#but in those drawings on the second page he is indisputably a baby. look at that little face. HE'S SO CUTE

[triangle-strategy-notes]

Quahaug Concept Art

Quahaug's concept/reference art! Translation notes and image id under the cut.

Translation notes:

"OP sort of powerset" was literally translated as something like "cheat-like." I feel like OP is the more common English term for that sort of thing, so that's what I used, but some of the meaning was probably lost there.

"Older-tween-ish" was specifically a reference to a particular middle school year for children who are about 12-13 years old. Since grades and names of grades vary a lot from country to country, I just went with "older tween."

ID:

[Image id: Several images displaying different parts of 2 pages of the Triangle Strategy artbook, with both the original Japanese as well as versions with English translations. There are several disclaimers noting that the translator doesn't speak Japanese, and that there are likely many mistakes.

On one page, there is a large colored version of Quahaug's canon portrait, along with a smaller, uncolored version. There is an illustrator's note at the bottom that translates to read, "'Manipulating time' is an OP sort of powerset, so though he looks like a child, I aimed to create a look for him that conveyed a sense of unknowable power. (Tatsuaki Urushibara)".

On the second page, there are many drawings of Quahaug, including a closer bust-up portrait in which he's compared to Lyla, with an arrow and label reading, "Mother." There's also several notes that explain the construction of his costume. The costume is labeled as a Greek "phelonion" (a priest's outfit with no real sleeves, just draping fabric). There is a small drawing of this version, with an arrow leading to another drawing that does have sleeves, with the note, "If you can't display this in pixels, use this one." There are several notes that explain how this draping cloth should be considered his everyday clothes, while the ceremonial decoration that goes around his neck is placed over it. There is a close up of the ceremonial dressing's fastenings underneath the metal decoration. Some more notes highlight details on his staff, emphasizing the hourglass on top and the small wheel to the side that can be turned to flip the hourglass. A larger piece of text underneath one fullbody drawing reads, "Character Who Manipulates Time."

On the second half of the second page, there are drawings of some beta designs for Quahaug. He looks much more punk-ish. On one bust-up portrait, there are the captions, "The burden of the time demon caused some of his hair to go gray…." and "All-natural highlighted tips." On the same portrait, he is snapping his fingers, and there's a note that reads, "Manipulating time is as easy as snapping your fingers. You just have to want it or whatever." A speech bubble near his head reads, "I don't think of Anna as a mother." A caption pointing to some green markings on his arm reads, "Demonic time seal on body." In a fullbody drawing of his beta design (which is made up mostly of chains that barely cover him as well as a long roughed-up cloak, there is the note, "Almost naked cloak."

At the bottom of the second page, there is another note that reads, "Initially when we hadn't quite figured out the setting, we had an idea for a more older-tween-ish character as displayed here, but after discussing it with the producers and Mr. Ikushima, we went with his current form. As a boy who manipulates time, I placed an hourglass at the tip of his staff, and his face resembles that of his mother, Lyla. (Tatsuaki Irushibara)". /end id]

#triangle strategy #quahaug #lyla viscraft #triangle strategy artbook #ts artbook character ref sheets #at long last. emo quahuag #despite the WTF factor I really love the page. HE'S SO LITTLE. SO SO LITTLE. like in his canon portrait he could arguably be like 14-15 #but in those drawings on the second page he is indisputably a baby. look at that little face. HE'S SO CUTE #and that note about Anna really cracks me up. can't believe we missed out on having Anna try to wrestle with an angsty 12-year-old #also! trying out a slightly different format from last time! I will at some point probably throw up another poll about it #as always feel free to leave a comment/tag/anything else with feedback if you have any #at some point in the distant future I will probably go through and try to make all of the translation posts more consistent #but I probably won't go back and do that sort of thing until I get all of them done #oh and also also! as a note I actually messed up my order a bit; I meant to do lyla's first before this one #but she and the other saints will be up next #edit: one of the images had an old version of a translation (used 'something' instead of 'whatever' in the note about snapping fingers) #just reuploaded it

[thesherrinfordfacility]

I mean Neil said once that the sequel involved Jesus arriving in America on a plane with secret service agents, and the S2 opening sequence shows a plane, so I'm... fairly confident that he's an adult? Jesus died when he was like 33 right

afternoon anon!!!✨ see i recall this (ask on neil's page?) and remember the response but cannot for the life of me find it anywhere (and im pretty good at Finding Stuff), do you - or anyone else reading for that matter - have a link to this? just so i can save it for future reference.

now, i hope you don't mind if i do this, but i would like to use this opportunity to parse out a more coherent rationale on the second coming, if that's okay? yeah? cool.

