#(and then she NAMES herself FAITHFUL -- 'fidele') | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

veskscans · 1 year

Photo

Shin Megami Tensei II PlayStation manual art by Kazuma Kaneko and Megumi Shiraishi, 2001. Scanned at 800 DPI, 4898x4829.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kJiHHbLIkKuUhZGpi8au_0A-kDFxcnpO?usp=share_link

As already stated, this piece was drawn for SMT II’s PlayStation manual cover. It also predates the game’s release by a year, so it was probably done during the latter half of 2001. Onto the characters, this piece features bust-ups of Aleph, Beth, Hiroko, Gimmel, Daleth and Zayin. The brush used for them is quite thick, unlike the thin one used in this game’s individual character and demon artwork. Before anyone goes making Gorillaz comparisons, take note that this predates their Demon Days album by a whole four years, lol.

Since there isn’t any commentary for this piece, or anything interesting I can observe, I’ll be providing some general character and design information below. Take note that there’ll be some major spoilers for SMT II. All of the information is sourced from Kazuma Kaneko Works II and III, translated by myself, so apologies for any mistakes.

Aleph, meaning 'one' or 'bull' in Hebrew, is the amnesiac protagonist of SMT II. At the start of the game, he was the only warrior belonging to the Okamoto Gym, where he was given the name 'Hawk'. During training inside a virtual battle, he is given the demon summoning program by STEVEN.

After becoming champion of the colosseum, he is informed of his true name and purpose of being a messiah. He follows orders until he meets his creator, Dr Mekata, and learns that he is an artificial human created by the Centre. He then begins to follow his own path.

Aleph is actually very young, probably 8ish, but appears older. He is well-liked by women, possibly due to their innate maternal instincts, and is very attractive overall. However, the only person in Aleph's heart is Hiroko. Notice the pretty significant COMP redesigns for the PS release. Aleph had a unique, goggled one in his SFC design, whereas Daleth had more of an SMT I one. Now they both have these visor ones.

Beth, meaning 'two' or 'house' in Hebrew, is one of SMT II's main characters. She is a female Temple Knight belonging to the Centre and was artificially created as Aleph's ideal partner. She wears white and blue, colours symbolic of Messianic faith, and is adorned with cross symbols. After Aleph is recognised as the true Messiah, she devotes herself to him and stands by his side with full support, but inevitably loses her life while shielding him from Daleth. Her actions go beyond the scope of command and were done purely out of love for Aleph. Her soul can later be found in the Chesed area of the Demon World.

Beth's design is very similar to the Heroine from the first game, whom Beth is in fact a reincarnation of. Her death is what causes the SMT I Hero statue to weep.

Gimmel, meaning 'three' or 'camel' in Hebrew, is one of the main characters of SMT II. He is the most intelligent of the humans created in the Messiah Project, a trait which is reflected in his design. Both his lyre and laurel headpiece are inspired by Apollo, Greek god of poetry and art. Gimmel is the administrator of Arcadia, a virtual city in cyberspace that was modelled after the Millennium Kingdom. There he is worshipped as a saviour, but in reality, his actual appearance is a stark contrast to that of Gimmel’s perfect virtual body.

Daleth, meaning 'four' or 'door' in Hebrew, is one of the main characters and antagonists of SMT II. He was created as a counterpart to the Messiah, Aleph, and fights him for the title of true Messiah. However, during battle, he accidentally kills Beth, who defended Aleph at the cost of her own life. The 'door' meaning of his name represents an ordeal through which Aleph must pass. Fleeing after his defeat, he meets the fairy Hanoun, who falls in love with him. Daleth also falls in love with her, after being afflicted with the Fidelity Sap. He then abandons his desire for vengeance and lives with Hanoun.

The way Kaneko Works describes it, neither Aleph nor Daleth were strictly destined to be Messiah, but they both had the potential. That is to say, it’s not as if there is a strictly true or false side between Daleth and Aleph’s battle. As such, Daleth's design draws heavily from the Hero's design from the first game, and as Daleth and Aleph are counterparts, they too are similar in design.

Zayin, meaning 'seven' or 'weapon' in Hebrew, is a law-abiding man and the final prototype of the Messiah Project. He is powerful Temple Knight and proudly displays a cross on his chest, under which he is wrapped in a sarashi (bleached cloth). He is characterized by his eyes, which show the strength of his will, and by his angular, long face and hair. He carries out his orders of monitoring Aleph, but begins to doubt the methods of the Center. After being defeated by Aleph, he acts on his convictions and exposes the atrocities of the Center while freeing citizens from concentration camps. However, he later turns himself in after the Center threatens the lives of innocent civilians. Later on in the game, he fuses with Seth to become Satan.

