Tumgik
#but their support for a more classical sense of aristocracy
twopoppies · 3 months
Note
S.S.Daley showed the newest collection in Florence, Italy and Steven said his inspiration behind the collection was “E.M. Foster’s novella ‘The Story of a Panic’ about a man who comes to Italy for the first time and experiences a sexual awakening when meeting an Italian man’
I love love love that Harry has not only been supporting this queer brand and from the very first collection but now also has stakes in it. So cool. And makes total sense ♥️
India and I were just talking this morning about how much SS Daley’s style fits Harry’s aesthetic. More so than even Loewe—which is classic and beautiful, but doesn’t have that quirkiness that I, at least, associate with Harry.
I also love what Stokey-Daley says about the inspiration behind his brand:
Flirting with class ideologies, Daley, a working class boy from Liverpool, reinterprets the realm of British elitism via the institution of the British public school. «I think it’s interesting, you know.. looking at codes, which historically belong to Harrow School for example, and figuring out their equivalents of the school culture I’m more familiar with.»
Stokey-Daley quickly became enraptured with the world of regatta races, flowery traditionalism and decadent English aristocracy. «I came across images of a regatta and I had never seen anything like it before… There is something inherently feminine about that hyper-masculine culture.” Amongst a range of referential films, theatrical practitioners and 18th century portraiture, Daley remains influenced by British cult classics: Maurice, Another Country and Brideshead Revisited. Daley questions the structural nature of British heritage and systematic elitism through the lens of ‘homosocial’ theory.
I’ve posted a bit about the brand here since I first became aware of it.
52 notes · View notes
Note
What are your most radical beliefs in every category? (Left, right, progressive, conservative, authoritarian, libertarian)
well, i'm not sure if i can quite give you my most radical beliefs because a lot of them would probably get my account banned. so i'll just give you some of my general beliefs that are maybe somewhat controversial (but also maybe not, depending on who you ask) but still realistic. oh, also i'm going to lump "left" and "progressive" together, same with "right" and "conservative" since these already have a lot of overlap with each other.
left: very amenable to social market economies, market socialism, co-ops, gulags/re-education camps, love me some environmentalism, anti-clericalism (thankfully not really an issue here in america but it's still a general belief i hold), the french revolution was good, the enlightenment was good, cooperation is good, pro-democracy (a schmittian, illiberal type of democracy though, so not sure if it belongs in this category), vanguardism, blanquism, one world government (the american government), anti-israel, (aristocratic) egalitarianism, menial labor is basically slavery, automation is good, pro-secularization, pro-trade unions, universal healthcare, universal basic income, green new deal, revolution, etc.
right: pro-competition, pro- (some) tradition, pro-religion, classicism and high culture, civic duty, anti liberal democracy, (american) nationalism, war on drugs, war on terrorism (give me perpetual war or give me death), pro-imperialism, pro-colonialism, militarism, rule of law, law enforcement, patriotism is healthy, class collaboration > class warfare, meritocracy/natural aristocracy, anti-communism, foreign intervention, pro-hierarchy, the family is the basic unit of society (whether nuclear, multigenerational, found family, or otherwise), single-party system > two party system, spiritual and organic conceptions of the state, ancestor/hero worship, anti-utopianism, guns, etc.
authoritarian: the state is the march of god on earth, totalitarianism (in the original sense, not the mainstream sense), central planning, mandatory militia (not military) service, technocracy and bureaucracy and managerialism can be good, land reform, very big on state intervention in the economy (internal improvements, subsidies, taxation, tariffs, etc), state supported civil religion, nationalization, highly restrict immigration, regulating public health and morality, capital punishment should be sacralized as human sacrifice, unitary executive theory, believe there should be a process for establishing a temporary constitutional dictatorship like in ancient rome, bring back asylums (for mentally insane but also just the homeless in general and anyone who can't support themselves for whatever reason), state sponsored "family planning" program, bring back the office of civil defense, mandatory gun ownership, etc.
libertarian: limited government, bring back dueling, open to the idea of special economic zones with more libertarian economic policies, near free speech absolutist (i say near because i believe there are and should be some reasonable limitations), same goes for guns, constitutional carry, big on citizen's arrest and communities policing themselves (think a more active, organized, armed neighborhood watch. like a militia-lite. this includes policing police themselves. but ideally the relationship between these groups and local law enforcement would be collaborative instead of antagonistic), zoning needs to be deregulated (not without /any/ regulations though), end the fed (by nationalizing it), end (or at least reduce) income tax (but making up the lost revenue through other taxes like lvt, vat, carbon and other pigouvian taxes, tariffs, etc), not 100% sold on this but i have heard some convincing arguments that prostitution should be decriminalized/legalized (still believe in capital punishment for pimps and human traffickers), etc.
3 notes · View notes
edgarwayne · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
“IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY IT DOESN’T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE TO OTHERS…”
Have you seen EDGAR WAYNE around Faerune? They’re a VAMPIRE who REJECTS the Unseelie Queen’s reign. People have heard they’re AGREEABLE, CLEVER & EARNEST but can also be ANXIOUS, CAUTIOUS & DELICATE. We’ll see where they fall when the revolution arrives, but until then they can be found working as an ENGLISH PROFESSOR.
EDGAR AT A GLANCE
NAME: Edgar Lawton-Beckwith Wayne ALIASES: Edgar, Professor/Doctor Wayne, Bubba by Kirby, Eddie by Rory AGE: 221, but he died at 43. [Born June 2nd] AFFILIATIONS: Last known surviving member of the Victorian Wayne aristocracy; tennis coach for the men’s team and staff advisor to the Creative Writing Club at the university OCCUPATION: English and Literature Professor at Faerune University GENDER/PRONOUNS: Cis Male, He/Him SEXUALITY: Gay as all hell QUIRKS: Has two pet rats named Allen and Poe, Allen being white and Poe being black.  His instagram mainly consists of pictures of his rats, coffee vibes, and book quotes.  Because rats have very short life spans, every few years after mourning his pets Edgar gets a new pair and names them after various classic authors.  Has one long scar along his arm; he broke it when he was a child, wandering the woods near his home trying to find any signs of his father. Will easily go into full ramble mode on literature, history, and how they intersect, if given a chance.  Terrified of horses; a fact he pointedly ignored when his first crush and kiss was his grandparents’ stable boy. Edgar thrives on organized chaos.  He normally refuses any TAs because more often than not they try to clean up his office and it creates more stress than it’s worth.  His work and home office are an absolute mess, but Edgar wouldn’t want it any other way.  Has three PhDs from Oxford in Classical Languages & Literature, English, and Literature & the Arts.  [honestly there’s so many more quirks but this list is already too long] MARKEKTABLE/TRADE SKILLS: Edgar’s creative streak has come in handy for the bartering system in Faerune.  He knits scarves and hats (which he also makes for his rats), creates small paintings and short poems for trade.  Rory has been teaching Edgar how to do woodcarvings, so once he gets better he will also make figurines to give out.
BIOGRAPHY
At the very beginning Edgar had a wonderful life.  Two loving parents; a home never knowing of need or desperation; a small, peaceful English village in the 19th century.  It all changed when he was six years old.  Father never came home.  Mother waited anxiously in the foyer for days on end, insisting it wasn’t like her husband to disappear without a word.  
The absence of his father was certainly not lost on Edgar as he grew up.  In his childhood he adored his father; he had been a good father and had fostered the boy’s love for reading.  That passion fueled Edgar to pursue an education in literature, finding a career as an English professor.  
That isn’t to say he wasn’t also very close to his mother.  When it became just the two of them, they were inseparable.  So many of Edgar’s hobbies and favorite pass times came from her.  They would spend hours gardening, sewing, playing cards.  Edgar loved his mother dearly.  And so, when she passed away a few years after her husband’s disappearance, it broke little Edgar’s heart.  He was taken into the guardianship of his paternal grandparents, and life was hard for the boy from that point onward.
As he became more established as an adult, it was time to follow his next passion:  to find the truth about his father.  Edgar was willing to accept the death of his loved one, as long as his family had closure.  As long as he could find a body to bring home to join Mother beside her grave.
After years of research, questioning, and persistence, Edgar could tell he was getting closer to the truth.  He could feel it in his soul.  It was how he had met Felicia Connelly.  A witch who supported him in his search and quickly became his best friend.  For so long Edgar had felt alone in the world, but Felicia made life seem so much more worthwhile.
So, it was rather ironic that only a few years after meeting the witch Edgar died. He couldn’t remember much of the incident itself, or the events that led up to it, but he knew it was related to his father’s disappearance.  He had stuck his nose in something big, and it cost him his humanity.  Now Edgar had a choice:  embrace this new life of his, to continue his search for answers, or refuse to drink blood and die as a human.  It was a hard decision, certainly, but he had a duty to fill.  For himself and for his parents.
Edgar hates drinking blood, the thought of it would make him sick to his stomach if his mouth wasn’t watering in anticipation.  For a while he tried to abstain, to avoid hurting anyone, but he quickly learned that was not an option.  And so, he came up with a plan.  The newly formed vampire did not want to hurt innocents, so criminals would have to do.  It still left a knot of guilt in his stomach, but it was the only compromise he could think of.  
Using his abilities for persuasion, Edgar would slip into prisons and jail cells and ask his potential meals what crimes they committed.  He only chose the violent criminals, the ones that had little to no regret for their actions.  Even while from a family of influence, he couldn’t find it in himself to blame the thieves, the whores.  They were simply trying to live their life as best they could.
Decades continued on, and Edgar never got any closer to finding the truth.  He watched in horror as his only remaining family dwindled away, until he was the last of the Wayne inheritance.  He moved from town to town, staying for as long as he could as a teacher, until too many years had passed for him to “look well for his age” without drawing suspicion.  
Occasionally Edgar would come back to his hometown, in hopes that maybe, just maybe, he would find a new lead.  A bone to gnaw on as he struggled to find a reason for continuing his lonely existence.  Getting close to others was out of the question.  They all would eventually die, and that was more painful than keeping to himself.
When rumors of a city full of non-human creatures reached Edgar, he decided it was as good of a chance as any to find any information on his father’s disappearance.  If there were others just as old as him, or even older, there was a slim possibility someone could know something.  All Edgar had left was his hope, and he was not going to squander it.
AND WHAT HAS BECOME OF YOU?
After over a century Edgar and Felicia have been reunited and he’d be damned if he lets her slip from his fingers once more.  He has convinced her to follow her dreams and take medical classes, while she has been teaching him how to fight and defend himself.
Edgar has also become bit of a mentor to Atlas, trying to help him control his feeding urges.  In return Atlas has been teaching Edgar how to play guitar.  Between that and Rory teaching him how to play drums, Edgar will soon be ready to start a one-man band (jk).
Kirby now lives with him and Edgar is doing his best to help them come out of their shell and be more themself without fear of repercussion.  
Over the last year he and Ram have become good friends and often go out for drinks, be it to the bar or to a nice little cafe where they can chat and decompress.  The same is true for him and Rory, who often have coffee and movie nights, as well as hangout time between them and Fee.
He hates that so many are trapped in Faerune (himself included), that their freedom has been cast away by these unseelie.  While the aid that has been given to the city is appreciated, Edgar is fully aware of the silent threat hanging over them.
3 notes · View notes
thedreadvampy · 3 years
Text
Ok like I'm sorry for all the Elias discourse but stepping off from OGlias for a moment I legit saw someone saying it was a mischaracterisation to assume Jonah Magnus was himself a rich white dude which
uh
Let's leave aside for the moment that Jonah Magnus not being wealthy and privileged utterly sucks the meaning of of a lot of what the podcast has to say about class and exploration because hey, that's a matter of interpretation
What do we know about Jonah Magnus (from all statements mentioning his original incarnation)?
1816: Interacts as at least an equal with Albrecht von Closen, who has at least one family estate and an aristocratic pedigree and thus could be expected to be at least middle class if not wealthy. This is relevant because Georgian class was very stratified and cross-class mixing heavily discouraged, 1816 is probably fairly early in Magnus' career, and Albrecht doesn't address him as one would a social inferior.
1818: Established the Magnus Institute, apparently without external funding partners because he's the only one ever mentioned in connection with its organisation and his friends talk about it as his own project; it certainly isn't associated with an existing university or academy as far as we can tell.
1824: not a lot of additional information, except that again Magnus' friends are all moving in wealthy, upper class circles
1831: In a position to hire professionals for Millbank under good terms. We learn more about Albrecht, he's definitely painted as wealthy old money, which continues to speak to this association
1841: reasonably close friends with Sampson Kempthorne, workhouse designer, who expresses the expectation of Magnus agreeing with him about workhouses and the treatment of the poor through work. At this time, Magnus is living in an Edinburgh townhouse, by which I'm guessing we're talking about one of the New Town Georgian 4-floors-plus-servant's-quarters which that name implies. Those aren't mansions, but they weren't where a clerk or shopkeeper would live - they were built for ship owners, lawyers, doctors, the upper-middle and upper classes, and as the name townhouse implies they were generally occupied as one of several estates, with the usual occupants being likely to also have a country place.
Beyond specific statement letters, Magnus largely crops up via his association with his wee gang, all of whom are wealthy upper-middle or aristocracy (Smirke, Rayner, Lukas)
He has the resources and social clout to devote his time to pursuing what is, effectively, a hobby; his interest in the supernatural doesn't bring in much income and, conversely, often costs him to chase up. He doesn't appear to have a full-time job at any point; he works on Millbank with Smirke but he doesn't appear on the records, meaning this is unlikely to be a paid management role. His friends refer to his supernatural work as a hobby or interest, not a job, and make it clear that at least by the 1830s-40s this is his whole life (he's "rattling around with his books and letters") - ergo he does not have a need to support himself beyond that.
He had the resources and funds to, by himself and for his own purposes, not only shape the building of Millbank but also to set up an independent academic institution which is still running 200 years later
Like, is it explicit that he's a rich white man? Not per se. Would all of this information make sense if he wasn't? I suppose it's possible but it's a reach, and one that I'm not sure why you as a writer would make without making pretty clear. To be able to move comfortably in moneyed Georgian circles without being born to money, and to be able to do the things Magnus does without having substantial disposable income - that would be exceptional, and would surely merit some sort of comment.
(I've talked about the race politics of Georgian Britain as relates to Jonah Magnus before, but just to sum up: in a time before the abolition of the slave trade and during massive colonial expansion into Asia, being a British man of wealth and not being white was pretty unusual. We can see this in the description of Rayner; he's very specifically described as Black, but also his Blackness is notable to a contemporary narrator. so again, not impossible for Jonah to be a person of colour, but definitely unexpected and it would be an interesting choice to write that unremarked)
just by way of historical context, as I say, class was very structured and immobile in Georgian Britain for the most part. It was also, as I understand it, much more discrete. Whereas now, the lines between working class, middle class and upper class are pretty fuzzy, in the 1800s they were a lot more clear-cut - the working class worked for little money, had little to no education past basic literacy and numeracy, and the entire household would work; the newly developing middle class made a living through highly-skilled jobs (artists, doctors, lawyers, clerks, shopkeepers, factory owners, shop owners and pub landlords, for example) and would have enough disposable income to buy property; and the upper class/gentry may work (but only appropriate to their station; academia, law or the church, largely, and of course a lot of them in the 1810s made bank from Caribbean plantations and their imports) but substantially they lived off the profits of investments, ownership and estate management, built off heritable wealth. 