(previous incarnation of this theory).

thing is that the premise of the baby swap in s1 is based on the omen, right? takes at least a huge chunk of inspiration from that as the origin of how the antichrist came into the story. but it goes wrong, obviously, and there's a third baby thrown in the mix. makes a cursory wave to the omen, but isn't a carbon copy of it.

now i can't help but feel that narratively it would make sense to bookend this and have the second coming be a bit bollocksed up too. seems to be a theme in GO. and actually, when i thought about it (with extreme bias, granted, because im chomping at the bit on this theory), the second coming was potentially already fucked up anyway.

now, disclaimer time -

i completely get that people will look to the bible in reference to parsing out the second coming (or indeed any other theory). obviously i do too, for references to certain verses etc. in order to draw the relevant parallels. but there are multiple instances in GO where it is based on the bible or other texts, but doesn't follow it exactly; how GO portrayed the book of job, for example. it takes these texts, and distorts or reimagines them slightly or completely.

the way i see it, we are reading/watching GO as if this is in fact the true telling of those texts, as if (and not trying to be diminutive here) the bible is an inaccurate telling of GO, not the other way around - because, of course, we're seeing GO from the angel and demon that were 'actually there', so to speak.

im not saying that this - or any - of my theories are indisputably correct, far from it. but to me, with the information i have from the narrative as first source, and then looking at the referenced texts that inspired it, what i come up with, and write, is what makes sense to me. and it might make sense because it would be poetically apt, is in-keeping with how i interpret the characters, and/or is just plain funny or ironic (GO is after all, a comedy).

so whilst i fully anticipate people to duly correct me on how it all goes down in the bible (as they should, i love being educated!!!), please know that im not trying to deliberately misinterpret anything, but more trying to think outside the box, from the viewpoint of the GO story itself, and what direction would make the most sense in which it will reimagine these texts.

- exit disclaimer.

anyway! theory time!

so we have the imagery from the s2 sequence of the "thy kingdom come" plane, and this is obviously a reference to the resurrection as you've said, anon: that jesus arrives by plane. i truly love this imagery because if we take matthew 24:36 (KJV): "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.", the concept that in the great plan the date and time might finally be revealed in the form of a flight number, airport, and ETA is frankly hilarious to me. furthermore, "cometh with clouds" (revelation, 1:7 KJV) being reimagined as a literal plane landing again sets up the comedic backdrop so well.

now wherever the plane lands, whether from the US or to the US (again, don't have the original neil answer to refer to, but going based on your ask, anon, it's the latter), it regardless involves americans. this is where i feel it would be a perfect narrative symmetry opportunity to refer back to s1/the book, and reintroduce the dowlings.

and you might be wondering, "well no because GO set up the dowlings to be involved only insomuch that they were meant to be custodians of the antichrist - why would they also be involved in the second coming?" well, i wondered this too. the only conclusion i can come to, frankly, is GO!god having a very warped, twisted and ineffable sense of humour. they saw what satan had planned for the dowlings in inadvertently raising the antichrist, possibly did a bit of shifting around in the mystical threads, and decided that actually - just to throw in the wildcard of chaos - they should instead be the bearers of the second coming. this degree of mind-boggling ineffability, to me, would be comedically on-brand.

regardless; whilst just a theory, the whole thing makes sense to me - that in any case, the dowlings are going to make a reappearance. and with them, or on his own (if we follow the biblical telling that jesus was resurrected as he was from the crucifixion, at age 33yo, and therefore would suggest a timeskip from s2, but this isn't necessarily guaranteed - ie: might not be how GO chooses to portray it!), comes warlock. now we know that warlock was meant to be the antichrist, before crowley and the nuns managed to bugger it all up.

but heaven wouldn't necessarily know that its the dowlings arriving, right? presumably they'd just all gather on the tarmac awaiting the arrival, and lmao SIKE, it's bloody warlock. heaven hasn't met warlock, and therefore still think he's in fact jesus resurrected... but aziraphale has met him. he helped bloody raise him. and he knows now that he is essentially a normal kid/adult (albeit a very stuck-up one) and definitely not the second coming.

well then, if jesus was meant to be on that plane, according to the great plan, a plane being used by the dowlings... then why isn't it warlock? well, because the dowlings' actual baby isn't warlock. lets go back to the baby swap in the book/s1:

*apols, editing to correct this somewhat because it isn't quite right and lateral thinking is not my strong suit*

ANTICHRIST was meant to go to: the DOWLINGS. instead, went to: the YOUNGS. this is Adam.

