#that the earth woman tries to fit into an existing framework | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

brown-skinned-gal · 9 months

Text

Rat Girl Summer

A few days ago at work I told my supervisors about the slowly growing cultural phenomenon that is sure to take over the lives of all sad nicotine addicted girls who haunt their local dusty liberal bookstores looking for love–Rat girl summer. Now, being that I live in a small town with an agricultural university living and breathing at its center it’s only a sad consequence of a sick and deeply rooted curse that the only reactions I received were dead eyes, smirks laced with ignorance, and humorless unrelenting deadpan questioning. Upon realizing that I was the only one in this fucked town that gave a shit about the cultural relevance of my generation I quickly resigned to internally rolling my eyes and explaining in layman terms what it meant to embody the essence of Rat Girl Summer. The more I tried to explain the cultural phenomena to the uninterested, the more I began reflecting internally on what it meant to me personally and to be honest I realized that there is a rawness to it. A resigned acceptance of one's own femininity and how it fits into the larger capitalistic framework of the world, while at the same time realizing that to be a woman is to be a god.

When I think about Rat Girl Essence, I’m reminded of the word Cunt and how its etymology contains origins from the Indian Goddess Kunti–mother of Karna, and Pandavas–who is said to be a goddess of fertility and wisdom. I think about the Tiktok where it quotes Frida Kahlo who says: “I don't give a shit what the world thinks. I was born a bitch, I was born a painter, I was born fucked. But I was happy in my own way. You did not understand what I am. I am love. I am pleasure, I am essence, I am an idiot, I am an alcoholic, I am tenacious. I am; simply I am ... You are a shit.” And isn’t it true to the nature of Rat Girls to be reminded that to be a woman is to to be fucked, to be love, to nurture and forgive with grace but to also be angry, to be crazy and insane, to be a billowing force blowing in the faces of those who dare to question our existence. To be a woman is to embody the breadth of the word CUNT in every way. And it’s once a rat girl transcends to this level of understanding and acceptance that there exists a sense of distilled and resigned peace. A nirvana of neverending ecstasy because we have unlocked the secret to it all. To be a woman is to be God. And in that same depth of emotion lives a sadness. And I think at the root of this sadness festers an overall energy of dismay and discouragement that has been plaguing the mental state of generation Z for years. Could it be the growing inhabitability of our Earth due to global warming and climate change? Or possibly the ever growing pressure of the boots of congress on the necks of the American People? Or maybe it’s just the endless inundation of information (good and bad, Helpful and useless) via media that has played a role in growing attitudes of nihilism and pessimism that seem to be adopted again, by those around me. Nevertheless, we can all agree that now more than ever people are sad, and lonely, and feeling hopeless. And if we can learn anything from how culture plays a part in the human experience, it’s that what is hot is a direct reflection of what is happening in the world that is producing it. So what really is Rat Girl Summer? What does it mean? To me, If Rat Girl Summer was a hot new cereal hitting the shelves of your local EREWHON, the ingredients would read: Intellectualization of everyday decisions, Compassion and pity for the male specimen, resigned acceptance of one's role in the world, along with a deep undercurrent of practicing empathy and compassion. But it’s also so much more. So much broader. What does Rat Girl Summer mean to you?

#Rat girl summer #Feminism #feminist literature #philosophy #Rat Girl #femcel #divine feminine #goddess worship #goddess

1 note · View note

lady-elora · 3 years

Text

"It was love", or five reasons and five refutations of hatred for sylki

So, folks, I did it. I finally translated from Russian an amazing article about the romantic line in “Loki”. I agree with every word in it. Hope it’ll help all the sylki shipers to fend off the attacks of antis with a reasoned arguments.

Would you like to talk about our god Odin the most controversial Marvel franchise pairing which caused a storm of indignation and negative emotions on the part of fans?

We're talking about Loki/Sylvie from "Loki" (2021) mini-series, or sylki (lovie) as they were called by fans. Apparently a simple get-pairing consisting of a man and a woman (or bisexual gender fluids, if you prefer), but some people were shocked by such a relationship on the screen. Why? What for? How? That may be your questions. So we’ll discuss their claims and groundlessness of them in this article.

But before we start talking about it, I want to clarify what actually the concept of the "selfcest" is.

Usually we marked as a "selfcest" those works that describe the relationship of a character with himself. Most often, this warning implies a "doubling" of the character; alternatively – the same character is taken at different ages or falls for his/her absolutely identical copies.

Agreed?

Let's go then.

< < < 1 > > >

The first and main thing which follows from the definition above is: "Showing the selfcest on the screen is disgusting and immoral!"