There’s a big range of middle class though, although it was a small segment of society. At the bottom end, you have your grocers, pub landlords, shopkeepers, clerks and so on - they probably own their homes and business and have money to buy things outright rather than renting. At the top end, we have some really pretty substantial wealth - we’re talking multiple houses and estates, large-scale business concerns, tens of permanent staff, and only one person in the family needing to work. The difference between upper middle and aristocracy isn’t necessarily in quality of life, aside from blood it’s really just a question of whether the majority of your income comes from work or from investment and property management. So for example, Smirke is upper middle, but very wealthy - he has a career in a high-profile trade, he’s notable and welcome in high society, but ultimately his wealth is dependent on him continuing to get work. Von Closen may have more or less material wealth than Smirke, but his money is old money and he does not work; he’s very much a gentleman of the upper crust. Particularly with Industrial Revolution and the profit that the slave trade and the expansion of the Empire were bringing in for traders, the middle class was abruptly getting a lot richer in at the start of the 19th century and if anything class was getting a lot more discrete - urbanisation and industrialisation meant the poor were getting poorer (and less able to exist outside a monetary economy) and the working rich were getting a lot richer (until of course after a couple of hundred years the upper middle class almost eclipsed the idle class as the Rich and Powerful)
So the gentry/nobles/old money/upper class were the only class whose wealth wasn’t to a high degree reliant on them working, and so honestly being a Georgian gentleman was stultifyingly boring. That’s why so many comedies of manners crop up from the lower end of the upper class - you have to find something to keep you busy and social politicking is something. But it also meant a lot of gentlemen scholars - men with time on their hands and nothing they desperately needed to be doing, who got really into eccentric hobbies and niche interests (like social engineering, or art theory, or the occult, or unpicking weirdly specific theological concepts, or a bit earlier experimenting with light and lenses, or a bit later investigating the origins of species, or getting super into a specific aspect of the classics). The idle rich weren’t the only ones doing academia or research, but they had the time, money and resources to devote to really deep dives into things without much financial use.
So my personal take is that, given that by 1818 Jonah Magnus had the capital, the social heft and the time to found and run an independent academic institution focused on his relatively niche interests, and to do so with enough resourcing that it still runs 200 years later, the safest bet is that he was born a gentleman. At the very least, all the people he socialises with are securely upper-middle or gentry; he has a visible disdain for the poor; he owned substantial personal property by at least middle age (the Edinburgh townhouse); he had the social clout to get involved behind the scenes in a major social architecture project - it seems like the lowest this could possibly place him is mid-to-upper middle class at birth (he could have made that much money from working and lucky investments, but to get into a position where by middle age you can afford to become the Idle Rich, spending all your money and time on an obsessive personal interest, you would need to have started off with at least the capital and clout to get a high-level education and/or make significant business investments (say, buy a series of factories or build a shipping empire). You could make a case that he could work his way up from being born to a middling-middle-class family - maybe a country vicar or a shopkeeper - but friends can I show you some numbers I googled?
Tumblr media
In the 1810s, being mid- or upper middle class (fourth or above) meant you were richer than 94.5% of the civilian population. Upper middle and above (like literally every person we know of who had social ties to Magnus except maybe the architects)? Literally top 1%. (well. 1.25%).
The middle class in Georgian Britain was the elite. They weren’t the elite of the elite, but they had money, land, property, staff, clout and privilege. You can’t project the class politics of 2021 onto 1818 (that is, in fact, why pure Marxism still requires an updated reading, bc in even the last 150 years the specific distribution and attributes of class and wealth has changed substantially (although the same people do stay at the top and bottom)). 
I think our perceptions are altered by the worries and perspectives of popular contemporary authors. For example, Austen characters often bemoan their lack of wealth, and are firmly Middle Class, and compared to the upper middle and the gentry they are living frugally and on a budget, but with “cottages” that are often six- or seven bedroom houses with several parlours and one or two servants, plus a town house, and with only one breadwinner per family and enough invested wealth to live entirely off the interest (that’s what the incomes of these characters are), they are living in a degree of wealth that would be unthinkable to 95% of their contemporaries, and it would be fair to assess them as rich by modern standards.
You can argue that Jonah Magnus wasn’t aristocracy. You cannot argue realistically that he wasn’t rich. Not only does that make no thematic or character sense (again, that’s a matter of interpretation, but it seems to me to be Pretty Key to his character that he’s an examination of inborn privilege) but it also makes no contextual historical sense.
183 notes · View notes
specterwrites · 3 years
Note
Could I ask you the ROs description? I would like to know more about them!
Sure! (:
Lázaro Emalius Goldendoor: He is a few years older than either MC and the twin of Freeman. Belvidere Ydl is his cousin. The Goldendoors emerged onto the radical scene quite literally out of nowhere, as even their Faceless Guard dossiers note that nobody seems to know their history.
From the text:
They are obviously twins, and both are somewhat short and compact, with olive-tan complexions. They have rectangular heads with slightly protruding underbites and brows. Each twin has a tall, aquiline nose, high cheekbones with somewhat gaunt cheeks, and large, green eyes. The inner corners of their eyes are upturned somewhat, giving them a naturally sleepy expression.
... Lázaro, has eyelids that are almost always half-closed and his lips are usually drawn, causing some people to mistake him for being overly-scrutinous and intimidating. When he speaks about things he is passionate about, though, his eyes fully open and he looks much more approachable. He has brown hair with a slight undercut, well-groomed sideburns, and a permanent five o’clock shadow. 
... Freeman, who does not share his brother’s heavy eyelids, and is usually smiling pleasantly. He has a thin beard and appears more at ease than his brother.
Laz likes conviction, wit, and his cause. He dislikes apathy, inaction, injustice, and “taking the easy road”.
________________________________________________________________
Belvidere Ydl: They are a little older than the Goldendoor twins and, for the most part, they do not share their cousins’ passion for the radical cause. Belvidere is somewhat of an icon in the Colonies, having modeled for several posters and magazines. The saturation of their likeness has cultivated support for them among the “common folk” and their fellow “deviants”. Despite their curated image of a ditsy socialite, Belvidere is highly aware of their position in Society, and knows they’re only allowed to exist like they do because of their house’s noble status and generational wealth.
From the text:
Belvidere could easily pass as the model for one of any number of marble statues that are so fashionable to keep in one's garden. With their full face, large brown eyes, tall nose with thin nostrils, small mouth, and brown-gold curls, they are an exemplar of classical beauty. Still, there is something generic about their appearance -- it is beautiful, but a beauty you have seen in every museum and that every artist copies.
They like not “making a fuss”, art, meeting people, and having conversations. Belvidere dislikes unjustified cruelty, group disunity, and being scrutinized too closely.
________________________________________________________________
Prudence Pri: Corporal Pri is the niece of the Hierarch (basically the patriarch or pope of their religion) and a member of the Frontiersmen Corps. Though content with the life of a travelling soldier, she’s seen more of the world and its injustices than most. This has led her to take advantage of every possible opportunity to better her (intentionally limited) station, including coordinating with her many sisters and/or cooking for snobby college students. She also has a good sense of humor and takes most insults in stride.
From the text:
She looks exactly as if every tapestry, painting, and sculpture of Whitaker you've ever seen had suddenly come to life and amalgamated into a perfect likeness of the First Sovereign. She has Whitaker's tall, athletic figure (indeed, even seated she would be several heads taller than anyone else) and his dark complexion. Her physique must serve her well in the field, as she is dressed in the uniform of the Frontiersman Corps.
The woman also bears many of Whitaker's other features, considered among the aristocracy to be marks of strength, intelligence, nobility, and good breeding: A round head with a strong jaw, full cheeks, small brown eyes, a slightly down-turned, broad nose, thick brows, and kinky hair.
Prudence likes frank honesty, humor, her squad, and learning. She dislikes deception (self or otherwise), elitists, and betrayal.
________________________________________________________________
Blythe Ond?: Blythe is unashamedly a terrible person. He is racist, sexist, queerphobic, and completely convinced of his own religious, societal, and class superiority. He is cold, but not entirely passionless. There is a definite and deliberate motivation behind his beliefs, which makes him all the more chilling.
From the text:
Though his pedigree is obvious to your eyes, anyone that didn't know what to look for would have a difficult time finding anything remarkable about him. Picture the most generic person in the world -- that's what he looks like. Only his skin is perhaps three shades too pale to look healthy, and his eyes are a little small for his face.
Blythe likes deference, upholding the “Natural Order”, and putting those beneath him (so, everyone?) in their place. He dislikes unprompted compassion, associating with “deviants”, and being seen in public.
________________________________________________________________
MC1/MC2: Their personalities are too varying to give any overview. It’s really just up to the player.
14 notes · View notes
corinthbayrpg · 3 years
Photo
Tumblr media
NAME. Casper Hahn AGE & BIRTH DATE. 26 & March 28th, 1995 GENDER & PRONOUNS. Male & He/Him SPECIES. Shapeshifter ( American Jackal ) OCCUPATION. Film Director FACE CLAIM. Bill Skarsgard
BIOGRAPHY
( tw: drug abuse ) Middle child syndrome; often possessing traits such as agreeable, even tempered, the family peace-keeper. All qualities that no one has ever said about the middle Hahn child a day in this life. Born into a well-known family in the heart of New Orleans, Casper had always broken all those stereotypes. The Hahn’s were nothing but extremely doting on their children, sometimes to the point of annoyance, and not a single one felt as though they were less loved than the rest. This didn’t just hold true for the biological children, but every child that was brought in and adopted into the family. Unpretentious, along with a sense of goodwill and keen moral compasses, was known to be in the bones of every Hahn. Each of them playing their own role in not just helping their fellow shifters, but humans alike. Although this was fairly true when it came to Casper helping those in need, it didn’t always apply to the choices he made for himself. Legend did have it that Hahn’s were suspected of having a bit of a prankster streak in the bloodline, which was not lost on him one bit.
Coming from a long line of Fenrir shapeshifters, the Hahn’s have always been willing to get their hands dirty for their community. Long before war or even the inkling of destruction invaded the countryside, their family held roots in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. This is where, for centuries, they raised their children and built their lives of modest means. While many bearing the surname could be considered upper class, there was never a job that was too low for any of them. They regularly opened shops, managed hostels, farmed their lands, educated others, and dabbled in human politics. However, when the Napoleonic War finally subsided, poverty seemed to strike at their community the hardest. With the push from political leaders, along with heavy advertising of the New World amongst the humans, the Hahn’s universally decided the move would be in all their best interests.
By the early 1800s, the Hahn family had woven themselves into the fabric of what was then known as the German Coast and worked side by side with humans to establish their new home. Life around New Orleans was rough, with hurricanes and various diseases, species didn’t seem to matter when it came to survival in the new environment. Just like back in Germany, shops that bore the name Hahn were built and lands were farmed. Schools were established and by the end of the decade, the German language was just as prominent as the French. Not as much written history is known of his mother’s Northmore roots, yet another prominent Phoenix shapeshifter family with deep roots within the Mississippi wetlands. Many within their lineage believe their ancestors go back to the Scotish Osprey that was found in similar habitats. They are known for their ties to environmental education and preserving shapeshifter homes around the Southern regions, often finding the name attached to many Habitat for Humanity projects. Just like the Hahn’s, they have been working to ensure that human and wildlife in the South co-exist.
It was expected that all who descended from the Hahn and Northmore line would go onto be something great, though not many expected the direction the middle child would go. From an early age, Casper had been obsessed with films of all kind. He wondered what it would be like behind the scenes, the one creating masterpieces of film and stories centered around gore. Maybe it was in the water or soil of Louisiana to have an obsession with the macabre. Regardless, the young Hahn had caught the bug at a tender age and it wouldn’t be long before he would always be found with a camera in hand. Everyone whro was close to Casper was subjected to his hair-brain ideas, good or bad. Cult classic remakes to all the childhood dolls coming to life, there was no limit to his creativity. Some might think that a family with such direction would disapprove of Casper’s calling, but in fact it was the complete opposite. Supportive to a fault, his parents allowed his imagination to run wild. Though, some family members assumed that he would eventually grow out of it and set his sights on more productive means.
Of course that never happened and even with his hit or miss grades, the young shifter managed to land a spot at the University of Southern California. Casper was ecstatic and quickly moved out to Los Angeles, taking to the location like a moth to a flame. He was truly in his element, trying his best to get his scripts into the hands of those in the Hollywood elite. But that hardly stopped him from finding trouble and destructive distractions in all the right locations, easily finding himself falling into the fast pace lifestyle. When college was approaching its end, not a single job offering was on the horizon. Local studios found his visions too much for their audiences, not wanting to take a chance on someone so young and inexperienced. On top of his own risky behavior, Casper’s ideas at times leaned too far out of their bureaucratic lens. Soon he found himself back in the family home, utterly defeated but his dreams of becoming a director were anything but slaughtered. He went back to his usual habits of getting into mischief, partying too much, and never being found without a video camera in his hand. Months went by like this before the shapeshifter realized that he could take matters into his own hands, putting a middle finger up to those who said he couldn’t or wouldn’t sell. Independently, Casper was going to get his ideas out into the world and shove it in all their faces— a fire burning in his gut.
All the rattling of Hollywood’s cage would pay off when he got a phone call from a producer that respected his work and fervor, willing to take a chance unlike many of the aristocracy. Soon he was meeting and working alongside others who shared in his experiences as directors and learning from their guidance. He opted to travel everywhere and anywhere, spending weeks to months in places like New York or Vancouver. Southern Greece was just another filming location on the list, but one that Casper had always been drawn to. The seaside breeze, it’s tameless gods. The shapeshifter knew he belonged among its residence and was happy to learn he had connections in Corinth at all. With only a few weeks under his belt, not enough time to really make his mark, there is no telling what the future brings through Casper knows it will be anything but docile.
PERSONALITY
+ gregarious, visionary, resilient - unpredictable, assertive, self-indulgent
PLAYED BY Charlie. CST. She/Her.
1 note · View note
bazzybelle · 4 years
Text
Carry On Countdown - Day Seven
Notes: Right... confession time.. So, I posted this fic yesterday... But, I’ve been having a really difficult mental health week (lots of self-doubt, self-isolation, and weeping) and it all came to a head last night when I spiraled and deleted this story (my depression/anxiety/Imposter Syndrome demon caught up to me, I guess). I was also close to deleting all my other fics and potentially closing my account, but @fight-surrender and my amazing husband talked me down from the ledge so to speak. It was actually their support, along with the amazing kindness of @giishu that convinced me to repost my story... so here it is. 
Lyrics are inspired by “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” by The Beatles. However, I was inspired by the version from “Across The Universe”, sung by T.V. Carpio (Such a great movie and soundtrack). 
Thank you to @carryonsimoncarryonbaz for their writing support and amazing beta-reads. 
Also, this is the last story until the Angst prompt... I’m also gonna take it easy with my writing. Going back into it after 8 years of numbness and denying my passion hasn’t been easy and it’s beginning to take its toll on me. I have so many ideas, but I want to feel well enough in my head to be able to write them properly (in case you haven’t noticed, I like writing about healing and hopeful futures... kinda hard to do that if you’re spiraling). I’ve got a few more stories already prepared for the Countdown, but I’m not making any promises on writing for other prompts. 
TW: Extremely minimal (like blink and you’ll miss it) reference to drugs.
Day 7 Prompt: WLW
Title: I Wanna Hold Your Hand
________________________________________________________________
Please, say to me, you’ll let me hold your hand. Now, let me hold your hand. I wanna hold your hand. 
FIONA
The music here is bloody terrible.
So’s the alcohol. But what else can I expect from a dingy little pub in this dodgy area of the city? Besides, it isn’t the alcohol I’m here for, which is a shock, considering how much of it I drink. 