YOUNG BABY was meant to go to: stay with the YOUNGS, but got mixed up. instead, went to: the DOWLINGS. this is Warlock.

DOWLING BABY was meant to go to: adoption/something nefarious instead, and indeed did. this is... Greasy Johnson.

and i love this for all sorts of reasons. now im lifting this next bit, essentially, from another ask of mine, but to keep things all in one place:

"greasy is posed as the antithesis of adam/antichrist, has a gang surrounding him that you could infer are loyal disciples, and is a mirror to adam in that adam on the whole seems to be a well-adjusted and morally-upstanding young boy.

i further think the fact that adam is the antichrist put against greasy being the second coming is a well positioned reflection on the nature vs nurture argument. ultimately adam grew up in a largely loving and supportive environment, and as the literal son of satan, you'd expect his nature, the circumstances of his birth, to rule out every other influence.

ultimately it does for a short time, but adams narrative iirc is that it is reflective of his desire to save the world... he wanted to get rid of things that were Wrong, and naively (he is still an 11-year old boy after all) thought that destroying the world and restarting it would do just that. his friends however reinforce in him that destruction and reparation are not the same thing, and so his upbringing, the nurture, wins.

greasy? we don't know a lot about him, only that he is a bully and represents the opposite of adam and the them... [and there exists] the whole [sic] analogy that greasy and the johnsonites vs adam and the them are meant to represent the hell vs heaven war..."

and then we have this small, relatively innocuous detail from the book:

as i said, possibly something of nothing. but the deliberate wording of 'breeding the fish', which is left out of s1, is - i like to think - a bit of a clue.

and before anyone comes for me on this, i am aware that this is based practically on fuck all of jack shit; im painfully aware of that. im aware that it deliberately misinterprets certain passages (not going to do the soapbox speech again, promise), but i just like to have fun. i honestly do not care if this is wrong; whatever happens in s3 should and will be better than anything i can come up with. yes, it's fun to get a prediction or speculation correct, of course it is, but it's not the endgame here. i get that others will have conflicting schools of thought, see things differently, or just plain think it's crap - that's okay! but, if that's the case, just move on from this post with a shake of your head. im not here to do anything other than have a good time, lads (gn)✨💓

edit 21/08: additional reading because now i feel vindicated: here from amuseoffyre, and my tags on this post too.

#im sorry i get a bit ranty in this anon none of that is directed at you at all im sorry it ended up on your ask #but we just need to let everyone have the space to come up with whatever batshit theories they like and have fun with it #this is such a lovely warm fandom and id love to see it remain that way!!! #good omens #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask #also i havent proof read this so if there are any errors just pretend you didnt see them #s3 narrative spec #second coming/last judgement theory

[notanotherreidgirl]

Could you write a blurb abt sub spence finding ur panties and stealing them (and maybe putting them on 👀) and then u catch him?

Also l <3 ur work sm ur amazing

no, you're amazing!

wc: 1k

Warnings: handjob, Spencer wearing panties, sub!spence, and perv!spence

Spencer sifted through the case files yet again - scanning the pages he had committed to memory, reorganizing them based on relevance, and then tucking them back into his satchel. At this point, he had lost track of the number of times he had repeated that sequence of actions. Yet again his eyes flicked over to your belongings haphazardly packed on the opposite side of the room. He knew he shouldn’t look through your things. It was entirely and indisputably wrong. Under no circumstances should he peek inside your drawers or read the little to-do list you had scribbled onto the hotel stationary. And he most definitely shouldn’t uncap your lotion to smell the sweet scent of you or rub a minuscule amount onto his hands. But he did. He did all of those things.

Spencer wouldn’t ordinarily engage in the kind of behavior that would label him a creep but there was just something about you. From the moment you breezed into the BAU he had been waging a losing battle against his insatiable need to be near you and he wasn’t subtle about it. He recalled the surprise on Hotch’s face that first day when he accepted your offer to shake hands and the suggestive remarks that Derek made at every opportunity. But he didn’t mind. He would endure all of that and more just to reside in the periphery of your orbit. Except you were magnetic, your every move pulling him in closer and closer. And now he found himself crouching over your go-bag staring at a pair of lace panties.

It had never occurred to him that you would be wearing such provocative underwear at work but now that he knew he would never forget. He shut his eyes for a second, imagining you delivering profiles and doing paperwork and talking to him with these on. Before he could even think it through the panties were out of your bag and in his hand. If snooping was bad this was awful. It was literally criminal. He was stealing, for god’s sake. Just put it back, he thought. If you put it back right now you can pretend this never happened.