It might be a little confusing as to why the names jump from ‘four’ (Daleth) to ‘seven’ (Zayin), but there’s a few possible explanations. Firstly, God created the world in seven days, so seven is often seen a symbol of completeness. Zayin is the final and most complete prototype of the Messiah Project, so that could be why he was given seven. Secondly, five and six may have been left out because they are are heh and vav, as in Yod Heh Vav Heh, YHVH (thanks to Kid Capes for pointing this out to me). Finally, and most simply, Heh and Vav would suck as names, so ATLUS staff could have skipped over them since Zayin is (objectively) way cooler.

Last one. Hiroko is one of the major characters SMT II. Unlike the other characters, she was not born from the Messiah Project, so her name doesn’t come from the Hebrew alphabet. She does take part in the project, however, and is an elite Temple Knight and daughter of one of the project's leaders, Dr Mekata. She is forced to undergo artificial insemination and becomes the surrogate mother of Aleph, but her memories were wiped once her fertilised egg was removed. She begins to remember her child and eventually comes to meet Aleph, not realising who he is until she reunites with her father, Mekata, and he tells them the truth. Hiroko is the only character to stick by Aleph's side until the very end, no matter which ending you choose. Hiroko's position, design and strong character suggest the image of Lilith, Adam's first wife. The whip wrapped around her body is likely symbolic of a serpent.

P.S., all of the character art was seemingly drawn down to the waist, but cut off much higher for the final piece. Here’s a scan from the SMT II Official Perfect Guide.

#megaten #megamitensei #megami tensei #smt #kazuma kaneko #atlus

145 notes · View notes

littledigest · 2 years

Text

Asteroids for Truth, Trust, and Lies - Truthfulness, Deception, Withholding Information

What makes a trustworthy or untrustworthy person? Use these asteroids to understand the following in your chart:

How truthful and honest you or someone else is

How strong your morals are, what are your morals

How frequently do you lie, what kind of lies

Do others keep lying to you, keeping things from you

Severity of lies (little white lies or BIG lies)

Urge to cheat others out of money

Others cheating you out of money

Guilt when lying

Lying for fun or lying to gain something

Seen as a liar; not being believed

Revealing very little information

Misleading information, intentional or not

249521, 490, 245, 37, 902, 26955, 8690, 4425, 259, 12927, 4862, 114, 53, 896

Truth 249521

Means being true and in accordance with fact or reality

Veritas 490

Means truth and reality in Latin; personification of the goddess of truth

Vera 245

Means true in Latin or faith in Slavic languages

Fides 37

Named after Fides, the Roman goddess of trust and good faith

Fidelity, honor, credibility, reliability

Probitas 902

Means uprightness, honesty, and probity in Latin

Strong morals, decency

Lie 26955

Named after Sophus Lie, a Norwegian mathematician

Can be read as lie, meaning an intentional falsehood

Swindle 8690

Means using deception to take money or possessions away from someone

Fraudulent scheme, swindle someone

Bilk 4425

Named after Bilk, a city district in Düsseldorf, Germany

Can be read as bilk, meaning deceitfully obtaining or withholding money from someone

To cheat, defraud, evade, and elude

Pinocchio 12927

Named after Pinocchio, a character in The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi

A living marionette whose nose grows when he lies

If prominent, can indicate someone who is not good at lying; it always shows in their face and mannerisms

Loke 4862

Named after Loki, the trickster Norse deity

Known for playing pranks on other gods and being a shape-shifter

Neither good nor evil; just wanted to create chaos

Kassandra 114

Named after Cassandra, a Trojan priestess in Greek mythology

Apollo cursed her to give true prophecies that no one would believe

Forever frustrated; seen as a liar and madwoman by others; was locked away by her father

Especially when prominent, shows where others doubt you, where you doubt yourself

Kalypso 53

Named after Calypso, a reclusive nymph in Greek mythology

Name means she who conceals and concealing the knowledge; to cover, conceal, or hide

She tries to keep Odysseus on her island to make him her husband; he refuses, and she helps him with all the provisions necessary to leave, which takes seven years; she kills herself

Sphinx 896

Named after the sphinx, a mythical creature with a human head, a lion's body, and a falcon's wings in Greek and Egyptian mythology

Kills and eats those who cannot solve her riddles

If prominent, shows confusing personality, way of speaking/acting

Aletheia 259

Named after Aletheia, the Greek goddess of truth

Unconcealment, disclosure, revealing, state of not being hidden

Where you are transparent and bare all

170 notes · View notes

mysterycharacterflowers · 5 months

Text

Round 1; A bouquet of poppy, zygopetalum, echeveria, dandelion, yucca, twinspur , lotus, tagetes, ursinia, purple hyacinth and hibiscus Vs A bouquet of amaryllis, dicentra, red spider lily and white roses

If you know who they are, or are pretty sure of it, please don't tell until this poll has ended!

