#because it's st david's day which is why he was called david

[starbylers]

This is a response to the person who sent me an ask about their doubt last week, just hiding it below incase people don’t want to see that :)

For context this is an in-depth explanation of:

Why Mike’s monologue had to happen

Hi! And yeah of course I can try. I fully understand why the monologue is throwing you off and as someone who doesn’t believe Mike was consciously lying you’ve come to the right place lol. I explained a little more about why I think that in the tags here if you wanted to read more about that perspective. I’ll probably link to a few other posts in this aswell because it ties into a lot of stuff I’ve made Byler analyses about before.

So the thing you said about his arc being ‘does he love her or not?’ is what I think is causing the issue, because that isn’t Mike’s arc. You’re right in that that’s the question that is being posed to the audience at face value, but that’s not his character journey. I have a long post about this here but essentially, the core driving force of a character cannot be another person—Mike needs to, and does, have his own personal inner conflicts which the Byler perspective provides (pressure to perform being grown up which is made incredibly obvious to us in s3, and dealing with the tumultuous process of figuring out that he is not straight in s4—I personally don’t think he’s there yet though, I think the full realisation of why he’s been having all these problems with Will & El is still to come).

The perspective of ‘yes he does’ love her just because he said the words is the crux of the entire plot twist, because it’s the conclusion people inevitably come to when they don’t pay attention to the details. (I don’t mean this insultingly at all btw! The whole thing is very subtle and easy to misinterpret). And ST is all about details, something which has been told to us by the creators and is also obvious in their use of foreshadowing/hinting/referencing in all aspects of the show, not just Byler.

Mike’s arc didn’t finish a season early. This has even been told to us i.e. by David talking about how s5 will pay off big characters including Mike, and Finn himself saying Mike still has a ‘journey’ to complete, and also just the fact that we don’t have the final season means no-one’s arcs are complete because the story isn’t complete. The fact that a “love confession” occurred at the midpoint (s4/5 are basically intended as two halves of one story—post explaining this here) is what makes it extremely obvious that Mlvn is not the conclusion of this tale.

The monologue can probably be said to have many purposes, but here are the main ones to me:

It presents a solution that ultimately ends in disaster, and associates that disaster with Mike and El’s romance. The monologue is so, so important in showing that Mike and El’s love did not, could not save the day. That it wasn’t strong enough—further proof from the script here. It shows that El got what she thought she wanted, only to discover it wasn’t what she really needed. It may have helped save her but it didn’t help her achieve her goals (save Max, kill Vecna). Kind of a metaphor for their entire relationship lol. It’s also supposed to show that not even an ‘I love you’ can fix their issues—they literally don’t speak afterwards. I’m not sure El’s fully processed all this yet, but figuring it out is what’s going to drive her arc towards self-actualisation and allow her to win next season.

It furthers the miscommunication plot between Mike and Will. It’s an indisputable fact that Will’s lie influenced that monologue. (We can tell just by watching but it’s also in the script if we needed even more proof lol. Not to mention: the track that plays behind it is You’re The Heart. The episode is called The Piggyback. Will’s face is right over Mike’s shoulder when he says ‘I love you’—Will is integral to and inseparable from that confession). That is so important, and something we’re supposed to notice. The whole point of the monologue is who’s really behind it (aka who’s really behind the painting & words that drove Mike’s speech), because this sets the stage for the Byler confrontation next season. It’s literally the Benverly poem plot from IT, something we know the Duffers have taken inspiration from.

If Mike hadn’t gone through with it, there would be no movement forward in the story, we’d enter s5 with exactly the same plot we just watched in s4—Mike trying to say he loves his girlfriend for the literal third season in a row. It’s boring, it’s not good entertainment. Mike finally saying it (and yet there still being problems between them & it occurring under questionable circumstances) pushes development in the narrative, sets up new conflict for the next season. Or, if Mlvn had decided to break up because of Mike not saying it in s4, that would’ve led to Byler becoming painfully obvious and ruining the twist they’ve been setting up for literal seasons. Everyone knows Will loves Mike, and if Mlvn broke up in that same season the entire audience would see the ending of the show coming from a mile away. Remember, Byler is being written as a plot twist. It’s very likely tied up with the supernatural plot too.

The content of the monologue itself is supposed to demonstrate precisely why Mlvn are finished, why they don’t work, and should raise people’s eyebrows about the legitimacy of Mike’s “confession”. Like you said…he remembered her t-shirt lol. It’s impersonal, nothing about why he loves her or what he loves about her; he literally, proveably, lies in it and anyone can verify that by watching s1; and he makes comparisons to superheroes which is the exact opposite of what El needs (her whole issue is thinking she’s either the monster or the superhero, when what she really needs is to stop thinking in such a binary, and learn to be El the teenage girl, the sister, the daughter, the friend, the human being, and find her power in that).

And something else they purposefully do this season is give us examples of other love confessions to contrast and show how ingenuine Mike’s really is: Jancy & Will (not my original post! I just expanded on op’s point).

Now as I said before I don’t think Mike intentionally lied. My opinion is that he knows deep down something is not right with their relationship and that he doesn’t feel how he should, but after Will’s speech and encouragement he choses to believe that he can love her, that he can be what she needs (except it’s not what she needs, it’s what Will needs lol). So not lying, but the monologue is basically a desperate attempt to a) grasp at straightness and b) save her life. He’s in denial, and also terrified of her dying. Very bad combo.

So yeah there’s my reasoning :) what you were saying about the potential of a familial ‘I love you’ is true, yeah it could’ve ended the plot line. But that’s the kind of thing that should be a conclusion to the entire story, something that occurs right before victory not disaster. Because then what would the implication be? That El’s family’s love isn’t enough for her to save the world?

And the way they will explain the monologue is so simple. It’s Will. It’s Will’s feelings that inspired Mike. All that needs to happen is for Mike to realise that, and the audience will realise it along with him. Mike: I only said that because of how much Will loves me? Audience: Oh! So he doesn’t actually love her! It’s Will, Will is who he’s meant to be with! It’s a classic ‘the person who was right in front of them all along’ trope. Once people understand that, it basically makes truly romantic interpretations of the monologue invalid.

I can’t say exactly how the ending will play out—I expect we’ll see the cracks in Mlvn shatter rapidly as s5 progresses, maybe more arguing/demonstration of their incompatibility or El asking Mike to say it to her face and he still can’t, Mike and Will simultaneously getting closer and it becoming increasingly obvious that Mike is in love—but I’m choosing to trust they’ll do it justice. Mike’s monologue is just a key turning point in the larger story.

Also just one last thing, you said he seems sincere and I do agree but I think it’s because his fear in that moment is extremely real, and there are truths within his monologue i.e. that he doesn’t want to lose her etc. so that’s where it’s coming from in my opinion :)

#byler #anti mileven #sorry anon I meant to respond earlier but this week got hectic with those leaks lol #anyway here you go <3 #this is very long btw but I wanted to cover all bases

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I appreciate that you are a very thoughtful and clever commentator on culture even when you have strong conservative views. So let me ask you where do you stand on the censorship of Roald Dahl’s books by his publishers?

Although he was never knighted nor awarded any significant distinctions by the government, turning down an OBE in 1986 as insufficiently impressive, Roald Dahl was by far the most popular children’s writer of his generation, and continues to be totemic for both readers and authors. Indeed I read all the Dahl books as a child and had fun doing so. It is debatable how much of a career David Walliams would have if his books didn’t overtly pay homage to Dahl’s, even down to hiring his regular illustrator Quentin Blake for some of them. And yet Dahl’s recent public reputation has been chequered enough throughout his own lifetime for the Royal Mint not to issue a coin commemorating his centenary, as they described him as not being “an author of the highest reputation” – an excellent piece of bureaucratic double-speak.

So I was surprised to see how viral the controversy regarding the rewriting of Roald Dahl’s books, to make them more commercial sensitive, had crescendoed in the media in the UK and abroad. In all honesty I find the whole thing rather tedious.  It’s been discussed to death and my feelings are predictable - you can already guess that I’m against the changes, the people who read me already agree, and the people who disagree would never listen to me anyway. I’m against any censorship of Dahl’s books on the grounds of morality and also quality.

Sometimes they’re editing Dahl-as-such and sometimes his characters. The gluttonous Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer described as “fat” but rather as “enormous,” thus leaving readers free to imagine that he’s a powerlifter in a high weight classification. Dahl himself is the insensitive one there. When a character says of another character “I’d knock her flat,” Puffin’s so-called ‘super sensitivity readers’ (hired within the publisher’s staff to weed out things each would find ‘problematic’) replace that fierce language with “I’d give her a right talking to.” But what if the character speaking is the type to use strong language? Or do bad things? Shall we have a version of Crime and Punishment in which Raskolnikov skulks around St. Petersburg fantasising about giving his landlady a right talking to?

Sometimes it’s hard to tell what offence the super-sensitives imagine: It’s not clear that calling someone a “trickster” rather than a “saucy beast” makes an improvement in manners; what is clear is that the meaning is completely different. But: while Dahl referred to Mrs. Twit as “ugly and beastly,” she is now just called “beastly,” though I cannot imagine why calling someone a “beast” is unacceptable but calling them “beastly” is hunky-dory.

One could go on about this silliness all day, and many are doing so, but I actually think there’s an important point to be made in response to these changes: the people doing it have no right to do so. They have the legal right, but what they’re doing is morally wrong.

It’s morally wrong first of all because it’s dishonest. The books will still be sold as Roald Dahl’s - it is his name that will draw readers to these volumes - but they are in fact Dahl’s involuntary collaboration with people who find some of his words and phrases intolerable. That this is so should be announced on the book’s covers – but you may be sure that it will not be. If you own the rights to Dahl’s books but passionately believe that what Dahl wrote is too offensive for today’s readers to face, then your only honourable option is to stop selling the damn books.

This may sound like an odd digression, but bear with me: I’ve been reading a bit of John Ruskin and in his The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Ruskin confronts the widespread practice, in the England of his time, of either dramatically renovating or tearing down old buildings.

First, Ruskin says, when a building is stripped down to its shell and given an entirely new interior, those who do it should call it what it is: destruction. “But, it is said, there may come a necessity for restoration! Granted. Look the necessity full in the face, and understand it on its own terms. It is a necessity for destruction. Accept it as such, pull the building down, throw its stones into neglected corners, make ballast of them, or mortar, if you will; but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in their place.”

So also I say: Do not set up a Lie in place of Roald Dahl’s actual books. If they are intolerable, do not tolerate them. Let them go out of print, take the digital editions off the market, and force those of us who are bad enough to desire the books to scour second-hand bookstores for them.

But let’s pursue Ruskin’s argument a bit further. Sometimes a building is torn down altogether, razed to the very ground. What does Ruskin say about that?

“Of more wanton or ignorant ravage it is vain to speak; my words will not reach those who commit them, and yet, be it heard or not, I must not leave the truth unstated, that it is again no question of expediency or feeling whether we shall preserve the buildings of past times or not. We have no right whatever to touch them. They are not ours. They belong partly to those who built them, and partly to all the generations of mankind who are to follow us. The dead have still their right in them: that which they laboured for, the praise of achievement or the expression of religious feeling, or whatsoever else it might be which in those buildings they intended to be permanent, we have no right to obliterate. What we have ourselves built, we are at liberty to throw down; but what other men gave their strength and wealth and life to accomplish, their right over does not pass away with their death; still less is the right to the use of what they have left vested in us only. It belongs to all their successors. It may hereafter be a subject of sorrow, or a cause of injury, to millions, that we have consulted our present convenience by casting down such buildings as we choose to dispense with. That sorrow, that loss, we have no right to inflict.”

As astonishingly eloquent and impassioned declaration, which, in regard to architecture, one might plausibly disagree with. Buildings take up a good deal of space, and the maintenance of them can be expensive; there certainly are circumstances in which demolition is indeed necessary. Ruskin, remember, grants this point, though not without a bit of hedging and tweaking.

But Ruskin’s argument is irrefutable when it comes to the other arts of the past – poetry, story, music, painting, sculpture. There can be no justification for mutilating or destroying them to suit “our present convenience.” We do not know whether later generations will think as we do, will share our preferences and our sensitivities; to preserve the art of the past is to show respect not only for that past but also for our possible futures. And it is to establish a standard for how we wish to be treated by our descendants.

Even the Victorians (and some of their successors) who thought sculptures of naked men too offensive for ladies to see merely covered the pudenda with plaster leaves - the penises themselves remained untouched, for later generations, and less delicate viewers, to see if they wish.

The second domain argument I have against censoring Dahl’s book is the patent drop in linguistic quality. In other words, they patently degrade the quality of the text. Witness how Dahl’s mild comic surrealism gives way to a joyless lecture:

No one would deny that Dahl was a rather scabrous and even sadistic writer. But part of the fun of reading him, as a child, is grappling with the darkness - beginning to comprehend the shadows one has glimpsed around the world. These small-souled artistic vandals are flattening out those interesting quirks in the grip of a paralysing fear that someone, somewhere might read it and then take or give offence.

