
It’s funny that they say “oh you can’t meet after Haldi” and they keep meeting 😂 its more to tease their legs than anything tbh. Also Khushi and Arnav sleep together right before they’re religiously wedded which is incredibly significant.
It’s about bringing Khushi home with rituals and respect. Otherwise the Buaji who forbid Akash from meeting his fiancé at New Year’s chuckles on realizing Arnav sneaked in and met Khushi - in her bedroom, in private - right after the wedding was discussed.
She even teases Khushi that they know who sneaked in instead of questioning her over it because even they know this isn’t about the legality of the wedding. For Khushi’s family it’s about the respect - hers and the rituals.
Hope this answered your question :)
- Jalebi 😊
15 notes · View notes
nonbinarylesbianherb · 7 months
Text
My thoughts on Aziraphale after s2 ending
I know initially a lot of people were upset with him and sided very much with Crowley, but I think that's very unfair on Aziraphale. I think now most have calmed down and have a better perspective on the situation, but there are still people I see who get very angry at Aziraphale.
People saying it was unfair of him to 'choose' heaven over Crowley, but I don't think it was a fair 'choice' in the first place.
Heaven is very important to Aziraphale, she may not have been directly living there for around 6000 years where she spent most her time on earth, but she is millions of years old.
Heaven (btw when I say heaven this also includes the almighty, other angels and the moral code angels are meant to follow by) is the closest thing Aziraphale really has to a home, they were created for it in the same way Heaven was created for the angels, there is no heaven without angels and there are no angels without heaven, it goes hand in hand. Aziraphale's beliefs and existence as angel revolve around heaven, everything they've ever known was Heaven.
Until Crowley, who for 6000 years of friendship and growing love, constantly challenged what Aziraphale thought was set in stone, challenged his beliefs, challenged heaven and how good it truly was, etc.
I think Crowley opened up a lot for Aziraphale, I mean that's not even a think we know that's true.
Aziraphale by the end of s2 definitely knew heaven had it's issues, maybe not to the full extent, and a judgement most probably clouded by being manipulated by heaven over and over, but she wasn't a fool. That was one of his reasons for wanting to accept the supreme archangel offer, so they could make a change for the good.
Aziraphale was given an impossible choice. I mean you always hear those questions asked, 'would you rather lose your bestfriend or lose your family', I think a lot of us wouldn't know what to pick, even if our family is awful, it can still be a very difficult thing to decide.
To expect Aziraphale to completely ditch heaven within about 2 minutes is not fair. I think choosing heaven was probably the option he went with because well it felt safer, easier, they were expected to? Lots of reasons.
Dealing with religious trauma and guilt is difficult enough for humans, now imagine you're a million year old angel who's existence in being made revolved around this religion.
Now I'm not saying Crowley isn't allowed to be hurt or upset, he definitely is, they both are. They're just idiots who are millions of years old but have the communication skills of a teenager. Having about a two minute argument on 6000 years worth of feelings and friendship + other things as well, is well, it's not good, it's not enough.
If they fully communicated properly, both talked about their own personal feelings, and explained their reasoning to each other (i.e, why crowley doesnt want to be an angel again and why aziraphale wants to go work for heaven again.) Maybe they could've come to a healthy compromise.
Say, Crowley continues to be a demon and do her own thing. Aziraphale goes back to heaven. But they both make time and space for their relationship.
As everyone else, I'm sad about the ending of GO2, and wish things could've gone a very different direction with that conversation, but I also think it was a very needed thing and I hope they can fully talk about everything in s3 and makeup and makeout so everyone is happy :D
16 notes · View notes
shittyravencarcosa · 4 months
Note
Hello, here my questions about Saiyuki:
11), 20), 22), 24), 30), 47), 49), 71) and 77)
11)   Most adorable character in the series
The most adorable character. I'm an obvious person and I say Jeep, I love how Minekura draws his little face. I love how he takes care of all of them, how he makes his voice heard even though he can't speak.