First, let's talk about the bouquet of poppy, zygopetalum, echeveria, dandelion, yucca, twinspur , lotus, tagetes, ursinia, purple hyacinth and hibiscus

Meaning and why these flowers were chosen: Poppy, for fertility, remembrance, strength, hope, resilience, sleep, and peace. When we meet her, she is stumbling through the wake of her trauma--including grief for both herself and her dead child— without any real goal of recovery, trying to cope through substance abuse, but over a long hard walk she gradually uncovers her inner strength Zygopetalum, for fertility and spiritual connection between people. Fertility is relevant because her pregnancy as a young teen overturned her life; spiritual connection, meanwhile, doesn’t apply in a soulmates way like would be typical for this flower, but instead as a moment of profound enlightenment that she experiences and later relates to someone who very nearly understands. Echeveria, for endurance. She’s been through a whole lot, curled up in a ball, got back up and kept going. Also because it’s one of a few plants called hens-and-chicks, and she was a mother. Dandelion, for determination, joy, and youthful thoughts. She’s just a teenager with big dreams, a love of stories, a history of tomfoolery, and a not irreparably broken soul. Yucca, for new opportunities, loyalty, and purity. She has to leave home to find hope; she is a good friend, or at least she’s trying very hard; and she’s certainly not ‘pure’ by her conservative quasi-Christian mother and culture’s standards, but whose fault is that and what does that mean anyway? Twinspur, for fidelity and friendship. She reconnects with an old friend and tries to accept who they are, their journey, and what they’ve done despite the rift in her since she last knew them; she also ends up befriending/befriended by someone she justly punched in the face before, so there’s that. I also chose this flower by its name because she’s a twin; that’s also complicated. Lotus, for spiritual growth and transcendence. She went looking for it, with her friend who was far more interested in it than she was at first, and she certainly found it even the transcendence suffered for it. Tagetes, for faith (and use in religious contexts), creativity, jealousy, and loss. Religious faith is very important to people in her life and was formative, in an abusive manner, to her in the childhood she’s only partly left; her mother clung to fundamentalist religion in a time that had seen a lot of change, and because of this shamed her all the more for her perceived transgressions against polite society. (After experiencing that, she wound up trying to combat religion-backed colonialism and generally being unwilling to let others be hurt with religion as the weapon like it was for her.) Creativity is a central part of her mind—she pranks, she explores, she lets herself become enveloped in possibly silly ideas and fascinations. Jealousy is something she has for those with more privilege getting into situations not unlike hers and getting away with it, and for those without her knack for getting into trouble (and thus getting, in this case, unjustly punished); in other words the jealousy is for her siblings. The loss part is probably clear by now—loss of her child, loss of faith of varying kinds, loss of social acceptance. Ursinia, for temptation and innocent love; she fell for a man not the least bit worth it. Purple hyacinth, for playfulness and regret; connected in this case since her playful, adventurous nature was a part of what she was shamed for, loosely speaking, when her pregnancy came to light and with the aftermath. In other words, she was too much to be considered a good girl to begin with. Hibiscus, for youth, first love (little good though it did her), and the shortness of life; she was a child giving birth to a child who didn’t survive.

Description: A young woman—eventually admirable, never despicable—with a bad reputation kept small, a self-sabotaging streak that can’t compete with the actual sabotage other people deal to her, and quite a lot of self-loathing her parents don’t care or know to help her process. Desperately needs to be told that what she went through wasn’t funny, actually, but doesn’t know that until it’s actually said. The daughter of a lawyer and a miserable housewife, and it shows. Wildly eccentric when she’s not forcing self-effacement; gets more philosophical as she goes, and unlearns the hatred she was taught for her supposedly sinful body. Once constructs an alter ego whose name is a crude joke, but completely accidentally on her part. Chaotic good

Check their post here

Now, let's talk about the bouquet of amaryllis, dicentra, red spider lily and white roses

Why these flowers were chosen: amaryliss flowers! big personality! and her dress is red. Dicentra. cause if she never tried to marry other character she wouldve lived, and with the dripping part looking like blood or water, she fell into the river. Red spider lily, Not only is it representive of death (and rebirth) anither BIG red flower also white roses because theyre extemely common wedding flowers, and she dies on her wedding. Description: She's an impulsive and vibrant woman who is constantly doing something. She's the type of person to get her entirely family kicked out of the club for being there, but sneak in anyway.