If Roald Dahl cannot even say that Mrs Trunchbull has a horsey face - because nobody has unsightly features or because we are forbidden from noticing them - what else could be changed? If books like Matilda and films like Gone With the Wind are being sliced and diced, what could happen to less famous and more genuinely provocative books, films, opera, even songs? Indeed, look at how Dahl’s publishers have decided that authors as illustrious as Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling - referenced in Matilda but now replaced with Jane Austen and John Steinbeck - are too dangerous to even mention in front of kids. Do these literary scolds actually think there is no literary value in reading Heart of Darkness or Kim? Jesus wept.

The final clinching argument I’ve heard from critics who want to censor Dahl and his books is because he was an alleged anti-semite. And if he was, so what? If that’s the standard then we should be binning every author, artist, composer, musician for any kind of transgression or character flaw against some absolute moral standard.

As the great pianist and conductor, Daniel Barenboim, once said of Wagner, that it was reductive to say that Wagner was a terrible man with reactionary ideas in general, and therefore his music, no matter how wonderful, is intolerable because it is infected with the same poison as his prose. How would that be demonstrated? How many writers, musicians, poets, painters would be left if their art was judged by their moral behaviour? And who is to decide what level of ugliness and turpitude can be borne in the artistic production of any given artist?

Once one starts to censor, there is no theoretical limit. Rather, I would think that it is incumbent on the mind to be able to analyse a complex phenomenon such as the question of  such creative artists whether they be a Wagner, a Celine, or a Dahl; or indeed, to give another example, Joseph Conrad as analysed in a famous essay written by the brilliant Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe, reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness for an African today. With all these artists the challenge is the same: to show where the evil is and where the art is.

The truth is for a mature mind it should be possible to hold together in one's mind two contradictory facts, that Dahl was a great writer, and second, that Dahl was mean spirited shitty human being. Unfortunately, one cannot have one fact without the other.

Does that mean, therefore, that Dahl should not be read as he wrote his books? Most assuredly not, although it is obvious that if an individual is still troubled then there is no need at all to inflict Dahl on oneself - but you can’t make that choice for others.

An open attitude towards art is always necessary. This is not to say that artists shouldn't be morally judged for their immorality or evil practices; it is to say that an artist's work cannot be judged solely on those grounds and banned or censored accordingly.

Now I’ve heard from Dahl’s supporters that there are excuses that can be made. Dahl’s publisher Tom Maschler, who died in 2020, was a notoriously difficult and egocentric man, as well as being Jewish, and it could be argued, somewhat tendentiously, that many of Dahl’s attacks on Jews could be interpreted as necessarily veiled expressions of his venting his frustration with Maschler. Hmmm, yes, well.

More persuasive is Dahl’s friend Isaiah Berlin’s comment that, “I thought he might say anything. Could have been pro-Arab or pro-Jew. There was no consistent line. He was a man who followed whims, which meant he would blow up in one direction, so to speak”.

Dahl was a peculiar man whose richness of imagination went along with deep personal eccentricity. This was both tolerated and facilitated by those around him. Although JK Rowling raised eyebrows with her first post-Harry Potter novel, The Casual Vacancy, containing swearing and sex scenes, it seems extremely unlikely that she would have interrupted her career as one of Britain’s most successful ever writers to produce an erotic novel aimed at adults, as Dahl did with his (excellent and deeply un-PC) 1979 book My Uncle Oswald.

Likewise, the macabre violence visited upon children in books such as The Witches and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory suggests an ambivalence towards his readership that may have been borne out by one of the more eyebrow-raising anecdotes in Kingsley Amis’s Memoirs. Upon meeting Dahl at a party and being asked if he has any ideas for children’s books (“that’s where the money is today, believe me”), Amis regretfully replied that he did not, saying “I don’t think I enjoyed children’s books much when I was a child myself. I’ve got no feeling for that kind of thing.” To his surprise, Dahl replied “Never mind, the little bastards’d swallow it.”

Yet, just as Berlin suggested that the writer would switch from one persona to another on a whim, Dahl later collared Amis again at the party, and, apparently sincerely, informed him:

“If you do decide to have a crack, let me give you one warning. Unless you put everything you’ve got into it, unless you write it from the heart, the kids’ll have no use for it. They’ll see you’re having them on. And just let me tell you from experience that there’s nothing kids hate more than that. They won’t give you a second chance either. You’ll have had it for good as far as they’re concerned. Just you bear that in mind as a word of friendly advice.”

Amis records Dahl walking off “with a stiff nod and an air of having asserted his integrity by rejecting some particularly outrageous and repulsive suggestion”. What he hints at, but does not explicitly state, is that Dahl was perfectly sincere in both statements, switching with no apparent contradiction in his own mind between the personae of cynical exploiter of the young and heartfelt creator of magical stories.

This ability to snap between attitudes and personae might be described as sociopathic, and indeed much of Dahl’s life and career does hint at an unbalanced and inconsistent mind, both when it comes to attitudes that most people would find repellent and in the richness and immersive nature of the characters and worlds he created.

Like his great hero Lewis Carroll, another visionary eccentric, the wonder of Dahl’s writing is that he believed wholeheartedly in a fantastical universe, and the books represent that universe committed to paper. They are less a creative feat, and more a marvel of reportage, from the most vivid of imaginations.

None of which excuses his anti-Semitism. It is nonetheless the case that we should regard Dahl’s often provocative and thoughtless public statements in context with his imaginative genius. Rather than castigate him as yet another privately educated racist, we should instead treat him, like so many of his characters and peers, as a naïve and unworldly man who never entirely left the realm of make-believe.

We should neither censor Roald Dahl, nor celebrate him unreservedly, but instead treat his life and work with the careful consideration that it deserves, never forgetting the joy that it has given many millions over the decades.

The immediate and most important point: buy your kid a different book. Just buy your kid a different book! There are tens of thousands of children’s books out there that are inoffensive by anyone’s definition. Just buy those books. Exercise your choice. Not everything is made for you. I get that people feel that they are nothing but their consumption, that they have no identity but that which they buy. But not everything is for you. Buy something else. Buy something else!

But the cynic in me thinks this is all playing quite nicely into Puffin’s hands. It’s one great way for Dahl’s publishers (and Netflix) to make a killing because they have in effect sanctioned two versions of Dahl’s books now: the censored line of books and the original unedited books under the ‘classic collection’ label. It’s like New Coke and Coke Classic, clearly differentiated by label.

In this new woke world it wouldn’t surprise me if they did advertise the one and not heavily advertise the other; they could make their preferences clear; they could say “If you are a Good Person you will purchase our sanitised versions rather than the nastiness written by Roald Dahl himself.” And then people could buy the version they want.

I know which version children and adult readers would want. The so-called in’-house ‘Super Sensitivity Readers’ would choose the sanitised version because they believe in the one canonical rule of their world view: the reader is always wrong. Because any genuine reader is, by definition, not a super sensitive.

Thanks for your question.

#ask #question #roald dahl #book #reading #censorship #books #publishers #arts #culture #john ruskin #kingsley amis #isiah berlin #anti woke #woke #literature

[catenaaurea]

The Roman Catechism

Part One: The Creed

ARTICLE V : "HE DESCENDED INTO HELL, THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD"

Importance Of This Article

To know the glory of the burial of our Lord Jesus Christ, of which we last treated, is highly important; but of still higher importance is it to the faithful to know the splendid triumphs which He obtained by having subdued the devil and despoiled the abodes of hell. Of these triumphs, and also of His Resurrection, we are now about to speak.

Although the latter presents to us a subject which might with propriety be treated under a separate and distinct head, yet following the example of the holy Fathers, we have deemed it fitting to unite it with His descent into hell.

First Part of this Article: "He Descended into Hell"

In the first part of this Article, then, we profess that immediately after the death of Christ His soul descended into hell, and dwelt there as long as His body remained in the tomb; and also that the one Person of Christ was at the same time in hell and in the sepulcher. Nor should this excite surprise; for, as we have already frequently said, although His soul was separated from His body, His Divinity was never parted from either His soul or His body.

"Hell"

As the pastor, by explaining the meaning of the word hell in this place may throw considerable light on the exposition of this Article, it is to be observed that by the word hell is not here meant the sepulcher, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined; for in the preceding Article we learned that Christ the Lord was buried, and there was no reason why the Apostles, in delivering an Article of faith, should repeat the same thing in other and more obscure terms.

Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostle says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell; and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell.

Different Abodes Called Hell

These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly so-called.

Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare, on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.

Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Savior, Christ the Lord descended into hell.

"He Descended"

We are not to imagine that His power and virtue only, and not also His soul, descended into hell; but we are firmly to believe that His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither, according to this conclusive testimony of David: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.

But although Christ descended into hell, His supreme power was in no degree lessened, nor was the splendour of His sanctity obscured by any blemish. His descent served rather to prove that whatever had been foretold of His sanctity was true; and that, as He had previously demonstrated by so many miracles, He was truly the Son of God.

This we shall easily understand by comparing the causes of the descent of Christ with those of other men. They descended as captives; He as free and victorious among the dead, to subdue those demons by whom, in consequence of guilt, they were held in captivity. Furthermore all others descended, either to endure the most acute torments, or, if exempt from other pain, to be deprived of the vision of God, and to be tortured by the delay of the glory and happiness for which they yearned; Christ the Lord descended, on the contrary, not to suffer, but to liberate the holy and the just from their painful captivity, and to impart to them the fruit of His Passion. His supreme dignity and power, therefore, suffered no diminution by His descent into hell.

Why He Descended into Hell

To Liberate The Just

Having explained these things, the pastor should next proceed to teach that Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that having despoiled the demons, He might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls, and might bring them into heaven with Himself. This He accomplished in an admirable and most glorious manner; for His august presence at once shed a celestial luster upon the captives and filled them with inconceivable joy and delight. He also imparted to them that supreme happiness which consists in the vision of God, thus verifying His promise to the thief on the cross: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

This deliverance of the just was long before predicted by Osee in these words: O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite; ' and also by the Prophet Zachary: Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water; and lastly, the same is expressed by the Apostle in these words: Despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.

But the better to understand the efficacy of this mystery we should frequently call to mind that not only the just who were born after the coming of our Lord, but also those who preceded Him from the days of Adam, or who shall be born until the end of time, obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion. Wherefore before His death and Resurrection heaven was closed against every child of Adam. The souls of the just, on their departure from this life, were either borne to the bosom of Abraham; or, as is still the case with those who have something to be washed away or satisfied for, were purified in the fire of purgatory.

To Proclaim His Power

Another reason why Christ the Lord descended into hell is that there, as well as in heaven and on earth, He might proclaim His power and authority, and that every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.

And here, who is not filled with admiration and astonishment when he contemplates the infinite love of God for man! Not satisfied with having undergone for our sake a most cruel death, He penetrates the inmost recesses of the earth to transport into bliss the souls whom He so dearly loved and whose liberation from thence He had achieved.

#Roman Catechism part 13 #Catholic #Christian

[sotogalmo]

5:30

More stuff I did for my FNAF au

Vanessa → St. Vanhumrigh “Henry” Afton-Simmons.

Elizabeth / C.C → El1za² Afton.

Mike Schmidt → St. Micheal Aruther-Blavnkeberry

Garrett → St. Garreth Aruther-Burntenberg

Main names I have for now!

(placements!↓)

Mike (Schmidt) : Clarith

Garrett : Micheala

Abby is here, I just don't know where to put her (but I do have her full name!! : Abigail Aruther-Blavnkeberry. She and Mike are siblings by blood, while she and Garrett have a sibling bond together).

Elizabeth/C.C↓ : Michelle Marlon

C.C : Sleeping Princess(Margarita Blankenheim)

Micheal (Afton)/Vanessa (Afton) : Nemesis Sudou

Cassidy (Afton) : Allen Avadonia

William Afton : Gallerian Marlon

I changed the whole clockwork doll, to be like a puppet. El1za² has a more nutcracker appearance, due to their mouth being shaped the way it is. Eyes are forever closed due to how C.C was the sleeping prince; and never slept - never had his eyes closed.

Reason why I made Vanessa have a middle name being "Henry", is because. Well. She is gonna have the final blow, make the final move to make sure William stays dead forever. And she would also be the one to start the fire that also ends her life(not just hers tho. Mike's there too, so she also ended his life. But he wanted to stay, and be there to at least see the killer of his brother wither and decay. ,, yet the will to keep on living got to him, and he left at the last second on where he could've died. Abby is mentioned throughout this whole plan, and thru Mike's story. But Abby only makes a clear appearance when Mike is finally out of the fire. Abby then groups her friends(Cassie, Gregory, and other kid characters in FNAF; David(mimic), Tony, Eillis, etc), and they are the ones to finally have the MCIs just go the afterlife).

Abby, and Mike are both Sloth descendants, but the sloth demon went to infect C.C because he was the perfect vessel. And then, not too long ago, Mike then became the second vessel for Sloth(doesn't mean he slept, he did. But he did too much to not sleep(yet not really. He was very lazy), that it seems like he doesn't sleep at all. But Mike is strong so he fights it off when he desperately needs to sleep). But it didn't last long.