It also follows from the definition above that the selfcest is the relationship of the same character with himself in the form of identical copies both in character and appearance. The highest form of narcissism, according to Mobius (which, in fact, is to some extent true). Horrors from a snuffbox, according to some impressionable audience. It hardly makes sense to rant about the fact that masturbation is also a form of selfcest (although the fact is rather amusing).

The bottom line is that if Loki once again created a copy of himself to deceive someone and fell in love with it, it would be a selfcest. Splitting himself into two people and building a relationship between them is a selfcest as well. Turning into a hermaphrodite and ... no, this is something completely perverted.

The basis of the selfcest is absolute identity. If we take a character who is so in love with him/herself that he/she sees relationships only with him/herself, then in such a case he/she can only build them with a perfect scanned copy of him/herself. It will be very easy for the person who knows him/herself inside and out to notice some inconsistencies in a partner, and then it makes no sense to build a relationship if he/she is not as perfect (as the "original" is), isn’t it? That’s how this logic works.

And now attention, please!

Is the romance of two Elvis Presley understudies a selfcest?

They look almost the same, both like Elvis... But no, right? These two people are different people, with different tempers and lives, who are similar only in appearance and pseudonyms. So this is a very ordinary relationship.

Now let's get back to our sheep. So we have two people from different worlds, with different stories, different tempers, different powers and different external signs who were born under the same name and later lived their lives with different ones. The only thing that is identical in them is the essence of the God of Mischief. So where is the ground for an egoistic selfcest? Nowhere.

Don't forget about identity. We can say that they are very similar, since initially they are both Lokis. But do you wanna say it's so hard to meet similar people in real life? No. Do you wanna say it's hard to meet similar people in two similar universes? No. I'll tell you a secret: writers often like to use the trope of intertwining almost identical tempers between characters to show their mental connection. And it's not a crime, but a common technique. And, again, a "similarity" doesn't fall under the criteria of selfcest.

And finally, if Sylvie were an exact copy of Loki, would there be people who love one but can't stand the other? It's the same character after all, so what's the problem? But the point is that Loki is Loki. And Sylvie is Sylvie. They exist separately from each other and are not the same due to the presence of distinctive features.

If you want to use Kang's words, remember that he admired these two.

< < < 2 > > >

The second and no less amusing is "Loki doesn't need a love interest at all!"

I'm sorry, but which Loki?

The one who appeared in all the films of the series "Thor" and "The Avengers"?

He's dead, guys.

And Loki from the series is a character torn out from the finale of the first "Avengers" and revamped by TVA with the help of an impromptu session of psychologist Mobius and viewing on-screen all of his promising deeds. This Loki was told head-on that he was created as a minor character in order to plot his machinations for the development of the protagonists and he was unnecessary to the whole world. This Loki has an advantage over the previously known version of himself just in knowing this fact. This Loki has recognized for everyone and for himself that he didn't want to harm the others. And this Loki, by definition, is already a different character, but for some reason people tailor him to a long-familiar one, ignoring the obvious things point-blank.

He is no stranger to simple human feelings, because every version of the God of Mischief is initially an offended and despised child grown up in the shadow of his own brother, a child who just wanted to be loved too and in the same way. Only the paths to this under-goal were different for all Lokis. One killed Thor in order to remain the only ruler (people always adore kings), another invented unthinkable feats (people love heroes), the third built a perfect world out of promises for everyone, the fourth tried to become a hero himself, but was too crushed to find mistakes in his plan, the fifth excluded himself from the equation so that everyone understood he didn't want to harm the others and to cause the pain.

Loki from the series is a version that knows everything about himself, but at the same time is not bound by the framework of the other variants' plot. He doesn't need to win back Asgard, to fight with Thanos, with the Avengers, with contempt and so on. He is free from borders. He is from the world where Frigga never died. He is the only Loki without the "glorious purpose". He is different.

So his attitude to other people is now different as well. It's stupid to perceive this version exactly as a long-known character.

After all he had seen, this Loki would hardly be able to live alone like any other. He is extremely naked and needs love (in any form), as the most reliable and not bringing destruction and suffering point of support.

< < < 3 > > >

The third and my favorite thing is: "Love in five minutes! Why did it come out at all?"

Why did Loki fall for Sylvie, and even in a couple of days?

OK, you can quite easily explain Sylvie's motivation: she found a person who had interest for her, who suddenly cared about her, protected her... Could he be an unworthy party in such a case? Moreover, before that, Sylvie, in principle, had no close people and she internally really lacked such an attitude to herself, banal love (parents, people, friends, romantic), which she hadn’t due to the lack of normal childhood and a stable life.

But Loki?..