Check their post here

#round 1 #mysterious character 2: poppy - zygopetalum - echeveria - dandelion - yucca - twinspur - lotus - tagetes - ursinia - purple hyacinth +#mysterious characters 2: bouquet of amaryllis - dicentra - red spider lily - white roses #child death tw

7 notes · View notes

marvelfracturedrpg · 3 months

Text

TAKEN - BELLS

RACE – Vanir

POWER /ABILITY – Asgardian Physiology, Rune magic with healing and binding qualities

OCCUPATION – Goddess of fidelity and mourning

“ Love is indeed for childen, for most do not understand the strength it takes to truly love and protect.“

Once upon a time

Perfect child to Freya, her mother, Sigyn always tried to please her mother. She made no fuss when sent to the court of Asgard for her education , depsite knowing that she would be set up for an arranged marraige to one of Odin's sons. She adapted easily to the Asgardian court, and navigated society with skill and grace. During her time at court, she developed opinions that were molded by the world around her rather than her mother's words.

When she dared to speak her mind and stand up for herself, Freya sought to punish her. She secured a betrothal between Sigyn and a man named Theoric, a noble captain of the guard. In that time, Sigyn had gained the rather unwanted attention of Loki. Through her engagmenet Sigyn grew fond of Theoric, learning more of him and coming to find peace in the idea of their life together. It wasn't until after vows were exchanged that Loki revealed himself, having taken Theoric's place. Sigyn was silent amongst the outrage. To everyone's surprise, Sigyn agreed to honor her vows, she had spoken the words, as Loki had, and they were wed. In her steadfast, the decision to remain by Loki's side, Sigyn was named and became the Goddess of Fidelity.

While she had married a prince, and thus become a princess, Sigyn's decision had her family cutting her off completely, an outcome she wasn't entirely displeased with, even when she missed her sisters. Most people assumed she must have been lonely, and even perhaps unhappy, given who she found herself married to, but none knew the Loki that she did. She was happy and in love. She remained etirely faithful to her husband through all his comings and goings, helping him when she could. The pair had two children, sweet loving boys, and while Sigyn often was left alone in raising them, she made certain they knew of their father and that he most certainly lvoed them.

Sigyn was captured and used as a pawn to keep Loki in line and was one of the few to know of his charade as the Allfather. She was tried alongside Loki and Amora and sent away with her husband after, but not before witnessing the deaht of her two young sons. The loss of her sons placed another burden on Sigyn’s shoulders, now the Goddess of Fidelity and Mourning. Sigyn remained at Loki’s side, eventually reaching out to Thor to ask for him to help free his brother from the torment he’d been enduring. She did what she could to help Loki after, and has been living at the castle with her husband (as well as her stepson).

Panicked a little when he didn’t come home, but has been keeping an eye on him from a distance. She was working as a nurse in a hospital soon after they’d arrived, but ended up opening her own clinic where she could more easily treat people that might have been hesitant to visit a hospital.

#sigyn #all #af #t #tf

4 notes · View notes

chiimaera · 6 months

Text

SIGYN. lawful neutral.

norse myth, truth & other lies book series fc: charlize theron

dossier:

sigyn had always stuck out, even amongst the gods. she is not violent, she is not vengeful, and her life goal is not to die in ragnarok once it comes. her only idea and her single driving thought is the wellbeing of her family. in all her verses, she was a mortal first and because of this loyalty, she is granted immortality through divine blessing.

in mythology, loki kills baldr by rigging a game. the gods could not let this pass since baldr was extremely beloved among them. everyone who was part of this and connected to Loki in any way was punished. after killing lokis sons, loki was taken in a cave deep under the earth and chain using his own sons entrails. they put snake over his head so the snake could drip venom on his forehead and cause him immeasurable pain. ever faithful, sigyn remained at his side using a bowl to collect the venom that was dripping from the snake’s teeth.

From time to time, she had to leave his place to pour the content of the bowl. During that time, the venom would drip on Loki’s head. The poison was very powerful, and it made him tremble and scream in agony. Loki’s screaming and trembling are said to be the origin of earthquakes in the human world.

mythos canon does not have to apply to other muses unless desired

because of her sacrifices ( mythology and headcanons ), she became the goddess of fidelity, nurturing, and grieving. primarily, she was honored by women. if someone was praying to sigyn, they were usually in deep sadness or was heartbroken. also, people who lost their children paid respects to sigyn to keep them safe in the afterworld.