Nor am I here for this horrid music. I look at the stage and a skinny little whelp is crooning a pathetic rendition of a Pink Floyd song. Kid can’t be older than 18, of course he’s singing a Floyd song. I swear, you  listen to Dark Side of The Moon one time, and suddenly you think you know everything there is to know about music. 
Good Lord… he’s doing a Floyd medley. News flash, boyo, you cannot transition from Wish You Were Here to Another Brick in The Wall without raising a few eyebrows. 
He isn’t a bad looking bloke though. Shaggy brown hair, styled so it’s away from his eyes. He’s got a bit of a long, oval-shaped face, a little gaunt, but not too much. He reminds me of someone… Ah… George Harrison! He’s got a bit of a George Harrison vibe, I reckon. A part of me wants to snap a photo of him and ask Baz if he’d fancy him, but the last time I did that, he chewed my ear off for a week. 
Dramatic little shit. I’m only trying to help. He’s so edgy all the time. Baz is about to head into his final year at Watford and honestly, he needs to let loose and have a little fun, before the pressures of being a Pitch crushes him…
Maybe I’m being the dramatic shit...
I leave George Harrison to his crooning (Christ, he’s moved onto Money. Does he only know the popular Floyd songs? Tosser), and direct myself to the bar. The person I’m here to see greets me with a wide, toothy smile. 
“Well well, look who it is. How are you, love?” bellows Shannon Ryan (Shan for short). Shan is the annoyingly vivacious proprietor of the Golden Griffin Pub and Inn. She is all hair (bright, thick, ginger-red, with a generous amount of blond and strawberry-blond highlights, that falls in tight ringlets down her back) and little to no filter. She’s the kind of person that can decide in an instant if she’ll offer you a free pint, or if she’ll drag your sorry arse onto the curb. Most of the time, she’ll offer you the pint and a wink of her dark brown eyes. 
I give her a half smile and take a seat in front of her. Shan pours me a glass of Chivas (Bless her, she knows I love the stuff) and leans her elbows on the counter. I salute her and nod at George Harrison.
“Heads up Shan, if your lad starts playing Comfortably Numb, I may have to murder him with his own guitar.”
Shan playfully punches my shoulder. Normally, I’d retaliate with a knife to the throat, but I’m not nearly so… angry when Shan’s around. I can relax around her and allow myself to be a little playful. 
“Aw, come on now Prue, Mickey’s not that bad. A little rough around the edg-” She starts to laugh, because George Harrison’s begun to sing Comfortably Numb and I begin to crack my knuckles. Shan grabs my hands and gives them a pat. “Alright, very rough around the edges, but he’s a sweet kid.”
I met Shannon about 4 months ago. It was during one of my lower points. I had been on a wild bender, drinking, smoking up, everything. At some point, I lost all recollection of where I was and what was happening. I still don’t know how long I’d been out of my mind at that point, but I somehow ended up at Shan’s pub, trashed out and rambling nonsense. Shan took one look at me and she decided that she would give me a room and a bed, instead of throwing me out (a horrible decision, really). I woke up in an unknown room, in an unknown bed with her knocking on the door. 
I nearly killed her. 
Shan managed to calm me down and gave me some breakfast. Fat greasy bangers, perfectly poached eggs, fried tomatoes and back bacon. She had informed me that I had been out for quite a while. I remember feeling like a numpty had taken a beating to my head. She had offered to let me stay there so that I could recover from whatever was causing me distress. Instead of taking the hint and staying there, I gathered my belongings while she was gone and slipped out. That would have been the end of it, but I had returned a few days later to pay for my room and board. Shan refused to take my money, and instead asked that I pay her back by coming to see her from time to time. Originally, I was only supposed to come see her until the end of the month… But here we are, four months later and I still find myself wanting to come see her. 
Shan doesn’t know my real name (She knows me by my middle name, Prudence… I swear my family gets its kicks from naming their offspring ridiculous names), nor that I am a magician from a long line of magical aristocracy. She does not know that I am embroiled in the middle of a war that threatens to rip my world and my family apart. Maybe that sense of escapism is why I keep coming back here, why I keep flirting with this Normal pub owner. 
I turn back to her now. She is cleaning some of the dirty glasses that have been left on the bar counter. It’s a quiet evening tonight, not many patrons at the pub. Shan’s pub can gain a small gathering during the weekends, mostly young folks out on a crawl. Some tend to stay here on account of the atmosphere, and Shan’s personality. Tonight’s one of the quieter nights. I blame George Harrison mucking it up on the microphone.  
“Where do you find these characters, Shan?”
“Beats me. They sometimes just show up needing a spot. Mick’s been tossed out from his home, poor child. I give him a room, he works the bar. It all works out.”
Shan sometimes uses her rooms to shelter people who may need a place to stay. I wasn’t a special case for her. Any misfit or vagabond has a place to stay at Shan’s. I suppose that explains George Harrison, who has just finished his set and has exited the stage, thank Merlin for that. She’s now turned on her online music playlist, an eclectic mix of punk, classic rock, and current indie songs. It makes no bloody sense, but the patrons aren’t mad about it. 
“You’re too generous Shan.” She rolls her eyes and proceeds to serve some other patrons who have been waiting for her. Once George Harrison arrives behind the counter, she sends him off to prepare orders while she turns back to me. 
“And you, my dear friend, are far too cold. What brings you here tonight? Chasing one of your hoodlums, again?”
With the war brewing between the Old Families and the Mage, I have been tracking down members of the magical community who have been shunned and cast away by the Mage and his reforms. The Old Families believed that we could find some support amongst the masses who’ve been mistreated by Davy and his band of Merry Men. If I’m in the area, I’ll stop by the pub for a quick drink and a chat. 
Like I said, it’s been happening more often than not. 
Today is different. I am not here because I’m in the area. I felt the need to be here. Maybe it’s the bitter heat of August in London; Or maybe it’s the fact that it’s August 13th, the thirteenth anniversary (plus a day) of my sister’s death that brings me here. Normally, I’d be home, drinking myself into a stupor until enough time has passed where I don’t feel the grief anymore. I never allow myself to drink on the actual day of her death, because I’m too busy spending the day with Basil and Malcolm (Basil mostly), making sure that they’ve kept their heads in one place. I look out for my nephew first and once the day has passed, I go home and begin my process of drinking and mourning.
For some reason, I didn’t want to be home alone today. I don’t know what came over me, but I felt I needed to be here, at Shan’s pub. But I’ll never tell her that. So instead I put on my classic Pitch smooth face and smile slyly at her. 
“Who says I need a reason to be here? Maybe I just decided to come over.” Shan rolls her eyes at me. She faces me and leans over the counter, inches from my face. I have to look away, in case she notices the small blush creeping over my cheeks. I take another sip of my Chivas before looking at her once more. I tilt my head at her and smile. She places her hand on mine and pushes it down, until the glass is back on the counter.
“You’ve always got a reason, Prue. You don’t allow yourself to do anything simply because you want to.” Now, I roll my eyes at her. I down the remainder of my Chivas and slam the glass back down on the counter. I cross my arms over my chest and pull myself back from the counter. 
“Oh? And what exactly do I want?”
Shan also steps back from the counter. She’s got her hands on her hips and shrugs at me. She takes the bottle of Chivas and pours me another glass. 
“I am not nearly qualified enough to untangle the mess in your mind, Prue. I can only offer a listening ear and a reasonable amount of alcohol.” She leans back against the wall. I stare at her for a minute and take in how she looks in the pub’s dim light. Shan’s got incredibly light skin, but it isn’t entirely pale and the dim lighting in here is showcasing her pretty features. She’s wearing a black tank top under a dark purple vest that cuts just at her waist. She’s got on dark jeans and a light gold studded belt. Shan pulls her hair back into a very high, very messy bun at the top of her head. A few strands still hang loose and frame her face. I draw a shaky breath and take a sip of my scotch. I speak softly, more to the glass than to her. 
“My sister died. Yesterday has been 13 years since she died.” Shan relaxes her posture and approaches me again. I don’t shift my position at all. If she thinks she can get me to open up more than that, she’s wrong. I won’t come undone by a pretty girl with bright red hair. 
“You don’t want to be alone then?” Shan reaches for my hand. I don’t let her take it. I’m still focusing on my drink and the patterns of the wood grains on the counter. 
“I am perfectly fine to be alone Shan! I’ve been alone for many years, what’s another one?” I straighten my back even further, attempting to close off my walls. They had been slowly coming down as I spend more time with Shan, but thinking about yesterday, about Tasha, about the losses in my life, have caused me to build them back up with a more reinforced metal. 
Now, I’m here again, in front of Shannon, and the metal around my heart is starting to melt again. What power does this Normal have over me that she can make me feel this way? Shan exits from her side of the bar and she comes to sit down next to me. I want to turn away from her, but I can’t find it in me to do so. I’m running my fingers along the rim of the glass when I feel her tough, guitar-calloused hand lay on top of mine. I refuse to look her in the eyes. She gently places my hand on the counter and turns it over. I finally look at her as she clasps her hand in mine.
“What if you didn’t have to be alone?” Her deep brown eyes are staring right into my grey ones. I can feel my heartbeat beginning to pick up. My breathing becomes a little erratic. I have not felt this in such a long time. Not since my final year at Watford. Not since I had my heartbroken into pieces and decided to shut it down forever. I start to pull my hand away, but Shan holds it tight. I frown at her and glare at her a little bit. 
“People like me are meant to be alone.” I try to make my voice sound icy and intimidating. But, Merlin help me, it sounds breathless, like I’m chocking it out. I take a sharp inhale of breath through my nose. Shan, the fool that she is, reaches over and grabs my other hand, she gently turns my body towards her and leans a little closer to me. She speaks in a soft and calm voice. I almost miss what she says because of the music in the background. 
“You don’t have to be alone.”
She leans in closer to me. I feel a small flutter in the pit of my stomach. I want to lean into her as well, but something stops me. I can’t. I can’t. Not again. Never again. I pull away from her and jump out of my seat. I ignore the confused and saddened look on Shan’s face and I fumble in my bag for my wallet. 
“I have to go.”
Shan grabs my arm and tries to look at me again. I will not give her the satisfaction of seeing me coming undone. I will not let another person into my heart only for them to destroy it again. I can’t handle more pain and misery. 
“Wait… Prue I-” She’s going to beg me to stay, I don’t give her a chance to finish.
“Thank you, Shannon. I’ll see you soon.” I pull out some notes and slam them onto the counter. I yank my arm away from Shan’s grasp and stalk out of the pub, leaving her sorrowful brown eyes behind me. 
I am meant to be alone. I don’t need anyone, especially not some nobody Normal. Even if the same nobody Normal is currently holding a key to my heart. I go home, fully intent on drinking my conflicting feelings away.
________
Six weeks.
Basil’s been missing for six weeks and I haven’t had any luck in finding him. 
I have tried every bloody spell I could think of. I have poured over every single one of Natasha’s old books in that blasted library. I have even tried to contact some of the undesirables in my midst to see if any of them knew anything. None of them could tell me any information. Even though I threatened and screamed and even cast spells to force them to give me any information, none of them had any information to give me. 
I was losing my mind. I wanted nothing more to march into Watford myself and threaten the bloody Mage himself, or even that stupid snivelling little magling, Simon Snow. The only thing preventing me from torching the damn school was the fact that The Mage knew exactly where Baz was and he could decide to retaliate by hurting or even killing him. He was not above murder, the bastard. 
The latest call we got from the numpties had demanded wands from us. They must have been bloody joking. Malcolm, the fool, was already looking for spare wands. I called him a spineless idiot, and if he couldn’t see that this wasn’t about a simple ransom, well then he really was more feebleminded than I thought. I told him that my sister scraped the bottom of the barrel when she married a Grimm and stomped out of the manor. 
The bloody numpties were holding him near some water, so I drew up a map of potential spots where he could be hidden. I was not going to rest until I searched each and every one, no matter how long that took. 
I now find myself walking down a familiar dodgy street, towards a familiar pub. I have not been back since Shan grabbed my hand and I almost allowed her a piece of me. I decided that I would not go back there and risk anything more happening between Shan and myself. To go back would mean I would have to talk about what almost happened, and to do that would mean I would have to either lie to her or give into my feelings, neither option really appealing to me. Still, I need to start a fight. I need to yell at something and punch something. And the thought of Shannon throwing me out of her pub and her life because I caused a fight with her patrons is exactly what I need to revitalize myself on this search mission. 
I storm into the establishment and see a few confused clientele staring at me. I should pick out which unfortunate character will be my target, but my eyes wander to the bar. I want Shan to be watching. 
She isn’t there. But her pathetic little ward is. I march to the bar and before the weasel says anything, I grab his shirt sleeve and pull him over the bar counter. I roughly toss him to the floor. The boy yelps in surprise and lifts his hands up to protect his face. I am not done yet. I am about to lift him up, when someone grabs my arm. I spin around and I’m about to deck them, when I see her deep brown eyes. 
“PRUE! That’s enough!” Shan looks absolutely murderous with rage. I have never seen that look on her face before. I give her a cold hard stare and sneer at her. 
“Get. Your. Bloody. Hands. OFF. ME!” Shan returns my stare with a scowl of her own. She keeps her hand secured on my jacket and begins to drag me outside. 
“We’re going outside, NOW!” 
Well that was fast. I didn’t even get to have any fun. 
Shan shoves me outside and practically tosses me onto the floor. I am astounded by the strength she has, considering just how skinny she is. But she does this for a living. She’s had to toss out larger folks than myself. I dust off my jacket and straighten out my jeans before turning to Shan, who is still wearing a livid look on her face. Her hair, although braided, has a frizzy halo that surrounds it. I already regret coming here. 
“I like you, Prue. But I will not have you starting fights in my pub! Either you tell me what’s gotten into you, or you can kindly fuck off!” She points an accusing finger at me and then out towards the street. I should be honest with her, but I have a knack for self-destruction, so I push my luck.
“Oh fuck off Shan!” She steps back, shocked at first by my demeanor. But she then shakes her head and scoffs. She steps up to me and responds with a coldness of her own.
“If you insist! But this whole tough bitch attitude is getting bloody exhausting! Call me once you’ve calmed yourself” she says as she begins to walk away. I want to let her go back. I want to watch her leave and never see her again. But my damn head won’t let her leave. I call out before I have a chance to stop myself.
“My nephew’s missing...” Shan stops in her tracks. She turns to me, her furious face already changed to one of deep concern. “He’s been missing for nearly 6 weeks and I’m going out of my bloody mind!” 
She approaches me cautiously. I know she is still very angry with me and my actions. She asks me smoothly, “Have they demanded a ransom?” Shan knows well enough to not ask about law enforcement. With the type of charges she takes in, the reality is that law enforcement will typically make matters worse. 
I roll my eyes and answer her. “We don’t pay ransoms in my family!” 
Shan stares incredulously at me, “Are you daft? I don’t know what kind of business you’re running Prudence, but I think the life of your nephew is worth a ransom payment, yeah?”
“This isn’t about a ransom, Shannon! It’s something more! Oh forget it! I’m wasting time, I could be using to search under bridges or in sewers!” This was a mistake. I never should have come here. I turn my back to Shan and start to walk away. 
“Under bridges?” She asks me. I stop and turn back to her. 
“The kidnappers sounded like they were near running water when they called. Which, considering this bloody city, could be fucking anywhere!”
“Christ…” Shan starts to shake her head. She put her hand to her face, as if she was starting to ponder something. It is enough for me to march right back up to her.