But Loki is not a vain killing machine from The Avengers anymore, not a person for whom the self-affirmation is the only goal in life. Let's rewind a little, and remember that he was brainwashed in TVA and lowered from heaven to earth. Loki was always reasonable. Loki could always be courteous and friendly. Loki was always a gentleman. And finally he realized that there's no sense in all this aggression and hyperbolized narcissism, and he pushed his one-actor theater aside in order to at least normally rethink the concept of time and reality.

And here comes Sylvie.

Unpredictable, dangerous, painfully similar to him, but at the same time completely different. Loki never had good intentions in his conquests; only the ways were sometimes good. Sylvie went to the good liberation of people and the return of their right to choose their lives, but through blood. In fact, she is his mirror image.

She intrigued. A wild person who swung at the destruction of the time control organization alone and coped well with it.

However, the countdown started from the moment when they both got on the train. The moment when Loki began to understand what the real essence of Sylvie was. Grown up in fear, distrustful, broken Sylvie, who was desperately trying to make TVA pay for everything. For everyone. And it was amazing for him.

Here, as for me, the Moffat's quote about his BBC Sherlock fits very well: ..when he saw her, he thought: "Maybe there can be someone like me?" – but with a slight nuance that Loki himself would like to be someone like that. Like a fighter in spite of and for the good, causing admiration. With some corrections in the form of the absence of a painful childhood, despair and anger.

Then the spring of "Loki's MeUs" begins to unwind, and the essence of it is that he understands her and her feelings, because, although they are different people, they are internally similar. Loki looks at her as if she is a person he has known for a very long time, but not completely. It's like if you met an old childhood friend seven years later: it seems to be the same, but also it seems to be different. It seems that everything is elementary, but there's not enough of a certain number of details.

(He'll realize later that he was missing much more).

So we take the initial interest, add the conditional knowledge of a person, and we get a very specific variation of the trope "from friends to lovers".

This may seem far-fetched, but we have two factors on our hands that are fundamental for this trope. Keep them in your head, but for now, let's applaud the fact that Marvel for the first time figured out how to derive formulas for the logical development of relationships in the shortest possible time. In what way? In the most elementary way: through psychology.

There's such a thing as the stages of the formation of relationships, which includes:

- Falling in love (interest, flirting, rethinking)

- Trust (challenge, joint activity, mutual assistance)

- A sense of kinship (empathy, responsibility, confidence)

- A sense of unity

- Love

In our case, only the first three points are considered, but the third one is with a chip in the form of a final. I should also focus attention on the fact we are not considering love. We are considering a serious crush, which can develop into love, since the latter one is a slightly longer process that still has to go through to the end. And we consider them in extreme (+accelerated by our two fundamental factors) conditions, where our heroes are forced to work together and trust each other in order to survive.

After reviewing the aspects of the three points we have chosen, we can easily draw analogies with the events that happened with Loki and Sylvie.

They are interested in each other, they think that they know each other, they develop in relationships with each other in a completely healthy way. A little faster than in the series for a hundred episodes maybe, but it is conditioned.

Needless to say, this is impossible and illogical: we have the clearest example of love from nowhere in the form of a couple of Scott Lang and Hope Van Dyne, who had absolutely no prerequisites to it, but at the same time kissed at the end of the first film. Nothing personal, it's just a fact.

The relations of our "defendants" aren't based on carnal attraction, they didn't immediately break out ready-made due to a rush of adrenaline, they are not one-sided and not abusive. Loki and Sylvie carry about each other, support each other (if it doesn't seem so, then we'll also talk about Sylvie a little later, everything in its own time), plus sympathy and love based on the fact that a person is ready to fight with you and trust you, sounds very appropriate, doesn't it?

And yes, there are similar examples of "love in five minutes" in life, which I've also seen. This is real.

< < < 4 > > >

The fourth thing which also makes me roll my eyes is "Sylvie didn't need relationships at all and she didn't care about Loki."

So let's make a small lyrical digression and think about who Sylvie is.

The Goddess of Mischief? Yep, but far from Loki, which means there's no sense to adjust her to the same classic image. As a child, Sylvie was dragged out of her own world. As a child, Sylvie fled across the time with fear and horror from TVA. Sylvie hid all her conscious life and saw people dying around her over and over again. Sylvie knew that outside of the apocalypses millions are simply dying from the hands of TVA too. She was alone all the time, during all her life she developed anger and hatred for this organization, until revenge for herself and for others became the only meaning of her life.

And here comes Loki.