Garrett is a Gluttony descendant, as he wants to rid the world of evil(first step was to be kind to someone, he fulfilled that: becoming friends and then brothers with Mike who was ,, not treated kindly due to how different he looked. White hair, and yellow eyes. Him and Mike becoming brothers also fulfilled something in him; having siblings. He was an only child, so he wanted siblings. And he got siblings!). It's not that he's greedy, he isn't. Gluttony is very different from Greed.

William is the Greed vessel/descendant/great-grandson of Gallerian Marlon. The greedest judge ever. And William followed in his footsteps, but more extremely(killing kids, etc etc). He wanted to keep his family the tightest it can be, so he made everything and stole everything for his family. And he wanted his family and him to live forever. His most extreme greed, turned into the most greediest in the world as ever seen(Gallerian type greed but with a couple of more steps yk?). He has turned his two youngest into a puppet, which he believes is the real one.

C.C, didn't die first here. Elizabeth did, and when she did - C.C, two weeks later, was then the vessel for Sloth. He was the vessel for 2 whole years. Dying, due to himself over-dosing with a "medicine" he calls "p.s" ; The Purple Prince brought eternal sleep, to anyone who complained about the slightest bit of inconvenience to their sleep.

Casside, is the second oldest. He was a servant, while Vanhumrigh was the heir(first born, and with that she would be queen). He dies as well, leaving Vanhumrigh, the first born, to be the sole child of William. William didn't care for Casside, as far as you need to know. Casside and Vanhumrigh were twins! Casside first died on the day that William was to actually die on. But, soon afterwards William was to be very heavily injured(and very mentally unstable). — All of this, then caused Vanhumrigh to split from the Afton family(turning to use her mother's maiden name; Simmons). She went to train herself to become stronger, to one day face William.

Garreth Aruther-Burntenberg, died when he was 15; before his birthday(April, 2th).

The mask that Vanhumrigh has, is that of a crane! (I tried to remember what a crane looked like from memory)

____

That's all im saying. Still basically working on this AU. But tell me if y'all like it tbh-!

#time diary(?) #audrey/kellie's time diary #fnaf #five nights at freddy's #fnaf movie #vanessa afton #vanessa shelly #elizabeth afton #cc afton #evan afton #mike schmidt #garrett schmidt #Yard Fire au #yard fire au #audrey/kellie's art #fnaf au #evillious chronicles #evillious chronicles au #fnaf movie au

[momentsbeforemass]

What motivates you?

(by request, my homily from Sunday)

I’d like to talk with you today about what motivates you.

In today’s Gospel, Jesus warns His followers not to be terrified, to not live in fear. Why?

In Jesus’ time, Roman-occupied Judea was a bomb. Waiting to explode.

The Jewish people were looking for the next King David, the next Judah the Maccabee to lead a rebellion against Rome. All they needed was someone to rally them and the revolution would be on.

Jesus knows what’s coming their way. So does everyone else. It’s that obvious. And they have a lot of reasons to live in fear.

Because it’s going to get worse. A lot worse. They will get their rebellion against Rome. And it will end horribly – one hundred thousand people will die and the Temple itself will be destroyed – when Rome has finally had enough.

In the face of that, Jesus doesn’t tell them to stockpile weapons or pack a bug out bag. He doesn’t tell them to get a second passport. Instead, Jesus tells them – not to live in fear.

And you’re thinking, “Wasn’t the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD? The last time I checked, we were a few years past that. Thanks for the history lesson. But this doesn’t really apply to me.”

Actually, the Church Fathers like to point out that what Jesus is telling people to not be terrified by – is pretty normal stuff.

Jesus’ list of “wars, insurrections, earthquakes, famine, plagues?” As St. Augustine puts it, this is the “common condition of nations.”

And he’s right. Look at the news. There’s a war in Ukraine. There are insurrections in Hong Kong and Iran. In the last few weeks we’ve had major earthquakes in Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, Guatemala, and elsewhere.

Closer to home, the drought that’s drying up the Mississippi is already driving up food prices and will get even worse if we don’t have a really wet winter. And for plagues? We all know the answer to that one.

Which means that Jesus’ warning doesn’t have an expiration date. So what exactly is Jesus trying to tell us?

Jesus is trying to tell us to be careful about what we focus on, about what we let in. Because if we focus on the things that terrify us, if we let in things that fill us with fear, that’s what will motivate us. And we will be deceived.

As you know, there are people who are happy to deceive us. There are multi-billion-dollar businesses built on deceiving us. If you and I live in fear? We will be easy to deceive.

With so many people in the business of selling fear – and anger, which is just a secondary emotion that grows out of fear. With so many people mindlessly repeating that stuff on social media, it’s hard for us not to be afraid.

Is there anything you and I can do? How do we respond?

We respond by choosing what we let in. By being intentional about what gets into us – to motivate us.

And it starts by choosing to let in the simple, basic baptismal call of every Christian. To reflect the love of Christ poured out for us. The love that our hearts are filled with. The love that keeps our hearts beating.

To let that love motivate us, in everything that we do.

What does that even mean? It means to be intentional about what you let in. To recognize that what you let into you - will become what motivates you. And to choose only those things that will motivate you to be who God made you to be.

Starting with the love of Christ. And coming back to the love of Christ. Over and over. Day by day. Hour by hour.

Judging everything else you let in by the love of Christ, and your high calling to reflect the love of Christ. And intentionally rejecting anything that does not reflect the Love that made you.

What does that look like in practice?

One of the people it looks like is St. Frances Xavier Cabrini. Mother Cabrini.

And you’re thinking, “That’s an impossible standard. She founded the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart. She started 67 different institutions – schools, hospitals, orphanages – only the great saints do stuff like that.”

Before she was a saint. Before she ever founded anything. Before she was Mother Cabrini. Before she was a nun.

She was Maria Francesca Cabrini. The youngest of 13 children on a small farm in northern Italy.

She was inspired by the sisters who taught her at the little school in her village. So she studied to become a grade school teacher and got her teaching certificate.

But she didn’t start out with the grand and the glorious. Actually, she didn’t even get to start out teaching third graders full-time.

She had to balance her career with her parents’ failing health. So she worked part-time as a substitute teacher, while she took care of her mom and dad.

The key to it all – and why Maria became who she became – is how she did it.

She didn’t do it resentfully, begrudging her parents for holding back, from keeping her from being a teacher. She didn’t do it in fear, wondering what would happen to her after her parents died.

She let herself be motivated by the love of Christ poured out for her, the same love that’s poured out for you and for me.

She let herself be motivated by the love that her heart was filled with, the same love that your heart and my heart is filled with.

What separates Maria from the rest of us, why she eventually became Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, is that she worked to keep her focus on the love of Christ.

This wasn’t a one and done for her. She kept coming back to the love of Christ in prayer. Over and over. Day by day. Hour by hour.

Hers was not a breakthrough followed by perfection but a lifetime of dogged persistence. Coming back to God again and again. Because of that, God moved in her and through her to do all of the things that we think of, when we think of her as a saint.

What separates Maria from the rest of us, is that she judged everything else that she let in by the love of Christ, and by her high calling to reflect the love of Christ. She intentionally rejected anything that did not reflect the Love that made her.

We see it in one of the prayers that she composed for herself, rejecting by name the things in her that did not reflect that Love. It goes like this:

Fortify me with the grace of Your Holy Spirit and give Your peace to my soul that I may be free from all needless anxiety, solicitude and worry. Help me to desire always that which is pleasing and acceptable to You so that Your will may be my will. Amen.

That is how you and I do it.

Take this prayer of Mother Cabrini. Go to the first sentence of her prayer, to the underlined words. Those are the things that Mother Cabrini saw in herself that did not reflect the love of Christ.

Replace hers with yours. Instead of anxiety and worry, maybe yours are anger or fear, maybe doubt or loneliness, maybe envy or pride.

You don’t have to tell anyone, this is between you and God. But do it.

Whatever they are, name the things in you that do not reflect the love of Christ. Name the things in you that do not reflect your high calling to reflect the love of Christ.

Then pray this prayer, your version of her prayer. Over and over. Day by day. Hour by hour.

And watch as God moves in you and through you in ways you would never imagine.

Sunday’s Readings

#What motivates you #What you let in #God #Jesus #Catholic #Christian #Church #Fear #Love #Intentional #Mother Cabrini #Prayer #Love of God #Moments Before Mass

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

Next Tuesday (December 5), I'm at Flyleaf Books in Chapel Hill, NC, with my new solarpunk novel The Lost Cause, which 350.org's Bill McKibben called "The first great YIMBY novel: perceptive, scientifically sound, and extraordinarily hopeful."b

#20yrago Bruce Sterling hits his stride on his blog https://web.archive.org/web/20040505163610/https://wiredblogs.tripod.com/sterling/index.blog?entry_id=154868

#20yrsago Hayes Micro: the moral is, take the money and run https://web.archive.org/web/20031205001612/https://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/1103/23hayes.html

#20yrsago Fan builds 11,000 sqft Haunted Mansion replica https://web.archive.org/web/20031203011208/https://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/1103/26haunted.html

#15yrsago Neil Gaiman explains why he opposes laws banning speech he disagrees with https://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

#15yrsago Why Candyland doesn’t suck https://web.archive.org/web/20081205063135/http://playthisthing.com/candy-land

#15yrsago Vietnam’s amazing phone-unlockers https://www.cnet.com/culture/unlocking-iphone-3gs-the-vietnamese-way/

#15yrsago UK to punish “publishing police info” with 10 years in jail https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/11/413023.html

#10yrsago Porno copyright trolls Prenda Law fined $261K https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/unhappy-thanksgiving-for-prenda-law-ordered-to-pay-261k-to-defendants/

#10yrsago Presenting political argument on Twitter, and the “prestige economy” https://www.mic.com/articles/48829/why-you-should-never-have-taken-that-prestigious-internship

#10yrsago Apps come bundled with secret Bitcoin mining programs, paper over the practice with EULAs https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2013/11/potentially-unwanted-miners-toolbar-peddlers-use-your-system-to-make-btc

#10yrsago Study shows removing DRM increased music sales https://torrentfreak.com/what-piracy-removing-drm-boosts-music-sales-by-10-percent-131130/

#10yrsago JP Morgan’s “Twitter takeover” seeks questions from Twitter, gets flooded with critiques of banksterism #AskJPM https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/30/shock-poll-reveals-gulf-britain-eu-france-germany-poland-hostile

#10yrsago UK Home Secretary Theresa May secretly charters private jet to (unsuccessfully) deport dying man to Nigeria https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/30/theresa-may-hunger-striker-ifa-muaza-asylum-uk

#5yrsago To save Brexit deal, Prime Minister Theresa May dropped an assault rifle ban https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/11/something-crazy-happened-parliament-last-night-and-no-one-talking-about-it

#5yrsago David Byrne’s “Eclectic Music for the Holidays” playlist http://davidbyrne.com/radio/david-byrne-presents-eclectic-for-the-holidays

#5yrsago Incredibly detailed technical guide to camgirling is a mix of advanced retail psychology and advice on performing emotional labor https://knowingless.com/2018/11/19/maximizing-your-slut-impact-an-overly-analytical-guide-to-camgirling/

#5yrsago AI scientist who quit Google over Chinese censorship plans details the hypocrisy that sent him packing https://theintercept.com/2018/12/01/google-china-censorship-human-rights/

#5yrsago St Louis cops indicted for beating up a “protester” who turned out to be an undercover cop https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/its-still-blast-beating-people-st-louis-police-indicted-assault-undercover-officer-posing-protester/

#1yrago All the books I reviewed in 2022 https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/01/bookishness/#2022-in-review

It's EFF's Power Up Your Donation Week: this week, donations to the Electronic Frontier Foundation are matched 1:1, meaning your money goes twice as far. I've worked with EFF for 22 years now and I have always been - and remain - a major donor, because I've seen firsthand how effective, responsible and brilliant this organization is. Please join me in helping EFF continue its work!

#pluralistic

[erin-bo-berin]

Couple of things in response to your anon queries over the last few days:

- Joe’s playing a prominent recurring character in Fargo. He’s Gator Tillman, the son of the main character, corrupt sheriff Roy Tillman (John Hamm). You’ll be getting more than one episode, don’t worry about that! Also - and I’m sorry if you already know this, but just to clarify- it’s not set in 2019, not the old west. I think people got the cowboy idea because Noah Hawley wrote an (excellent) article for The Atlantic called “It’s High Noon in America,” which was both a political commentary, and a reflection on how entertainment contributes to issues like distrust of authority by creating heroes who go against the system etc. In it, he shared a sample of S5 dialogue between Roy and Gator, which mentioned “high noon”:

Gator: “I swear to God, him versus me, man to man, and I'd wipe the floor with him.”

Roy: “What, like high noon? That only happens in the movies, son. In real life they slit your throat waiting for the light to change.”