“What is it!?”
“I thought he was being batty…” Shan delivers that line in such a thoughtful way that I almost want to be gentle with her. 
Almost. But Basil is missing and this is the first tiny morsel of a clue that I have had for six weeks. So I grab Shan’s shoulders and press her further.
“Who was?! What do you know Shan!?” She frowns at me and shrugs me off.
“Nothing, Prue! I volunteer at one of the homeless shelters in the city and one of our regulars was going on about how one of his favourite sleeping spots near the river was overrun with boulders. It looked like someone was trying to hide something there. The man’s a little mad. He claimed that some of the boulders were moving.”
Moving boulders?! Bloody fucking hell! That’s it! That’s fucking it! Six weeks, I’ve been going mad trying to find Basil, and all this time, the one place I should have been looking was amongst the vagabonds and the homeless. Christ, go figure I’d find my most important clue with Shannon fucking Ryan.  
“Where is he now!!?” I demand of her.  Maybe a little too harshly. I really couldn't care less if I hurt Shan’s feelings anymore. I need to find this drifter as soon as I can. 
“Prue! You can’t be-” Shan tries to calm me down, but I am not having it. I am so close to bringing my nephew home, I am not stopping now. I get up to her face and nearly shout at her.
“You tell me where he is now, Shannon, or I swear to Christ…” Shan shakes her head at me, but she caves in and sighs at me. 
“You are a lunatic, Prudence. But he’s most likely at Whitechapel. He’s been spending most of his time th- Prue!” I’m already walking away. I have all the information I need.
“I’ll see you later, Shan.” I say to her. Maybe if I survive this, I’ll come back and apologize for being a proper psychopath towards her. Maybe she’ll forgive me. For now, I have more important matters to attend to.
“Prue! Come back! You can’t do this alone!” 
That’s where you’re wrong Shannon. I’ve had to do everything on my own. It’s what I’m best at. I can still hear her shouting into the night, even though I am far from the pub at this point. 
“PRUDENCE!”
________
I am once more, back at the Golden Griffin. The pub has just closed for the night, but I know that Shan is still inside. She usually stays behind a few hours after closing time in order to clean up the place. I stand right in front of the door, taking a few moments to decide if I want to knock on her door, or if I should leave. I lift my fist to the window on the door. I’m about to knock when Shan’s head pops up from the side of the door. She looks surprised to see me at first, then… is that relief? She whips the door opened and pulls me inside. 
“Prudence…” she whispers to me. She holds my hand in hers. Merlin, what is she doing to me? I let go of her hand and stuff my hands into my jacket pockets. I clear my throat and start to talk.
“He was alive. I found him in time.”
“Your nephew. I’m so relieved to hear that.” She’s got her hand over her heart and she sighs in relief. Has she truly been worried this whole time? 
I feel guilty for not coming back sooner. But I had to make sure Baz was fine and then well, I wanted to start planning retribution for this attack on my family. I hadn’t realized that it was mid-November and I still had not gone to see Shan. 
And so, here I am. At 2AM on a Tuesday. At this pub once more, in front of this Normal. This Normal who is nobody important, from a nobody family. Yet, all I’m hoping is that she can forgive me for my foolishness. 
“You said I couldn’t do it alone. I did it alone. I found him, I got him back. I didn’t need anyone.” I just have to antagonize her, don’t I? I am a Pitch after all. Shan shakes her head, like she was ready for this to begin with an argument. 
“I’m happy for you Prue. Truly, I am.” She responds with an icy sarcasm. Her arms are crossed and she is leaning away from me. She isn’t up for having a go at me. I take a half-step towards her and offer an olive branch.
“My real name’s Fiona. Fiona Pitch.” Shan drops her hands to her hips. She gives me a cold stare and shakes her head. She then raises her hands slightly only to cross them again. She’s upset and I can’t say I blame her. I’ve only been lying to her for several months. 
“Fiona. Christ… Alright…”
“Prudence is my middle name. I didn’t know you.” I offer her an explanation. She rolls her eyes at that and continues to stare at me. 
“Fine, Fiona. What do you want from me?” She waves her arms and points to her chest. I furrow my eyebrows. I don’t know how to answer her question. I also don’t like how she calls me Fiona with disdain in her voice. As if she’s talking to someone she doesn’t know or care for. I suppose I deserve that. 
“I don’t need anyone. I’m perfectly fine to be on my own.” I take another half-step towards her. 
“What do you want from me, Fiona?” She asks me again. She is challenging me. Her voice, while still severe, is more inquisitive. She wants me to answer her, to let her in. To allow her another piece of me. 
I am not ready to answer her. Instead I continue to fight her and my own feelings. 
“I do not want another person coming into my life only to destroy it again!” I turn my head away from her as I expose a tiny piece of myself. Shan now steps forward. She is a breath away from me now. I want to touch her hair, her face, her hands. 
“What do you want from me, Fiona?” Her voice has now lost its edge, its icy tone. She is softer now, asking me to trust her. She reaches for my hand. I let her take it. I look down at our clasped hands, and I remember the last time she did this. I’m going to try and not run away again.  
“But then you held my hand… You held my hand. And you told me I didn’t have to be alone!”
“I did.” She says so sincerely. 
“And you helped me find my nephew.” I try to divert the conversation. I don’t know if I’m ready for this. Merlin help me, I am not ready for this. 
“I can’t take credit for that.” One of her hands has reached up to tuck a strand of my hair behind my ear.
“You helped me.”
“What do you want from me Fi-” She asks one last time. I feel her breath on my face. I give in.
This time, I am ready to answer her. 
I lean forward and kiss her. Her lips feel so soft, if a little chapped. Shan responds and returns my kiss. One of my hands has moved to the back of her head. I feel her thick soft curls in my hand. She has gripped my face in her hands. I feel her tilt her head and start softly nibbling on my bottom lip. I respond by lightly running my tongue over her teeth. I’ve wanted this for so long. Merlin knows why I’ve been denying it to myself. Our kiss breaks apart and Shan leans her head on the crook of my neck. 
“You. I want you, Shannon. Ever since you grabbed my hand and threw my world into bloody turmoil!” I whisper into her hair. She pulls away from me and looks at me as if I’m the most insane person in the world. She wouldn’t be wrong to assume that. I’m pretty sure there is a history of insanity within my family. 
“Well fuck, Prue… All you had to do was ask. But instead you ran away and acted like a bloody maniac. You could have talked to me, you know!” She shakes me lightly. 
“I bloody well could not!” I look away from her and shake my head. She wouldn’t understand. I am not the type of person who stands at the doorstep of a lover begging them to take them back or to love them. Even if I was, Shan’s life is wholesome and uncomplicated. All I am is one complication after another. She doesn’t need that in her life. 
“Why not? Help me understand you, Prue.” She’s grabbed my face again and she’s staring me down. Merlin help me, in the light, her eyes look like pools of honey. I grab her wrists tight. 
“I’m a bloody mess, Shan. I have no direction. I’m a disgrace to my family. A disgrace to my name.” Shan smiles at me. She runs her hands through my hair and I sigh. I’m a fucking mess. If my sister could see me now, she’d be so fucking disappointed. 
“You don’t have to be FIONA PITCH with me.” I snort sarcastically as she says my name with a snooty accent. “With me, you can be Prue. I like Prue a whole lot. She’s wild. She’s intense, but she’s got a good heart. She’s bloody gorgeous to.” With that, she grabs me by the back of my neck and pulls me into another deep kiss. My hands trail down to her hips and hold her in place. My thumbs tuck inside the hem of her jeans and run across her skin. It feels so soft. So perfect.  We pull away again and I laugh a little. 
“I can’t promise that I won’t run away or that I won’t be a complete maniac.”
“I can’t promise that I won’t kick your arse for being completely daft!” Shan flicks my white streak. 
“This could be a bloody disaster…” 
“Or not... Just don’t threaten my bartender again, or I may have to kill you.” She gives me a playfully wink, but I know she’s dead serious. I respond with a raised eyebrow and a tilt of my head. 
“I’d like to see you try.”
 With that, Shan cocks a half smile at me. She takes me by the hand and leads me away from the pub towards the stairs that lead to the Inn. She closes the lights as we walk up the stairs. 
I am not ready to give my heart to another person who could very well break it. But with Shan, I’m willing to risk it. 
Normal life be damned. 
And when I touch you, I feel happy inside. It’s such a feeling that my love, I can’t hide. 
28 notes · View notes
ambermoonmusic-blog · 4 years
Text
The History of Harp Wedding Music in Ireland
Nothing quite beats the sound of a Celtic harp. In fact, harp wedding music is a favourite at traditional weddings across Ireland.
The haunting melody and sultry tones of the harp calm the soul and add special significance and meaning to any occasion. This is particularly so if that occasion is the most special one of your life, namely your wedding day.  
 Whilst the reception is often a raucous affair, the ceremony is one of quiet calm, dignity and meaning. And what better way to enhance the atmosphere and create a meaningful ambience, than the music we choose for this?
 From the wedding march to traditional communion hymns, music helps to set the scene for both the ceremony and the reception that follows.
 The Irish are spiritual people, with a history of music that goes back more than two thousand years. And a wedding is the perfect occasion to reflect on one’s culture and traditions.
 No wonder that many potential newlyweds choose traditional Irish songs, that add true meaning and a sense of culture to their special day. And nothing reflects ‘traditional’, like a harp.
 Choice of Instruments for Wedding Music
 Along with choice of music, comes the choice of musical instruments.
 There is a wide and sometimes confusing array of musical accompaniment to choose from, including Uilleann pipes, the fiddle, Irish flute, accordion, banjo, mandolin, bouzouki, bodhran (frame drum), guitar and even Scottish bagpipes, to name a few.
 Many of these instruments are too loud and obtrusive within the confines of a church and it is the Celtic harp and its gentle melodies, that is most popular.
 The Celtic Harp
 If its Irish history and tradition you’re after, you can’t beat the harp, with its prodigious pedigree.  
 And nor will you find a more appropriate melodic background to the traditional communion hymns of a wedding service.
 The traditional Irish harp has enjoyed a long and illustrious history and is believed by some historians to have originated in Egypt.In fact, the earliest examples of the Celtic harp can be traced back over one thousand years. Representations have been found sculpted on stone in Scotland. These date way back, from the eighth or ninth century.
In ancient times it was the most popular instrument, when harpers would play for the entertainment of chieftains and other nobles.Today the harp is recognized as the symbol of Ireland no less and reflects the pride of the Irish nation. Historically, it was an emblem of the country’s resistance to England and The Crown.
 In addition, the harp enjoys the honour of being a feature on the label of one of the nation’s most iconic brands, namely Guinness.
 Construction of the Harp
 The harp wedding music that we enjoy today, is played on an instrument that has morphed in shape over many years.
 The medieval Irish harp featured a large soundbox, carved from solid wood – usually willow, poplar or alder. It had a heavy, curved neck and an outward-curving fore pillar.
 The medieval Scottish harp at the time, shared the same form and the two harps are usually considered by historians as one.  
 Various types of wire were used to string these instruments and include brass, iron and even silver and gold. These wires were plucked with the fingernails and produced a sharp crisp ringing sound.
 Early in the 19th century, a Dublin harp maker called John Egan invented a new harp. It was small and curved like the original version, but with a lighter soundbox. It featured various mechanisms similar to a pedal harp and used gut strings.
 These days interest in the original wire strung harps has been renewed, replicas are being produced and original playing techniques being researched.
 The History of Harp Music
 The harp wedding music enjoyed today, has a long and interesting history.Originally, native Irish harping was a form of music enjoyed only by the aristocracy. It had its own rules for arrangement and composition. It shared little in common with music of the working class at the time (the ancestor of modern traditional Irish music).
 Harp players (or harpers), were greatly respected and appreciated in ancient times. Together with scribes and poets, they enjoyed a high ranking and status and were valued by the lords and chieftains of the Gaelic order.
 However, harping did not last much longer than the Gaelic aristocracy which supported it. By the early 19th century the Irish harp and its mesmerizing music, had all but disappeared. Traditional harping tunes only survived as unharmonized melodies, having become integrated with more traditional folkloric tunes.
Some original tunes were preserved thanks to Edward Bunting, who collected and preserved ancient Irish tunes and published them in three volumes called The Ancient Music of Ireland between 1796 and 1840.
Revivalists in the early 20th century favoured a gut-strung neo-Celtic harp. These were frequently re-strung with nylon. They used the pads of their fingers, rather than the long fingernails favoured by harpists who plucked the original brass-strung harps.
 Unfortunately, these revivalists often took the traditional Irish dance music and old harp tunes and applied techniques, rhythm, tempos and arrangements to them, that were more appropriate to mainstream classical music.
 The past thirty years have seen an increasing revival of early Irish harp music, played with replicas of the original medieval instruments. This includes the use of brass, silver or gold strings.
 Many of the best modern harp players are determined to preserve traditional music. They use the existing sources of original manuscripts as a basis for reconstructing what is possible of the old harper’s music.
 Thanks to them we will all be able to enjoy traditional harp wedding music for years to come.
Modern Traditional Irish Music
 Modern traditional Irish music is not just enjoyed by the Irish. It has gained appeal around the world due to a long history of Irish emigration.
The annual Music Festival of Ireland attracts over 400,000 attendees from nations worldwide, who arrive in their thousands to enjoy and to celebrate Ireland’s 2000 years old musical traditions.  
Together they experience the beautiful, haunting and often sad melodies of Ireland, of its history and of its people. An ancient culture, reflected in the traditional music and played on instruments like the Celtic harp, that has entertained generations of music lovers over many centuries.    
1 note · View note
Tumblr media
I want to talk about the rumour of Kraven being from Wakanda.
Now I hope in the past I’ve been very clear about my stance when it comes to casting actors of different races, ethnicities, etc from their comic book counterparts.
To repeat myself I think it’s fine so long as the character in question doesn’t demand to be of any particular race or ethnicity (for the sake of argument let’s discount being an American/New Yorker) and the actor is a good choice for the role. As a follow up I do fundamentally disagree with actively seeking out to racebend characters 99% of the time, it should simply be that every actor who would be a good fit, regardless of their race and so on, should be looked at and then the best person for the job hired.
This then brings us to Kraven and for what I am about to say let’s presume for a moment the rumours are true.
For Kraven casting a black actor in the role is rather dependent upon what direction they are going to adopt for the character.
In a sense there are two Kravens from the 616 universe. I’m going to refer to them as pre and post KLH Kraven. Pre-KLH Kraven, as the name would imply, is Kraven as he was typically portrayed prior to Kraven’s Last Hunt and post-KLH Kraven is how he was portrayed during and after that story, which would include not just stories where he was alive but also flashback stories, appearances as a ghost or vision and also his metaphorical ‘ghost’, e.g. how characters talked about him after he died.
Whilst neither version was portrayed exactly the same way in every story, more often than not they had a consistency to them.
Pre-KLH Kraven was really nothing more than a B or C list villain who’s gimmick was simply being a jungle themed big game hunter who was a take upon the classic ‘The Most Dangerous Game’ archetypical antagonist.
And he was a jobber. Really his shining moment was in ASM #47, a story remembered more for it’s supporting cast drama and Romita artwork than for it’s super villain plot, but the latter (and thus the super villain in question) became memorable via association. It was also a time when Kraven scored essentially an unmitigated victory against Spider-Man but got his comeuppance shortly thereafter. Really Kraven’s role might’ve been played by almost any villain and amounted to practically the same thing.
In truth he was something of a joke character no one took seriously as a threat and was a villain few people, if anyone, particularly liked.