Another version of the God of Mischief, which forces her to rebuild the plan on the go, in order to still bring it to the end. Frivolous, broken, stucked up Loki. He lazily, automatically puts sticks in her wheels. And then, on Lamentis, he suddenly decides to fight with her and help. After that, he completely trusts her with his life and cares about her own. And it seems to her like some kind of nonsense, like another trick, an invention for personal gain. Sylvie understands the essence of Loki, but she can't perceive him the way he perceives her. She sees in him what she could have become without the intervention of TVA.

But after that rush through the city, after realizing the hopelessness of the situation, when he says he is sorry and he thinks she is amazing, something clicks in her head. No one has ever cared about her (in this regard, she is not like Loki, who had at least Frigga), and now Loki, who knows her only from the archives and her meager life-story, who dragged her into the apocalypse, but also tried his best to help her to get out, just says that he is fascinated.

Sylvie grew up with her own concept of truth and lies: for her, there's only her truth and the eternal deception from the others. And then she thinks: may it be that..?

The thoughts that no one on the entire Timeline needs her, and that she should have recognized the lie, are marinating in her head to the end. Loki is not like the people she has spent her whole life with (he looks more like her, understands more or tries to understand at least; he believes), Loki behaves strangely and worries about her. Sylvie can't believe it (her past affects her completely), but subconsciously she wants someone to really care about her.

And she starts taking care of Loki in return. She comes closer and closer, but at the same time she is ready to turn around and rush back at any moment. Because she's scared. Sophia Di Martino says that for Sylvie, feelings are something new, unknown, and such things always cause fear in people. She tries to deny it, to be ironic, she's waiting for a trick, but doesn't move away.

She's just thinking: "Come on. Betray me. Betray me so that I'll be right again and trust no one anymore."

But Loki doesn't betray her. On the contrary: he recognizes that he cares of her, he tries to protect her with all his might. And that's the moment when Sylvie finally falls in love. That's why she pushes him through the portal to TVA which – the Multiverse is being formed, yay – is the safest place at the time.

Why didn't she give up on killing Kang? Because that was her glorious purpose. Sylvie lived with the revenge and the dream of saving everyone from the dictator and she just couldn't give up all this after the horrors that she experienced in her life. Blood, death and fear – that's what she saw during all these years. But Loki didn't see that so he couldn't understand. That's why Sylvie didn't listen to him.

And if she didn't care about Loki, if she didn't feel anything at all, Sylvie would have killed him the moment her sword was at his neck. She'd killed before – it wouldn't be a problem. But she does care of Loki.

< < < 5 > > >

The fifth and final thing is "These relationships hinder the development of both characters!"

And that's the funniest claim from those who watched the series with their eyes closed.

During the series, Sylvie and Loki are revealed from new sides thanks to their feelings. Caring for others, compassion, responsibility, the very fact of showing love for another person – all this develops them both. The friendship was shown through Mobius. The family has always been represented by Thor, Odin and Frigga. But showrunners wanted to reveal Loki from all sides, decompose him into components and show what he is from the inside in all aspects. And they did it.

Loki, who doesn't care about the fate of the Universe, and who only wants to regain world domination again, turns into a hero who wants to save the whole world. And one more person.

With Sylvie, it's a little more difficult, due to the fact that her life was also more difficult. Her case is more lost. However, in the end we see that such a long-awaited retribution doesn't bring her satisfaction. Because she understands the wrongness of this act, she regrets it and realizes that everything was wrong. But she realizes it too late.

If we had cut Loki out of her life, Sylvie would have killed the Keeper without any guilt, without feeling remorse, because she wouldn't have known that everything could be different, that she might choose another way.

This is what is called character development.

Sophia says both Loki and Sylvie feel the same, they grow together, but at different rates. And by the end of the series, Sylvie is approximately where Loki was after a psychotherapy session with Mobius. But not at the very beginning – that's what's important.

I hope this article has at least a little explained the whole essence of sylki pairing, because surely I'm not Tom and Sophia, who know their characters best. However, trying is something, isn't it?

Thanks for attention ;)

Source: «Это была любовь», или пять причин и пять опровержений ненависти к Sylki

#loki #sylvie #loki x sylvie #loki series #sylki #lovie #lovedaggers #fandom analytics #translation from russian

63 notes · View notes

doomonfilm · 3 years

Text

Review : Chaos Walking (2021)

It seems that two types of films emerged from the depths created for the entertainment industry by COVID-19. The first were the films too big to release in the midst of a pandemic : movies like Black Widow, A Quiet Place II and No Time To Die already had promotional campaigns in place prior to theaters and studios grinding to a halt. The second type of film, however, were the notorious properties studios had wrapped production on but were afraid to pull the trigger on. Previously, I covered one of these films in the form of The Woman in the Window, and I found that not knowing about the film’s rocky path towards release helped me enjoy it on its own merits. This is what built my fascination for Chaos Walking, a film that took nearly a decade to release and another couple to see the light of day.