She would not be a God that you would pray for seeking justice but the god to whom you would pray to achieve inner peace. she was usually represented as either a young, innocent bride, a grieving mother, or a nurturing mother, and that were three main aspects regarding Sigyn’s personality. It depends on which Sigyn’s personality you pray to. If it is to the bride, the offering should be cake or some other sweet which should be made by the one making the offering. To the nurturing or grieving mother, one should offer fresh milk and bread.

personality:

she is stubborn and willful. she seeks law and order, follows rules and expects others to do the same. this can come off as naive and self righteous at times, putting expectations on others and being disappointed or sad when its not met. her ability to keep giving second chances is taxing and quixotic. as her name sake, she is a fighter and will stick up for herself and others—especially those she loves. she will fight tooth and nail even at a disadvantage. she is loyal to a fault, always wanting to make sure the people closest to her are taken care of even when they break her heart over and over.

she is hard working, intelligent and focused, tends to be more introverted. she dislikes cheats, liars and bullies and will tell people when she disapproves of their behavior. sadness comes easier to her than anger though she will refuse to cry in front of others if she can help it. when shes comfortable, she can be playful and sweet, letting her guard down enough to let herself breath outside her responsibilities.

verses:

main :: lightly based off the novel ‘truth & other lies’ series, sigyn was born to a mortal family on midguard. her mother died when she was young and her brother is a con man so she took over her fathers business at a local book shop and printing press. her father was diagnosed with brain cancer which leaves him bed ridden and hallucinating. she does her best to care for him when shes not working in the shop, fixing the machines and making sure projects are completed on time. her brother is known in bad circles for conning people out of money so she keeps bookies and loan sharks at bay as best she can. she is stubbornly unwilling to give up on her family no matter the strife

her undying and unyielding loyalty, even at the expense of her wellbeing, sparks a divine energy inside her. while it is acknowledged by odin and freya, they never approached the woman because she is mortal and could not live in asgard. without being introduced, her magical abilities are only brought out when in danger or high emotions, uncontrollable and unknowing to her.

main verse can be a period piece (1700-1800s) or modern

mythological & marvel :: when odin was gathering his allies, creating the pantheon, he found a one mortal who stood out among the many. despite her families struggle, the betrayal of those closest to her, she remained loyal to her blood and kept her promises even when she was heart broken and exhausted. through her untimely death, odin brought her amongst the Aesir gods as the goddess of fidelity, unable to let that light inside her die. optional to include marriage to loki and her sons.

this blog does not acknowledge the marvel comics for this character

#biography and verses #xxviii. character ;; sigyn #marvel rp #norse myth rp #loki rp

3 notes · View notes

lligkv · 1 year

Text

the admission of complicity; the extension of grace

Are there principled contrarians worth respecting? Ones who don't make a fetish of their contrarianism—make it into a compulsion in which they take special pleasure? Or is “principled contrarian” a contradiction in terms? If your tendency to buck the trend is at the point where people give it a label, you might already be making it a fetish.

I was thinking about this question as I read Jessa Crispin's book My Three Dads: Patriarchy on the Great Plains, an account of her return to her native Kansas to grapple with various ghosts there. Some of the ghosts are emotional or spiritual: memories of growing up the odd one out in an evangelical family shrouded in misogyny; the specter of a childhood teacher whose support of her interests and intelligence gave Crispin great comfort—and who later killed his entire family in a murder-suicide; the legacy of the patriarchy that Crispin feels drove both her teacher's and her family's behavior. And some of the ghosts are literal; the book opens with an account of her experience in a house with the ghost of a man named Charlie, who seems to both feel affection for her and want to control her. Ultimately, “contrarian” might be a bit strong to describe Crispin—but pieces of hers I've read, most notably on the heels of her book Why I Am Not a Feminist, gave me a sense she prides herself on a perceived willingness to say things no one else will say, and sometimes speaks as though she's the only one who's ever had a certain thought. Parts of this book did too.

Generally she writes from a place of radical individualism relative to a neoliberal culture that, while putatively individualist, often encourages conformity via all the means you’d expect: foreclosing more and more access to affordable housing, welfare, healthcare, and free time and thus all possibilities for life besides the possibility of eking out a living in an increasingly precarious market. She encourages the practice of eclectic, individual gnosticism over fidelity to organized religion, for instance, and the practice of a kind of cosmopolitanism that accepts a multiplicity of ways of living and being without collapsing into liberal bromides. Broadly, I can forgive the stance. The experience of being alive in a Western country now is basically the experience of being let down by every institution you know and cast adrift in a sea of bad-faith actors jockeying for your allegiance—and next to that, an urge to cultivate trust in yourself and in what you know to be true seems natural and necessary. But the voice Crispin assumes in elaborating her position is often so hectoring, aggressive, or snide.