Post-KLH Kraven though is a different story altogether. The unimpressive reputation of pre-KLH Kraven helped to fuel the success of this iteration as in Kraven’s Last Hunt a villain considered a joke suddenly became deadly dangerous and effective. It wasn’t just in terms of the physical threat he posed though or even his deranged plan. Kraven’s personality got a makeover. Instead of overwriting what we’d known of him before J.M. DeMatteis expanded upon what we knew about Kraven and constructed a truly complex and nuanced character, who’s motivations and actions were understandable even as they were clearly deranged and insane.
Across just six issues (arguably just one even) Kraven the Hunter’s reputation was totally hanged. He became a contender amongst Spider-Man’s most effective and formidable foes and to many a fan favourite. This reputation was further fuelled by the legacy of Kraven’s Last Hunt consequently leading to further mentions and appeareces of Kraven usually being reframed through the lens of his more complex and darker Kraven’s Last Hunt characterization. This was even the case with the Chameleon, a character strongly associated with Kraven who was used in a very ambitious revenge scheme upon Spider-Man motivated by Kraven’s death, and used his ‘ghost’ as a weapon against Spider-Man. In the story Chameleon received his own share of character development as his backstory was revealed as inherently linked with Kraven.
The key to DeMatteis’ decision to use Kraven, to understanding the character and to developing him (and by extension the Chameleon) was the fact that he was Russian. DeMatteis was a fan of Russian literature and connected with it a lot so it was through that lens he expanded Kraven’s character. Rather than being a big game hunter who happened to be of Russian descent*DeMatteis revealed Kraven was a Russian aristocrat who’s lose of his home, wealth and ultimately his family in the 1917 Russian Revolution was the key to his embracing of a more primal lifestyle in the animal kingdom and his obsession with Spider-Man.**
The Russian influence was so important that on occasion Kraven’s name would at times be stylized with Russian alphabet characters.
Tumblr media
In other words post-KLH Kraven is the more popular and dramatically compelling rendition of the character and his Russian origins are integral to that.
You likely see my point in all this.
If the MCU adopts the pre-KLH rendition of Kraven casting a black actor won’t really be a problem as his ethnicity is mostly irrelevant to the character.
However if they MCU adopts the post-KLH Kraven then casting a black actor would be a problem as his Russian aristocratic heritage is inherently vital to who this rendition of Kraven is; and unless I am very much mistaken there were no black Russian aristocrats.***
The question then becomes which version should the MCU adopt.
And frankly the answer should be pretty obvious. Even if you wouldn’t commit to a Kraven’s Last Hunt story specifically the post-KLH rendition of Kraven informed by his Russian heritage has proven itself inherently more dramatically compelling and effective. Pre-KLH Kraven is really just a gimmick villain with little substance, making him a Wakandan might improve upon that to an extent but why bother when the comics already have a more compelling version of the character to drawn from. Making him a Wakandan also perpetuates a systemic issue with MCU Spider-Man, that his corner of the MCU is dictated more by the wider MCU than...well...Spider-Man himself.
If you examine most of the Phase 1 movies, or in fact most of the MCU origin films you will see that most everything in them is built around and flows from the central character. Captain America the First Avenger might use Asgardian technology as a plot device, but fundamentally the movie revolves around Steve Rogers and everything is first and foremost connected to him. Same thing with Thor 2011 and Iron Man 2008 and Doctor Strange 2016.
The Spider-Man films have been this weird exception to the rule as Spider-Man himself and his world has to a very large extent revolved around other characters or the wider MCU, typically Iron Man or Iron Man associated elements. Case in point both of his villains’ have been designed as dark reflections of Iron Man and their motivates stemming from him, their ultimate plan revolving around the acquiring of his technology. If MCU Kraven is a Wakandan and uses Wakandan technology, and presumably will be motivated due to factors connected to Wakanda, we might be not be usuing Iron Man elements but the underlying problem would remain the same.
It’s Spider-Man’s characters and Spider-Man’s world essentially filtered through the lens of the MCU rather than organically integrated  within the MCU. It is allowing the MCU to lead and dictate the character and his world rather than reconciling the creative integrity of the latter within the pre-established world of the MCU.
*A fact likely established either because the Chameleon was Russian recruited Kraven and/or in the 1960s Russian was shorthand for villain.
**I should also note that DeMatteis explained that the source of Kraven’s powers alter retarded his aging hence he could look so young in spite of being born before 1917. This was revealed alongside the fact his origins date back to 1917.  
***I’d also add that his dynamic with the Chameleon, already established in the MCU with an Eastern European flavour, (though his skillset means you need not be constrained by that) would be inherently different (and inherently lesser frankly) if he is neither Kraven’s brother nor his lower class punching bag. So far in the MCU (and Black Panther fans will need to tell me if this is also true in the comics) apart from the royal family there doesn’t seem to be a class system in Wakanda wherein there is anything akin to an aristocracy. One might even argue the lack of one would fit with the notion of it being so advanced.
51 notes · View notes
katiesclassicbooks · 5 years
Text
Review: Emmeline by Charlotte Turner Smith
Tumblr media
Synopsis: 
Emmeline was written by Charlotte Turner Smith and published in 1788. It follows a girl named Emmeline who is an illegitimate orphan brought up at her father’s secluded castle in Wales. When her Uncle comes to visit with his son, Emmeline’s peaceful world is forever shaken. Her cousin Delamere develops an extreme passion for her that she doesn’t welcome and neither does his father who doesn’t want him to marry beneath his station in life. Emmeline constantly moves from place to place, usually to avoid Delamere’s advances. As time goes on she makes two female friends who were both married young and ended up in various troubles because of their situations. Emmeline has these examples to warn her what could happen if she yields to Delamere. She eventually falls in love with a man named Godolphin and gets some of her financial dependency issues solved. This is a courtship novel or a novel of sensibility that started to be very popular at the time. Yet, it goes a step further in that it satirizes society at the time, especially around the rights of women and the dangers of early and arranged marriages. It also in parts contains certain elements of the gothic, which was another popular genre at the time. 
Storyline:
I was pleasantly surprised by Emmeline. It started out seeming like a gothic novel, but then it quickly turned more into a novel of sensibility. Those elements were fun and all and it can always be amusing to read these 18th century novels that can turn into such melodramatic soap operas. Yet, what made me really like this novel was that it criticized this society. It criticized the aristocracy who were entitled, spoiled, greedy and excessively focused on maintaining their reputation and status in society. In another vein what it really criticized was what this world was like for women. There was a lot of criticism of these upper class families who would marry off their daughters so young usually to men of their own choosing who made the most sense financially and socially.  Emmeline’s friends Mrs. Stafford and Lady Adelina are examples of how that could go wrong. Both of them are married young to men who gamble/ spend all of their money and are unfaithful. Lady Adelina’s husband was a drunk. Mrs. Stafford’s husband ends up in debt and she constantly has to figure out how to save her family and provide for her children. Lady Adelina leaves her husband and has an affair with another man. Sadly Lady Adelina becomes pregnant out of wedlock. They show the unhappiness of this type of relationship and union and the two different outcomes that could come of it. Mrs. Stafford is more practical and tries to patch up her husband’s mistakes because what she truly loves are her children. Lady Adelina is much more of an emotional personality and is easily seduced by the man she really loves. Charlotte Turner Smith has a lot of compassion for these characters, who are kind of based on her own experiences with marriage. Mrs. Stafford in particular is modeled after her. There also was a lot more compassion for Lady Adelina’s situation as a ‘fallen’ woman than I would have expected in a novel from this time period. Fast forward to the 19th century and I don’t think there would have been much dwelling on a woman having a baby out of wedlock. Anyways, Emmeline gets to decide where her future is going because of these examples. She could end up in the same situation with Delamere, but she successfully avoids it and finds real love with a more grounded man who she could have a happier life with. Not only is marriage criticized, but also how financially dependent women were and how they were perceived as property. There was so little freedom in that world and their lives could be dictated by these harsh patriarchal figures. Sure, Emmeline ends in a bit of a too easily wrapped up fairytale ending, but it was a book that dealt with a lot of important issues for the time this was written in. 
Setting:
There is a lot of traveling in Emmeline, so there were lots of scene changes. I loved the gothic setting of Mowbray Castle in Wales and wished more of the settings had been like that one. During those scenes, Charlotte Turner Smith showed how adept she was at creating fantastic nature descriptions. There are a few parts set in more natural secluded places, which are contrasted with parts set more in metropolitan areas in or around London. The metropolitan settings really show this constraining society where everyone has lost their natural feeling. Emmeline was brought up in a ‘wild’ landscape and therefore she seems to retain a natural humanity and better intellectual understanding than the frivolous or conniving people heavily involved in society. 
Characters:
The characters were pretty interesting for a novel of this time period. Emmeline did have some of the traits typical in heroines of novels of those times. She was virtuous, kind and pretty. While she does have moments of delicacy, she does know her own mind and heart and stands up for herself at certain points. She does get in a bit of an internal tug of war of adhering to the rules of the world she lives in and following her own heart and mind. She’s the character that gets to see the various options as a woman and because of what she sees her friends go through she makes wiser choices. One can’t help but sympathize with the unhappy Mrs. Stafford and her admirable strength and practicality. Lady Adelina elicits a lot of sympathy as well. She brings the most of the melodrama however, that seems overdone in this day and age. She starts to suffer from physical and mental illness because of what she had gone through. It made sense because even though she has surprisingly supportive friends she risks losing her reputation, she carries a tremendous amount of guilt and shame and mostly she suffers because I believe she desired to be with the man she loved and probably felt guilty and confused about her own desires. Sometimes she seemed ridiculous, but she probably was the strongest reminder of the double standards at the time and how difficult and confusing it could be to be a woman. She brings to light the lack of freedom of women and the repression of their sexuality. Not all the male characters were negative, but many of them were so repressive. Delamere reminded me of men in this day and age as well, who become too crazy obsessive, jealous and possessive. While this was a very different time period many of these issues are kind of still relevant in a way even though obviously we’ve progressed quite a bit. Goldolphin at least seemed like a relatively good example of masculinity at the time and same with his brother Lord Westhaven. They seem more grounded and use their masculine power to protect and help the women in their lives instead of controlling them or taking their power away. 
Did I Like It?:
I did quite like this forgotten 18th century classic! It was rather enjoyable to read for a novel of it’s time and while there was some of the typical extreme melodrama and improbable circumstances for a novel of the time, there was lots of interesting criticism of this society, particularly how it pertained to women.  I’m surprised this isn’t an 18th century classic that isn’t more widely known, since it was so progressive for it’s time. This is a very obscure classic, it had been on my to-read list for awhile and I have forgotten how I even came across it’s existence. I am very glad I decided to pick it up however. 
Do I Recommend This?:
If you are interested in 18th century literature I do think this is a good one to check out. If you think the romantic novels of sensibility from that time are fun, but would like more social criticism as well this is a great choice. 
~Katie 
2 notes · View notes
Text
Disability aesthetics
“she lived with two husbands instead of one, never knowing whom she should address her lamentations for fear of mistaking the object of her hatred for the object of her love” (100).
Tobin Siebers: “aesthetics tracks the emotions that some bodies feel in the presence of other bodies. But all bodies are not created equal when it comes to aesthetic response. Taste and disgust are volatile reactions that reveal the ease or disease with which one body might incorporate another. Disability aesthetics seeks to emphasize the presence of different bodies and minds in the tradition of aesthetic representation […] it refuses to recognize the representation of the healthy body and this body’s definition of harmony, integrity and beauty as the sole determination of the aesthetic (542-543)
Madeleine de Scudéry
Madeleine de Scudéry, (born 1607, Le Havre, Fr.—died June 2, 1701, Paris), French novelist and social figure whose romans à clef were immensely popular in the 17th century.
De Scudéry was the younger sister of the dramatist Georges de Scudéry. Madeleine de Scudéry moved to Paris to join her brother after the death of her uncle, who had cared for her after she and her brother had been orphaned. Clever and bright, she soon made her mark on the literary circle of the Hôtel de Rambouillet; by the late 1640s, she had replaced Madame de Rambouillet as the leading literary hostess in Paris and had established her own salon, known as the Société du Samedi (the Saturday Club).
Her first novel, Ibrahim ou l’illustre bassa (1642; Ibrahim or the Illustrious Bassa), was published in four volumes. Her later works were even longer; both Artamène ou le grand Cyrus (1649–53; Artamenes or the Grand Cyrus) and Clélie, histoire romaine (1654–60; Clelia) were published in 10 volumes. Contemporary readers, accustomed to such long novels, appreciated De Scudéry’s works both for their bulk and for the glimpses they provided into the lives of important society figures of the day. These individuals were thinly disguised as Persian, Greek, and Roman warriors and maidens; De Scudéry herself appears in Artamène as Sappho, a name by which she was known to her friends.
Other of her works include Almahide, ou l’es- clave reine (1660–63; “Almahide, or the Slave Queen”), Mathilde d’Aguilar, histoire espagnole (1667; “Mathilda of Aguilar, a Spanish Tale”), and La Promenade de Versailles, ou l’histoire de Célanire (1669; “The Versailles Promenade, or the Tale of Celanire”). Most of the novels were published anonymously or under the name of her brother Georges. They included long passages devoted to conversations on such topics as the education of women; these were excerpted and published separately.
Although her novels were exceptionally popular and were lauded by such notables as Madame de Sévigné, they also met with some criticism. The poet and critic Nicolas Boileau, for instance, satirized them harshly.
Michel de Montaigne
Michel de Montaigne, in full Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, (born February 28, 1533, Château de Montaigne, near Bordeaux, France—died September 23, 1592, Château de Montaigne), French writer whose Essais (Essays) established a new literary form. In his Essays he wrote one of the most captivating and intimate self-portraits ever given, on a par with Augustine’s and Rousseau’s.
Living, as he did, in the second half of the 16th century, Montaigne bore witness to the decline of the intellectual optimism that had marked the Renaissance. The sense of immense human possibilities, stemming from the discoveries of the New World travelers, from the rediscovery of classical antiquity, and from the opening of scholarly horizons through the works of the humanists, was shattered in France when the advent of the Calvinistic Reformation was followed closely by religious persecution and by the Wars of Religion (1562–98). These conflicts, which tore the country asunder, were in fact political and civil as well as religious wars, marked by great excesses of fanaticism and cruelty. At once deeply critical of his time and deeply involved in its preoccupations and its struggles, Montaigne chose to write about himself—“I am myself the matter of my book,” he says in his opening address to the reader—in order to arrive at certain possible truths concerning man and the human condition, in a period of ideological strife and division when all possibility of truth seemed illusory and treacherous.
Charles Perrault
Charles Perrault, (born January 12, 1628, Paris, France—died May 15/16, 1703, Paris), French poet, prose writer, and storyteller, a leading member of the Académie Française, who played a prominent part in a literary controversy known as the quarrel of the Ancients and Moderns. He is best remembered for his collection of fairy stories for children, Contes de ma mère l’oye (1697; Tales of Mother Goose). He was the brother of the physician and amateur architect Claude Perrault.
A lawyer by training, Charles Perrault first worked as an official in charge of royal buildings. He began to win a literary reputation in about 1660 with some light verse and love poetry and spent the rest of his life in promoting the study of literature and the arts. In 1671 he was elected to the Académie Française, which soon was sharply divided by the dispute between the Ancients and the Moderns. Perrault supported the Moderns, who believed that, as civilization progresses, literature evolves with it and that therefore ancient literature is inevitably more coarse and barbarous than modern literature. His poem Le Siècle de Louis le Grand (1687; “The Age of Louis the Great”) set such modern writers as Molière and François de Malherbe above the Classical authors of Greece and Rome. His chief opponent in this controversy was Nicolas Boileau. Perrault’s stand was a landmark in the eventually successful revolt against the confines of the prevailing tradition.