youtube

There are some good ideas going on in this film. For starters, the premise of the noise is definitely one that works in narrative form, but with the old adage of film being “show, don’t tell”, translating this concept to a visual medium is already an uphill battle. There is quite a bit of inconsistency in how this device is used… not so much from person to person, as it is explained numerous times that some men are better at hiding their noise than others (a nod to how well some men swallow their trauma rather than address it), but mostly in the portrayal of Todd, our protagonist, who is prone to fits of random explicit language in his normal processing, but completely silent in a life or death fight, where I feel the noise would be savagely overwhelming and distracting. The noise works the best as a tool for examining the patriarchal framework, be it David Prentiss and his fatherhood figurehead status backed with ideals, Todd and his toxic disillusionment in regards to what makes a man, or perhaps most tragically, in the form of Aaron, a supposed man of faith filled with a rage caused by his maniacal obsession with the possible demonic origins of his noise. Maybe the analogy is a bit heavy-handed, especially when held in comparison to the women, whose silence seems to imply either a devious nature or a lesser prowess in terms of whatever symbol of thought the noise portrays, but with the film acting as a hopeful entry point for a supposed trilogy, one can hope and/or assume that this dynamic would be flipped in terms of examination eventually.

Where the film really falters, however, is in the number of elements it tries to hang importance upon, as the imbalance comes off as distractions in the bigger picture. Perhaps the biggest of these unnecessary elements is the entire idea of the new planet and the unfulfilled threat that is the Spackle. Like some sort of antagonist straw man, the Spackle are presented as a genocidal threat, positioned as a possible moral dilemma via their existence at the same time a hint of their ability to be a threat is shown, but in the end, they have such little impact on the story that the film may as well take place on a post-apocalyptic Earth. If anything, having Viola arrive via a spacecraft is redundant, like bringing sand to a beach (even if she is a woman)... perhaps she could have been a humanoid alien, or an alien mimicking humans, especially in light of the fact that isolated colonies with completely different political and social structures exist in this world. The number of conflicts that exist in the film work for a long form story, but come off as a bit convoluted, with Todd’s mother and father’s past, the dark history of Prentisstown, the inherent conflict from the community of Farbranch and even the Spackle all deserving more time and focus in a non-shared capacity. The community of Prentisstown was also a bit too populated for a community full of men, and would have been better served to be David Prentiss, his son, a handful of faithful followers and Todd, the reluctant adopted son of someone surviving on the outskirts of the community.

The special effect meant to symbolize the noise worked very well all things considered, thought the logic of people being able to project multiple objects that will physically impede another individual is a bit far-reaching, especially when the average visual is a small multi-colored haze. For small-scale action, the sequences do add a boost of energy into the somewhat monotonous story arc, with the overarching narrative really only consisting of 2 or 3 significant beats. The special effects used to create the environments are able to simulate believable worlds that mirror aspects of Earth, but with an overrun or uncharted feel being the dominant environmental presence, mostly to a great effect. The tower set and the downed spaceship near the end of the film in particular serve as two very memorable locations in terms of their aesthetic quality and utility in terms of progressing the narrative. The worst part of the disarming production design for the Spackle was that it was underused. The writing is ok, with a few good ideas present, but it is 100% elevated by the cast.

Tom Holland has the troubled youth role on lock these days, with Chaos Walking continuing to show his range in terms of teenage angst, uncertainty and fear about supposed accepted illustrations of manhood. Daisy Ridley does find herself being used mostly in a modified “damsel in distress” capacity, leading to most of her important story beats serving as reactionary to Holland’s characterization of Todd... perhaps she was to have more to do in the following films, but likely, these films will not be made, leaving her character the most underdeveloped of the film. Mads Mikkelsen brings a heightened sense of dignity meant to mask a troubled and deeply regretful leader who has bought too far into his own lie to face the truth. Nick Jonas, though entertaining in his oafishness and bruteness, also falls a bit into the one-note category. David Oyelowo brings the most personal tension to the table of all the characters, with his faith working in tandem with his fear to tear his soul and psyche apart. Kurt Sutter and Demián Bichir play the adoptive fathers to the Todd character, with Bichir especially getting moments to shine in terms of showing parental unconditional love and compassion. Cynthia Erivo turns in a brief but powerful performance as the antithesis to the Prentiss presentation of women, while Ray McKinnon, Bethany Anne Lind, Harrison Osterfield and others round out the remaining cast.