But it was too late. He shot to his feet as soon as he heard the lock click open but the evidence of his indiscretion was still tightly clutched in his hand. You had, quite literally, caught him red-handed.

You blinked once then twice, convinced that your mind was playing tricks on you. But it couldn’t be. You had purposefully declined Emily’s many attempts to get you drunk, knowing that lowering your inhibitions while sharing a room with Spencer was a recipe for trouble. However, it seemed like trouble found you anyway and now you had a decision to make.

You took him in - staring at you like a deer in headlights, a blush creeping up his neck and staining his cheeks. It took you all of two seconds to kick the door closed behind you. “What’s that you got there, doc?”

He looked down at the underwear still in his hand then back up at you, trying and failing to come up with an excuse. “Y/N, I’m so sorry. I didn’t mean - I was just - I was looking for -”

“You were just looking for a pair of panties?” You crossed your arms and raised an eyebrow, a picture of calm in stark opposition to the stuttering mess Spencer had been reduced to. “Well, congratulations. I’d say you found exactly what you wanted. Go ahead, doc. I’m not stopping you”

“G-go ahead?” he asked, confused.

“Put them on.” The command was simple but profound. If he complied there would be no going back. No more stolen glances or unrequited pining from across the bullpen. With shaky hands he removed his pajama pants and boxers at once, looking up at you for a brief moment before pulling the panties on. You breathed in sharply at the sight before you. They were much too small and he strained against the thin material, a damp spot already forming. He shifted slightly in embarrassment, letting out a low whine at how the coarse material felt against his sensitive flesh. “You’re so pretty, Spence.”

He looked at you with wide eyes, still fighting his embarrassment but undeniably turned on by your praise. Feeling bolder he gathered the courage to speak, the faintest shadow of disappointment shrouding his words. “They don’t fit”

“Let me help you, baby.” You could barely contain yourself as you crossed the room, not quite believing that you had Spencer Reid wearing your panties before you. With every step, you took his heart rate multiplied until you were right in front of him. You toyed with the waistband while pressing feather light kisses up his neck, feeling his uneven pulse jumping at every touch. You hooked a finger through the waistband and tugged upwards, drawing a cry of pleasure from Spencer as he bucked his hips forward. “Is this what you like, doc? You like being my pretty boy?”

As you spoke you trailed your hand down to cup him through the fabric, squeezing him lightly and heightening the friction afforded by the lace material. He gasped. “Yes! Yes, I like it. I like it so much. God, I think I’m gonna -”

You continued to palm him, applying even more pressure and sucking marks into the exposed skin of his chest as he rode out his release. His legs buckled as waves of pleasure coursed through him and you directed him onto the bed. You hovered over him as he came down and you couldn’t help but admire how beautiful he was - the sculpted planes of his face, the chain of purple marks decorating his neck and chest, the soaked panties clinging to his hips.

He chewed on his lip, nervousness returning in full force. He reddened as he tried to find the right words but you stopped him by capturing his mouth in a kiss. A slow, full kiss that tied the two of you together, finally sharing the words neither of you had the courage to say aloud. You’re mine. You’re mine. You’re mine

When the breath had run out of both your lungs, you pulled away. He looked down at the ruined underwear sheepishly. “Don’t worry, doc. I’ll buy you new ones”

#thx anon #sub!spencer #spencer reid smut #spencer reid x reader smut #criminal minds smut #criminal minds fanfiction #criminal minds #unsuitable for work

[ch93snu]

This book is proving to be very insightful, albeit confusing at times, but helpful none the less. I have taken lots of of quotes, I am aware this likely proves I do not understand too much although I have chosen to list them all as I feel they will be relevant later with further research and understanding into this area. 

I didn’t realise their are so many different ‘types’ of the monstrous-feminine, although I feel that most of the categories can equally apply to male characters. Obviously I do not know enough of this topic to elaborate further on this, I will perhaps come back to it after further research and draw my own conclusions on this.

Creed highlights multiple times the opinions of a variety of people that womans natural role is almost always the victim. 

Creed also sheds light on the vagina dentata, how mean fear it because they subconsciously believe this to be the source of woman’s castration capabilities and how some warriors had female genitalia imagery on their shields to ward off enemies. As a woman I find this to be hilarious, although I think most women would be lieing if we couldn’t see why this would be frightening. I will definitely incorporate Vagina Dentata in my design, for its humour if not for its terrifying stigma.