Perrault’s fairy stories in Mother Goose were written to amuse his children. They include “Little Red Riding Hood,” “The Sleeping Beauty,” “Puss in Boots,” and “Bluebeard,” modern versions of half-forgotten folk tales, which Perrault retold in a style that is simple and free from affectation.
Bluestocking
Bluestocking, any of a group of ladies who in mid-18th-century England held “conversations” to which they invited men of letters and members of the aristocracy with literary interests. The word has come to be applied derisively to a woman who affects literary or learned interests. The Bluestockings attempted to replace social evenings spent playing cards with something more intellectual. The term probably originated when one of the ladies, Mrs. Vesey, invited the learned Benjamin Stillingfleet to one of her parties; he declined because he lacked appropriate dress, whereupon she told him to come “in his blue stockings”—the ordinary worsted stockings he was wearing at the time. He did so, and Bluestocking (or Bas Bleu) society became a nickname for the group. This anecdote was later recounted by Madame d’Arblay (the diarist and novelist better known as Fanny Burney), who was closely associated with (but also satirized) the Bluestockings.
The group was never a society in any formal sense. Mrs. Vesey seems to have given the first party, in Bath. After she moved to London, a rivalry developed with Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu, who became the leader of the literary ladies. Others included Mrs. Hester Chapone, Mrs. Elizabeth Carter, Miss Mary Monckton, and Miss Hannah More, whose poem “The Bas Bleu, or Conversation,” supplies valuable inside information about them. Guests included Dr. Johnson, David Garrick, the Earl of Bath, Lord Lyttleton, and Horace Walpole (who called them “petticoteries”).
1 note · View note
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
15 notes · View notes
bizmaster · 4 years
Photo
Tumblr media
“For in a community in which the ties of family, of caste, of class, and craft fraternities no longer exist people are far too much disposed to think exclusively of their own interests, to become self-seekers, practicing a narrow individualism and caring nothing for the public good.  Far from trying to counteract such tendencies despotism encourages them, depriving the governed of any sense of solidarity and interdependence, of good neighbourly feelings and a desire to further the welfare of the community at large.  It immures them, so to speak, each in his private life and, taking advantage of the tendency they already have to keep apart, it estranges them still more.  Their feelings toward each other were already growing cold; despotism freezes them.” 
–Alexis de Tocqueville in The Old Regime and the French Revolution (1856)
It is ironic in our troubled age of the managerial state and politicized corporations that so few business managers display any proper understanding of politics or the catastrophic consequences that will flow if current developments remain unchallenged.  We live in revolutionary times, and the dangerous thing about revolutions is their unpredictability, which all too often gives rise to extremist regimes of either Left or Right.
The fact that the latter terms are so poorly understood by the general public, politicians, professionals, and business leaders, is an obvious indication that most people are just getting on with business at a time when business as usual is under serious threat.
Ask any business executive, and they will tell you that Left means liberal, and Right means conservative; that on the Left are progressives, socialists, and communists, and on the Right are authoritarians, fascists, and capitalists.  In reality, though, both Left and Right are liberal in the proper sense, and the term “conservative” has been totally corrupted.
Our idea of Left and Right come from the French Revolution.  In the States General of 1789, the nobles sat on the King’s right, while the Third Estate, those seeking reform, sat on his left.  This division between defenders of the status quo and more radical elements was echoed in subsequent bodies, including the Convention that executed the King.  Both the moderates and the advocates of violence in the Convention were almost entirely middle class, comprised mostly of lawyers, merchants, officials, and journalists.  Sound familiar?
And this is what most people fail to understand: both left-wing radicals and right-wing shills for an unjust status quo are proponents of the principles of liberalism.  They differ only as to how the principles are to be put into practice.  Liberalism, the political expression of the ideals of Modernity, has many forms, but all have evolved from a simple premise.
To be liberal initially entailed opposition to the Ancien Regime, the political dispensation based on the supremacy of the Church and the aristocracy.  The determination to bring down the Old Order gave common cause to an assortment of socio-political aspirations, including constitutional monarchy, republicanism, terror, socialism, oligarchy, and dictatorship.
Liberalism’s opposition to the Ancien Regime gave expression to three ideas that had emerged in Medieval Europe and given birth to Modernity, the modern mindset:
Humanism, the unrestrained confidence in the creativity of human beings.
Nominalism, the idea that human beings make their own meaning and purpose.
Voluntarism, the belief that a person’s will has primacy over the intellect.
These three ideas, combined with Descartes’ understanding of the human person as an isolated, autonomous individual, promoted a radically new vision of human freedom.  Classical philosophy had seen human free will as a freedom for excellence, that is, the freedom to be the best one could be by practicing the virtues of practical wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance, or the rational ordering of one’s life in community.  Modernity rejected that vision in favour of a freedom of indifference that left it to the individual to choose his own meaning and purpose, trusting in his own creativity, and the power of his own will.
So the cornerstone of the liberal ideal is the autonomous self, liberated from the constraints of family, religion, custom, history, and all traditional ties.  Ignoring the fact that this revolutionary understanding of the human condition flies in the face of history, science, and reason, it is nevertheless easy enough to see why it soon displayed its potential for tyranny.
Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) decried the lot of the isolated individual in nature as "the war of all against all", leaving “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.  His remedy was the Social Contract, in which all the autonomous individuals gave authority to a strong absolute ruler.  John Locke (1632-1704) also supported the theory of a social contract, but he favoured constitutional monarchy.  Ironically, though Locke was massively influential with his ideas on human rights and toleration, he was unable to justify his ideas without an appeal to God, and he refused toleration to atheists.
The uncomfortable truth about Modernity and the revolutionary vision of human freedom is that they gave rise to not just Liberal Democracy, but also to Marxism, Nazism, and all the ideological antagonists arrayed on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum.  Classic Liberals, libertarians, progressives, and socialists, not to mention those cynical nihilists who embrace any ideology that furthers their own interests, all justify their policies by an appeal to the radical freedom of the individual to maximise personal preferences, constrained only by the power of the state, soft in some cases, severe in others.
Postwar Britain provides an illustration of the two-headed serpent of liberal democracy.  From 1945 until Maggie Thatcher became PM in 1979, Keynesian welfare capitalism, the theory that government spending must stimulate economic activity and generate full employment, reigned supreme.  The economic woes of the 70s enabled Thatcher to usher in a neoliberal antidote, distorting Adam Smith, that prevailed until the global debt crisis of 2008, but now finds itself locked in mortal combat with more extreme versions of its Keynesian predecessor.
The irony is that for all their undeniably significant differences, the two approaches are outgrowths of the Modern worldview, sharing key philosophical and economic assumptions.  This is why the Tories and Labour in Britain, the Republicans and Democrats in the US, and similar centrist divisions in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have been able to maintain the equilibrium of liberal democracy for so long.  As G K Chesterton once noted:
A horrible suspicion that has haunted me is that the Conservative and the Progressive are secretly in partnership.  That the quarrel they keep up in public is a put-up job, and that the way they perpetually play into each other's hands is not an everlasting coincidence.
Chesterton, a true Conservative himself, misused the word here, and should have employed the term Classic Liberal instead.  But more on that below.
It is not difficult to see why the suppression of freedom of speech in academia and state schools, the pressure applied by global capitalist corporations to compel social conformity in matters like redefining marriage and transgender bathrooms, the aggressive push for an ill-defined open borders regime, and the ever-proliferating intrusions of a suffocating bureaucratic fog have descended on unwitting western populations, without any move to reform the global capitalist system.  Indeed, many western business executives openly express admiration for the Chinese model of state capitalism.
The inescapable reality is that the liberal fiction of the radically autonomous individual, now enthroned in the postmodern West as a self-centered rational maximiser, devoted to securing the satisfaction of his or her personal preferences regardless of other people, inevitably entails the growth of an ever more powerful central government and intrusive bureaucratic control over the lives of the populace.  No wonder Liberal Democracy, in its current globalist oligarchic mode, is under siege throughout the West.
Many academics and commentators today maintain that the terms Left and Right are slipping into irrelevance as the conflict grows between the globalist elites and the vast swathes of the populace socially and economically threatened by the financialisation of the economy, uncontrolled immigration, and a pandemic of drug abuse, homelessness, and violent crime. The sad truth is that the Left has overthrown traditional morality and erected Nanny State, and has never been able to define the utopia it promises, relying on identity politics to ensure the struggle for “social justice” is never-ending.  And the Right, by entrenching market economics as the sacred principle around which everything revolves, is quite reasonably identified with oligarchic control and socio-economic exploitation.
So where does Conservatism fit into this dispiriting picture?  First, one has to sweep aside all the distortions that have arisen since the French Revolution.  These laid the ground for the Left to gradually subsume the terms “liberal” and “progressive”, and their connotations of freedom, leaving the Right, that is, defenders of the status quo, good or bad, to be equated with reaction, authority, and opposition to progress.
To then call the latter “conservatives” was a total misrepresentation, one that the true Conservatives sadly failed to correct, with the result that their name has become a pejorative.  That is how Conservatism became saddled with all manner of right-wing baggage.
Maintaining the status quo because you have all the money and power is not Conservatism; it is oligarchic tyranny.  Regimenting society to conform to a totalitarian vision is not Conservatism; it is cynical opportunism.  Entrenching the follies of laissez faire, trickle-down economics, and corporate rent-seeking is not Conservatism; it is crony capitalism.  Resistance to change is not Conservatism, because Conservatism recognizes that progress involves change, but that progress is impossible without a clear understanding of the good of human beings and the conditions for its achievement.
Conservatism, properly understood, stands on the vision of humanity rejected by Modernity, the belief that free will and intellect provide the basis for a freedom of excellence, that is, being free to choose the life of virtue that is essential for the good of both the individual and the community.
By definition, it seeks to conserve the good embodied in the community, which necessarily must aim at the flourishing of all, in the name of justice, compassion, and common sense, because injustice means turmoil, sooner or later.
The commitment to human flourishing explains the Conservative principles of attachment to place, to family, history, tradition, community, and nation, and all the institutions of civil society that keep the out-size ambitions of oligarchic carpetbaggers and the bureaucratic state in check.  The acceptance of the responsibility to conserve humane cultural standards developed over centuries, to conserve political forms that have provided stability and justice for all people, and to conserve the environment, all require the deep sense of history and tradition repudiated by liberals of the Left and the Right.
Ironically, Conservatism really provides the only effective antidote to the ideological fantasies for which it is often held accountable.  Populism, elitism, laissez faire, authoritarianism, statism, Randian objectivism, and religious fundamentalism are all socio-political time-bombs that are readily primed by special interest groups on both the Right and the Left, but they are inconsistent with true Conservatism.
As Chesterton pointed out, the answer to the socio-political conundrum confronting the West has to start with a man, a woman, and a child, and the freedom and property necessary for their fulfillment as human beings.  Statists of both Left and Right attack the family because it’s a rival loyalty, religion because it’s a rival authority, and private property because it’s the only means by which people can escape dependence on the state.  Every political regime that attacks the family is a tyranny.
Left and Right are the political blind alleys into which Modernity has led us, and both are wisely treated with deep suspicion.  And don’t fall into the trap set by both of them of believing in TINA.  “There is no alternative” is the smokescreen of demagogues.
Aristotle’s opening words in Politics are instructive: “Every community is established with a view to some good; for people always act in order to obtain that which they think good.  But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all…aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”  Augustine said much the same thing: “A ‘people’ is an assembled multitude of rational creatures bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love…the better the objects of this agreement, the better the people; and the worse the objects, the worse the people.”
Both sides in Liberal Democracy have fallen far short of these standards, the Left in its drift towards an indefinable socialist utopia, and the Right in the oligarchic greed that history has shown to be a parody of true Conservatism, destroying the good meant to be conserved.
Affirming the dignity of the human person, as when we talk of human rights or demand accountability in the stewardship of the environment, involves seeing the human subject as a unique presence, a caretaker, in the world of things, exercising responsible free will as opposed to self-seeking caprice.  Liberalism, Left and Right, in misunderstanding human nature, has rendered itself incapable of providing a philosophically convincing justification for human rights and responsibility.  Its fatal flaw has always been moral contradiction – the radically autonomous individual is a repudiation of both community and leadership.
Clarity about the meaning of life is essential to leadership, and a leader must always remember that the key to understanding the meaning of life is the truth about the human person.
Grasp that, and everything else falls into place.  Central to that truth is the reality that there is a natural law that transcends human laws, and it is accessible to human reason, regardless of culture.
-“For in a community in which the ties of family, of caste, of class, and craft fraternities no longer exist people are far too much disposed to think exclusively of their own interests, to become self-seekers, practicing a narrow individualism and caring nothing for the public good.  Far from trying to counteract such tendencies despotism […]- #@BizEthics|Sustainability, #SHOWCASEHOMEPAGE, #BIZSPECTRUM, #FEATURED, #@OPINIONMUSINGS, #@Leadership|Management, #INTEGRITYMATTERS -Andre van Heerden
0 notes
sufredux · 5 years
Text
Why Nationalism Works
Nationalism has a bad reputation today. It is, in the minds of many educated Westerners, a dangerous ideology. Some acknowledge the virtues of patriotism, understood as the benign affection for one’s homeland; at the same time, they see nationalism as narrow-minded and immoral, promoting blind loyalty to a country over deeper commitments to justice and humanity. In a January 2019 speech to his country’s diplomatic corps, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier put this view in stark terms: “Nationalism,” he said, “is an ideological poison.”
In recent years, populists across the West have sought to invert this moral hierarchy. They have proudly claimed the mantle of nationalism, promising to defend the interests of the majority against immigrant minorities and out-of-touch elites. Their critics, meanwhile, cling to the established distinction between malign nationalism and worthy patriotism. In a thinly veiled shot at U.S. President Donald Trump, a self-described nationalist, French President Emmanuel Macron declared last November that “nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”
The popular distinction between patriotism and nationalism echoes the one made by scholars who contrast “civic” nationalism, according to which all citizens, regardless of their cultural background, count as members of the nation, with “ethnic” nationalism, in which ancestry and language determine national identity. Yet efforts to draw a hard line between good, civic patriotism and bad, ethnic nationalism overlook the common roots of both. Patriotism is a form of nationalism. They are ideological brothers, not distant cousins.
At their core, all forms of nationalism share the same two tenets: first, that members of the nation, understood as a group of equal citizens with a shared history and future political destiny, should rule the state, and second, that they should do so in the interests of the nation. Nationalism is thus opposed to foreign rule by members of other nations, as in colonial empires and many dynastic kingdoms, as well as to rulers who disregard the perspectives and needs of the majority.
Over the past two centuries, nationalism has been combined with all manner of other political ideologies. Liberal nationalism flourished in nineteenth-century Europe and Latin America, fascist nationalism triumphed in Italy and Germany during the interwar period, and Marxist nationalism motivated the anticolonial movements that spread across the “global South” after the end of World War II. Today, nearly everyone, left and right, accepts the legitimacy of nationalism’s two basic tenets. This becomes clearer when contrasting nationalism with other doctrines of state legitimacy. In theocracies, the state should be ruled in the name of God, as in the Vatican or the caliphate of the Islamic State (or ISIS). In dynastic kingdoms, the state is owned and ruled by a family, as in Saudi Arabia. In the Soviet Union, the state was ruled in the name of a class: the international proletariat.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the world has become a world of nation-states governed according to nationalist principles. Identifying nationalism exclusively with the political right means misunderstanding the nature of nationalism and ignoring how deeply it has shaped almost all modern political ideologies, including liberal and progressive ones. It has provided the ideological foundation for institutions such as democracy, the welfare state, and public education, all of which were justified in the name of a unified people with a shared sense of purpose and mutual obligation. Nationalism was one of the great motivating forces that helped beat back Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. And nationalists liberated the large majority of humanity from European colonial domination.