Early on, as Crispin talks about the Rosenstrasse protests in Berlin in 1943—when a group of two hundred Aryan women staged a protest outside the building where their Jewish husbands were being held for the camps, demanding their return—she adds,

It's heartwarming, isn't it? To think of women putting their lives on the line to save the men they love. It's a good story, but I always want to interfere with a good story, get in its way, break its narrative spine.

In this case, the interference in the story is merited: Crispin notes how many men chose to divorce their Jewish wives rather than protest as the Rosenstrasse women did, and how few people protested on behalf of Jewish people who were not their spouses, not related to them by the mechanics of the family, which reflect darker, harsher realities of history and human nature we can’t afford to elide. But from the opening question, with the turn it forecasts and the way it judges sentiment that it assumes the reader will feel, to the way Crispin casts herself as the one who’ll break the story’s spine...

Reading so many passages like this one, I was reminded of a line from Andrea Long Chu’s review of Maggie Nelson’s book On Freedom—the idea of “position[ing] the subtlety of one's own views against the crudeness of those who do not share them.” It also reminded me of the parts of Sheila Heti’s Pure Colour that most rankled me, the ones on the “fixers” whom Heti alleges flatten reality’s complexities and thus obscure truth. Which makes me think there's a Gen X angle to all this too. And it makes me think, can we stop publishing these books in which white women of a certain age and artistic background tell us how to feel by hectoring us? Advertising how much better they are?

I don't mean to make that the sum total of my judgment of My Three Dads. It's an honest enough examination of a world in which I too live; many of the thoughts Crispin has are ones I've had, even the uncharitable ones. She has a gift for storytelling; her account of arriving in Lincoln, Kansas as a child, and getting to know Mr. Pianalto, the teacher who’ll later kill himself and his family, is riveting. There are many moments of interest, complexity, and beauty in the book.

I appreciated the distinctions that were made—say, between what Crispin calls community and society. The former, she argues, is premised simply on affiliation and implies or even requires homogeneity; the latter works on a shared sense of obligation toward others and responsibility for each other that serves to preserve room for difference. (Though she doesn’t say what creates this sense of obligation or keeps it going.) And I appreciated Crispin’s insight into why so many putatively liberatory communities, like Womantown, a separatist refuge for lesbians in 1980s Kansas City, come to fall victim to their own oppressions (in the case of Womantown, racism)—a desire on the parts of those who’ve been wounded for protection, the easiest means for which is to exert control—as well as the solution she proposes: that we all learn to gain the “internal organization” of true individuation; the ability to see and know our own selves clearly, to be able to acknowledge our own pain so we can learn to see ourselves and others as whole beings—and, crucially, acknowledge the pain of others. I also appreciated the discussion of the Dutch beguinage, which allowed women in twelfth-century Amsterdam to escape marriage while preserving the interdependent fabric of truly nurturing life—as opposed to the independence that Crispin has won through capitalist means now, which can be so isolating—and her subsequent argument about the potential for family and society both to be structures of care rather than mere setting for the performance of roles or the exchange of money.

I appreciate all these discussions because in them, Crispin is working toward elucidating something, not just advertising her own unique intelligence or insight.

It was also interesting to read Crispin’s discussion of John Brown and the way Kansans simplify his complicated legacy to better be able to sanitize their own conservatism in the present with an antislavery past. But the parallel drawn between Brown and Scott Roeder—the antiabortion activist who bombed the clinic of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009, killing him—as men who, being “disappointing” in ordinary life, as workers and fathers, used politics to compensate for that disappointment—feels perhaps too provocative. The two worked toward radically different aims; do those aims not matter? And the savage verdict Crispin delivers on all revolutionary violence feels like claiming moral superiority at the expense of a full spectrum of action. On principle I can agree that, as she puts it, “there should always be institutions that allow people to both see the evil of the system and their participation in it, and then they should be helped to take responsibility”—but anyone alive now or ever can see how rarely such institutions really emerge. I don’t mean to write as though this question is simple, or without stakes, or as though I have engaged or will engage with revolutionary violence in any way beyond the theoretical. But—if you're not willing to entertain the possibility of revolutionary violence against an oppressive system, what might you do to change it when it doesn’t respond to democratic means?