Creed speaks about a quote from Gerard Lenne which supports my findings from previous research. Lenne believes women should only be represented in their ‘natural’ role in life, Lenne is a firm believer of woman as victim in the horror film. 

This directly relates to what I have previously written, how if you take the image of the woman in her “natural role” and make her the opposite of this stereotype, she will no longer stand within the boundary of what people, like Lenne, assume is acceptable for a woman to be, thus, making the woman abject. Woman is now the monster. This “concept of a border” is imperative to the “construction of the monstrous; that which crosses or threatens to cross the border is abject.” A quote from Lurie furthers Freud’s theory that man fears woman because we are castrated, and that they are instead fearful for the very fact that we are not castrated. “woman is whole, intact”, unlike a man if he were castrated.

Kristeva mentions that “food loathing” is a “major source of abjection”, particularly the “eating of human flesh”. I would like to incorporate this in my design, the image of this threat will further fuel the abjection of my villain, making her monstrous. Kristeve also speaks about the attraction of the abject and how we may actually desire it, “abjection by its very nature is ambiguous, it both repels and attracts”. This correlates with previous research for my RIPU. 

Quotes:

“The Female Monster, or monstrous feminine, wear many faces: the amoral primeval mother (Aliens, 1986); vampire (The Hunger, 1983); witch (Carrie, 1976); woman as bleeding wound (Dressed to kill, 1980), woman as possessed body (The Exorcist, 1973), the castrating mother (Psycho, 1960); woman as beautiful but deadly killer (Basic Instinct, 1992); aged psychopath (whatever happened to baby jane?, 1962); the monstrous girl-boy (a reflection of fear, 19730; woman as non-human animal (cat people, 1942); woma as life-in-death (lifeforce, 1985); woman as the deadly femme castratrice (I spit on your grave, 1978)” page 1

“...great deal has been written about horror film, very little has discussed the representation of woman-as-monster. Instead, emphasis has been on woman as victim of the (mainly male) monster.” page 1

“All human societies have a conception of the monstrous-feminine, of what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject.” page 1

“Freud linked mans fear of woman to his infantile belief that the mother is castrated.” page 1 

Fetishism, Freud, 1927

“... toothed vagina - the vagina that castrates. a counterpart, the other way, is the so-called ‘phallic mother.’ A motif recently illustrated in the long fingers and nose of the witch.” page 1 (campbell, 1976, 73)

“Women are terrifying because they have teeth in their vaginas and that the women must be tamed or the teeth somehow removed or softened - usually by a hero figure - before intercourse can safely take place.” page 2 

“The witch represents an old, ugly crone who is capable of monstrous acts.” page 2 

Sirens, Medusa’s head. 

“Warriors painted the female genitals on their shields in order to terrify the enemy.” page 2

“The sight of medusa to the equally horrifying sight of the mothers genitals.” page 2

“What is the relationship between physical states, bodily wastes (even if metaphor ones) and the horror - in particular, the Monstrous - Feminine?” page 3 

“...stereotypes of the feminine, from virgin to whore, she is defined in terms of her sexuality. The phrase ‘monstrous feminine’ emphasizes the importance of gender in the construction of her monstrousity.” page 3 

Gerard Lenne - “Monster and Victim: Women in the Horror Film.”

“...typical of those who find the very idea of a female monster offensive to there rather quaint, but deeply sexist, notions of chivalry.” page 3 

“ Lenne argues that there are very few monstrous and disfigured women in the fantastic, and so much the better. He appears to believe that women should be represented only in terms of their ‘natural’ role in life.” page 3

“He allows that there are female monsters but then adds reasons why they are not real monsters ...female vampire roles are secondary.” page 3

“Woman is seldom to be found among the great psychopaths and there is not one single female mad scientist.” page 3

“Only indisputably active role in the fantastic that is the witch.” page 4 

“Great monsters are all male.” page 4

“In his view, woman exists in the horror film primarily as victim.” page 4 

“Lenne’s definition of what constitutes the monstrous is questionable on a number of counts, particularly his statement that the horror of schizophrenia is somehow ameliorated not only because it is understandable but because it is supposedly a ‘female’ illness.” page 4

“...Barbara Steele, known as the ‘high priestess of Horror’ ...He argues that her appeal resides in her ability to ‘express a tantalising sort of evil, and a sexual ambivalence that is at once enticing and ghastly.’“ page 4 