20)   What scene makes you really angry?
The killing of Yakumo's children.S If I still think about it, it hurts a lot. But it hurts me to think that it was others, and not him, who killed those children. Yakumo's was an act of love and mercy, instead what humans do is an act due to fear and hatred. They didn't just kill those children, they made them suffer. In every war it is the most innocent creatures who pay the price, and this fills me with anger.
22)   Which character do you think is most like you?
Genjo Sanzo. I think he is a very complex character and above all very realistic. I understand his wall of hostility, why he is always hard on others and himself, I understand why he gives love in small doses, his fear of suffering, of being abandoned. I am not as serious and unhinged as he is (although I don't like physical contact), but I understand how one can be full of love and be afraid to let it show. 24)   The Sexiest character
Ukoku Sanzo. He really looks like a sex maniac, I love him!
30)   Favorite manga arc
Even a worm! I could write for hours how Even a worm is the most important moment in Saiyuki, even more than Kamisama, even more than finding out who the last Sanzo is. It's not just a fantasy story, Saiyuki is about the reality we live in, and Even a worm right now is so timely! The theme of war, racism, discrimination, and pride in belonging to a certain race (in the manga, ethnicity, or nationality in our real world), are such important themes, and addressed bluntly, almost brutally. 47) After the journey, what do you think [character] will be doing?
Hoping everyone will survive xD Sanzo loves peace and quiet too much to do anything other than monk, so he will return to his life.
Goku will hopefully find a girl (or a boy, someone to love) and be happy, of course he will always live near Sanzo.
Gojyo I don't know if he will ever get his head straight, if he will ever have a stable relationship, but I hope he can work honestly and live a quiet life.
Hakkai-I hope he can have the large family he wants, with a strong woman by his side. It will be hard to go on after Kanan, but if he survives the journey, he can make it.
49) What is your favorite animated scene?
I don't like the animated versions of Saiyuki very much, except for Burial. I really love the whole sequence of the meeting between Ken'yuu and Komyo (ah my OTP).
71) What minor character had a significant impact on the plot?
Hazel! I know many people don't like that Hazel has been so much present within the manga, but instead I love it! Hazel is the breaking point of every Saiyuki boys' belief! Hazel is a character similar to Sanzo, but who is also his opposite! Hazel is driven by a belief, which we can say is religious, that Sanzo does not have. And Hazel commits atrocities in the name of that belief and confronts the Saiyuki boys with the fact that humans are also cruel, and that the Minus Wave is an excuse to show a hatred that has always existed! Hazel is a racist in the true sense of the word and is a great hypocrite because of his affection for Gato. And if at first Hazel is that character who is needed by the Saiyuki boys to understand that they are in the middle of two fires and cannot arbitrarily take sides, it will then be Hazel himself, during the oasis scene, who will understand the cold malice that he has always, perhaps unconsciously, nurtured. The Nazi plan of the humans at the oasis makes him realize that he has always been on the side of evil. I think he is an extraordinary character, well written and necessary within the story. 77) Which character needs more development?
I really hope that Minekura can give us some more explanation than Komyo. He is really too important a character and we need to know everything about him to get a fuller picture of the story. English is not my first language, sorry for any mistakes!
10 notes · View notes
esmethenightdemon · 2 years
Text
im kinda back in my twilight phase and how little smeyer goes into her actually really interesting themes or makes lets say interesting choices with them annoys the HELL outta me. she brings up aging, damnation, abortion, trauma/ptsd, and redemption and just never elaborates! or if she does its not to a satisfying degree!
 bella is desperate to become a vampire and obsesses over not wanting to be older than edward and we’re told that its also because her grandmother has alzheimer's (this was never mentioned in the movies) but god we could have gotten more than just that. its a complex topic that a lot of people struggle with and having more of her outward feelings reflect that would have been amazing. 