More valuable, to my mind, because it's more sensitively done, is Crispin’s discussion of the human damage that can be wrought by fanaticism, and the way that a violent liberatory cause that fails—as with the Provisional IRA’s attempt to see a free, united, socialist Ireland—renders the violence purposeless: “The act of killing no longer had its original meaning, and those deaths could no longer be disregarded as a terrible necessity. The ends didn't come, so they were stuck with the means, and not all of them could bear it.” That’s what I want discussed in considerations of revolutionary violence. A clear-eyed assessment of the arguments for it and the costs of it, knowing we live in a world where it's possible, that some cases of it may be justified in ways others are not, and that its undertaking has material and moral consequences.

I also appreciated Crispin’s discussion of the counterculture, whose loss she laments. It's a space of collectivity and experimentation—and it’s not necessarily meant to create something new and durable. Rather, it’s a place for people to land when they realize society is in many ways sick, and from there attempt to do new things—some of which are meant to be coopted; some of which are meant to fail.

Crispin goes on to argue today’s left has abandoned such space in favor of criticizing culture, rather than building it. It’s a hackneyed critique as she makes it—she never defines the wokeness she seems to rail against, nor talks about the neoliberal market and government as uniquely powerful agents for coopting what counterculture might try to make and withdrawing the material resources they might use to make it—but it’s not without its core of truth. Especially against her point that the right, broadly, moves to appease grievance—against neoliberalism, against consumerist culture, against the sense of enervation in society that results—in the assertion of social control through law and order, in the reassertion of Judeo-Christian morals as a source of meaning, and at the extreme, in allegiance to fundamentalist or White nationalist futures.

Finally, Crispin’s account of resolving her struggle with faith in gnosticism is also beautiful—particularly the endpoint she reaches, asserting that the seeking of truth is the point of life, rather than a means by which to get to the Protestant end of salvation, as she has been told since she was a child. At the start of the book, Crispin describes a love ritual she seeks from a witch she knows, Katelan, to break herself of a pattern of involvement with married men—one that she realizes comes from experience of an abusive relationship. (It’s one of the book's most electric insights: “Once you've been knocked around a bit, or screamed at and humiliated in public places, or stalked, or trapped in a car with someone who isn't sure whether he should be pointing the gun at himself or at you, the full attention of a man in love can seem too dangerous. Better to deflect it a bit, get another body in there to hide behind at times…”) The pair mix flowers and herbs, write on a piece of paper the kind of man Crispin wants, burn the paper and a little wedding candle of a couple in effigy, and summon the spirits; they look to the shapes that form in the wax to see what the relationship will be like. Later, as Crispin leaves Katelan’s home, a storm sprouts up; proof, she says, that the spirits heard them. “Four months later,” Crispin writes, “I was married.”

It sounds too simple or strange to work—and generally, Crispin expresses doubt about the occult as often as affinity for it. But in the end, she sides with the perspective that people can “move through symbol and metaphor to ritualize the natural world and our role within it and find a way to understand [their] own mortality,” and there is something beautiful in that.

When I went to that witch and asked for a ritual for love, it wasn't out of a belief that it would work. It's easy to disprove magic. I did it out of faith that there was something not inherently disgusting and unforgivable about myself, and that that part of myself might be loved.

Which is to say, the ritual is meant less to achieve a result than to consecrate this nascent sense of self Crispin feels emerging, or to incarnate it, to give it the strength it needs to manifest.

But again it's hard to miss how so many such lovely, courageous moments on Crispin’s part are dogged with harsh judgment of others. Right after the story of this beautiful ritual, and Crispin's account of her interest in Wicca and Tarot as a teenager, comes a passage in which Crispin viciously judges the witches on TikTok who, in 2020, gained minor notoriety online for an attempt to “hex” the moon:

The TikTok witches, it seems, decided to hex the moon. And the Twitter witches got upset, saying you can't hex the moon, there are consequences to that kind of impertinence. Some of the Twitter witches insisted they had, in their rituals, talked to Apollo, and now Apollo was pissed and wasn't going to do things for them. They didn't say what those things were, but it was probably along the lines of getting Justin Bieber tickets.

For some reason the whole thing sent me into a rage. “You did not talk to Apollo!” I wanted to yell. Who do these girls think they are, lighting candles in an Ohio basement, thinking the god of poetry is going to take their call? Thinking they won't face madness or torment while trying to find the language of the divine? Thinking the saints who wandered in the desert for years begging god to speak to them must just not have used the right crystal? You don't get to talk to god and then just go to your job at the mall.