“Steele represents the connection between sex and death.” page 5

“...Twitchell argues that horror films are similar to ‘formular rituals’ which provide the adolescent with social information.” page 5

“Modern horror myths prepare the teenager for anxieties of reproduction...they are fables of sexual identity.” page 5

“He believes ‘femininity’, by definition, excludes all forms of aggressive, monstrous behaviour.” page 5

“Freudian position that woman horrifies because she is castrated.” page 5 

“...the monster signifies the boundary between the human and the non-human. The second is that it is the male fear of castration which ultimately produces and delineates the monstrous. Neale argues that manes fascination with and fear of female sexuality is endlessly reworked within the signifying practices of the horror film.” page 5

“Lurie challenges the traditional freudian position by arguing that men fear women, not because women are castrated but because they are not castrated. Lurie asserts that the male fears woman because woman is not mutilated like a man might be if he were castrated...woman is physically whole, intact and in possession of all her sexual powers.” page 6  

“...might take place during intercourse when the penis disappears inside womans devouring mouth. Luries analysis is important, particularly her discussion of mans fear of woman as castrating other.” page 6 

Julia Kristeva Abject and Maternal.

“I will argue that when woman is represented as monstrous it is almost always in relation to her mothering and reproductive functions. These faces...both are constructed as biological freaks whose bodies represent a fearful and threatening form of sexuality.” page 6

“...both are constructed as biological freaks whose bodies represent a fearful and threatening form of sexuality.” page 6 

“so there is a sense in which the womans look at the monster... is also a recognition of their similiar status as potent threats to vulnerable male power.” page 6 

“...position only serves to reinforce patriarchal definitions of woman which represent and reinforce the essentialist view that woman, by nature, is a victim.” page 6 

“presence of the monstrous-feminine in the popular horror film speaks to us more about male fears than about female desire or feminine subjectivity.” page 7

“Julia Kristeva’s theory of the abject and the maternal.” page 7 

“...Freud argued that woman terrifies because she appears to be castrated, man’s fear of castration has, in my view, led him to construct another monstrous phantasy - that of woman as castrator.” page 7 

“Here woman’s monstroussness is linked more directly to questions of sexual desire than to the area of reproduction.” page 7 

“...image of woman as castrator takes atleast 3 forms: woman as the deadly femme castratable, the castrating mother and the vagina dentata.” page 7 

“Freud did not analyse mans fear of woman as castrator; in fact he seems to have repressed this image of woman in his writings about sexual difference and in his case histories.” page 7 

“Kristeva’s powers of horror provides us with a preliminary hypothesis for an analysis of the representation of woman as monstrous in the horror film.” page 8

“...suggests a way of situating the monstrous-feminine in the horror film in relation to the maternal figure and what kristeva terms ‘abjection’, that which does not respect borders, positions, rules, that which disturbs identity, system, order. (Kristeva, 1982, 4)” page 8 

“Kristeva’s discussion of the construction of abjection in the human subject in relation to her notion of (A) the ‘border’ (B) the mother-child relationship and (C) the feminine body.” page 8 

“...definitions of the monstrous as constructed in the modern horror text are grounded in ancient religious and historical notions of abjection - particularly in relation to the following religious ‘abominations’: sexual immortality and perversion; corporeal alteratoin, decay and death; human sacrifice; murder; the corpse; bodily wastes; the feminine body and incest. These forms of abjection are also central to the construction of the monstrous in the modern horror film.” page 9

“the place of the abject is ‘the place where meaning collapses’, the place where I am not. The abject threatens life; it must be radically excluded from the place of the living subject, propelled away from the body and deposited on the other side of an imaginary border which separates the self from that which threatens the self.” page 9 

“...the subject must exclude the abject, the abject must, never the less, be tolerated for that which threatens to destroy life also helps to define life.” page 9

“the abject can be experienced in various ways - one of which relates to biological bodily functions, the other of which has been inscribed in a symbolic (religious) economy.” page 9 

“Kristeva claims that food loathing is ‘perhaps the most elementary and archaic form of abjection.’ Food, however, only becomes abject if it signifies a border between two distinct entities of territories.” page 9 

“ in relation to the horror film, it is relevant to note that food loathing is frequently represented as a major source of abjection, particularly the eating of human flesh (blood feast, motel hell, blood diner, hills have eyes, corpse grinders).” page 9 

“Ultimate abjection is the corpse. The body protects itself from bodily wastes such as shit, blood, urine and pus by ejecting these things from the body just as it expels food that, for whatever reason, the subject finds loathsome. The body ejects these substances, at the same time extricating itself from them and from the place where they fall, so that it might continue to live.” page 9 