I mean, Joe might still be playing a cowboy-ish type character if he works on a ranch I suppose? But as far as I know, there’s nothing to suggest that’s the case.

- Joe is well positioned to have a great career after ST ends. I’m a bit puzzled as to why anyone’s concerned for him to be honest! Free Guy was very well received and many reviews specifically mentioned Joe’s charm and his lovely chemistry with Jodie. One critic even said - and I quote - “Joe Keery proves he’s going to be just fine when Stranger Things ends.” Add to that, although Spree was controversial, it was still received more positive reviews than less glowing ones (thanks, tomatometer), and even negative reviews of the film praised Joe’s performance.

So that’s recent history. Looking at his current work, he has two films in the can, is currently filming Fargo, then starts Cold Storage, and then in 2024 goes back to filming ST. The guy is as busy as an actor could hope for. Going forward, even if none of the films make an impact (and that’s a big ‘if’, because I suspect Cold Storage at least is going to do very well), Fargo will raise his profile even higher than it already is.

Oh, and then there’s his music. We all know he’s genuinely talented in that regard, and so do the critics. But he’s deliberately flown under the radar with it, and so many people are missing out. Djo doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page for crying out loud. Maya Hawke, who has less than a third of the Spotify listeners Djo has, has a wiki page for each album! No hate for Maya - her stuff’s not my thing but it’s cool. I just think Joe’s music manager (who’s different to his acting one) is sleeping on that front.

Sorry for the Joe Keery essay. I’m just a huge supporter because he’s so talented, and is also genuinely lovely. People who’ve worked with him want to do it again, in large part because of his personality. We know the combination of those traits is what changed the trajectory of his character in ST, which was a remarkable thing in of itself. David Harbour, Brett Gelman, and Kevin Pollack have all pointed out how unusual it was, and praised both Joe and the Duffer Bros for it. It’s kind of refreshing to see someone in Hollywood getting rewarded for being a decent person, in addition to having acting abilities.

Joe deserves every success. Long may it continue!

Oh wow thanks for all the info! I’ve never seen Fargo but man I will happily watch it to see him in it.

I’m so excited for him in Cold Storage. I ended up reading the book after someone on here told me it was actually a book first and Joe is just gonna nail the character. Teacake is such a loveable dork lol

I agree though! He’s been doing so good even without ST fame. He’s gotten some big projects coming up and a handful at that. Also his music to keep him busy too and it really is such a shame that his music is so underrated because his music really is so good 🥺

[popculturebuffet]

Jason David Frank Tribute: Power Rangers Wild Force: Forever Red Review (patreon Sign ON Review for Brotoman.exe)

In Loving Memory of Jason David Frank: 1979-2022

"May the Power Protect Him"

Like many around my generation, I met Jason David Frank one afternoon as a Teenager with Attidue. While any chlid worth his salt loved power rangers, it had teenagers in bright colored outfits beating up monsters in stock footage, what's not to love?, it really kicked into gear when a new kid kicked his way into town: Tommy Oliver, a cool new kid who swept Kimberly off her feat, actually beat big beefy lead boy Jason inc ombat, and then got brainwashed because of both of those things, becoming the rangers greatest threat as Rita made her own.. and then once freed of his mind control becoming the greatest one of them. Across three classic seasons, multiple returns, and another season down the line as a mentor to a new generation, Jason David Frank was THE Power Ranger.

Thus it was tragic that we lost him. My relatoinship with the franchise may of been "I watched the first five seasons as a kid, then dropped off, saw an episode or two then watched history of power rangers as an adult", but Jason always seemed like a nice guy who genuinely loved the franchise and us the fans. He was never too ashamed to step into bright spandex and his sudden death a few days ago was a blow to us all.

So it was a sad serendepity that this long scheduled patreon sign on review for my new friend and patreon Brotoman happened to end up on this week and he was more than happy to make it into a tribute to jason. And given Tommy is the most prominent red ranger besides Wild Force's own ranger in this episode, it was perfectly approraite.

For those either only casually familar with Power Rangers or familliar with the Zordon era but not so much what came after and if so I HIGHLY recommend Linkara's exaustive History of Power Rangers series on Youtube, but for now stick with this one: Wild Force was an end of an era as it was the final Power Rangers series aired on Fox Kids, before moving to ABC Kids (the former one Saturday Morning), and an era ender.

As such this episode, which is thankfully a standalone heavy on fanservice, serves as a nice caper. To celerbate the 10th anniversary, they got back ALMOST every red ranger. Rocky, the second red morphin ranger was absent. Why? He missed a phone call. No really, they didn't have the right phone number for him and by the time it was sorted out it was too late. And the galling thing is he was supposed to be just a backup for Austin St. John… which strikes me as odd given the aquatar ranger is right there. Just replace him. Still despite this it's a huge gathering of franchise faviorites.

The special was a bit rag tag, basing itself on a similar sentai special but using mostly new footage. It was INTENDED to both be an hour long special and have a much snappier climax.. but both things were shot down by new owners Disney wondering "Why are you spending so much time to promote old toys"

But what we get is a fun, cheesy half hour ride through the franchises history up to that point. So come with me as we honor Jason David Frank and may the power protect us all as we look at Forever Red.

Forever Red opens on the Moon, where a bunch of robots from the Machine Empire dig up a giant robot dragon named serpentera entirely missing the moonlander colony Yup this is power rangers: cheesy as heck, but gloriously and unafraidly so. For those needing a refresher the Machine Empire were the main villians of season 2, a giant unstoaple machine army.. that translated to the usual "send a giant monster to get his ass kicked by teenagers" formula, but still were neat. So using a few spare suits from another bit of my childhood, whose title must be said in song as is in my contrast

Which was dope.. and far more insane than I remembered. Though the comic strip bit always bugs me anytime I listen to this. There.. two diffrent mediums guys. Their both some of my faviorite mediums, but come on.

They had some remnants of the empire surivive to ressurect serpentera, Lord Zed's giant murder dragon WMD who is on the moon because it was in the writer's fanfic.

Luckily for earth, Andros, the red space ranger, is there, in a cloak because he generally likes to cloak around when he's being sneaky even if it dosen't remotely work as camoflage here on a robot covered moon. He plans to go warn the others but accidently trips a rock and then gets CHASED ON HORSEBACK BY TWO OF THE MACHINE EMPIRE GUYS, whose names i'm not bothering to learn as they all have the same personality of

But let's not bury the lead; TWO ROBOTS ARE CHASING AS SPACEMAN ON HORSES. I now want a full graphic novel from boom detaling why the machine empire has horses, what these majestic space horses can do, and why we never saw them again after scenes. I also applaud whoever was on set, saw they could get horses and decided "fuck it i'm going to have these big bad beetle borgs chase Andros on horseback". That person deserves a nobel for their contributions to humanity.

So we go to Bulk's poolside hangout spot, probably built where Ernies used to be, where he's regaling Skull with tales.. tales he was there for because they got into all kinds of weird shit together and tails he'll undoubtly pass on to Skull's own child when he raises him for a year as a samurai because he saw some power rangers do it and thought it'd be badass.

They get a call for Tommy, whose identity some cut stuff confirms they DO know now and it does make sense: it'd be easy to connect the dots from the space rangers unmasking in the finale of that series, to the guys who directly mentored them. Probably. Look I just like the idea they and tommy were friends. Tommy also has some very pointy frosted tips because clearly Jason tried out for Zoolander and didn't get the part and hadn't been able to wash them out when they filmed it.

We cut to.. wherever Wild Force is where Cole Evans, this series red ranger is picked up by Carter Grayson, Lightspeed Red Ranger and certified badass. How Carter does it is hilarious.. he just comes up to him in a park, says "are you the red wildforce ranger" and flashes his morpher like a badge to assure he's not some creepy weirdo who figured it all out.

Cole is also a lot. He looks like this

He looks like he escaped from the set of Miami Connection and it is glorious. His actor.. less so. I'll comment on this so no one else brings it up: Cole's actor murdered a man with a replica conan the barbarian sword, pled guilty to it, and while he's served his sentence he's understandably not being invited back to any other series after he ran a man through with a sword. I brought it up to get it out of the way. Granted even if he hadn't commited murder, i'd still be making fun of this guy for his hammy acting, hilarously awesome bandanda, and sleeveless vest, all of which is both cheesily enjoyable and gloriously stupid, but the fact he ran a man through with a fully functional replica conan sword just makes it go down easier. I limited myself to one Jason David Frank's frosted Tips Joke since he just died and all, I gotta get my laughs where I can.

So Cole runs off with a stranger and alone

And they meet at a Nasada warehouse where most of the other previous rangers show up: TJ from Turbo and In Space, Wes and Eric from Time Force (Whose quantum ranger was also red), and of course the king of all rangers, Tommy Olvier, former green and white mighty morphin ranger, red turbo ranger before TJ, future Black Dino Ranger and for this special Red Zeo ranger. Three are missing with Leo Corbett being later shown grabbing his sword that turns him into a ranger back, and picking up the Aquitian ranger because they had the costume so why not.

Tommy, naturally taking point as a living legend among the others as he damn well should be, has Andros fill them in: Serpentera is on the moon, the machines need to be stopped from using it to wipe out earth as it's that powerful and they got a fresh pack of triple a batteries for it, and he united all the red rangers and not every ranger he could get for such a mission.. because it was all Disney could afford and it gave them a badass looking group theme regardless of how many diffrent teams are represented. They plan to blast off in a recreation of the astro megaship, but their one short…. until Jason, the old son of a bitch rides up on his motorcycle. I planned to make the joke that we were just one handclap shy of the "you son of a bitch" scene from predator.. only for him and Tommy to FUCKING do it. I love this gloriously stupid franchise, bless you writers for just going ahead and doing it.

So our heroes head to the moon, and meet up with the other two and we get a truly badass sequence of EVERY ranger present having some morphing time as we get EVERY morph sequence. I'm convinced a good chunk of the budget went into this and it. was. worth. it.

What follows is about 5 minutes of awesome fight scenes. We get Jason and Cole back to back and they get the most actual character interactoin: there was more planned but you know

With Jason chiding the rookie.. but also clearly mentoring him a bit: sure he's ribbing the guy a tad, but after saving his ass gladly lets him get some shots in and fights along side him. He may give the rookie crap as he's going through some things while his actor goes through some criminal charges, but their both rangers through and through and he knows that.

We also get cool swordfight with thankfully not coll, but TJ and Leo, as well as a fun gun fight with Carter and one of the time force rangers. It's a solid bit of power rangers action. We also got an unmorphed fight I almost forgot about earlier that just.. kinda happened so fair enough me. I saved the best for last though as Tommy kicks off the fight.. literally by SUPER KICKING ONE OF THE MACHINE EMPIRE SO HARD HE EXPLODES. If anything summed up Jasons glorious long tenure with the franchise, it's Tommy Oliver super kicking a robot to death. That or him kicking Goldar while scremaing "out of your mind!".. which I couldn't find a clip or gif of.

The finale.. is infamously stupid. Like I said they wanted to maybe break out some zords, the astromegazord.. something.. instead to promote a toy Cole flies into serperntera, gets a zenkai boost or somethinga nd blows the fucker up. It's hliariously dumb to see Beef McLargehuge do this.. but kind of an antic climax after some really good fight coregraphy that showed off the various rangers skill sets.

Still the ending is nice as Tommy literally walks off into the sunset, Cole rightfully calls him the greatest ranger ever, and we get a fun scene of the other rangers piping in all the insane shit they did caping off this episode.

Forever Red is a nicely paced anniversary showcase, throwing in everything from nasada, to the machine empire to serpentera. Even Alpha gets a cameo and my boy Richard Steve Horvitz gets a paycheck. It's a loveletter to power rangers and while cheesy as hell, it's in the best way possible. Wethere your familiar with the franchise or not, it's a fun, bonkers 20 minutes of action, heart, and tommy oliver being badass. If you can think of a better way to honor jason than watching him do a predator handclasp and super kick robots ont he moon.. there probably is , but this is certainly one of the best. May the power protect you jason…

#jason david frank #power rangers #forever red #power rangers wild force #mighty morphin power rangers #disney #abc #foxkids #sentai #Youtube

[the-firebird69]

This is actually very true to form they put the size of the box on the side of it when they found it and they put the box inside it when it is larger and they make a certain size by feeding it as they said, it was handled only by a select few and the rarely if we're any witnesses. What's in embossed on the side is in gold it's a solid plate of cold the gold on it and face value is about 35,000 no 35 million yes because it's solid gold all of it is in the box fits inside and comes out and take it out the cover can't open unless you do and he says no it opens with the top and it does it opens with a hinge and the top is attached to it and usually by pressure and what's held inside in the past would be the eye of Horus but two eyes of course etc. And it's a certain cases and we would handle it yes. The embossment on the box is it in ancient Hebrew and it is the box they mentioned in the Bible is the ark of the covenant and it was brought before the armies of David to vanquish his enemies it was captured from us for time and then it was lost and that's why they call it the Lost ark and they put things in it I didn't want people to know about but truthfully it was not what we had and it's a story one way or the other to you but it is one for us it's our story. This engraving on the outside for embossing looks like it's stamped but it's not it's of a particular place and you can see rings and it's not here it is saw it in a television program several times with the mountainside in the background and he doesn't recall where but he does recall seeing several scenes that are similar and it is in the Midwest and there's rings like that in the ground and one might be curious as to why that is.