carlisle was literally the son of a pastor and his religious upbringing was obviously integral to his feelings about being a vampire. edward doesn’t want bella to be a vampire because he doesn’t want to damn her. its mentioned that vampires go to hell but also don’t have souls? its confusing which 1- if you’re gonna make a point of adding this in, make it clear, 2- she had soooo many mormon beliefs in her book and she didn’t get this one thing right??? and 3- carlisle not only supported bella in becoming a vampire but changed many people himself. this was a directly selfish act in both regards and confuses me a lot. maybe its been a hot minute since i read the books but given how badly he tried to kill himself when he became a vampire due to his religious upbringing and ‘hunts’, you really think he’d stop after edward huh? or that it would be more important to him at the very least. i don’t know. i genuinely love carlisle as a character, he’s one of my favorites, but smeyer made some odd choices regarding him and vampire damnation. 
i know abortion is a hot button topic right now, but even back when she wrote the twilight saga smeyer had a choice comments on abortion, especially the ‘fetus vs baby’ conversation that's brought up often. i’ll get more into this with the trauma/ptsd bit, but mormons are a patriarchal bunch and abortion is only allowed if the mother’s life is threatened. they also have a deep emphasis on family, and bella sacrificing herself for renesmee and coming back as a vampire was her ‘rebirth’ into her perfect form with eternal life and the perfect family. but i digress. obviously here bella’s life is in danger, and smeyer herself has said (outside the books i might add) that her not aborting was her choice and therefore a feminist act. i....do not know what to say about that as i am pro choice, but calling it a feminist act is a stretch. there is often talk of abortion in breaking dawn but the complete lack of any argument or discussion about it past bella’s choice and ‘fetus vs baby’ bothers me. this is really subjective of course but for me personally, i think this should have been a deeper discussion. 
onto trauma. most of the trauma of this series is laid squarely on the women of this series. bella is scarred from james’s attack on her and edward leaving, rosalie was gangraped and had a normal life ripped away from her, esme tried to kill herself after the loss of her child, emily was attacked and scarred, and alice was driven out by her family and community into an asylum where she was forgotten received so much electroshock therapy that she developed amnesia. you could also argue that carlisle was traumatized by the act of becoming a vampire and jasper was in an incredibly abusive relationship as a newborn, but even these are glossed over. bella’s depression is only used as a narrative force for new moon, emily is used to antagonize us to sam, and esme and alice are completely forgotten in favor of reasonable or bubbly characters instead of complex characters with real nuance. rosalie is used for conflict and is the only one that feels legitimate and character driven, but even her behavior changes when renesmee is born because she gets the baby she always wanted. i wish that smeyer thought about the implications of all of the major women in the series being traumatized and their subsequent reactions or character development. 
lastly, we have probably the most controversial of my opinions. redemption is such a tricky way to use this because of how smeyer tried to use it, especially in jasper’s case. a confederate backstory was ROUGH to just randomly throw in. its pretty much explicitly stated that jasper deeply regrets that chapter of his life and being with alice and the coven made him better and gave him a new start.  its also stated that he went north, but that doesn’t forgive his racist past. while i tend to believe that he was truly a reformed being, the fact that this was a plot point (and a major one given that side characters were offered little character development) meant that smeyer had to fully rely on alice and the coven for his redemption. also, smeyer has a genuine problem with racist ideas and plot points in her books besides jasper so again, while i believe he’s different, her intentions with the character and his story despite his trauma with maria should be looked at critically. edward believes he’s damned not only for being a vampire but for murdering people, and never believes he’ll have any redemption. carlisle became a doctor out of a genuine care and love for people, but i also believe he did it as a way to redeem himself for his past, especially the human part. this is of course a little speculation because i don’t believe smeyer gave any elaboration for it. she really did everyone here so dirty. i think emmett is the only one who emerged unscathed from this. 
anyway massive rant over. i feel the need to say that a good chunk of this is my opinion and hey i could be wrong. i also feel the need to say that i do enjoy twilight a lot but it was poorly written at times for multiple reasons. so yes i am critical but also. its a stupid little vampire series you’re still allowed to like it. stan charlie. 
100 notes · View notes
deadendtracks · 7 months
Text
Anonymous asked: hi, firstly, i’m currently rewatching PB and i just wanted to sincerely thank you so much for all your thoughts and metas. PB is one of those shows that will send me into Deep Thoughts and i’ve not seen many people discussing it as thoughtfully as you have on tumblr, so thank you! secondly, i’m curious if you have thoughts on the use of religion in PB. i had a lot of thoughts watching s6 about how we went from so many of the important scenes in s1 being set in church, to s3 having both the priest as a villain, but also the infamous quote of “religion is a foolish answer to a foolish question,” to tommy (seemingly - i have my doubts) believing in curses in s6. the show is obviously very heavily influenced by christian morals (particularly catholicism) and this idea that seems almost engrained in tommy psyche that he must “atone” for his sins. (i don’t think he sees it as religious himself, but it definitely is.) and, in contrast, there’s also this recurring theme (polly/their mum and the seances, arthur and linda/the quakers) that religion is “irrational” and that’s how you lose your mind (or your “true” self, in the case of arthur). obviously, that culminates with tommy in s6. he (arguably, like polly and his mum before him) goes mad looking for a curse to explain the unexplainable (his child having a medical condition he can’t control), with the unanswered question as to whether the curse he does find is even real - or if esmee is just making it up to get revenge. there’s also - i think - a fascinating intersection of religion and money where tommy seems to believe he can “pay” his way out of curses and sins (the sapphire to the lees, the massive grave he wants to buy for the families buried in that graveyard), which is also something (strangely, given this is all “[Romani] magic”) very catholic. especially interesting because jack nelson calls them both “catholic boys” - in church, at that. anyway, i obviously have a lot of thoughts, and was wondering what yours were. thanks again for everything you post! oh and religion anon again (forgot a thought, sorry!) there’s also obviously the question of grief and religion and the afterlife. the way tommy says in s4 that john and grace are just “gone” (like there’s no hell not heaven) but also he seems to genuinely (maybe?) believe in polly’s “gift” and the “spirits”? so many thoughts! thanks again!
Hi Anon, sorry I've been sitting on your ask so long, I was struggling with how to answer it.
First, thank you! I appreciate you letting me know that you've enjoyed my tumblr meta posts.
This ask is in itself basically a meta already, so I'm not sure what I have to add to it. I'd definitely encourage you to post your own meta so that you can get the credit for it!
Your ask covers a really wide range of topics around religion and I think it would take a long response to really get into everything you bring up, but I guess my most basic response would be that even if Tommy is an atheist now, he grew up within the Catholic church and his own culture and still carries those beliefs if only in a subconscious way, so I think that explains some of what you're talking about re: atonement, etc.
People are complex when it comes to the beliefs of their childhood and how those impact them as adults, and I do think that's what we see going on with Tommy in the series. He goes back and forth between talking about the dead as if they are present (referring to Grace in s3 as being by his side, talking to him; talking to Polly in s6) and talking about the dead as if they're just 'gone' (to Arthur about Grace and John in s4). I think the difference between these two instances is time and distance from the respective traumas of their deaths, as well as his general sense of mental well-being.
I also think belief in God and belief in spirits can be two very different things that aren't contradictory; that said, I'm not sure we're meant to view Tommy's talk of spirits in s6 as a sign of what he might believe if he weren't in significant mental duress. There's a lot of intentional paralleling of Tommy and his mother going on in s5-6. The things people say and believe in their lowest moments aren't always the things they would profess to believe normally; "bargaining" is one of the stages of grief for a reason, and Tommy's talk of paying his way out of his sins (to Esme, etc) is a good example of that "bargaining" stage. His daughter is dying, he's desperate and already pushed beyond extremity by Polly's murder.
That said, I think I've written before about cultural beliefs and "irrationality/rationality" in this context. I do think you have to be a bit careful about talking about all beliefs in religion and the supernatural etc as 'irrational.' I think it's probably better to talk about Tommy falling into beliefs he himself would normally claim not to have or see as irrational as reverting to what he grew up with in moments of stress, and there's not really any value judgment in that one way or the other. His actions (murdering people in revenge for a curse) are a different matter. But the 'bargaining' behavior itself up to that point isn't particularly harmful to anyone, and whether or not you view it as rational or irrational might be very cultural-specific. If that makes sense.
there’s also this recurring theme (polly/their mum and the seances, arthur and linda/the quakers) that religion is “irrational” and that’s how you lose your mind (or your “true” self, in the case of arthur).
I think this bit is definitely all about Tommy's individual POV within the show: I'm not really sure the show itself is calling religion irrational and how you lose your mind. It's how Tommy very specifically looks at the world and the people around him. That might be splitting hairs but I do think it's an important distinction.
There's also the question of how the show presents Romani culture and spirituality; my assumption is they fuck up a lot but I don't know enough to make specific critiques other than I'm sure there are serious ones.
Anyway I don't know how satisfactory this response is, I'm probably not the best person to talk about religion in meta, it's not one of my areas of interest! So again I'd really encourage you to post your own thoughts, I think you have probably thought more about it than I have.
8 notes · View notes
sunsetbullets · 8 months
Text
religious trauma & the good omens 2 finale
! ! ! spoilers ahead and also a very confusing rant bc this finale made me think about my religious trauma and how it stills affects me ! ! !
i'm a firm believer that azi just made the most terrible decision ever seen on earth instead that the fuckass metraton drugged his coffe or miracled a change in his heart . . . because religious trauma can just get into your head in a way that really fucks u up . . .
like what comming from and being in the "good" side does to aziraphale is pretty well developed and showed across the episodes from both seasons. even that now he's together with crowley in their own side, he stills firmly believes in heaven = good, hell = bad.
and because of this belief that is deeply rooted into him, he can't help but associate all the things that made him love crowley to little remaining pieces of heaven inside her. for aziraphale, what makes crowley stand apart from other fallen angles angels is that she saw the flaws in the great plan and choose to fight it.
but i don't think that aziraphale believes that it was crowley's free will to go against the great plan, but the remaining bits of heaven inside her fighting the bad demonic side and making her fight for the right things, the way god planned it all.
he mistook crowley's kindness and goodness with humanity because he's blinded by the perception that all good things and influences belong to god and to heaven.
the heaven that aziraphale chose to return stills the same heaven that hunted him and almost burned him to non-existence simply because he did what his heart told him to do, because he saw the flaws in the great plan and choose to fight it, even if his morals constantly made him think that he was doing wrong by being against god's wishes.
and we can't deny that he tricks himself away from guilt by believing that's all part of a bigger god's plan, that all he did was right and god proudly agrees with it even if the entirety of heaven does not to.
when this is the aziraphale we know, is not hard to believe that the metraton would not have much work to do in convincing him to going back to heaven.
and the metraton is said to be the voice of god herself ... this is such an important detail to remember, because aziraphale can deal with being rejected by heaven by reling in the omnipotent & silent presence of god silently telling him that he did no wrong. but when the voice of god speaks, how can he not hear it ??
like,, do you guys have the slightest ideia of how many times church people say the most evil and hurtfull things in the name of god, just like the metraton, to manipulate and trick people into staying into religion ???
and one of the main points of churches that make people stay, is the feeling of belonging, even that they are saying things that hurt you deeply inside using god's voice, they also make you feel loved and seem.
even after being kicked out of heaven to their own side, aziraphale stills deeply believes that heaven is the only right choice, in his heart he knows that he is a good being, and so is crowley . . . he feels that they belong to heaven, like all good things.