“Such wastes drop so that I might live, until, from loss to loss, nothing remains in me and my entire body falls beyond the limit - cadere, cadaver. If dung signifies the other side of the border, the place where I am not and which permits me to be, the corpse, the most sickening of wastes, is a border that has encroached upon everything. It is no longer I who expel, I is expelled.” page 9 

“Within a biblical context, the corpse is also utterly abject. It signifies one of the most basic forms of pollution - the body without a soul. As a form of waste it represents the opposite of the spiritual, the religious symbolic.” page 10 

“...Horror film, it is relevant to note that several of the most popular horrific figures are ‘bodies without souls’ (the vampire), the living corpse (the zombie), the corpse-eater (the ghoul) and the robot or android.” page 10 

“...the witch (one of her many crimes was that she used corpses for her rites of magic” page 10 

“were-creatures, whose bodies signify a collapse of the boundaries between human and animal, also belongs to this category.” page 10 

“Abjection also occurs when the individual is a hypocrite, a liar. Abject things are those that highlight the ‘fragility of the law’ and that exist on the other side of the border which separates out the living subject from that which threatens its extinction.” page 10

“Abjection is not something of which the subject can ever feel free - it is always there, beckoning the self to take up the place of abjection, the place where meaning collapses.” page 10 

“The subject is constantly beset by abjection which fascinates desire but which must be repelled for fear of self-annihalation. A crucial point is that abjection is always ambiguous. Like Bataille, Kristeva emphasises the attraction, as well as the horror, of the undifferentiated.” page 10 

“the horror film would appear to be, in atleast 3 ways, an illustration of the work of abjection.” page 10

“Horror film abounds in images of abjection, foremost of which is the corpse, whole and mutilated, followed by an array of bodily wastes such as blood, vomit, saliva, sweat, tears and putrefying flesh...Kristeva’s notion of the border , when we say such and such horror film ‘made me sick’ or ‘scared the shit out of me’, we are actually foregrounding that specific horror film as a ‘work of abjection’ or ‘abjection at work’ - almost in a literal sense.” page 10 

“viewing the horror film signifies a desire not only for perverse pleasure (confronting sickening, horrific images/ being filled with terror/desire for the undifferentiated) but also a desire, once having been filled with perversity, taken pleasure in perversity, to throw up, throw out, eject the abject (from the safety of the spectators seat).” page 10 

“Kristeva’s view, woman is specifically related to polluting objects which fall into two categories: excremental and menstrual” page 10 

“...the concept of a border is central to the construction of the monstrous in the horror film; that which crosses or threatens to cross the border is ‘abject’“ page 11

“...function of the monstrous remains the same - to bring about an encounter between the symbolic order and that which threatens its stability.” page 11 

“...monstrous is produced at the border between human and inhuman, man and beast (jekyll and hyde);... normal and supernatural, good and evil (carries, exorcist); or the monstrous is produced at the border which separates those who take up their proper gender roles from those who do not (psycho, dressed to kill, a reflection of fear.); ...border is between normal and abnormal sexual desire (the hunger, catpeople).” page 11 

“most horror films construct a border between what kristeva refers to as the ‘clean and proper body’ and the abject body, or the body which has lost its form and integrity. The fully symbolic body must bear no indication of its debt to nature in Kristeva’s view the image of woman’s body, because of its maternal functions, acknowleges its debt to nature and consequently is more likely to signify the abject. The notion of the material female body is central to the construction of the border in the horror film.” page 11

“... religious categories of abjection. For instance, cannibalism, a religious abomination, is central to the ‘meat’ movie (night of the living dead, hills have eyes); corpse as abomination becomes the abject of ghoul and zombie movies (evil dead, zombie flesheaters); blood is central to the vampire film (the hunger) ...the corpse is constructed as the abject of virtually all horror films; and a bodily disfigurement as a religious abomination is also central to the slasher movie, particularly those in which woman is slashed, the mark a sign of her ‘difference’, her impurity (dressed to kill, psycho)” 11

“3rd way in which horror film illustrates the work of abjection is in the construction of the maternal figure as abject. Kristeva argues that all individuals experience abjection at the time of their earliest attempts to break away form the mother. She sees the mother-child relation as one married by conflict: the child struggles to break free but the mother is reluctant to release it. Because of the ‘instability of the symbolic function’ in relation to this most crucial area - ‘the prohibition placed on the maternal body (as a defense against autoeroticism and incest taboo): Kristeva argues that the maternal body becomes a site of conflicting desires.” 11