Hera

This antiquity which is worth tons of money now has the original box back inside it and it's situated where you see here in Los Angeles and it is in the prompt museum for my daddy-in-law's movie. The box itself if people went to properly identify it and found it was true would be worth about 7 octillion dollars to someone but nobody would buy it and let you keep the money it's amazing to us and it's on display and nobody figured out it's real gold just by the wieght now he had to pull some Stone out to put the wood in the wood looks like Stone. But I'd like to say this these are our antiquities and it's our story and we don't want you to have anything he keep on blabbing about it and saying blasphemy and you're very insulin people for people who don't understand what these objects are and what they're used for I have horse could be made giant it was if it was a giant Horus. Now I don't want get into it but these are used to carry them around to probably build things

Zues

Expertly said and in the American dialect

Olympus

I'm going to move on no but he wanted you to know about it so you can ponder it look at it fight over it and what have you but for real there is a huge War in the upper Midwest and the huge armies were gathering and wiped out and the gathering again to the same number and shortly they will be wiped out. These numbers are very huge the represent the large portion of their population and they don't feel the loss of this bunch but shortly the upper Midwest and Midwest they will it is clearing out slowly and the ships went up the St Laurent and they're coming back out and it's going to be cold air and they're going to continuously evacuate for the next few days as others choose to fight them there and whoever it is we say meanwhile the clones are fighting as well and the empire and they are fighting viciously against the empire and sent 20,000 trillion today to the basis and 20,000 trillion to their areas and 20,000 trillion to the desert meaning they're going to mount a large-scale attack shortly that's what it means

Thor Freya

We're getting ready and we're getting back up and we're going to fumigate these pricks and I'm going to pull them out of here too I'm a pain in the ass it's too much for me

Mac

[seekfirst-community]

The following reflection is courtesy of Don Schwager © 2022. Don's website is located at Dailyscripture.net

Meditation: What does the commandment "keep holy the Sabbath" require of us? Or better yet, what is the primary intention behind this command? The religious leaders confronted Jesus on this issue. The "Sabbath rest" was meant to be a time to remember and celebrate God's goodness and the goodness of his work, both in creation and redemption. It was a day set apart for the praise of God, his work of creation, and his saving actions on our behalf. It was intended to bring everyday work to a halt and to provide needed rest and refreshment.

The Lord of the Sabbath feeds and nourishes us

Jesus' disciples are scolded by the scribes and Pharisees, not for plucking and eating corn from the fields, but for doing so on the Sabbath. In defending his disciples, Jesus argues from the Scriptures that human need has precedence over ritual custom. In their hunger, David and his men ate of the holy bread offered in the Temple (1 Samuel 21:2-7). On every Sabbath morning twelves loaves were laid before God on a golden table in the Holy Place. Each loaf represented one of the twelve tribes of Israel. No one was allowed to eat this bread except the priests because it represented the very presence of God. David understood that human need took precedence over rules and ritual regulations.

Seek the Lord's rest and refreshment

Why didn't the Pharisees recognize the claims of mercy over rules and regulations? Their zeal for ritual observance blinded them from the demands of charity. Jesus' reference to the bread of the Presence alludes to the true bread from heaven which he offers to all who believe in him. Jesus, the Son of David, and the Son of Man, a title for the Messiah, declares that he is "Lord of the Sabbath." Jesus healed on the Sabbath and he showed mercy to those in need. All who are burdened can find true rest and refreshment in him. Do you seek rest and refreshment in the Lord and in the celebration of the Lord's Day?

"Lord Jesus, you refresh us with your presence and you sustain us with your life-giving word. Show me how to lift the burden of others, especially those who lack the basic necessities of life, and to refresh them with humble care and service."

The following reflection is from One Bread, One Body courtesy of Presentation Ministries © 2022.

submission slip

“God has put us apostles at the end of the line.” —1 Corinthians 4:9

Jesus’ apostles were not always respected. Sometimes, they were “like men doomed to die in the arena” (1 Cor 4:9). They became “a spectacle to the universe, to angels and men alike” (1 Cor 4:9). They were “fools on Christ’s account” (1 Cor 4:10), “the world’s refuse, the scum of all” (1 Cor 4:13).

The bishops are the successors of the apostles. Some of them, especially the Pope, are also despised by the world, especially by some “Catholics.” When the bishops oppose abortion and artificial contraception, they are dismissed as fools. When they warn nations of the immorality of embargoes, unbridled capitalism, and the use of the death penalty, they are ignored. When they call us to sexual purity, they are portrayed as “spectacles” by the secular humanistic media (see 1 Cor 4:9).

No matter how much the world and some members of the Church hate the Church and her leaders, Jesus loves the Church (Eph 5:25) and her bishops. His disciples must do the same. Jesus, referring to the leaders of the Church, commanded: “He who hears you, hears Me. He who rejects you, rejects Me. And he who rejects Me, rejects Him Who sent Me” (Lk 10:16). Joyfully submit to the authority of the Church.

Prayer:  Father, I submit to the authority of the Church because of my fear of You (Eph 5:21).

Promise:  “The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.” —Ps 145:18

Praise:  Pope St. Gregory the Great certainly lived up to his honorary title. He reformed the liturgy and stabilized the Church as the Roman Empire crumbled in Western Europe.

Reference:  (For a related teaching on The Church in God’s Plan, listen to, download or order our CD 67-3 or DVD 67 on our website.)

Rescript:  "In accord with the Code of Canon Law, I hereby grant the Nihil Obstat for the publication One Bread, One Body covering the time period from August 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. Reverend Steve J. Angi, Chancellor, Vicar General, Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio January 31, 2022"

The Nihil Obstat ("Permission to Publish") is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the contents, opinions, or statements

[literarygoon]

So,

On the third day, we pulled into Six Flags Amusement Park.

It was early July 2004, and I’d only ever been to California once before — with my youth pastor Brad, for a youth conference in Sacramento. That was the first time in my life I’d ever been surrounded by black people, having only ever really seen them in music videos and Independence Day. During one of our conference breaks we’d gone to see Red Dragon, which featured Ralph Fiennes as a serial killer with an epic back tattoo, long before he ever played Voldemort. Now we were en route to Tijuana, where we planned to do work at a small orphanage called Emmanuel Children’s Home. 

All the way down the coast from Tsawwassen to Valencia, I’d been sprawled out on the backseat with one of the girls from the St. David’s youth group, hiding under a thick blanket. Three rows up, Brad was driving our white 15-passenger van and was strictly regulating our bathroom breaks — the girls in particular were notorious for requesting one at every gas station we passed. Meanwhile I was feeling up one of my fellow missionaries, my wrist bunched against her sweatband elastic and her lips open against my neck. Her moist skin was like dragon flame. I couldn’t believe I was getting away with it.

Only a few days earlier I’d hooked up with a different girl from our crew, a rambunctious singer who loved Marooon 5 and reminded me of myself — which was the problem. Since I’d begun experimenting sexually, I’d become convinced that I was a uniquely evil loser and my self-hatred was getting increasingly difficult to manage. Brad had pulled me aside to chastise me for a particular encounter involving another dude’s girlfriend, telling me that as a youth worker I needed to be above reproach. He told me that following our trip we would have a longer talk, which I was dreading. He always seemed to be able to weasel out my secrets.

As it turned out, we never had that talk — four days later he was arrested for allegedly molesting two teenage boys. Whisked away by a creepy black car with tinted windows, he’d been hoisted out of my life in the middle of a Sunday School lesson and I felt somehow responsible. Was God punishing me for my sexual misdeeds? I’d already been questioning my faith, but this was the nine-inch-nail in the coffin of my religion. Brad had became a pseudo-father to me, the Qui-Gon Jinn to my Obi-Wan Kenobi. If someone like that could be randomly fated to imprisonment in a Mexican prison while doing the Lord’s work, then who the fuck was I serving exactly?

At Six Flags I was mostly hanging out with two other guys in the youth group, Eddie and Joe. I was keeping my covert entanglement with the first girl secret from Eddie because I didn’t want him to know that we’d lost our virginity to the same person — him first. One of the girls was half-Japanese and was named Charlize, and she’d been avoiding me since an encounter months earlier in which she sprinted out of my house after I cupped her 16-year-old boob in my parent’s basement. I was working my hardest to get back into her good books, because really I was intensely in love with her. I just couldn’t figure out the right way to show it.

“I don’t like that book,” she said once, about Chuck Palahniuk’s Lullaby. 

“Why not?”

“Because of the dead bird on the cover.”

I picked it up to see what she meant, and realized the problem: she was looking at it upside down. I flipped it over for her and gave her a smile, and the visceral reaction she had to this resurrection was heart-breakingly earnest. She took it out of my hands like she was cradling a real baby bird, and held it to her chest. I wanted to protect her and fuck her all at the same time. During the trip down the coast we took pictures on the beaches and tried Brad’s newly bought hot sauce — it was a weird hobby of his.

I’d never been to a roller coaster park before, and the heat was oppressive so I took off my shirt. I must’ve looked like a hoodlum to passersby by, with my crookedly shaved mohawk and sunburned chest. Joe, who was a few years younger, also took off his shirt — which got us a warning from security. This was supposed to be a family-friendly park.

As we passed two workers in bright rainbow-coloured uniforms, I overheard a bit of their conversation. The man speaking was in his 20s, a gangly black teenager with long dinosaur-like fingers. Beside him was a squat, silent Mexican man with a handlebar moustache. They each had a mop beside them, and were taking a smoke break.

“Daaaaamn, man. If he don’t give me duh re-SPECT I de-SERVE as a work-ER, daaaamn. Den I won’t give him da re-SPECT he de-SERVE as a supevisor,” he loudly complained.

The Mexican man just nodded.

I had recently finished reading The End of the Affair by Graham Greene, the story of a couple who vows to separate as atonement for their sins. Coincidentally, Ralph Fiennes also starred in the movie version — though I’d never seen it. Something about it clicked deeply in my soul, like Greene had the same prescient knowledge about my budding sexuality and fading Christianity. 

At one point a character says “I hate you, God. I hate you as if you existed.”

While the other kids made their way around the park, I found a quiet spot to write in my journal and try to disgorge my thoughts. Recently I’d made a grandiose vow of poverty, saying that if I truly wanted to be like Jesus then I should never own a house or anything like that. Giving up on a place to live is one thing, though, and giving up on girls is another.

I felt like a sexual volcano, which is a trait that runs in my family. When I was young I was told that when my parents got engaged my Gran’s first response was “oh, to which one?” My younger sister Kathryn was now 14 and had become a California-style bomb shell, working her way through multiple boys on our swim team. I admired her ultra-promiscuity and wanted to emulate it, though I didn’t think I was as good-looking or successful. I’d walked in on her once, fooling around with a guy on the Winskill Dolphin B team, and it was like catching a small boy with a handful of melting ice cream.

Eventually Eddie found me where I was sitting, and plunked down across from me. He was the second part of a trifecta of friends that included my friend Shaun Ross, who wasn’t on this particular trip. He asked me what I was writing, and we sat there talking about girls. Eddie was always jealous of me because of the omnipresent racism in our little white bread community. He was half-Asian, which meant that he was viewed with a sinister cocktail of pity and fear. The Christians in our crowd were blind to this.

Eventually he pushed a book across the table towards me.

“I think you’ll like this book. It made a big impact on me. It’s all about doubt.”

I perked up, interested. “Oh yeah?”

“It’s called A Prayer for Owen Meany.”

The Literary Goon

[fidei]

You are the light of the world

A treatise on Matthew by St Chromatius

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp only to put it under a bushel basket; they put it on a stand where it gives light to all in the house. The Lord called his disciples the salt of the earth because they seasoned with heavenly wisdom the hearts of men rendered insipid by the devil. Now he calls them the light of the world as well, because they have been enlightened by him, the true and everlasting light, and have themselves become a light in the darkness.

  Since he is the Sun of Justice, he fittingly calls his disciples the light of the world. The reason for this is that through them, as through shining rays, he has poured out the light of the knowledge of himself upon the entire world. For by manifesting the light of truth, they have dispelled the darkness of error from the hearts of men.

  Moreover, we too have been enlightened by them. We have been made light out of darkness as the Apostle says: For once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light. He says another time: For you are not sons of the night and of darkness, but you are all sons of light and of the day.

  Saint John also rightly asserts in his letter: God is light, and whoever abides in God is in the light just as God himself is in the light. Therefore, because we rejoice in having been freed from the darkness of error, we should always walk in the light as children of light. This is why the Apostle says: Among them you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life.

  If we fail to live in the light, we shall, to our condemnation and that of others, be veiling over and obscuring by our infidelity the light men so desperately need. As we know from Scripture, the man who received the talent should have made it produce a heavenly profit, but instead he preferred to hide it away rather than put it to work and was punished as he deserved.