While Chaos Walking isn’t the disaster that the masses are chalking it up to be, it is a movie with obvious flaws that, unfortunately, will not likely get a chance to redeem itself via sequels. With a wealth of dystopian YA films already out on the market that have explored the complete spectrum of teenage issues, Chaos Walking doesn’t bring enough new to the table to stand out from the crowd, and if not for a stellar cast, it would likely be as forgettable in theory as it is mocked in reality. Seeing that I went into the viewing expecting bad, I can say that I actually enjoyed my watch, but I couldn’t honestly tell you if or when I would revisit this film.

#ChiefDoomsday #DOOMonFILM #PatrickNess #ChristopherFord #ChaosWalking #TomHolland #DaisyRidley #MadsMikkelsen #DemiánBichir #CynthiaErivo #NickJonas #DavidOyelowo #KurtSutter #RayMcKinnon #BethanyAnneLind #HarrisonOsterfield

0 notes

script-a-world · 7 years

Note

I've been writing an Avatar (the 2009 Jame's Cameron one, aliens ya know?) fanfic recently that has quite a bit of world/culture building. My problem is that I'm sort of flying blind since I don't know much about tribal lifestyles. I've tried to look for some books on the subject but haven't been having much luck. This is a bit of a long shot but would you happen to know any good books (non-fiction preferably) that could give an insight into this sort of culture?

Sorry we took so long to get to this!

A couple of pylons gave good answers, so please take a look at them under the cut!

constablewrites:

The biggest thing probably hampering your research is that tribes are not a monolith, so "tribal culture" isn't going to yield much info. Narrowing it down to a particular tribe or Nation will yield much more relevant results.

I'm trying to do a bit of digging to see if there was a particular tribe that inspired the Na'vi, but I'm not coming up with much. It seems like Cameron pulled most of his details from generic Native American stereotypes rather than the practices of any individual culture. The only specific reference I've found so far is that the language was partially inspired by Maori.

It doesn't look like WWC has touched on the film directly, but here's a post from them on writing Native American characters: http://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/95592577327/can-you-please-explain-a-little-bit-more-abou

Bina:

First thing to consider-- this is a fanfic. Your fanfic! Once you've garnered all you can about Cameron's preset worldbuilding, you can embellish and extrapolate all you want so long as it connects well with the pre-existing canon (I'm assuming you want a solid handle on the canon worldbuilding, since your fic expands on the culture of the Na'vi).Think about this less as "writing for a tribal culture" and more "how do I fill in the rest of the puzzle that I was given in a way that's cohesive, logical, and is interesting to me?" The Na'vi's ideology and social structure are a really nice solid framework of "edge pieces" for you to start with Lucky for us, Cameron gave us a lot of those two things! Use them as a starting point and a reference for how realistically your additions fit with the canon world!

For example, the ideology. The Na'vi place a HUGE importance on coexisting peacefully and eventually merging with the world around them. When they kill an animal for food, they thank it. Upon death, the "spirit" is passed into a tiny piece of the world, a seed, to continue on as a part of nature. They even have those weird hair-connector... thingies that lets them form a psychic bond with animals for an even CLOSER connection to the world around them. And we can't forget about the pseudo-intelligence collective of Eywa that they worship.This sense of coexistance with and massive respect for nature should permeate any bit you add to their culture. It's been established that it's a part of who they are as a people! That's not to say you should focus entirely on their relationship with the world, but just know how important it is to them and how it shapes the decisions they make and their lifestyles.Now, the social structure. We see that there are two positions of importance in the main tribe (other tribes might possible have different setups). The chief, and the shaman-style woman. You can already throw in worldbuilding such as "the shaman position is always held by a woman, passed down by blood inheritance," or "the shaman chooses a successor from her tribe when she senses she is near death."

There are lots of other positions in the tribe open for filling in. They're pretty easy to come up with once you take into account the world that they're in. They have no technology beyond basic tools (spears, baskets, things that can be made with raw natural materials, paleolithic-level stuff). The world is rich and lush and full of life. They are omniverous. There are a /lot/ of them in one tribe alone. What might they need to sustain themselves in a place like that? Hunters? Gatherers? Warriors? Traders? Scouts for new territories? How does each 'job' see the others? Do they all respect each others' positions? Do the warriors look down on the gatherers? Or does everyone see the importance in ever role in the tribe? Is there a heirarchy or is everyone equal? Are there social benefits to being one thing over another?