“...position of the child is rendered even more unstable because, while the mother retains a close hold over the child, it can serve to authenticate her existence - an existence which needs validation because of her problematic relation to the symbolic realm...childs attempts to break away, the becomes an abject...the child struggles to become a separate subject, abjection becomes a precomotion of narcissm - representative of the archaic maternal figure.” 12

Psycho, carrie, the birds - maternal figure is constructed as the monstrous feminine. 12

“...refusing to relinquish her hold on her child, she prevents it from taking up its proper place in relation to the symbolic. Partly consumed by the desire to remain locked in a blissful relationship with the mother and it partly terrified of separation, the child finds it easy to succumb to the comforting pleasure of the dyadic relationship.” 12 

“...function of ritual defilement of these religious rituals is to ward off the subject’s fear of his very own identity sinking irretreivably into the mother.” 12 

“...universal practices of rituals of defilement to the mother. Kristeva argues that within the practices of all rituals of defilement, polluting objects fall into two categories: excremental, which threatens identity from the outside; and menstrual, which threatens from within.

Both categories of polluting objects relate to the mother. The relation of menstrual blood is self-evident: the association of excremental objects with the maternal figure is brought about because of the mothers role in sphincteral training.

Kristeva argues that the subjects first contact with ‘authority’ is with the maternal authority when the child learns, through interaction with the mother, about its body: the shape of the body, the clean and unclean, the proper and improper areas of the body.” 12

“concept of maternal authority...expand and extend into the symbolic relation to castration.” 12

“...processes of toilet training as a ‘primal mapping of the body’ which she calls semiotic. Kristeva distinguishes between maternal ‘authority’ and ‘paternity laws’: ‘maternal authority is the trustee of that mapping of the self’s clean and proper body; it is distinguished from paternal laws within which, with the phallic phase and acquisition of language, the destiny of man will take shape.” 12-13

“Virtually all horror texts represent the monstrous-feminine in relation to Kristeva’s notion of maternal authority and the mapping of the selfs clean and proper body. Images of blood, vomit, pus, shit, etc...are central to our culturally/socially constructed notions of the horrific. They signify a split between two orders: the maternal authority and the law of the father.” 13

“...images of bodily wastes threaten a subject that is already constituted, in relation to the symbolic, as ‘whole and proper’. Consequently, they all fill the subject - both the protagonist in the text and the spectator in the cinema - with disgust and loathing. On the other hand they also point back to a time when a ‘fusion between mother and nature’ existed; when bodily wastes, while set apart from the body, were not scene as objects of embarassment and shame.

...presence in the horror film may invoke a response of disgust from the audience situated as it is within the social symbolic but at a more archaic level the representation of bodily wastes may invoke pleasure in perversity - and a pleasure in returning to that time when the mother-child relationship was marked by an untrammelled pleasure in ‘playing’ with the body and its wastes.” 13

“modern horror film often ‘plays’ with its audience, saturating it with scenes of blood and gore, deliberately pointing to the fragility of the symbolic in the domain of the body where the body never ceases to signal the repressed world of the mother.” 13

“ Exorcist - world of symbolic (priest as father), and world of pre-symbolic (pubescent girl aligned with the devil) clashed head on in scenes where the foulness of woman was signified by her putrid, filthy body covered in blood, urine, excrement and bile. Significantly, the possessed girl is also about to menstruate - in one scene, blood from her wounded genitals mingles with the menstrual blood to provide one of the key images of horror.” 14

“with the subjects entry into the symbolic, which separates the child from the mother, the maternal figure and the authority she signifies are repressed.” 14 

“Kristeva argues that, historically, it has been the function of religion to purify the abject, but with the disintergration of these ‘historical forms’ of religion, the work of purification now rests solely with ‘that catharsis par excellence’ called art.” 14

“central idealogical project of the popular horror film - purification of the abject through a descent into the foundations of the symbolic construct.” 14

“the horror film attempts to bring about a confrontation with the abject (the corpse, bodily wastes, the monstrous - feminine) in order finally to eject the abject and redraw the boundaries between the human and non-human.” 14

“As a form of modern defilement rite, the horror film attempts to separate out the symbolic order from all that threatens its stability, particularly the mother and all that her universe signifies. In this sense, signifying horror involves a representation of, and a reconcillation with, the maternal body.” 14

“abjection by its very nature is ambiguous; it both repels and attracts... the nature of the monstrous mother we discover she also has a crucial role to play in relation to castration and the childs passage into the symbolic order.” 14-15