  Consequently, that brilliant lamp which was lit for the sake of our salvation should always shine in us. For we have the lamp of the heavenly commandment and spiritual grace, to which David referred: Your law is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Solomon also says this about it: For the command of the law is a lamp.

  Therefore, we must not hide this lamp of law and faith. Rather, we must set it up in the Church, as on a lamp-stand, for the salvation of many, so that we may enjoy the light of truth itself and all believers may be enlightened.

[kaypeace21]

Idk if this is possible or not or if you've done it already but could you list all the rainbow references in the show?

Haha- talk about pandora’s box. Sure, personally i think the rainbows have multiple meanings -3 meanings to to be exact

1) Rainbows being associated with psychics + Will’s powers plot twist

*We see in the stranger thing novel 'suspicious minds' when overusing powers you may hallucinate rainbows (which are also associated with the void/ monsters in the series) .

Terry: “Spots bloomed behind her eyelids. Every color … as the sunlight turned to rainbows” ( p44-45), “streaks of rainbow appeared (p47)”,“The rainbow stayed with Terry for a long while, but eventually it faded and in its place: darkness. A pit.”(p. 48). 

Alice (who sees visions of the future) : “Snarling, snapping monsters,RAINBOW LIGHTS playing in the air around them” (p. 121).

cough Will being in the upsidedown/being chased by “monsters”. And Joyce communicating with Will  via “rainbow lights.”

The rainbow room (from s2) also has a rainbow on the door- according to the novel kali drew that rainbow. Similar to Will's rainbow drawing. Kali in the book also creates a rainbow allusion with sunflowers (Terry ref).

Kali: “field of yellow sunflowers  grew up around them. A rainbow arcing over the golden tops.” (p. 139).  “He noticed she’d drawn up there, a rainbow with her colored pencils. Maybe he’d suggest that for the playroom” (the rainbow room we see in s2) (p. 298)

I also already talked about how Terry saying "breath, sunflower, rainbow " is actually a reference to s1 Will- here (in link including pic of Will and Terry being told to “breath”.

*El in s3 also thinks of papa, her mother , and the rainbow room- cause she sees a cereal box with a rainbow (on it).

Dustin and susie sing a song from the film adaption of the book "never ending story". Which indicates how Will is subconsciously creating the supernatural creatures & people in the series . Before they sing, we also see  susie is next to a ‘wizard of oz’ posters & she reads & talks to Dustin about the book "wizard of earthsea'. 2 of the 3 examples have  rainbow-related songs (in their film adaptions) & all 3 hint at Will’s powers.

* wizard of earthsea:

It’s about a pre-teen wizard named Ged who has a bowl cut (Will) who casts a powerful spell, but the spell goes awry and instead he releases a shadow creature (by opening a portal between the living & dead- Will is a zombie boy remember?)! The new Archmage, Gensher, describes the shadow as an ancient evil that wishes to possess Ged. But the ‘shadow’ turns out  to be a representation of the darkest aspects of his personality. It’ only when he calls the shadow monster by his own name “Ged”(cough mf=will the wise) does the monster stop acting out. The only way to save the world is for ged to then  merge with the shadow(and for Ged to accept himself-and “become whole”).This also reminds me of the “Jungian shadow” 

* never ending story: 

Bastian ( who has a bowl cut- and is from single parent house hold) subconsciously creates a fantasy world being over run by darkness (symbolizing the loss of hope and dreams). One of the characters he creates is Atreyu (El). Atreyu ( was the child deemed the ‘chosen one). “Atreyu is knocked into the sea of possibilities. There he wakes on the shore of abandoned ruins. And Gmorick (mindflayer) then latches his jaws onto Atreyu’s (El’s) leg.”Pretty much what happened to El.”The Empress in the story later tells Atreyu, that despite being told he was the chosen one (he never was). And that it was always Bastian (Will) who was the chosen one-since his imagination created Fantasia (so he’s the only way to stop the darkness from over -running it).”

Will has mental health issues and  accidentally writes a “story” about the shadow monster (reflecting his tra*ma). Bastian is depressed (over his parent) and subconsciously creates a story about darkness over-running everything. Like how Hopper describes his depression- like a black hole.

song Dustin & Susie sing:

 “Written on the pages is the answer to a never ending story” (cough the books susie referenced - are explaining the answer to what’s causing the mindflayer/upsidedown/the lab...this story )

“DREAM a dream. And what you DREAM will be” ( Will’s imagination making his nightmares come true)

“Rhymes that keep their secrets Will unfold behind the clouds.And there upon a RAINBOW Is the answer to a never ending story.”

(the lyric “rhymes that keep their SECRETS” purposely pans to Will both times the song is sung). Because the ‘SECRET’ is -he’s causing everything. And thus he’s the only way to stop it- or they’ll all be stuck in a never-ending story. The only way to stop it is for Will to face his shadow/the mindflayer (aka the other Will) who is always shown within the STORM CLOUDS . Will needs to create a RAINBOW (out of those storm clouds). Like rainbows that show up AFTER a storm.He’d do this by accepting himself , his tra*ma/mental health relating to his dad, and or his gay identity- then the story will be able to end.Dustin even says “ defeat his RAINBOW of DARKNESS” (and later says a “rainbow is the answer ”(to the story). st book:”The RAINBOW stayed with Terry for a long while, but eventually it faded and in its place: DARKNESS. A pit.”AKA: Will has to face his symbolic darkness and the storm/and than create a rainbow from it- for the story to end...

When Dustin says ‘rainbow of darkness’ he talks about my little pony- where one of their friends became a dragon.  in d&d wizards can become dragons &Bastian also summons a dragon with his imagination powers in ‘never ending story’. And Will is associated with dragons: s1he  has dragon comic & drawing, s2 Will has dragon poster in his room + watches his friends play dragon game. And again... dungeons & dragons.

Also tw for s.a/parental ab*se (so skip to ‘wizard of oz’  if you prefer ). In the 4th book of wizard of Eathsea (20 years after the original, where ged was the protagonist). The new main  protagonist - was r*ped and burned by her father as a child (and in the sequel she became a dragon as a form of empowerment ). which goes with my lonnie theory-sadly.

*wizard of oz: 

it’s about a Dorothy creating a mythical world based on people she both likes and dislikes . Dorothy sings in the movie a song about a ‘RAINBOW’ and references ‘DREAMS’ coming true in a mythical land -much like the ‘never ending story’ song (referencing “rainbows”/”dreams” coming to life).

“There's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby Somewhere over the RAINBOW, Skies are blue, And the DREAMS that you dare to dream, really do come true...”

We see in s1 Hopper cop-partner calls the lab “emerald city”. Murray in s2 says people “don’t want to look behind the curtain” (to see what’s causing the supernatural -in the film what was literally behind the curtain was a wizard-cough like Will). We also have -lion, tiger, and bear stuffed animals (as a ‘lion, and tigers, and bears-oh my!’ quote )from the film. And David harbor (Hopper) when referencing the s4 rainbow room (quotes the song)  and he also quotes a speech from Dorothy-when posting about the cabin the mindflayer destroyed.

2) Rainbow cups (hinting at Lonnie’s return) 

We see 2 rainbow cups in the series. 

in s2) when Mike & Will are sitting together & saying they’re “crazy together” . This cup next to them says “happy birthday” in rainbow. Later that season- they talk about Will’s birthday-rainbow drawing, Mike&Will meeting & Lonnie leaving. And in s2, we also see in Will’s room a card that says “sorry, I forgot your birthday”(most likely from Lonnie). So both Lonnie & Mike are associated with Will’s bday.

in s3) We see a woman yell “I don’t want her in my house!” (while she sits next to a rainbow cup). reminiscent of Joyce saying to Lonnie “get out of my house”. We also know there are rumors s4 takes place during Will’s birthday & Lonnie’s actor may have been spotted on set.  Along with the fact (it’s pretty much confirmed) Mike will be visiting the Byers in s4. However, the woman (next to the rainbow cup)  also says “2 visitor only. 2!″

THE 2 VISITORS ARE MIKE &LONNIE (for Will’s b day). 

Also, in s3, when El is drinking from cup- she sees a rainbow. And what’s the first word she thinks of? “Papa.”

so rainbow+cup= shitty dads (lonnie & brenner) probably returning

*And of course if that’s the case -Lonnie (the same guy who called Will h*mophobic sl*rs) will not be supportive of Mike & Will’s “friendship”. And will not be nice to Mike (to say the least). Like... imagine Hopper in s3 - but we know he’s not bluffing and the audience won’t have the option to take it as a joke... and yes the s4 movies hint at that...

3) gay symbolism

First we have Mike wheeler. He in s1 has rainbows sheets, rainbow bedroom blinds , and in his basement there’s a heart propelled by a rainbow. This is like how in s3 Mike kisses El and there is a drawing that says "Mike'. And on the drawing is a heart propelled by a rainbow. I already explained how its symbolic of him trying to be straight/fighting his feelings for Will, but wherever he goes a rainbow still follows (even when he tries being romantic with El). He’s trying to hide his “rainbow heart” by dating  El- why in s3 (the rainbow-heart in his basement) mysteriously disappeared from his room (but a similar symbol follows Mike even when he kisses El). 

Even in s2 when talking about Will (in the AV tech room): Mike is placed in the center of 2 objects : an object with 11 on it & on the right a rainbow apple (this apple is supposed to be an ode to the gay father of computers- but also about the forbidden apple). Hinting at the love triangle of Mike (with El/Will). PLUS, in the ST book ‘worlds turned upsidedown’ they literally show Mike in the AV room- and  put the caption “FALLING IN LOVE- with tech” (and placed rainbow flags next to the caption). And of course we have Mike & Will pose next to the rainbow apple- in the AV room.

 We also see when Mike and Will says they’re “crazy together” (aka LOVE-as Flo stated) and they’re next to a rainbow cup that says Happy birthday .

And later that season they ref the rainbow ship Will drew for his birthday-which Joyce was "proud" of.  And while dancing with a girl (Will according to the script was looking at Mike instead of her) . That girl is wearing a rainbow heart hair pin. This is essentially a parallel to Mike . Will (next to a rainbow heart) is dancing with a girl, but is secretly thinking of Mike. Mike (next to a rainbow heart) is kissing el but secretly thinking of Will (and immediately goes on a movie double date with Will after this). The lyrics of both these scenes indicate they're not happy pretending to be straight. The lyrics for Will are "every smile you fake". And Mike while kissing el is "just a little uncertainty can bring you down" (and during this lyric is when El puts her hands on him-and he removes her hands from him *aka he’s not as confident in the relationship as he pretends to be.

We see in s4 bts that the rainbow heart hair pin (worn by the girl Will dances with) is also worn by nancy while standing next to Robin (who is gay). So being near a  ‘rainbow-heart’ is prob a hint a character is gay. Aka robin & Will & Mike.

tumblr user “awhstrangerthings” pointed out the nancy -hair clip detail.

In s1 when troy is calling Will h*mophobic sl*rs (in front of Mike) he wears a rainbow shirt. And max while often critiquing m*leven (in s3) (to Mike) often wears rainbow shirts. I talked about how I thought Troy and max subconsciously remind Mike he isn't straight - so they're associated with the rainbow iconography-post here. Like we see Max with rainbow sheets (like Mike) and than she immediately talks to him on the phone. I mean she could be queer- but I lean to that theory at the moment. 

The whole being near rainbows when associating with a queer character makes sense (it’s like a ‘gay-dar”). Similar to Nancy’s hair clip when being near Robin/ that Girl having the same rainbow hair clip when dancing with Will. If we assume this theory than see a pattern with other characters (when speaking about/being near queer coded characters)....

it’s similar to how : When lucas (via subtext) criticizes m*leven- he is also next to a rainbow (in Erica's room). I explained here- why it’s about m*leven.

or when Jonathan says he’s going to hang out with Will (it’s near a rainbow).

This Jonathan moment -Is similar to when Steve ( who has a rainbow bandaid-from the Byers’ house) calls Mike “Nancy” (which is slang for a gay guy)

*another addition: you see in the comments of this post ghostgirlsatin mentioned Dart has a rainbow blanket. But, I noticed a couple of other things. 

notice Dustin says "we have to talk- its about my friend ,Will". As Dustin is near rainbow lights and a rainbow bed sheet. Like how

A) rainbows are associated with the supernatural creatures + Will

B) rainbow lights associated with Will

C) rainbows near straight characters when talking about /near queer characters... similar to how Jonathan is near a rainbow when talking about Will

*also can’t tell if that is a ‘rainbow ship’ poster?

We also see Erica has a sunflower & rainbow drawing in her room... at the moment not sure if its just a random easteregg , foreshadowing something supernatural we're not aware of yet? or just for the m*leven diss?

(although given the fact i think some characters were created by Will- and given all the Max &Billy/Will & jonathan parallels ... the rainbow stuff may be a hint Will created them? I mean they even made a Troy comic just to show his dad is a bully.) But, at the moment, i still lean to (some) characters having rainbow iconography because they’re referring to/are near a queer character.