It's all so spiritually thin, this generation of witches making demands without devotion, looking to the stars to tell them when things will get good for them rather than asking what they can offer of themselves...

To which I ask: why so harsh? Yes, the whole thing is a bit stupid; everything on TikTok is at least a little dumb. But the witches are effectively seeking for meaning, even if their expression of seeking feels goofy. And how much offering of herself was Crispin doing when she was young, anyway—a misfit in a conservative Kansas family, dying her hair black, hunting down books on Wicca and astrology, turning to paganism as part of a project of figuring out what she really believed, how powerful she really was?

In the end, what really distinguishes the kids on Tiktok from Crispin's own teenage self is a sense they're still subject to illusions she's broken free from. It's that radical individuality again—but deployed in the service of judgment of others, in a spirit that seems to contradict the generosity of the internally organized individual that Crispin elsewhere counsels us to cultivate. Let kids do the work of individuation, I say, however stupid it seems. As for those of the TikTok witches who aren’t children, well, I think love and not judgment is what helps spiritual thinness flesh out.

Late in the book, after she’s settled in Kansas City, Crispin sees an old church across the street that will soon be torn down for condos:

I imagine that when a developer looks at this building, they see lost profit. They see the structure transformed or replaced, filled with young professionals, maybe with a coworking space on the ground floor. I imagine that when a priest looks at the building, they see lost souls. They imagine it filled with the wayward sheep lost to a secular culture, the ghosts of the godless filling the pews. I imagine that when a community organizer looks at the building, they see a space for organizing. They see it filled with the work of local artists, or support groups for a very specific marginalized population…

Here one sees the drive to classify, to split society into types (developer, priest, organizer) or sectors of society (the religious right, capitalist money culture, the right, the left). These labels do describe legible demographics, and a certain degree of such abstraction is necessary for a polemic, or any piece of nonfiction about society broadly—but they become so reductive when all they're used to do is harangue. The building is renovated, and an arts nonprofit moves in. “But of course people don't dream of adequately feeding someone,” Crispin says:

they don't go to med school in the hopes of providing basic care in exchange for a sustainable income. They dream of expansion, not maintenance. They dream of art, not groceries. They dream of leading a movement, not participating in one. They dream of the glorification of their own desires, not the meeting of other people's needs. Or they dream purely of profit, which means selling low quality in high quantity with little overhead, and of course treating employees decently and making sure they don't drop dead of a preventable disease counts as overhead.

Who is “they” here? I think. Anybody but you? And without any clear referents, what is anyone supposed to do about this? Who are they supposed to target, to change the way things are, and how?

I wonder how this passage might've been different if Crispin had named the nonprofit, or identified the bourgeois biscuit shop that later moves into another abandoned building in her part of town. Put someone's skin in the game. It would be a small move toward the kind of specificity in analysis that might actually make change happen; it could also be less alienating than what we get.

People often complain about the “personal essay industrial complex,” or they criticize “informed exceptionalism”—Amber Husain's excellent term for the kind of writing, a la Jia Tolentino’s Trick Mirror or Anna Wiener’s Uncanny Valley, in which the writer uses the admission of their own complicity to effectively excuse that complicity. But reading this book, I missed the specificity of those writers’ subject positions, the pains they often took to elaborate them and to locate themselves in the networks in which we're all culpable, and to do these things with humility.

Ultimately, if informed exceptionalism is the midpoint in a continuum of autobiographical writing—and the position of ambivalence that refuses absolution that is assumed by, say, Natasha Stagg in Sleeveless, per Husain’s argument, is a progression (though, crucially, not an endpoint; there’s more progress yet to be made)—the stretches of pure harangue we get in this book mark a regression. And next to them, I'll take an honest admission of the writer’s own complicity—and the extension of that same grace to even the witches on TikTok hexing the moon—any day.

#literary #books #jessa crispin #sheila heti #maggie nelson #andrea long chu #natasha stagg #amber husain #informed exceptionalism #contrarianism

5 notes · View notes

roman-catholic-mass-readings · 2 years

Photo

4th July >> Mass Readings (USA)

Monday, Fourteenth Week in Ordinary Time

(Liturgical Colour: Green)

First Reading

Hosea 2:16, 17c-18, 21-22

I will espouse you to me forever.

Thus says the LORD:

I will allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak to her heart. She shall respond there as in the days of her youth, when she came up from the land of Egypt.

On that day, says the LORD, She shall call me “My husband,” and never again “My baal.”

I will espouse you to me forever: I will espouse you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the LORD.

The Word of the Lord

R/ Thanks be to God.

Responsorial Psalm

Psalm 145:2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9