he can recognize all heavens wrongs such as killing job's kids for a fun bet or drowning everybody else but noah's family and some pair of animals, or to end the entire world just for a war between heaven and hell. and he desaproves it all, to the point of going against it because he choses the good side and all goodness belongs to god (even if god's wishes for all this harm to happen anyway)
and you guys realize how tempting it is to go back to the good and right side but also to a position that offers you the power of changing all the institutional failures of heaven ?? not only that but also allows him to still being by crowley's side ??
his angelic brain got corrupted to the point that he can't see that all heaven (him included) do is to hurt people but geting away with it by using god's name and goodness.
he can't see that being back in heaven would hurt crowley more than leaving him behind. because he believes that she deserves forgiveness and deserves heaven.
he got heartbroken after she refused his proposal but he didn't run back to her (even if crowley stayed there and waited and hoped for it to happen) because aziraphale is certain about his beliefs and if he cannot change heaven with crowley, he can change heaven for her.
that's why aziraphale smiles in that lift ride.
he thinks he will comeback to get crowley to heaven and finally be able to be toghether with the love of his life after he changes heaven for even better . . .
9 notes · View notes
nicklloydnow · 19 hours
Text
““Dorothy reminds me in so many ways of Toni Morrison,” West said. “You know Toni Morrison is Catholic. Many people do not realize that she is one of the great Catholic writers. Like Flannery O’Connor, she has an incarnational conception of human existence. We Protestants are too individualistic. I think we need to learn from Catholics who are always centered on community.”
(…)
She viewed belief in God as “an intellectual experience that intensifies our perceptions and distances us from an egocentric and predatory life, from ignorance and from the limits of personal satisfactions”—and affirmed her Catholic identity. “I had a moment of crisis on the occasion of Vatican II,” she said. “At the time I had the impression that it was a superficial change, and I suffered greatly from the abolition of Latin, which I saw as the unifying and universal language of the Church.”
Morrison saw a problematic absence of authentic religion in modern art: “It’s not serious—it’s supermarket religion, a spiritual Disneyland of false fear and pleasure.” She lamented that religion is often parodied or simplified, as in “those pretentious bad films in which angels appear as dei ex machina, or of figurative artists who use religious iconography with the sole purpose of creating a scandal.” She admired the work of James Joyce, especially his earlier works, and had a particular affinity for Flannery O’Connor, “a great artist who hasn’t received the attention she deserves.”
What emerges from Morrison’s public discussions of faith is paradoxical Catholicism. Her conception of God is malleable, progressive, and esoteric. She retained a distinct nostalgia for Catholic ritual, and feels the “greatest respect” for those who practice the faith, even if she herself wavered. In a 2015 interview with NPR, Morrison said there was not a “structured” sense of religion in her life at the moment, but “I might be easily seduced to go back to church because I like the controversy as well as the beauty of this particular Pope Francis. He’s very interesting to me.”
Morrison’s Catholic faith—individual and communal, traditional and idiosyncratic—offers a theological structure for her worldview. Her Catholicism illuminates her fiction; in particular, her views of bodies, and the narrative power of stories. An artist, Morrison affirmed, “bears witness.” Her father’s ghost stories, her mother’s spiritual musicality, and her own youthful sense of attraction to Christianity’s “scriptures and its vagueness” led her to conclude it is “a theatrical religion. It says something particularly interesting to black people, and I think it’s part of why they were so available to it. It was the love things that were psychically very important. Nobody could have endured that life in constant rage.” Morrison said it is a sense of “transcending love” that makes “the New Testament . . . so pertinent to black literature—the lamb, the victim, the vulnerable one who does die but nevertheless lives.”
(…)
Morrison is describing a Catholic style of storytelling here, reflected in the various emotional notes of Mass. The religion calls for extremes: solemnity, joy, silence, and exhortation. Such a literary approach is audacious, confident, and necessary, considering Morrison’s broader goals. She rejected the term experimental, clarifying “I am simply trying to recreate something out of an old art form in my books—the something that defines what makes a book ‘black.’”