#will byers #byler #mike wheeler #dustin henderson #el hopper #lucas sinclair #max mayfield #steve harrington #robin buckley #nancy wheeler #jonathan byers #jim hopper #joyce byers #stranger things #stanger things theory

[theuncannytruthteller]

TWA pygmy people were the first settlers of Ireland. The TWA wore a Uraeus, a particular hat showing a snake image which is also found on the heads of the images of the Kings and Queens of ancient Egypt. Thus St. Patrick is apparently celebrated by the Catholic Church for his work in the mass slaughter of the TWA throughout Northern Ireland.

Scottish historian David Mac Ritchie, and the British antiquarian Godfrey Higgins, have done exhaustive research and brought many facts to our knowledge. Tacitus, Pliny, Claudian and other writers have described the Blacks they encountered in the British Isles as “Black as Ethiopians,” “Cum Nigris Gentibus,” “nimble-footed blackamoors,” and so on. From all indications, the ancient dwellers of the British Isles and Ireland, like the Kymry (one of the names given to the earliest inhabitants, from whom the Picts and Scots descended), were Blacks. David Mac Ritchie has provided substantial evidence in his two-volume work, Ancient and Modern Britons that the Picts, as well as the ancient Danes, were Blacks. The Partholans, Formorians, Nemeds, Firbolgs, Tuatha De Danann, Milesians of Ireland and the Picts of Northern Scotland were all Blacks. The Firbolgs (believed to be a section of the Nemeds) are believed to be so-called pygmies or the Twa. They are the dwarfs, dark elves or leprechauns in Irish History. St. Patrick's Day, which is celebrated worldwide on March 17, honors St. Patrick, the Christian missionary who supposedly rid Ireland of snakes during the fifth century A.D.

According to legend, the patron saint of Ireland chased the slithering reptiles into the sea after they began attacking him during a 40-day fast he undertook on top of a hill. But snakes were certainly not chased out of Ireland by St. Patrick, who had nothing to do with Ireland's snake-free status. Why would a man be canonized {declared to be a saint} just because he supposedly got rid of all the snakes in Ireland? Monaghan, who has trawled through vast collections of fossil and other records of Irish animals, has found no evidence of snakes ever existing in Ireland. "At no time has there ever been any suggestion of snakes in Ireland.

[There was] nothing for St. Patrick to banish," Monaghan said. Snakes likely couldn't reach Ireland. Most scientists point to the most recent Ice Age, which kept the island too cold for reptiles until it ended 10,000 years ago. After the Ice Age, surrounding seas may have kept snakes from colonizing the Emerald Isle. Once the ice caps and woolly mammoths retreated northward, snakes returned to northern and western Europe, spreading as far as the Arctic Circle. But snakes have not existed in Ireland for thousands of years.

Britain, which had a land bridge to mainland Europe until about 6,500 years ago, was colonized by three snake species: the venomous adder, the grass snake, and the smooth snake.Animals that reached Ireland before the sea became an impassable barrier included brown bears, wild boars, and lynx—but "snakes never made it," he said. "Snake populations are slow to colonize new areas," Monaghan added.Mark Ryan, director of the Louisiana Poison Center at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, said in 2008 that the timing wasn't right for the sensitive, cold-blooded reptiles to expand their range. "There are no snakes in Ireland for the simple reason they couldn't get there because the climate wasn't favorable for them to be there," he said. Other reptiles didn't make it either, except for one: the common or viviparous lizard.

Ireland's only native reptile, the species must have arrived within the last 10,000 years, according to Monaghan. The Twa journeyed to Northern Ireland very early in its conception prior to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church & had a cultural, technological, & philosophical impact on a people there known as the Druids. One of the cultural influences the Druids got from the Twa was the fact that they wore a fez or head cover that depicted the African symbol known is a Uraeus, which is the same snake image you see worn by the Kings & Queens in ancient Kemet {Egypt}. To Twa, some of the names for our people include; Naga, Nagar and Negus, which means loosely “serpent people” or “people of the serpent”. The name is also synonymous with Pharaohs and Kings. In many African cultures, the serpent is not a symbol of evil but one of eternal life, regeneration, power, protection, and wisdom.

The existence of the TWA also is reflected in many of the Irish legends that were passed down by the Druids to contemporary times. The story of the Leprechaun or a type of fairy that dressed in a green coat and who saved cold coins in a pot is a reflection of the diminutive people who were craftsmen in their time. It was said they had special knowledge of medicine, metallurgy, textile, and shoe-making which the Caucasians perceived as “magical.” The Roman Catholic Church seeing the practices of the Druids wanted to convert them, and if they couldn't, the would remove them & their beliefs as well along with the Twa who were still present in Northern Ireland at that time. St Patrick under the direction of Patrick who acted on behalf of the Catholic Church.

Author David MacRitchie, in his book Ancient and Modern Britons, wrote: “that the wild tribes of Ireland were black men is hinted by the fact that ‘a wild Irishman’ is in Gaelic ‘a black Irishman (Dubh Eireannach).” The word Dubh in Gaelic means Black. Was given an order to set up Roman Catholic Churches all over Northern Ireland, and in the process, convert or remove the Druid & Twa influence. He killed countless numbers of Druids & the Twa in the name of Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit.

He was made a saint because he removed the snakes from Northern Ireland, it's really referring to the Uraeus head garment worn by the Druids & the Twa. And the leprechaun myth comes from the short Black men that were murdered all in the name of religion.

[no-reply95]

Jealous Guys

Something I’ve been thinking about for a while now is the different ways jealousy manifested for John and Paul over the course of their friendship.

I’m going to look at John and Paul in turn and have a look at some of the key ways jealousy appeared, before, during and after the Beatles period. This will be a looooong post so if you want to go on deep dive keep reading below.

John

Jealousy was something that John acknowledged as a big part of his personality, as far as I’m aware, he only acknowledged his jealousy publicly in terms of his relationship with Yoko but I believe jealousy was a feature of all of John’s major relationships. John’s first real partnership was with Pete Shotton, his childhood best friend, and Pete has outlined how John’s jealousy and possessiveness was a feature in their friendship with them falling out when Pete first started showing interest in girls and with John acting out when Pete started to spend more time with other friends, instead of him, here Pete recounts John’s reflection on this period of their friendship:

“Years later John confessed to having felt acutely jealous throughout that interlude: “I was scared shitless I’d lost you after our fight in science class, when you starting playing with David Jones. I really thought I’d gone too far with you that time.“

Pete Shotton, John Lennon: In My Life , 1983

Pete’s recollections establish a pattern in John’s life of acting out due to a fear of abandonment and losing those who are closest to him so it’s not surprising that once John had formed a strong bond with Paul that would stir similar fears in him. 

Below I’ve categorised the groups of people that were the focus of John’s jealousy and have picked one person from each group as an example:

Family - Jim McCartney

Paul’s family was and continues to be a big part of his life. From the outset of their friendship, John was made aware of how important Jim was to Paul and vice versa. John and Paul had to skip school to hang out together because Jim wouldn’t have John in their house initially and John confessed his resentment of Jim’s influence over Paul’s life. It appears that after some time John grew tired of having to contend with Jim for the position of the most important person in Paul’s life, and this culminated in John giving Paul a pseudo ultimatum as John discussed in 1971:

“But Paul would always give in to his dad. His dad told him to get a job, he fucking dropped the group and started working on the fucking lorries, saying, "I need a steady career." We couldn't believe it… “So I told him on the phone, "Either come or you're out." So he had to make a decision between me and his dad then, and in the end he chose me”

St. Regis Hotel interview, Sept. 5, 1971

Friends - Mal Evans

Throughout the active years of the band it was typical of them to refer to each other as their best friends and, given the lives they led, I think the simple fact that no one else could understand what it was like to be a Beatle would have meant they all shared a special bond. However, they all had friendships outside of the band and this was something that could cause issues for John when it came to Paul.

According to Tune In, Mal initially became friends with Paul during the band's initial shows at the Cavern Club then, after a suggestion from George, Mal became a part of the Beatles entourage thereafter. Mal had friendships with all the Beatles, as part of their inner circle, but from his comments it appears John took umbrage with the closeness of Mal’s friendship with Paul:

“Paul would suddenly come in with this circle saying, “This is Magical Mystery Tour, will you write that bit?” And I was choked that he’d arranged it all with Mal anyway, for a kickoff, and had all this idea going”

St. Regis Hotel interview, Sept. 5, 1971

Mal also comes up when John discusses his recollections of the writing of Eleanor Rigby:

“So rather than ask me, “John, do these lyrics—” Because by that period, he didn’t want to say that – to me. Okay? So what he would say was, “Hey, you guys, finish off the lyrics,”... “ Now, I sat there with Mal Evans, a road manager who was a telephone installer, and Neil Aspinall, who was a not-completed student accountant who became our road manager. And I was insulted and hurt that he’d thrown it out in the air”...” There might be a version that they contributed, but there isn’t a line in there that they put in.“

Playboy interview, David Sheff 1980

John’s discomfort with the closeness of Paul’s relationship with Mal was something that wasn’t lost on Mal’s wife Lil:

“He was always at their beck and call. He was a nice fella to have around, so much so that it could provoke little jealousies within the band. When I met Yoko years after Mal died, she said John had told her he’d been very jealous at one point of Mal’s relationship with Paul.”

Lil Evans interview with Ray Connolly, 2005

Love interests - Linda McCartney

Throughout their friendship both John and Paul had quite a few love interests, which (to varying degrees) prompted jealousy between them.

Although John displayed jealousy of a few of Paul’s love interests this was no more apparent than with Paul’s first wife Linda McCartney, which is confirmed by both John’s words and actions regarding Linda and her partnership with Paul:

“"Then Klein informed Lennon that McCartney had secretly been increasing his stake in Northern Songs. ‘John flew into a rage,’ recalled Apple executive Peter Brown. ‘At one point I thought he was really going to hit Paul, but he managed to calm himself down.’ One unconfirmed report of this meeting had Lennon leaping towards Linda McCartney, his fists raised in her face"

Peter Doggett, You Never Give Me Your Money

"Int: When did you first meet her [Linda]? John: The first time I saw her was after that press conference to announce Apple in America. We were just going back to the airport and she was in the car with us. I didn't think she was particularly attractive, I wondered what he was bothering having her in the car for. A bit too tweedy, you know. But she sat in the car and took photographs and that was it. And the next minute she's married him."

St. Regis Hotel interview, Sept. 5, 1971

“I was reading your letter and wondering what middle aged cranky Beatle fan wrote it... "What the hell—it’s Linda! . . . Linda— if you don’t care what I say—shut up!—let Paul write—or whatever.”

"Of course, the money angle is important—to all of us—especially after all the petty shit that came from your insane family/in laws—and GOD HELP YOU OUT, PAUL—see you in two years—I reckon you’ll be out then"

Draft letter from John Lennon to Linda McCartney, circa 1971

"The presumption is a) the Beatles would get together again or are even thinking about it and b) if they got together, John and Yoko split, Paul and Linda split"

John (with Yoko) talks to John Fielding on Weekend World, 1973

"John often speculated on why Paul and Linda remained married while, at the same time, resenting their evident happiness, to the extent that he had Green do a tarot reading to ensure him that Paul and Linda were really secretly miserable and were going to divorce within a year"

According to Fred Seaman and John Green, source

Paul

Of course jealousy wasn't a one-way street in the Lennon-McCartney relationship. Unlike with John, for Paul I'm focusing more on the key people I believe his jealousy, regarding John, was directed to:

Stuart Sutcliffe

John met Stu at Art College and struck up a really close friendship with him. At the point that John met Stu, John had already become friends with Paul so Paul felt threatened when Stu entered the picture:

"When he [Stu] came into the band, around Christmas of 1959, we were a little jealous of him; it was something I didn’t deal with very well. We were always slightly jealous of John’s other friendships.

When Stuart came in, it felt as if he was taking the position away from George and me. We had to take a bit of a back seat."

Paul McCartney, Anthology 2000

"Paul was saying something about Stu’s girl – he was jealous because she was a great girl, and Stu hit him, on stage. And Stu wasn’t a violent guy at all."

John Lennon, 1967 Anthology 2000

"I looked up to Stu. I depended on him to tell me the truth. Stu would tell me if something was good and I’d believe him. We were awful to him sometimes. Especially Paul, always picking on him. I used to explain afterwards that we didn’t dislike him, really."

John Lennon, The Beatles Hunter Davies 1968

Yoko Ono

Of all the relationships I've already discussed, the relationship and jealousy displayed from Paul towards Yoko is probably the most widely discussed in Beatles historiography and general discourse. From the official start of Yoko's relationship with John in 1968 it was clear that Paul resented her presence in John's life and her proximity to the band:

"He even sent them [John and Yoko] a hate letter once, unsigned, typed. I brought it in with the morning mail. Paul put most of his fan mail in a big basket and let it sit for weeks, but John and Yoko opened every piece. When they got to the anonymous note, they looked puzzled, looking at each other with genuine pain in their eyes. ‘You and your Jap tart think you’re hot shit’, it said."