Nationalism is not an irrational sentiment that can be banished from contemporary politics through enlightening education; it is one of the modern world’s foundational principles and is more widely accepted than its critics acknowledge. Who in the United States would agree to be ruled by French noblemen? Who in Nigeria would publicly call for the British to come back?
With few exceptions, we are all nationalists today.
THE NATION IS BORN
Nationalism is a relatively recent invention. In 1750, vast multinational empires—Austrian, British, Chinese, French, Ottoman, Russian, and Spanish—governed most of the world. But then came the American Revolution, in 1775, and the French Revolution, in 1789. The doctrine of nationalism—rule in the name of a nationally defined people—spread gradually across the globe. Over the next two centuries, empire after empire dissolved into a series of nation-states. In 1900, roughly 35 percent of the globe’s surface was governed by nation-states; by 1950, it was already 70 percent. Today, only half a dozen dynastic kingdoms and theocracies remain.
Where did nationalism come from, and why did it prove so popular? Its roots reach back to early modern Europe. European politics in this period—roughly, the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries—was characterized by intense warfare between increasingly centralized, bureaucratic states. By the end of the eighteenth century, these states had largely displaced other institutions (such as churches) as the main providers of public goods within their territory, and they had eliminated or co-opted competing centers of power, such as the independent nobility. The centralization of power, moreover, promoted the spread of a common language within each state, at least among the literate, and provided a shared focus for the emerging civil society organizations that were then becoming preoccupied with matters of state.
Europe’s competitive and war-prone multistate system drove rulers to extract ever more taxes from their populations and to expand the role of commoners in the military. This, in turn, gave commoners leverage to demand from their rulers increased political participation, equality before the law, and better provision of public goods. In the end, a new compact emerged: that rulers should govern in the population’s interests, and that as long as they did so, the ruled owed them political loyalty, soldiers, and taxes. Nationalism at once reflected and justified this new compact. It held that the rulers and the ruled both belonged to the same nation and thus shared a common historical origin and future political destiny. Political elites would look after the interests of the common people rather than those of their dynasty.
Why was this new model of statehood so attractive? Early nation-states—France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States—quickly became more powerful than the old dynastic kingdoms and empires. Nationalism allowed rulers to raise more taxes from the ruled and to count on their political loyalty. Perhaps most important, nation-states proved able to defeat empires on the battlefield. Universal military conscription—invented by the revolutionary government of France—enabled nation-states to recruit massive armies whose soldiers were motivated to fight for their fatherland. From 1816 to 2001, nation-states won somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of their wars with empires or dynastic states.
As the nation-states of western Europe and the United States came to dominate the international system, ambitious elites around the world sought to match the West’s economic and military power by emulating its nationalist political model. Perhaps the most famous example is Japan, where in 1868, a group of young Japanese noblemen overthrew the feudal aristocracy, centralized power under the emperor, and embarked on an ambitious program to transform Japan into a modern, industrialized nation-state—a development known as the Meiji Restoration. Only one generation later, Japan was able to challenge Western military power in East Asia.
Nationalism did not spread only because of its appeal to ambitious political elites, however. It was also attractive for the common people, because the nation-state offered a better exchange relationship with the government than any previous model of statehood had. Instead of graduated rights based on social status, nationalism promised the equality of all citizens before the law. Instead of restricting political leadership to the nobility, it opened up political careers to talented commoners. Instead of leaving the provision of public goods to guilds, villages, and religious institutions, nationalism brought the power of the modern state to bear in promoting the common good. And instead of perpetuating elite contempt for the uncultured plebs, nationalism elevated the status of the common people by making them the new source of sovereignty and by moving popular culture to the center of the symbolic universe.
With few exceptions, we are all nationalists today.
THE BENEFITS OF NATIONALISM
In countries where the nationalist compact between the rulers and the ruled was realized, the population came to identify with the idea of the nation as an extended family whose members owed one another loyalty and support. Where rulers held up their end of the bargain, that is, citizens embraced a nationalist vision of the world. This laid the foundation for a host of other positive developments.
One of these was democracy, which flourished where national identity was able to supersede other identities, such as those centered on religious, ethnic, or tribal communities. Nationalism provided the answer to the classic boundary question of democracy: Who are the people in whose name the government should rule? By limiting the franchise to members of the nation and excluding foreigners from voting, democracy and nationalism entered an enduring marriage.
At the same time as nationalism established a new hierarchy of rights between members (citizens) and nonmembers (foreigners), it tended to promote equality within the nation itself. Because nationalist ideology holds that the people represent a united body without differences of status, it reinforced the Enlightenment ideal that all citizens should be equal in the eyes of the law. Nationalism, in other words, entered into a symbiotic relationship with the principle of equality. In Europe, in particular, the shift from dynastic rule to the nation-state often went hand in hand with a transition to a representative form of government and the rule of law. These early democracies initially restricted full legal and voting rights to male property owners, but over time, those rights were extended to all citizens of the nation—in the United States, first to poor white men, then to white women and people of color.
Nationalism also helped establish modern welfare states. A sense of mutual obligation and shared political destiny popularized the idea that members of the nation—even perfect strangers—should support one another in times of hardship. The first modern welfare state was created in Germany during the late nineteenth century at the behest of the conservative chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who saw it as a way to ensure the working class’ loyalty to the German nation rather than the international proletariat. The majority of Europe’s welfare states, however, were established after periods of nationalist fervor, mostly after World War II in response to calls for national solidarity in the wake of shared suffering and sacrifice.
BLOODY BANNERS
Yet as any student of history knows, nationalism also has a dark side. Loyalty to the nation can lead to the demonization of others, whether foreigners or allegedly disloyal domestic minorities. Globally, the rise of nationalism has increased the frequency of war: over the last two centuries, the foundation of the first nationalist organization in a country has been associated with an increase in the yearly probability of that country experiencing a full-scale war, from an average of 1.1 percent to an average of 2.5 percent.
About one-third of all contemporary states were born in a nationalist war of independence against imperial armies. The birth of new nation-states has also been accompanied by some of history’s most violent episodes of ethnic cleansing, generally of minorities that were considered disloyal to the nation or suspected of collaborating with its enemies. During the two Balkan wars preceding World War I, newly independent Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia divided up the European parts of the Ottoman Empire among themselves, expelling millions of Muslims across the new border into the rest of the empire. Then, during World War I, the Ottoman government engaged in massive killings of Armenian civilians. During World War II, Hitler’s vilification of the Jews—whom he blamed for the rise of Bolshevism, which he saw as a threat to his plans for a German empire in eastern Europe—eventually led to the Holocaust. After the end of that war, millions of German civilians were expelled from the newly re-created Czechoslovakian and Polish states. And in 1947, massive numbers of Hindus and Muslims were killed in communal violence when India and Pakistan became independent states.
Ethnic cleansing is perhaps the most egregious form of nationalist violence, but it is relatively rare. More frequent are civil wars, fought either by nationalist minorities who wish to break away from an existing state or between ethnic groups competing to dominate a newly independent state. Since 1945, 31 countries have experienced secessionist violence and 28 have seen armed struggles over the ethnic composition of the national government.
INCLUSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE
Although nationalism has a propensity for violence, that violence is unevenly distributed. Many countries have remained peaceful after their transition to a nation-state. Understanding why requires focusing on how governing coalitions emerge and how the boundaries of the nation are drawn. In some countries, majorities and minorities are represented in the highest levels of the national government from the outset. Switzerland, for instance, integrated French-, German-, and Italian-speaking groups into an enduring power-sharing arrangement that no one has ever questioned since the modern state was founded, in 1848. Correspondingly, Swiss nationalist discourse portrays all three linguistic groups as equally worthy members of the national family. There has never been a movement by the French- or the Italian-speaking Swiss minority to secede from the state.
In other countries, however, the state was captured by the elites of a particular ethnic group, who then proceeded to shut other groups out of political power. This raises the specter not just of ethnic cleansing pursued by paranoid state elites but also of secessionism or civil war launched by the excluded groups themselves, who feel that the state lacks legitimacy because it violates the nationalist principle of self-rule. Contemporary Syria offers an extreme example of this scenario: the presidency, the cabinet, the army, the secret service, and the higher levels of the bureaucracy are all dominated by Alawites, who make up just 12 percent of the country’s population. It should come as no surprise that many members of Syria’s Sunni Arab majority have been willing to fight a long and bloody civil war against what they regard as alien rule.
Whether the configuration of power in a specific country developed in a more inclusive or exclusive direction is a matter of history, stretching back before the rise of the modern nation-state. Inclusive ruling coalitions—and a correspondingly encompassing nationalism—have tended to arise in countries with a long history of centralized, bureaucratic statehood. Today, such states are better able to provide their citizens with public goods. This makes them more attractive as alliance partners for ordinary citizens, who shift their political loyalty away from ethnic, religious, and tribal leaders and toward the state, allowing for the emergence of more diverse political alliances. A long history of centralized statehood also fosters the adoption of a common language, which again makes it easier to build political alliances across ethnic divides. Finally, in countries where civil society developed relatively early (as it did in Switzerland), multiethnic alliances for promoting shared interests have been more likely to emerge, eventually leading to multiethnic ruling elites and more encompassing national identities.
BUILDING A BETTER NATIONALISM
Unfortunately, these deep historical roots mean that it is difficult, especially for outsiders, to promote inclusive ruling coalitions in countries that lack the conditions for their emergence, as is the case in many parts of the developing world. Western governments and international institutions, such as the World Bank, can help establish these conditions by pursuing long-term policies that increase governments’ capacity to provide public goods, encourage the flourishing of civil society organizations, and promote linguistic integration. But such policies should strengthen states, not undermine them or seek to perform their functions. Direct foreign help can reduce, rather than foster, the legitimacy of national governments. Analysis of surveys conducted by the Asia Foundation in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2015 shows that Afghans had a more positive view of Taliban violence after foreigners sponsored public goods projects in their districts.
In the United States and many other old democracies, the problem of fostering inclusive ruling coalitions and national identities is different. Sections of the white working classes in these countries abandoned center-left parties after those parties began to embrace immigration and free trade. The white working classes also resent their cultural marginalization by liberal elites, who champion diversity while presenting whites, heterosexuals, and men as the enemies of progress. The white working classes find populist nationalism attractive because it promises to prioritize their interests, shield them from competition from immigrants or lower-paid workers abroad, and restore their central and dignified place in the national culture. Populists didn’t have to invent the idea that the state should care primarily for core members of the nation; it has always been deeply embedded in the institutional fabric of the nation-state, ready to be activated once its potential audience grew large enough.
Overcoming these citizens’ alienation and resentment will require both cultural and economic solutions. Western governments should develop public goods projects that benefit people of all colors, regions, and class backgrounds, thereby avoiding the toxic perception of ethnic or political favoritism. Reassuring working-class, economically marginalized populations that they, too, can count on the solidarity of their more affluent and competitive fellow citizens might go a long way toward reducing the appeal of resentment-driven, anti-immigrant populism. This should go hand in hand with a new form of inclusive nationalism. In the United States, liberals such as the intellectual historian Mark Lilla and moderate conservatives such as the political scientist Francis Fukuyama have recently suggested how such a national narrative might be constructed: by embracing both majorities and minorities, emphasizing their shared interests rather than pitting white men against a coalition of minorities, as is done today by progressives and populist nationalists alike.
In both the developed and the developing world, nationalism is here to stay. There is currently no other principle on which to base the international state system. (Universalistic cosmopolitanism, for instance, has little purchase outside the philosophy departments of Western universities.) And it is unclear if transnational institutions such as the European Union will ever be able to assume the core functions of national governments, including welfare and defense, which would allow them to gain popular legitimacy.
The challenge for both old and new nation-states is to renew the national contract between the rulers and the ruled by building—or rebuilding—inclusive coalitions that tie the two together. Benign forms of popular nationalism follow from political inclusion. They cannot be imposed by ideological policing from above, nor by attempting to educate citizens about what they should regard as their true interests. In order to promote better forms of nationalism, leaders will have to become better nationalists, and learn to look out for the interests of all their people.
0 notes
warsofasoiaf · 7 years
Note
So, about medieval warfare and magic. You said you had a lot to say about integrating magic to a medieval worlds and militaries.
Yes, I do. It’s one of the more irritating things I see in traditional high fantasy.  The people of the world don’t take into account the magic that exists in their world. If magic can be learned, it will become a part of the power structure of the world, finding uses in everything from war to statecraft to even the smallest aspects of life. When medieval armies act in the same fashion as their historical counterparts, without incorporating the differences, it’s a huge red flag that the worldbuilding was not done to my satisfaction, and, even if I elect to continue reading, I’m going to spend all my time picking out the logical errors and complaining rather than enjoying the novel.
So, with that being said, how can a writer include magic into their world in a wholly organic fashion? This requires thinking long and hard about what magic is in your universe, how it works (and how it doesn’t), what it can do, and how common it is. I’ll preface this by saying that these are simply my opinions and things I find appealing in a good setting. You may not like them, and you may even think the things I’m complaining about are things that you enjoy. That’s fine.
Anyway, let’s go examine what we need to do, and provide some examples, so your worlds can be as seamless as possible.
What Can Magic Do?
This is an important consideration, and should be one of the first things you consider when adding magic to your world. What can magic do in your world? If it can do a great deal, it will almost certainly be a part of the world. Can it heal soil? Farming communities would want that. Can it discern hidden knowledge? Rulers would absolutely employ scryers and interrogators to ferret out knowledge. Can you call down fire from the sky? That’s artillery right there, and that means that any military leader will invest in mages.
Additionally, there also needs to be consideration on the limitations of magic. Is there something magic can’t do in your world? You’d better believe that wizarding groups would try to keep that as secret as possible, while conversely, those who oppose wizards in any fashion (which will inevitably mean any who aren’t a wizarding group themselves) will attempt to find out what the limitations are of magic. What do wizards need to do to cast a spell? How long does it take? How precise can they be?
Then you have to think of the relative power level compared to non-magical people. If magic is clearly beyond the capability of normal men, then you’d better believe the wizards are in charge. Depending on the society you have, this could be an incredibly stratified arcanocracy, where non-magical people are literally considered lesser beings. If bloodlines carry magical talent, you’d have an aristocracy backed by magical force, and likely societal constructs and religion based around the righteousness of magic to rule. This, in turn, creates a large subservient class all its own, and presupposes a certain class struggle between the rulers and ruled, and the ones who believe in their mandate versus those who do not.
Keep in mind that side effects could be just as important as the actual magic itself. Magic might warp perception or cause mutations, and that’s going to bring no small amount of fear to a population.
If not everyone has magic, you need to be cognizant of how the non-wizards see wizards, and this falls into serious setting info. Fear and distrust are natural reactions to someone with potentially unknown powers, so if magic is largely unknown to the common folk, expect suspicion and hostility, even bigotry, and wildly exaggerated tales about what wizards can do. This will tie into how common magic is, explained below. Remember that people will strive to understand magic and how it fits into a rational universe, this includes science and religion. Expect magic to crop up in both and rationalizations for what is and not acceptable conduct will permeate (and vary between) all societies.