When you're worldbuilding, flying blind is perfectly okay! Sometimes you never think to consider a topic until it pops up in your story and suddenly you need to think about it. You can't foresee or prepare for everything in advance. Sometimes things even change, because the story you want to write might conflict with facts or details you thought about prior, and you just really, REALLY want that one thing to happen so screw your previous worldbuilding plans! Whenever I'm adding new information to my worlds, I ask myself these questions, and I encourage you to do the same to make things easier, even when flying blind."Does this new tidbit /actively contradict/ existing facts?" If so, revise the tidbit, or change the things it contradicts to make it work."Do the implications of this tidbit clash with existing culture/ideologies/ideas?" This one's kind of abstract, so I'll give an example. Say I have a race of humble folk who care more for interpersonal relationships and taking care of each other than material wealth. Then I want to bring prosperity to their village, so I have them suddenly discover a ton of gold beneath their village! error they shouldn't care about the existence of gold beneath their feet because of their life values, and wouldn't do anything with that wealth even if they did find it. Of course, they could see the use of having money and use the gold to pay for new shoes for every child or something like that, or maybe one person goes on a selfish streak and betrays the rest of his village by selling them out. Forcing the concept can make for interesting scenarios! But be conscious of the ramifications of anything new you introduce. Sometimes it just doesn't work out and can make the reader go "huh? but I thought that..."

Finally, (and this is part of the fun of worldbuilding, at least for me) what are the /implications/ of the tidbit itself? If you think of a cool new idea and realize just how much it impacts other things, and also the implications of the idea, you can go on a huge, explosive worldbuilding streak. That's happened to me tons of times, where something as simple as "magic only works during the full moon" jumps to "the highest number of crimes must also happen around that time, by opportunistic mages" and then "do people offer insurance that's active during those days to prey on the paranoid?" and "how paranoid DO normal people get during the full moon? Are mages locked up prior to the full moon by their friends and families 'for their own safety?' do mages find this unfair? ARE THERE MAGE RIGHTS PROTESTS? How does the public feel about that? Does the government do anything about it? Who does the gov't favor more?" etc etc etc. Embrace those moments! Taking a moment to think about the impact and implications a new chunk of worldbuilding has on your world can explode into a wonderfully productive time for your fic/story/universe.To actually answer your question I'll give you at least one link to something to read. It's a wikipedia article on the Paleolithic era, particularly human social structure during that time. The level of technological advancement of the Na'vi is about equivalent to that era on Earth, so it should give you a rough idea of what to start thinking about. Being wikipedia, it's a fairly dry and dense read, so my apologies about that...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Social_organization

#culture #technology #religion #ecosystem #species #language #tciddaemina

32 notes · View notes

truthandlove · 5 years

Text

Babylon and Judgment

Sharing my take on things:There is all this "Babylon falls in a single hour" talk for the past couple of years, but really spiking now into 2019, and for good reasons. Just know this: Babylon is not just one thing. It is a CORE RELIANCE on that which is physical, not God, but a state/government power to provide for and fulfill your life. It is a DENIAL of your true being as a multi-dimensional being made for relationship the the Creator.

Its trying to live AS IF man can live by bread along and not by every word that proceeds from the Mouth of Father God. That is the mindset of Babylon. There is a case to be made that the USA is Babylon. I lean towards it being the "daughter of Babylon." There is a case to be made that the Vatican is Babylon, but it does not fit all the Biblical criteria. Maybe Rome and the religion of Rome is the Woman that rides the Beast of Babylon. I think that is more likely. Also apostate Jerusalem is a candidate for Babylon as it is on 7 literal hills and central to world politics/economy. Also Mecca/Islam is a candidate for babylon as it is on literal 7 hills, but it is not the center of world trade.

And then the Bible talks about "Mystery Babylon"? The form of Babylon that is mysterious - hidden, covert. Babylon is more than 1 thing. We (understandably in our humanity) try to pin Babylon down in very tangible geopolitical ways. Babylon is that which runs world trade and the economy. The USA is central to all that, presently, to be sure. So I'm encouraging you to stay LISTENING to God for deeper understanding and fine tuned guidance / discernment.

The KEY that makes Babylon judged it is Godlessness, its MURDERING the people of God (drunk with the blood of the saints...). Babylon is that which tries to have an amazing material abundant life of riches WITHOUT obeying, following or even caring about God. Babylon HATES God. Babylon is that which tries to be autonomous - self-governing and never in crisis because it has the money to handle any situation - or so it falsely imagines.

All this to say that those that are telling you that the USA is about to be "OVER" - finished, judged and destroyed. Listen up; I've heard all the perspectives: • The judgment of the USA is a process and we are already in that process.

• God is here to judge GODLESSNESS, the murder, the lawlessness, the raw evil. Direct/Overt/Extreme judgement does not come upon people because of sins like selfishness, as evil as that is and it will get you into hell, but it is not a reason for extreme judgement.