(…)
Morrison was both storyteller and archivist. Her commitment to history and tradition itself feels Catholic in orientation. She sought to “merge vernacular with the lyric, with the standard, and with the biblical, because it was part of the linguistic heritage of my family, moving up and down the scale, across it, in between it.” When a serious subject came up in family conversation, “it was highly sermonic, highly formalized, biblical in a sense, and easily so. They could move easily into the language of the King James Bible and then back to standard English, and then segue into language that we would call street.”
Language was play and performance; the pivots and turns were “an enhancement for me, not a restriction,” and showed her that “there was an enormous power” in such shifts. Morrison’s attention toward language is inherently religious; by talking about the change from Latin to English Mass as a regrettable shift, she invokes the sense that faith is both content and language; both story and medium.
From her first novel on forward, Morrison appeared intent on forcing us to look at embodied black pain with the full power of language. As a Catholic writer, she wanted us to see the body on the cross; to see its blood, its cuts, its sweat. That corporal sense defines her novel Beloved (1988), perhaps Morrison’s most ambitious, stirring work. “Black people never annihilate evil,” Morrison has said. “They don’t run it out of their neighborhoods, chop it up, or burn it up. They don’t have witch hangings. They accept it. It’s almost like a fourth dimension in their lives.”
(…)
Morrison has said that all of her writing is “about love or its absence.” There must always be one or the other—her characters do not live without ebullience or suffering. “Black women,” Morrison explained, “have held, have been given, you know, the cross. They don’t walk near it. They’re often on it. And they’ve borne that, I think, extremely well.” No character in Morrison’s canon lives the cross as much as Sethe, who even “got a tree on my back” from whipping. Scarred inside and out, she is the living embodiment of bearing witness.
(…)
Morrison’s Catholicism was one of the Passion: of scarred bodies, public execution, and private penance. When Morrison thought of “the infiniteness of time, I get lost in a mixture of dismay and excitement. I sense the order and harmony that suggest an intelligence, and I discover, with a slight shiver, that my own language becomes evangelical.” The more Morrison contemplates the grandness and complexity of life, the more her writing reverts to the Catholic storytelling methods that enthralled her as a child and cultivated her faith. This creates a powerful juxtaposition: a skilled novelist compelled to both abstraction and physicality in her stories. Catholicism, for Morrison, offers a language to connect these differences.
For Morrison, the traits of black language include the “rhythm of a familiar, hand-me-down dignity [that] is pulled along by an accretion of detail displayed in a meandering unremarkableness.” Syntax that is “highly aural” and “parabolic.” The language of Latin Mass—its grandeur, silences, communal participation, coupled with the congregation’s performative resurrection of an ancient tongue—offers a foundation for Morrison’s meticulous appreciation of language.
Her representations of faith—believers, doubters, preachers, heretics, and miracles—are powerful because of her evocative language, and also because she presents them without irony. She took religion seriously. She tended to be self-effacing when describing her own belief, and it feels like an action of humility. In a 2014 interview, she affirmed “I am a Catholic” while explaining her willingness to write with a certain, frank moral clarity in her fiction. Morrison was not being contradictory; she was speaking with nuance. She might have been lapsed in practice, but she was culturally—and therefore socially, morally—Catholic.
The same aesthetics that originally attracted Morrison to Catholicism are revealed in her fiction, despite her wavering of institutional adherence. Her radical approach to the body also makes her the greatest American Catholic writer about race. That one of the finest, most heralded American writers is Catholic—and yet not spoken about as such—demonstrates why the status of lapsed Catholic writers is so essential to understanding American fiction.
A faith charged with sensory detail, performance, and story, Catholicism seeps into these writers’ lives—making it impossible to gauge their moral senses without appreciating how they refract their Catholic pasts. The fiction of lapsed Catholic writers suggests a longing for spiritual meaning and a continued fascination with the language and feeling of faith, absent God or not: a profound struggle that illuminates their stories, and that speaks to their readers.”
3 notes · View notes