The possibilities and limitations mean that every facet of magic and its employment, as it exists in your world, needs to be considered with the larger movements of empires and nations with the smaller aspects of daily life. If it is a presence in your world, make it feel like it. Stress the presence that you are building in the actions both large and small of your society.
How Common Is Magic/How Does Someone Learn Magic?
This is big. This determines how many people are wizards, and thus determines the presence of magic in a more global sense. Does it require natural ability that cannot be predicted? Societies would devise tests and scour the realm for those showing prospective talent? Is it based through bloodlines? Magic would become bloodlines, breeding would be affairs of intense research, and you’d have a lot of the people on the outs resenting those with the power. Can anyone learn it? You’d have academies and social mobility at the cost of incredibly high taxation to fund them and probably a rather cutthroat system of advancement.
Then think of how many people are actually capable of becoming wizards? If it’s a relatively high percentage, you’d have specialization and integration into almost all facets of life, as wizards are a common resource that would be undoubtedly be used in technological development (unless magic is so much faster and so common that everywhere can use it, even then, engineering into redundancy is critical). If the percentage is very low, wizards are rare, used only in the most important aspects and probably reserved for high matters. Protection of rulers, state security, winning wars, that sort of thing. Such a nation would probably keep a hefty leash on their wizards. This may not be a heavy-handed authoritarian stance, it could very easily be a privileged caste given luxuries in exchange for service.
Note that potential wizardry pool is different from an actual wizardry pool. The actual amount might be much lower due to circumstances within your world itself. Did a magical catastrophe recently devastate the wizard population? Was their an anti-mage rebellion? These things can create an artificial wizard shortage, and that has it’s own considerations, for the use of magic in the short-term and the health of the wizard population in the long-term.
Examples of Medieval Military Magic
Now, I understand what people might be thinking. “You complain an awful lot,” and you’re absolutely right, I complain a lot about an awful lot of things. The natural corollary is: “Can you help provide a solution?” and that, I do believe, I can help with. So, let’s see how we can integrate magic into a medieval army.
Classic elemental wizardry, fireballs and lightning bolts, can be used as artillery toward formations of packed units. Using these sorts of spells against an army relies on determining how precise the wizard casting can pinpoint their spells, their radius, and how long the spell takes to cast. Spells which are imprecise can be used against large units, but can’t be used when actual combat is engaged, and this forms classical field artillery. A single person is much more mobile than a heavy cannon and crew,, so you would expect battlemages like this to bring about the artillery age early. Depending on the rate of fire and the amount of “ammunition,” so to speak, shapes the tactics of the battle. If there’s only a few shots before the wizard is spent, wizards would hit big formations for maximum effect and then retire. You would start to see the anti-artillery tactics of the field artillery era start to evolve to the fore, and mages would ID other mages as priority-one targets, and you might see scouts and ambushers specializing in killing mages before battles begin to establish magical supremacy. More precise spellcrafting can be used to support a charge, to help make a gap, or to hit charging cavalry as to break up a charge that could split friendly lines.
More generalized, less precise elemental magic could also be used to hamper the enemy. Early frosts hurt pillaging, magical rain can turn the ground into a muddy morass that slows down a column on the march, heat parches an enemy and exhausts their supply, fogs slow an enemy or can even march them the wrong way (or possibly invoke friendly fire).
The effects of elemental magic can’t be ignored. Fireballs will probably ignite dry grass or wooden buildings (or more, depending on how hot and how long the fire stays). Fire attacks are a component of war and have been for a long time, and magic makes them (probably) easier to employ.
Magic geared toward learning things would attempt to divine enemy plans, troop composition and location. Magical interrogators would form a key part of any state’s enforcement arm, and if there is anything that could be used to obscure any sort of magical scrying, such things would be made as abundant as possible to heads of state, key generals, and critical elements of a maneuver. If there is a particular metal that makes you immune to scrying, anticipate jewelry with it, some people might even grind it and eat it with food in an attempt to make themselves immune.
If you have any sort of compulsion or enchantment magic (which to be honest, scares me so much more than any other type of magic), such magic would form a cornerstone of a society for better and worse. Nothing is more powerful to a monarch than controlling the thoughts and behavior of a person (hence why Thought Police are so tempting), so defense against this is critical. In a military context, these types of magics could force someone to make deliberately poor placement and positioning (though unless you can control the vast number of the people, someone is going to notice before anyone gets into formation). If this sort of power is within your magician’s reach, expect rampant hostility from anyone who can be suborned.
Illusions are very powerful on a battlefield, as they can cause tactical and strategic mistakes that comes from pursuing false information. Military deception becomes much easier with believable illusion magic, and even unrealistic images have tactical implications for their ability to create panic and hurt the morale of the fighting men.
Even simple magic can be devastatingly effective. Sure, you can use tunneling magic or flight to circumvent an obstacle and attack from an unexpected direction (our people can breathe water so we’re crossing this lake and attacking you in the rear), but even something as simple as making a kit lighter makes an army faster, as could a work spell to help make fieldworks faster. Conjuring food from nothing obviously has huge implications for a military on the march (and a society in general, said wizards would make a medieval society non-agricultural), but even something as simple as a spell to ward off insects has tremendous effect (imagine if Valyrian slavers could cast magic to ward off the Naathi butterflies), and a simple snap of the fingers to clean and wash clothes has tremendous impact. Hence, if you’re making magic common, be prepared to do a lot of worldbuilding.
If magic requires special supplies, expect areas where that supply can be found or farmed to be areas of significant strategic interest for any world power. An entire campaign can be fought around access to a special geomantic ley line that allows wizards to cast more powerfully, with fortresses and static defenses guarding said areas. This determines national objectives and the size and shape of territorial gains and ambitions, which makes a macro-element of your setting feel more realistic. 
Countering magic will have its own strategic and tactical uses on a battlefield. If mages need to see targets, you can bet ambushers and skirmishers will target mages first, and camouflage (magical or mundane) will be a big element of any anti-mage toolkit. You could have entire forces specializing in mage-hunting, with prepared tactical stratagems, specialized weapons, and an in-depth knowledge of any and all wizarding weaknesses to secure their objectively quickly and reliably. A general might use multiple false orders to fool enemy diviners, or loose arrow volleys into suspected illusions to see how they react. Military science is a neverending struggle of how to develop a new weapon, counter it, counter that, and so on, and magic would simply be a part of it.
In regards to side effects, I’ll use an example from my own fantasy setting. One of the primary characters is a wizard who suffers from altered perception. She specializes in creating sensory input to create fear, but she also has false sensory input of things that frighten her, and she knows that she cannot trust everything she sees and hears. Hence, her chapters have a tense, frightful feeling where the character (and vicariously, the reader) do not know what is real and fake, and what small background elements are hints of something larger. It gives me the chance to play with the ideas of the perception of danger, of tragic misunderstandings, and so on.
These are just some of things you can do to make magic feel like part of your world. I focused on the military side because I’m a huge military nerd and that’s where i notice a lot of people failing, but everything from societies to dealing with illness and injuries to a small flame conjured on the thumb to keep warm will be in the color of your society.
Thanks for the question, Overlord. If anyone has any more specific questions, ask and I’ll see about providing an answer.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
997 notes · View notes
angelicyoung-19 · 7 years
Text
Prompt A: How has our conception of “the city” changed throughout history?
There is so much about the modern city that has changed. When we look at how our cities have changed in the last 50 years, we cannot escape the conclusion that our physical surroundings must have had a part to play in this decline. Post-war buildings and planning are the product of the failed modernist ideal that transformed most aspects of twentieth-century life, from politics to painting, and that gave rise to our urban social ills and to urban ugliness. In architecture, modernism—the cult of abstract rationality and change for its own sake—has given us sterility and inhumanity instead of its promised progress and liberation. Utopian ambitions and professional arrogance have left our cities with decay and dereliction, the perfect breeding ground for the alienation and brutality that have undermined community life.
Some of us look to the cities we admire from the past for a solution. In traditional cities like Siena in Italy or Bath in England we can see something that is not only beautiful but alive and humane, the very qualities that modernism seems to have destroyed. One can't help feeling we could make our cities more life-enhancing if we were to build them like these traditional cities. Out of this impulse, a revival of traditional architecture and city planning has grown up; it is flourishing from Portland, Oregon, to Paternoster Square in London, from Brussels in Belgium to Seaside, Florida.
We call the places that have inspired this movement traditional, but, other than the simple fact of being old, how do we define a traditional city? I must confess that I do not know.
But the question is do any of us know really know? We talk about tradition and cities as if we all knew what these things were, and we make comparisons with the past on the assumption that we really can do something similar today. But what hope do we have if we are not even talking the same language?
The word "city" is derived from the Latin for citizen and originally meant a community of citizens. It does not mean that now. Any comparison we make with classical antiquity must also acknowledge huge differences in size. The average population of a pre-Hellenic Greek city would be a little over 5,000. A large provincial Roman city would have a population of 10,000 to 20,000. Not much changed in terms of size until the Industrial Revolution. Most medieval cities had fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Even major Italian Renaissance cities rarely exceeded 50.000. Today, London counts 8 million inhabitants, Chicago contains nearly 3 million people, Paris 2.5 million, and even a small Italian city such as Perugia has a population of 120,000.
These differences in size make for very different dynamics of city life. So, too, do differences in social and political organization. Democracy in Greek city-states or Italian communes was unlike modern democracy and was a fragile flower easily and often crushed. Throughout the history of the city, it was much more common to be subject to oligarchic or tyrannical rule.
Equally  crucial to an understanding of the city is its economic base. Very early cities were fortified villages where people engaged in agriculture outside the walls. This did not last for long. Since antiquity, the city has been a consumer of goods produced in the countryside. It supported itself on trade or conquest. A city was a place where wealth free from the pressures of sufficiency could be enjoyed. Outside the city there was brute existence, the wilderness, the struggle for survival and danger; inside the city there was order, safety, wealth, and the leisure to pursue the finer things of life. This urban ideal may have been the lot only of some citizens, but it embodies the essential ideas that made the city a civilized place.
This ideal of civilization, however, is at odds with the modern concept of the city. The modern city is the wilderness, the urban jungle. The inner city is a dangerous place where brute existence is dominated by the struggle for survival. Anyone with sufficient wealth leaves the public city for a private place where there is safety, order, and the enjoyment of leisure.
In so many ways, the modern city is not the city of the pre-industrial past. The population, the social structure, the political organization, the economy, access to and from the city, and even the concept of the city is quite different. Above all, the citizen is a radically different creature. Modern aspirations and the understanding of citizenship have little similarity with any period in the past.
If all this does not define what a traditional city is, it certainly defines what a modern city is not. It is not an ancient Greek, medieval, or Renaissance city. We may wish to make it more like one of these, like part of one of these, or an amalgam of these types of cities, but to do that we must understand who will live in it and how they will live.
What has happened to all these people who no longer live in our city centers? They live in the suburbs.
As with the word "city," we have to be careful with the word "suburb," which originally referred to the place "suburbs"—below, under the power of, or just outside the city. As the population of cities has exploded in the last two centuries, and ever more people have spilled out into suburbs, "suburb" has come to mean a quite separate environment with its own way of life.
In fact, it can mean different things in different countries. In southern Europe, where denser patterns of living are acceptable, suburbs tend to be recently built, unregulated areas, no less dense than city centers. Often it is the suburb that is undesirable and dangerous and the city center that is desirable.
In northern Europe—and particularly in Britain—and in the United States, Canada, and other countries sharing an Anglo-Saxon inheritance, suburbs are quite specifically low-density areas of individual dwellings, each with its own lot. They cover large areas and sometimes, but not always, are a dormitory area for a city. In the Anglo-Saxon and
American world, unlike parts of southern Europe, it is the suburb that is usually desirable and safe and the city center that is undesirable and unsafe.
In southern Europe, suburbs often have arisen solely through population pressure. In the Anglo-Saxon world, they developed with the spread of railway travel and then of the motorcar, and were enthusiastically adopted.
The Anglo-Saxon suburb grew out of a very clear set of ideals. It began in England, where the social pattern of urban life is unlike that of most other European countries. The ruling aristocracy never really took to city living, and as a consequence English culture to this day is defined more by the country than by the town. The idea that to have your own house in the country is the best of all worlds is the Anglo-Saxon suburb's founding principle. Improved transport, the uncontrolled migration of rural workers into city slums in the Industrial Revolution (which affected Britain long before anywhere else), and the rapid increases in population and wealth that went with it, drew more and more people into the Industrial Age's version of the countryside—the suburb.
In the United States, the founding fathers (Hamilton excepted) inherited the English view of the countryside. When this ideal was added to the New World enthusiasm for the wilderness, the tradition of pioneering isolation, and the cult of the individual—and as the population grew unfettered by loyalty to historic towns-living in a suburban way seemed irresistible. In Britain and the United States, whole towns—Muncie, Indiana, for example, or Letchworth in Herefordshire—now conform to the suburbian model.
In one sense, both the Anglo-Saxon and the American suburbs have been a great success. Each household has its own lot where the individual or family can reign supreme, untroubled by the antisocial acts of others. The suburb answers one of the great social imperatives of the last two centuries—the increasing demand for privacy.
This demand for privacy can be traced through individual house design, mass housing design, and law. It extends from the detached house to the individual child's bedroom and to the proliferation of bathrooms. It has been enhanced by the private motor vehicle, the telephone, the television, and now the personal computer. In Britain it is being extended into laws on domestic noise and garden fires, and in California (always ahead) to smoking and even personal fragrance.
If we are to build cities today in the United States or in Britain, and if it is to be more than a minority exercise, we will have to design for the citizen who is now suburban or at least yearns for suburban amenities—for the citizen who will demand a level of privacy and will possess the technological means of isolation unknown to any citizen in history. We can no longer build on the classical ideal of the subordination of the citizen to the community. Suburban values are middle-class values, where the family and the individual take priority.
So building traditional cities, traditional modern cities, we have an interesting dilemma. We would not do this unless we thought it was a good thing. We must think that the city can be a desirable place, and yet the popular Anglo-Saxon and American concept of the city contains much that is undesirable. We can only think that the city is desirable because we have an ideal that differs from 112 the way that modern cities have developed. If the ideal is traditional and so necessarily historical, we know that in many respects it will not fit with present realities.
If it is our desire to reconcile the ideal of the traditional or historical city with the realities of modern life, we must realize that we will not be re-creating the past but creating something new. In doing so, we must first look beyond any superficial resemblance to the essential and desirable characteristics of the historical city that are missing from the modern city and then seek a mechanism for their introduction into a modern context.
Source: The Social Order, Tradition and The Modern City. Robert Adam 1995
Furthermore Many cities grew in a process called urbanization which is the process of making an area more urban. Many people have left the life they had of poverty and economic vagary in the countryside and moved to “the city” for the promises of jobs and more opportunities. However, the cities were not prepared for the sudden arrivals of many new people which means that were overcrowding housing in addition to primitive sanitation, which cause the city to be the sites of major public health epidemics. the 1793 yellow fever outbreak killed 5,000 people in Philadelphia. In 1849, St. Louis lost 1/10 of its population to cholera. Four years later, yellow fever killed 11,000 in New Orleans. 
One concept that Americans had 50 to 60 years ago about the city does still somewhat stand to this day and that’s the city is still better in many way. Most people tend to move out to the city such as New York City in search of better jobs, more opportunities, more freedom etc, especially if they tend to come from a small town.
1/17/2017
7 notes · View notes