• So God's judgement is AIMED, is DIRECTED toward the EVIL that is allowed to flourish inside nations. Evil with money/banking. Evil with militaries. Evil with killing God's precious children of all/any ages. Evil with mocking God, with genetic abominations, with the ways of Noah's day.

• So, in modern parlance, the Judgement against Babylon comes most directly at those proud scoffers trying to play God, be self-sufficient and go against God's commands - commands like "everything must reproduce after its own kind."

So we see that the sins, the category and level of evil is for sexual extreme debauchery, inverting and blending masculine and feminine, not just adultery. I'm not saying that adultery is not an awful sin, it is, but so is outbursts of anger, so it lying. These sins, though fully sinful, don't DESTROY CREATION. They destroy lives and families, and sometime cultures, but NOT THE VERY FRAMEWORK upon which reality rests. They are thus in a different category of judgement than sins that provoke DIRECT INTERVENTION of the Most High to crush the practice.

Sins like genetic perversion and hybridization, undermining the blueprints of reality! GMO, transsexuals, Nephilim, all kinds of hybridization, etc.. those the posion the water, the air, the food, the genome, with chemicals and frequencies... Things that tear time and space (wormholes, CERN, occult teleportation, etc..)

God is after these ABOMINATIONS that ruin creation so that good can no longer exist. This is where God will DIRECTLY shut these offenses down! • To summarize: God's judgement is specifically targeted against the wicked, the magic of contacting other dimensions and the demonically-infested realms and RELYING ON THEIR GUIDANCE for life and future and solutions, instead of turning to the True Creator. Read Romans 1.

• Lastly: judgement is a process of purification. Of destroying that which destroys. Eventually every nation falls. But the USA is not going to be UTTERLY destroyed. it will not be TOTALLY destroyed. It will be crippled BECAUSE IT ALLOWED these evils to exist, to flourish, to go unchecked, to take over. It is one thing to have godlessness within a nation; it is another thing to let the godless SET ALL THE RULES AND POLICIES that govern the people!

No one ever died from A LITTLE CANCER; they died because the cancer reached a critical mass that set off other life-ending situations (organ failure, loss of appetite, to weak to fight off pneumonia, etc.). Likewise, evil that is allowed to TAKE THE HELM of a nation, plunging it into a dark, sexual free-fall, into satanism and witchcraft, into mass bloodshed, etc.. It is things like abortion that has reached a critical level that DIRECT INTERVENTION is not just called for, it is necessary for the larger life-situation on Earth.

God has PROTECTION FOR HIS OWN, even during times of judgement and great evil. Look at Elijah protected during the famine. Look at Daniel in the lions den in Babylon. Look at Israel being delivered from Egypt. Look at Noah putting into place the structures to preserve human life (and animals too) on the Ark during the flood. Look at Joseph putting into place the structure to preserve life (even Egyptian lives) during the 7-year famine. Remember God sending Jonah to Ninevah. They were godless, but they were speared. Why? God does not need to look for an excuse to judge/punish the wicked. God is looking for an excuse, a legitimate reason to SPARE humanity - even humans who don't know God. God wants to preserve life, as long as it is not hopelessly already corrupted, SO THAT it will have the opportunity to step back and look at the facts, and TURN TO GOD. God is the God of goodness and life, as well as justice and judgement. God wants His love and goodness to PREVAIL in our hearts and bring us back home to himself - to real life, to reality, to purpose, to wholeness, to peace, to... to life. Did I mention that he God of Life is ALL ABOUT life?

God must thus destroy that which hates life, and distorts creation so that it is no longer about life.

Lastly the USA, to repeat myself, is in a set of BIRTH PANGS. this is a process, a CASCADE of judgement, of increasing painfulness. I say this to counteract the people saying "everything is about to be over for good" and thinking this is God. No it isn't. The USA is about to get increasingly HARD SPANKING, but this is designed not to completely END the USA, (though it will end life as we formerly knew it, but not end all life itself).

The USA will be KNOCKED DOWN, but not KNOCKED OUT. Got it? There is a significant difference. And God is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about life and righteousness, EVEN IN THE MIDDLE of active judgement. Know where you are in the prophetic timeline, friends. Know your Father's heart, friends.

For it is by knowing your Father's heart that you can sort the panic from the reality, the fear from the prudence, the end of the whole book, from the end of a chapter. Get so intimate with the REAL, with the TRUE that you can be steady and referencing the RECORDED word of God in the Bible and the ONGOING word of God in your communion with Him, as to separate the true from the false in the minds of men, in the storm of the news, in the ups and downs of wars, politics, earthquakes, and so forth. Use all of this to... be about your Father's business... at all times.

0 notes