Francie Schwartz, Body Count 1972

"Cause she’s [Yoko] very much to do with it from John’s angle, that’s the thing, you know. And I – the thing is that I – there’s— Again, like, there’s always only two answers. One is to fight it, and fight her, and try and get The Beatles back to four people without Yoko, and sort of ask her to sit down at the board meetings. Or else, the other thing is to just realize that she’s there, you know. And he’s not gonna sort of – split with her, just for our sakes."

Paul McCartney, Let It Be Sessions, 1969

"I told John on the phone the other day that at the beginning of last year I was annoyed with him. I was jealous because of Yoko, and afraid about the break-up of a great musical partnership. It’s taken me a year to realise that they were in love. Just like Linda and me."

Paul McCartney, interview with Ray Connolly, 1970

What are the similarities and differences in the way jealousy manifested for John and Paul?

I think it's obvious but bears repeating that both John and Paul displayed jealousy towards other people who they felt would threaten their relationship so that's central to all the instances I have flagged, Jim, Mal, Linda, Stu, Yoko all posed real or imagined threats to John and Paul's partnership.

However, you'll note that I included more sources to display John's jealousy regarding Paul and that I categorised John's jealousy targets whereas I only pulled out two key individuals for Paul, this isn't to say that John was more jealous than Paul was, as jealousy isn't something you can quantify, but to highlight my opinion that Paul's jealousy regarding John was more targeted than John's jealousy regarding Paul. I think what stands out to me is that, I think generally Stu and Yoko are held up as the prime examples of Paul's jealousy of other people getting close to John, as far as we know, Paul never had significant issues with other people who formed close relationships with John like Pete Shotton, Cynthia Lennon, Magic Alex etc., why was that? I think that Paul was more threatened when he felt that John was replacing him so by bringing Stu into the band (even though he wasn't a musician) and Yoko into the studio (one instance where Paul was especially hurt was when John gave Paul's line in The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill to Yoko to sing), Paul perhaps felt that his place as John's primary collaborator was in jeopardy and that he could lose a partnership that had become central to his self-worth as a person - that, I believe, was when his jealousy was most likely to rise to the fore. John, on the other hand, had a much wider range of targets when it came to jealousy regarding Paul, why was John jealous of Linda? Linda wasn't trying to replace John as Paul's collaborator, if anything she wanted the Lennon-McCartney partnership to be stronger. Why was John jealous of Mal? Mal wasn't a musician, Mal was a huge fan of the band and constantly worked to fulfil their requests, so why was John so threatened by his friendship with Paul? For me, John's jealousy regarding Paul was more than just a fear of directly being replaced, I believe John's jealousy was fundamentally triggered by a fear of abandonment. I think the childhood trauma John experienced, of being left by both his parents, meant that whenever any of his close friendships and relationships were threatened, or he felt that someone close to him may leave him, he would act out. John fell out with his childhood best friend Pete when he got a girlfriend, John hit Cynthia when he saw her dancing with Stu, John was rude to several of Paul's love interests and ultimately John never fully accepted Paul's relationship with Linda because, although he could see that she could offer Paul the family life he always wanted, John didn't want Linda to take Paul away and give him a family that meant that Paul would no longer be able to prioritise John in his life as he had in the past.

Ultimately, we'll never know all the ways that jealousy factored into John and Paul's relationship with each other and those around them, as I'm sure it impacted several relationships in more complex ways than I can articulate (i.e. I suspect jealousy played a part in Paul's initial resentment of Brian but they grew closer over time so maybe Paul's jealousy lessened over time or Brian became less of a threat?). I do think it's important to consider that jealousy was present on both sides and was likely a factor in the breakdown of John and Paul's relationship, the breakdown of the Beatles and was a continued factor in disrupting reconciliations between John and Paul into the 70s and 1980.

#the beatles #john lennon #paul mccartney #john and paul #paul and linda #john and yoko #jealous guy #linda mccartney #yoko ono #stuart sutcliffe #mal evans #jim mccartney #brian epstein #long post #thoughts

[aion-rsa]

Doctor Who: Perfect 10? How Fandom Forgets the Dark Side of David Tennant’s Doctor

https://ift.tt/2URb21b

As recently as September 2020 David Tennant topped a Radio Times poll of favourite Doctors. He beat Tom Baker in a 2006 Doctor Who Magazine poll, and was voted the best TV character of the 21st Century by the readers of Digital Spy. He was the Doctor during one of Doctor Who‘s critical and commercial peaks, bringing in consistently high ratings and a Christmas day audience of 13.31 million for ‘Voyage of the Damned’, and 12.27 million for his final episode, ‘The End of Time – Part Two’. He is the only other Doctor who challenges Tom Baker in terms of associated iconography, even being part of the Christmas idents on BBC One as his final episodes were broadcast. Put simply, the Tenth Doctor is ‘My Doctor’ for a huge swathe of people and David Tennant in a brown coat will be the image they think of when Doctor Who is mentioned.

In articles to accompany these fan polls, Tennant’s Doctor is described as ‘amiable’ in contrast to his predecessor Christopher Eccleston’s dark take on the character. Ten is ‘down-to-earth’, ‘romantic’, ‘sweeter’, ‘more light-hearted’ and the Doctor you’d most want to invite you on board the TARDIS. That’s interesting in some respects, because the Tenth Doctor is very much a Jekyll and Hyde character. He’s handsome, he’s charismatic, and travelling with him can be addictively fun, but he is also casually cruel, harshly dismissive, and lacking in self-awareness. His ego wants feeding, and once fed, can have destructive results.

That tension in the character isn’t due to bad writing or acting. Quite the contrary. Most Doctors have an element of unpleasantness to their behaviour. Ever since the First Doctor kidnapped Ian and Barbara, the character has been moving away from the entitled snob we met him as, but can never escape it completely.

Six and Twelve were both written to be especially abrasive, then soften as time went on (with Colin Baker having to do this through Big Finish audio plays rather than on telly). A significant difference between Twelve and Ten, though, is that Twelve questions himself more. Ten, to the very end, seems to believe his own hype.

The Tenth Doctor’s duality is apparent from his first full appearance in 2005’s ‘The Christmas Invasion’. Having quoted The Lion King and fearlessly ambled through the Sycorax ship in a dressing gown, he seems the picture of bonhomie, that lighter and amiable character shining through. Then he kills their leader. True, it was in self-defence, but it was lethal force that may not have been necessary. Then he immediately topples the British Prime Minister for a not dissimilar act of aggression. Immediately we see the Tenth Doctor’s potential for violence and moral grey areas. He’s still the same man who considered braining someone with a rock in ‘An Unearthly Child’. 

Teamed with Rose Tyler, a companion of similar status to Tennant’s Doctor, they blazed their way through time and space with a level of confidence that bordered on entitlement, and a love that manifested itself negatively on the people surrounding them. The most obvious example in Series 2 is ‘Tooth and Claw’, where Russell T. Davies has them react to horror and carnage in the manner of excited tourists who’ve just seen a celebrity. This aloof detachment results in Queen Victoria establishing the Torchwood institute that will eventually split them apart. We see their blinkers on again in ‘Rise of the Cybermen’, when they take Mickey for granted. Rose and the Doctor skip along the dividing line between romance and hubris.

Then, in a Christmassy romp where the Doctor is grieving the loss of Rose, he commits genocide and Donna Noble sucker punches him with ‘I think you need somebody to stop you’. Well-meaning as this statement is, the Doctor treats it as a reason to reduce his next companion to a function rather than a person. Martha Jones is there to stop the Doctor, as far as he’s concerned. She’s a rebound companion. Martha is in love with him, and though he respects her, she’s also something of a prop.

This is the series in which the Doctor becomes human in order to escape the Family of Blood (adapted from a book in which he becomes human in order to understand his companion’s grief, not realising anyone is after him), and is culpable for all the death that follows in his wake. Martha puts up with a position as a servant and with regular racist abuse on her travels with this man, before finally realising at the end of the series that she needs to get out of the relationship. For a rebound companion, Martha withstands a hell of a lot, mostly caused by the Doctor’s failings. 

Read more

TV

Why David Tennant Lost Hannibal Role According to Bryan Fuller

By Kirsten Howard

TV

Staged: BBC Comedy Confirms Sheen & Tennant’s Double-Act Greatness

By Louisa Mellor

Series 4 develops the Doctor further, putting the Tenth’s Doctor’s flaws in the foreground more clearly. Donna is now travelling with him, and simply calls him out on his behaviour more than Rose or Martha did. Nonetheless the Doctor ploughs on, and in ‘Midnight’ we see him reduced to desperate and ugly pleas about how clever he is when he’s put in a situation he can’t talk himself out of.

Rose has also become more Doctor-like while trapped in another reality, and brutally tells Donna that she’s going to have to die in order to return to the original timeline (just as the Doctor tells Donna she’s going to have to lose her memories of travelling with him in order to live her previous life, even as she clearly asks him not to – and how long did the Doctor know he would have to do this for? It’s not like he’s surprised when Donna starts glitching). Tied into this is the Doctor’s belief in his own legend. In ‘The Doctor’s Daughter’ he holds a gun to Cobb’s head, then withdraws it and asks that they start a society based on the morals of his actions. You know, like a well-adjusted person does.

What’s interesting here is that despite presenting himself as ‘a man who never would’, the Doctor is a man who absolutely would. We’ve seen him do it. Even the Tenth Doctor, so keen to live up to the absolute moral ideals he espouses, killed the Sycorax leader and the Krillitanes, drove the Cybermen to die of despair, brought the Family of Blood to a quiet village and then disposed of them personally. But Tennant doesn’t play this as a useful lie, he plays it as something the Doctor absolutely believes in that moment, that he is a man who would not kill even as his daughter lies dead. It’s why his picking up a gun in ‘The End of Time’ has such impact. And it makes some sense that the Tenth Doctor would reject violence following a predecessor who regenerated after refusing to commit another double-genocide.

In the series finale ‘Journey’s End‘, Davros accuses the Doctor of turning his friends into weapons. This is because the Doctor’s friends have used weapons against the Daleks who – and I can’t stress this enough – are about to kill everyone in the entire universe. Fighting back against them seems pretty rational. Also – and again I can’t stress this enough – the Daleks are bad. Like, really bad. You won’t believe just how mindbogglingly bad they are. The Doctor has tried to destroy them several times by this point. Here, there isn’t the complication of double-genocide, and instead the very real threat of absolutely everyone in the universe dying. This accusation, that the Doctor turns people into weapons, should absolutely not land.

And yet, with the Tenth Doctor, it does. This is a huge distinction between him and the First Doctor, who had to persuade pacifists to fight for him in ‘The Daleks’.

In ‘The Sontaran Strategem’ Martha compares the Doctor to fire. It’s so blunt it almost seems not worth saying, but it’s the perfect analogy (especially for a show where fire is a huge part of the very first story). Yes, fire shines in dark places, yes it can be a beacon, but despite it being very much fire’s entire deal, people can forget that it burns. And fire has that mythical connection of being stolen from the gods and brought to humanity. The Time Lord Victorious concept fits the Tenth Doctor so well. Of all the Doctors, he’s the most ready to believe in himself as a semi-mythic figure.

Even when regenerating there’s a balance between hero and legend: the Tenth Doctor does ultimately save Wilfred Mott, but only after pointing out passionately how big a sacrifice he’s making. And then he goes to get his reward by meeting all his friends, only to glare at them from a distance. His last words are ‘I don’t want to go’, which works well as clearly being a poignant moment for the actor as well, but in the context of Doctor Who as a whole it renders Ten anomalous: no one else went this unwillingly. And yet, in interviews Russell T. Davies said it was important to end the story with ‘the Doctor as people have loved him: funny, the bright spark, the hero, the enthusiast’.

It’s fascinating then, that this is the Doctor who has been taken to heart by so many viewers because there’s such an extreme contrast between his good-natured front, his stated beliefs, and his actions. He clearly loves Rose and Donna, but leaves them with a compromised version of happiness. They go on extraordinary journeys only to end up somewhere that leaves them less than who they want to be, with Russell T. Davies being more brutally honest than Steven Moffat, who nearly always goes the romance route. Davies once said to Mark Lawson that he liked writing happy endings ‘because in the real world they don’t exist’, but his endings tend towards the bittersweet: Mickey and Martha end up together but this feels like they’re leftovers from the Doctor and Rose’s relationship. The Tenth Doctor doesn’t, as Nine does, go with a smile, but holding back tears.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

It’s a testament to how well written the Tenth Doctor is that the character has this light and shade, and with David Tennant’s immense likeability he can appeal to a wider audience as a result. It’s not surprise he wins all these polls, but I can’t help but feel that if the Doctor arrived and invited me on board the TARDIS, I’d want it to be anyone but Ten.

The post Doctor Who: Perfect 10? How Fandom Forgets the Dark Side of David Tennant’s Doctor appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3iaqbDk

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek