#european literary myths

[headspace-hotel]

Just spent a couple hours digging into this book. I'm not even sure what has worse environmental impacts, the paper the book is made of or the opinions printed within.

Is "post-colonial" literary theory a joke? It's distressing that a book printed in 2021 by a reputable academic press can be so painfully Eurocentric, and I mean PAINFULLY. The philosophical and literary frameworks drawn upon in most chapters are like what some British guy in 1802 would come up with. In most of the chapters, every framework, terminology, and example is inseparably fused to Latin, Greek, and/or Christian philosophers, myths and texts, even down to the specific turns of phrase. You would think only Europeans had history or ideas until the 20th century.

Don't get me wrong, non-european and even specifically anti-colonial sources are used, and I don't think all the writers are white people, but...that's what's so weird and off-putting about it, most of the book as a whole utterly fails to absorb anything from non-European and in particular anti-colonial points of view. The chapters will quote those points of view but not incorporate them or really give their ideas the time of day, just go right back to acting like Plato and Aristotle and Romantic poets are the gold standard for defining what it means to be human.

In brief, the book is trying to examine how literature can shed light on the climate crisis, which is funny because it completely fails to demonstrate that literature is good or helpful for the climate crisis. Like that is for sure one major issue with it, it shows that people *have* written stuff about climate change, but it sure doesn't convince you that this stuff is good.

Most of the works quoted are rather doomerist, and a lot of the narrative works specifically are apocalypse tales where most of Earth's population dies. The most coherent function the authors can propose that literature fulfills is to essentially help people understand how bad things are. One of the essays even argues that poetry and other creative work that simply appreciates nature is basically outdated, because:

“One could no longer imagine wandering lonely as a cloud, because clouds now jostle in our imaginations with an awareness of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants” (Mandy Bloomfield, pg. 72)

Skill issue, Mandy.

The menace of doomerism in fiction and poetry is addressed, by Byron Caminero-Santangelo, on page 127 when he references,

the literary non-fiction of a growing number of authors who explicitly assert, some might even say embrace, the equation between fatalistic apocalyptic narrative and enlightenment…they are authoritative in their rejection of any hope and in their representation of mitigatory action as the cliched moving of deckchairs on a sinking ship

He quotes an essay “Elegy for a country’s seasons” by Zadie Smith, who says: “The fatalists have the luxury of focusing on an eschatological apocalyptic narrative and on the nostalgia of elegy, as well as of escape from uncertainty and responsibility to act." Which is spot-on and accurate, but these observations aren't recognized as a menace to positive action, nor is the parallel to Christian thought that eagerly looks forward to Earth's destruction as a cathartic release from its pain made fully explicit and analyzed. Most of the creative works referenced and quoted in the book ARE this exact type of fatalistic, elegiac performance of mourning.

I basically quit reading after Chapter 11, "Animals," by Eileen Crist, which begins:

The humanization of the world began unfolding when agricultural humans separated themselves from wild nature, and started to tame landscapes, subjugate and domesticate animals and plants, treat wild animals as enemies of flocks and fields, engineer freshwater ecologies, and open their psyches to the meme of the ‘the human’ as world conquerer, ruler and owner.

This is what I'm talking about when I say it's dripping Eurocentrism; these ideas are NOT universal, and it's adding nothing to the world to write them because they fall perfectly in line with what the European colonizing culture already believes, complete with the lingering ghost of a reference to the Fall of Man and banishment from the Garden of Eden. It keeps going:

“Over time, the new human elaborated a view of the animal that ruptured from the totemic, shamanic and relational past.”

Okay so now she's introducing the idea of progression from shamanic nature-worshipping religions of our primitive past...hmm I'm sure this isn't going anywhere bad

“While humanity has largely rejected the colonizing project with respect to fellow humans, the occupation of non-human nature constitutes civilization’s last bastion of ‘normal’ colonialism. A new humanity is bound sooner or later to recognize and overthrow a colonialism of ‘nature,’ embracing a universal norm of interspecies justice.” (pg. 206) 

OKAY????

Not only denying that colonialism still exists, but also saying that humans' relationship with nature constitutes colonialism??

Embracing limitations means scaling down the human presence on demographic and economic fronts…(pg.207)

ope, there's the "we have to reduce the human population"

Embracing limitations further mandates pulling back from vast expanses of the natural world, thus letting the lavishness of wild (free) nature rule Earth again” (pg. 207) 

aaaaaaand there's the "we have to remove humans from wild nature so it can be freeeeeee"

don't get me wrong like I am a random white person with no particular expertise in anti-colonialist thought but I think this is an easy one. I'm pretty sure if your view of nature is that colonialism involving subjugating humans doesn't exist any more and actually humans existing in and altering nature is the real colonialism so we should remove humans from vast tracts of earth, your opinion is just bad.

Anyways y'all know I have an axe to grind against doomerism so it was probably obvious where this was going but good grief.

#climate #climate doomerism

[trans-cuchulainn]

you tend to write about irish mythology but at the same time you seem knowledgeable about other myths, so i was wondering if you could answer a question? my question is, would be offensive to create a version of arthurian myths but with most of the christian elements removed? christianity seems heavily baked into each and every arthurian story so i was wondering if it would be wrong, or outright offensive, to remove it?

i don't think it would be OFFENSIVE (christianity being a dominant religion so it's not like erasing a minority culture; the texts being literary rather than for religious purpose themselves means it's not like using canonical religious material – people share a belief system with the stories rather than believing in the stories themselves, barring probably a very few outliers; plus it's definitely been done before, tons of modern retellings don't engage with the christian aspects although frequently this is done in a boring way)

arthurian literature comprises a huge range of stories written over a huge time period for a variety of purposes. some of them are super duper christian. some of them are just kind of culturally christian because they're being written by christians within a christian context and that's what they know. some of them only have a light touch of it and some of them are dripping with it

i think whether it can be done effectively without leaving you with a story that no longer bears any resemblance to the story you started with depends very much on which stories you decide to retell. for example, a lot of the lancelot-grail stuff is extremely bound up in christianity and removing it without patching the holes is probably gonna weaken the story. now, you might want to reimagine them entirely within a new belief system. i would consider that to be patching the holes, as long as it's done carefully and effectively as with all worldbuilding. but just taking the story and excising the christian elements and not doing anything else is probably gonna undermine the story a lot

on the other hand there are other stories, particularly some of the romances (knights getting up to shenanigans in a self-contained story within an arthurian setting) where christianity is just the set dressing, and taking it out isn't going to leave such massive gaps; these would be easier to rework in a new context without needing to develop an entire belief system for the characters to be operating within. although tbh the whole of chivalric literature does rely on some pretty specific assumptions about hierarchies, loyalty, obligations, righteousness etc that are often bound up in, though not synonymous with, medieval christianity, so even there you do need to think about what is going to replace it

i would say if you're trying to keep a medieval western european setting, you can't really take the christianity out (of the setting, and really of the characters too in 90% of cases) without making it completely ahistorical. so it also depends if you're trying to retell it as in "i am reworking this story in a world and context of my choosing" (sure, do whatever you want) versus "I am producing a version of this text to introduce people to this story" (taking the christianity out makes it far less accurate and misrepresents the text, maybe don't do that)

i would also say that medieval christianity is much more exciting and weirder and often very different from modern christianity, and a lot of modern engagement with those aspects overlooks this fact and makes it boring and staid. but actually a lot of it's batshit and adds some fun colour to the stories in a way that can be enjoyable regardless of your personal beliefs about any of it. taking it out as many modern retelling seem to do often just makes the story more boring, so something interesting needs to fill the holes imo

so tl;dr. morally wrong, no, not in my opinion. narratively wrong, depends on the story and your purposes.

#arthurian #answered #anonymous

[mask131]

The myth of Dionysos (1)

What’s better to complete this Christmas season, alongside some Arthuriana and some ghost stories, than some Greek mythology?

There is a great book in France that serves as a key research reference, and that is called the Dictionary of Literary Myths, composed under the direction of Pierre Brunel. Within this bookthere are several articles covering the complexity and evolution of the Greek gods, both within their own mythology and within European literature as a whole (with a strong focus on French literature, of course, being a French book). Given I do not know if the book was ever translated or not, I thought I’d share some of the text within it. And to begin, I will focus on one of the several articles dedicated to Dionysos – the god you English speakers known as “Dionysus” (even though the whole -us thing stays completely weird for me who grew up with all the Greek names ending in -os). This first article, written by Alain Moreau, is titled “The Antique Dionysos: The Elusive One”, and as the title says, it is a study of the figure of Dionysos within Antiquity.

I will offer here a vaguely-faithful translation of the text – and given it is a longarticle, I will break it down over several parts.

THE ANTIQUE DIONYSOS: THE ELUSIVE ONE

Of all the gods of Olympus, Dionysos is the one whose character is the hardest to define. Despite his many historical uses and the numerous interpretations of mythologists, we cannot fully understand the god. His origins, his childhood, his physical appearance, his behavior, his role in the city, his symbolism… It is all rich, all complex, all fleeting. Dionysos is the god of metamorphosis: the elusive one.

I) The origins: Old god, new god

The impossibility to confine Dionysos within a specific setting already manifests in the beginning of this investigation: the research of the god’s origins is puzzling. There is no doubt that Dionysos is a very ancient god. He was called “Dendrites”, “god of the tree” – and he was even depicted with branches growing out of his chest – which links him to the oldest deities of vegetation and fecundity, the ancient mother-goddesses. For example, the Greek Demeter: Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter says “Everything that huts Demeter also hurts Dionysos”, and Pindar names him “the consort of Demeter” in his Isthmics. Dionysos is also linked to Cybele, and though her to the Syrian goddess Kubaba – the Dionysos-Cybele link is made clear in Euripides’ Bacchants. There is also the Phrygian mother-goddess Zemelo, whose name sounds strangely like Dionysos’ mother’s, Semele. And all these deities were worshiped in Asia Minor, in Thrace, in Crete, and in the Aegean world. In Athens, very ancient festivals partially celebrate him; Anthesteria, Apaturia, Oschophoria… It explains why Tiresias, in the Bacchants, speaks of “traditions that come from our fathers, and whose age is as old as time itself”. All points out to the Dionysian cult having pre-Hellenic roots. During the Mycenaean era in the middle of the second millennium BCE, his presence was attested by two tablets found at Pylos written in linear B. The name of Dionysos is found in its genitive form: “diwonusoyo”. Bacchants gives us another clue about the ancient nature of the god: beyond the tragedy-of-impiety that is the death-punishment of Pentheus, one can sense a second level of comprehension, maybe hidden to the play’s creator, but that mythologists and ethnologists all perceived. That is to say, a ritual of human sacrifice – the tragedy takes its root in a primitive rite.

And yet, the historian Herodotus claims in his Histories that the name of Dionysos is the last one that the inhabitants of Greece learned when discovering their gods, while Pentheus and Tiresias in Bacchants both call Dionysos a “new god”. A new god, because he is foreign, supposedly coming from Thrace or Asia Minor. Ancient Greeks analyzed his name as coming from a fabulous land, whose exact location kept changing from person to person, but that was always outside of the Greek world: Caucasus, Ethiopia, India, Arabia, Egypt, Libya… Numerous myths tell of the strong difficulties that the cult of Dionysos had to face when implanting itself in Greece – especially in Boeotia, the land of Dionysos’ mother, Semele (who herself was the daughter of Cadmos, the founder of Thebes). Mythologists themselves were fooled and, up until a recent date, most of them believed that Dionysos was a latecomer to the pantheon, an imported god.

Where does this contradiction comes from? It is probably because of how unique the worship of Dionysos was: religious possession, orgiastic rituals, running races throughout the mountains… It always made him an eccentric, isolated god, a god of the people rather than a god of the aristocracy (he plays almost no role within the works of Homer), and as such a much less prestigious deity than the other Olympians. But Dionysos had his revenge: starting from the 8th century BCE onward, it seems that the god “woke up” and was brought back under the spotlight, thanks to women, who spread his cult. Various religious movements coming from Phrygia, Lydia, Thrace and the Greek islands also helped this renewal by revitalizing the old forms of the cult and accentuating its orgiastic aspect. The rise of Oriental cults in Athens at the end of the 5th century made everything go even faster. All these outside additions explain why the Greeks themselves felt that Dionysos was a foreigner and a “new” god. All in all, this look at the god’s origins accentuates one of his most fundamental characteristics: the impossibility to clearly define his personality.

II) A very complicated childhood: births and rebirths

The childhoods of Dionysos all bear the same strangeness. He is a god that is constantly born and that constantly dies, before escaping those that hunt him down, and finally imposing himself definitively. Let’s take a look.

1) Semele, beloved by Zeus, follows the wicked advice of the jealous Hera, and asks the king of the gods to appear before her in his full, shining glory. Zeus, who had made the solemn promise to grant any wish Semele would make, has no other choice but to obey. He appears to her wrapped and surrounded by thunder and lightning, and the poor Semele dies because of it. She was in her sixth month of pregnancy – and Zeus saved Dionysos from death, by ripping the fetus away from his mother’s belly, and placing it in his own thigh. There, Dionysos finished his growth during three more months, before finally being “born” out of Zeus’ leg. This is why one of the etymologies of “Dionysos” means “the god born twice”. In France, it also led to the common expression “se croire sorti de la cuisse du Jupiter” ; “to believe one’s got out of Jupiter’s thigh”.

2) The god Hermes, by order of Zeus, gives the child to king Athamas and queen Ino, rulers of Orchomenos. They raise the little Dionysos by forcing him to wear feminine clothes, in hope that Hera will not recognize him disguised as a girl. Unfortunately Zeus’ wife is not fooled, and she turns Dionysos’ foster parents insane. Zeus then transports his child towards Nysa, and entrusts him to the nymphs of the region. This time, it is said that he was turned into a kid (as in a baby goat). In the Homeric version of the story (found in Iliad, VI), Nysa is replaced by “the divine Nyseion”, a Thracian mountain where rules king Lycurgus. Lycurgus ended up hunting down the nurses of the child and wounding them – the terrified Dionysos jumped into the sea to flee the attack, and ended up protected by the goddess Thetis. [Note: Jeanmaire offered an alternative reading of the Homeric tale, proposing that maybe the Nyseion was actually the name of the "country of the Nysai", aka the land of the Nymphs, which would make it an Ancient Greece version of Elfland or Fairyland]

3) Finally, there is the Cretan legend of Dionysos-Zagreus. While the legend was only recorded by very late text, in truth it seems to be a very ancient story: the name Zagreus first appears in the 6th century BCE in the Alcmeonis, and then came back in the first half of the 5th century within Aeschylus’ Sisyphus the Runaway. In the Zagreus story, Dionysos is given a new group of nursing parents: the Kouretes. As they dance with their weapons around the child and do not pay attention, the Titans discreetly reach Dionysos-Zageus and lure him away using toys (a ball, a spinning top, a mirror, a fleece, jackstones, apples, a bullroarer…). Once they had him, the Titans killed him, dismembered him and cooked the pieces of his body within a cauldron before roasting them and eating them. Zeus struck the Titans with his lightning, but hopefully could resurrect the young god, using his still-beating heart that had been saved by Athena from the Titans’ gruesome feast.

Next time: The Shapeshifting God, and A Complex Personality

#greek mythology #greek gods #dionysos #dionysus

[yoga-onion]

[Image above+below: works of an Estonian artist, Kaljo Põllu (28 November 1934 – 23 March 2010) ]

Legends and myths about trees

Forest myths, Estonian traditional beliefs (2)

The world of the Estonians’ ancestors - Proto-Estonian mythology

The world of the Estonians’ ancestors is believed to have turned around a pillar or a tree, to which the skies were nailed with the North Star. The Milky Way (Linnutee or Birds' Way in Estonian) was a branch of the World tree (Ilmapuu) or the way by which birds moved (and took the souls of the deceased to the other world). These myths were based on animistic beliefs.

Some traces of the oldest authentic myths may have survived in runic songs. There is a song about the birth of the world – a bird lays three eggs and starts to lay out the nestlings – one becomes Sun, one becomes Moon and one becomes the Earth. Other Finnic peoples also have myths according to which the world has emerged from an egg.

It has been suggested by ethnologist and former president Lennart Meri and among others, that a Kaali meteorite crater which passed dramatically over populated regions and landed on the island of Saaremaa around 3,000 - 4,000 years ago was a cataclysmic event that may have influenced the mythology of Estonia and neighboring countries, especially those from whose vantage point a "sun" seemed to set in the east.

There are surviving stories about Kaali crater in Finnish mythology (Description of indigenous paganism by Finns who always believed in spirit beliefs). 

In the Karelian-Finnish folk epic, the Kalevala, cantos (songs) 47, 48 and 49 can be interpreted as descriptions of the impact, the resulting tsunami and devastating forest fires. It has also been suggested that the Virumaa-born Oeselian god Tharapita is a reflection of the meteorite that entered the atmosphere somewhere near the suggested "birthplace" of the god and landed in Oesel.

Estonian mythology is a complex of myths belonging to Estonian folk heritage and literary mythology, and the systematic documentation of Estonian folklore had only began in the 19th century. 

Therefore, information on Proto-Estonian mythology before the conquest of the Northern Crusades, Christianisation and incorporation into the European world and during the medieval era, is only scattered in historical chronicles, travellers' accounts and in ecclesiastical registers.

It can be difficult to tell how much of Estonian mythology as we know it today was actually constructed in the 19th and early 20th century. Friedrich Robert Fehlmann, one of the compilers of the Estonian national epic, Kalevipoeg in the introduction to Esthnische Sagen (Estonian Legends), states.

"However, since Pietism has started to penetrate deep into the life of the people...singing folk songs and telling legends have become forbidden for the people; moreover, the last survivals of pagan deities are being destroyed and there is no chance for historical research."

木にまつわる伝説・神話

森の神話・エストニアの民間伝承 (2)

エストニア人の祖先の世界 〜 原始エストニア神話

エストニア人の祖先の世界は、柱または木の周りを回っていたと信じられており、その柱には北極星とともに天空が釘付けにされていた。天の川（エストニア語ではリヌーテーまたは鳥の道）は世界樹（イルマプー）の枝であり、鳥が移動する（そして亡くなった人の魂をあの世に連れて行く）道であった。これらの神話はアニミズム的な信仰に基づいていた。

最古の本物の神話の痕跡が、ルーン文字の歌詞の中に残っているかもしれない。ある鳥が3つの卵を産み、雛を産み始める。ひとつは太陽になり、ひとつは月になり、ひとつは地球になる、という世界の誕生の歌がある。他にはフィン族にも、世界が卵から生まれたという神話がある。

3,000～4,000年前に人口密集地域の上空を劇的に通過し、サーレマー島に落下したカーリ隕石 (ｶｰﾘ･ｸﾚｰﾀｰ) は、エストニアや近隣諸国、特に「太陽」が東に沈むように見えた国々の神話に影響を与えた可能性がある、と民族学者で元大統領のレンナルト・メリらによって示唆されている。

フィンランド神話 (精霊信仰を常に信仰していたフィン族による原始宗教的な伝説) にカーリ隕石に関する物語が残っている。カレリア・フィンランドの民俗叙事詩『カレワラ』の第47、48、49カント (聖歌) は、その衝撃と、その結果生じた津波、壊滅的な森林火災についての記述であると解釈できる。また、ヴィルマア生まれのオイセルの神タラピタは、この神の「出生地」とされる場所の近くで大気圏に突入し、オイセルに落下した隕石の反映であるとも言われている。

エストニア神話は、エストニアの民間伝承と文学的神話に属する神話の複合体であり、エストニアの民間伝承の体系的な記録が始まったのは19世紀になってからである。そのため、北方十字軍の征服、キリスト教化、ヨーロッパ世界への併合以前、そして中世のエストニア神話の原型に関する情報は、歴史年代記、旅行者の記録、教会の記録に散見されるのみである。

今日私たちが知っているエストニア神話のどれだけが、19世紀から20世紀初頭にかけて実際に構築されたものなのかを見分けるのは難しい。エストニアの民族叙事詩『カレヴィポエグ』の編纂者の一人であるフリードリヒ・ロベルト・フェールマンは、『エストニア伝説』の序文で次のように述べている。

“しかし、敬虔主義が人々の生活に深く浸透し始めて以来......民謡を歌い、伝説を語ることは、人々にとって禁忌となった； さらに、異教の神々の最後の生き残りは破壊されつつあり、歴史研究のチャンスはない。"

#trees #tree myth #tree legend #legend #mythology #folklore #estonian mythology #finnish mythology #kalevala #paganism #animism #north star #milky way #birds' way #world tree #nature #art #Kaljo Põllu #spirit beliefs #estonia

[jasminewalkerauthor]

Deep dives into folklore: Werewolves

Werewolves, often depicted as humans with the ability to transform into wolves or wolf-like creatures during the full moon, have been a recurring theme in literature and mythology for centuries. The concept of the werewolf has evolved significantly over time, reflecting the changing beliefs, fears, and societal norms of different cultures. Today we are exploring the fascinating journey of the werewolf from its ancient origins to its modern-day interpretations in literature and popular culture.

The origins of the werewolf myth can be traced back to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome. In Greek mythology, the legend of Lycaon tells the story of a king who was transformed into a wolf as punishment for serving human flesh to the gods. This early representation of lycanthropy, the ability to shape-shift into a wolf, laid the groundwork for future werewolf tales. In Roman literature, the story of Ovid's "Metamorphoses" also features a man named Arcas transformed into a bear by the god Jupiter, an early example of shape-shifting.

During the Middle Ages, the werewolf myth gained prominence in European folklore. In a time when superstitions and fear of the unknown were rampant, the idea of humans transforming into vicious beasts under the influence of the moon became deeply ingrained in the collective psyche. The term "werewolf" itself is of Old English origin, derived from "wer" meaning man and "wulf" meaning wolf. This era saw the emergence of numerous werewolf legends and stories, often used to explain mysterious disappearances or brutal killings. One of the most famous cases was that of Peter Stumpp, a 16th-century German farmer who claimed to have made a pact with the devil and confessed to committing gruesome murders while in wolf form. Such tales served to stoke the fear of the supernatural and the unknown.

As Europe transitioned from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, the werewolf myth underwent a transformation of its own. The Age of Reason prompted a shift towards skepticism and rationality, and werewolf stories became less prominent. However, they did not disappear entirely. Some writers and scholars explored the psychological aspects of lycanthropy, viewing it as a metaphor for the duality of human nature. This concept laid the groundwork for the exploration of the werewolf's inner struggle in later literature.

The 19th century saw a revival of interest in the supernatural, and werewolves made a comeback in literature. Folklorists and writers like The Brothers Grimm and E.T.A. Hoffmann delved into the darker aspects of folklore, resurrecting old werewolf legends and incorporating them into their stories. One of the most famous literary works featuring a werewolf is "The Wolfman" by Marie de Villeneuve, which introduced elements of tragic transformation and a curse, themes that would continue to be explored in later literature.

In the 20th century, the werewolf evolved into a complex and multifaceted character. With the advent of cinema and the horror genre, werewolves became popular subjects for films like "The Wolf Man" (1941) and "An American Werewolf in London" (1981). These films portrayed the werewolf as a tortured and sympathetic figure, struggling with their monstrous nature.

In contemporary literature and popular culture, the werewolf has continued to evolve. Authors like Anne Rice and Patricia Briggs have explored the psychological and emotional aspects of lycanthropy in their novels, portraying werewolves as individuals with unique abilities and challenges. The popular "Twilight" series by Stephenie Meyer introduced a new generation to the idea of werewolves as members of a close-knit pack, bound by loyalty and a shared destiny.

The werewolf, a creature born of ancient mythology, has undergone a remarkable evolution in literature and popular culture. From its origins in Greek and Roman mythology to its prominent place in medieval European folklore, and its subsequent reimagining in the modern era, the werewolf has adapted to reflect the changing fears, beliefs, and values of society. Today, the werewolf remains a symbol of the eternal struggle between the human and the beast within, a reflection of our ongoing fascination with the supernatural and the mysteries of the human psyche. Its enduring presence in literature and mythology ensures that the legend of the werewolf will continue to evolve and captivate audiences for generations to come.

#writeblr #writers of tumblr #bookish #writing #booklr #fantasy books #creative writing #book blog #ya fantasy books #ya books #deep dives into folklore #folklore #werewolves #twilight #werewolf #books #literature

[semi-imaginary-place]

Tolkien's Legendarium in the Modern World

It has been over 100 years since Tolkien first began his work on Middle Earth with the first draft verses of Luthien and Beren's story and the world has changed much in that time. Tolkien never published most of Legendarium until the end of his life he continued to draft and redraft its stories, and this begets the question of what Tolkien would have wished a completed Legendarium to look like and what I would have liked the Legendarium to be.

I personally disagree with most of Professor Tolkien's political opinions. While I do not think he was ever mean spirited, to the grave he carried with him many old fashioned ideas that while not quite bigoted in themselves, underpinned a lot of bigoted talking points. For example after people wrote to him about the troubling implications of his Dwarves on the Jewish people, Tolkien in response changed his depiction and mythology about Dwarves, he genuinely tried to do better. However what he never corrected was the view was that there were inherent differences between the different kinds of people of the world. Giving minorities a positive stereotype is not necessarily a good thing (hardworking, good with money, etc.). It feeds into the model minority myth that pits minorities against each other and acts as a rallying point for white supremacists that X minority is a threat to the white race.

The more racist parts of the Legendarium however are not the Dwarves but the descriptions of the Lesser Men, the Men of Darkness. There exists this hierarchy of the types of Men with the enlightened and European-like High Men such as the Dúnedain at the top, followed by the Middle Men or Men of Twilight like the Rohirrim or most of the other European-like Men, and at the bottom are the Men of Darkness those groups of men who fell under the control of Sauron (note how the European men were wise/strong enough to fight off Evil but the other types weren't) like the Haradrim, the Hill-men and others who are described with racist language that was also used to describe Middle Eastern peoples, African peoples, and really anyone Europeans considered a savage. Yikes, let's just scrub that, it would be impossible to rid the Legendarium of the eurocentrism but I would at least remove the most racist parts. Nor would I want to remove all of the Eurocentrism, Tolkien after all was directly inspired by European literature and epics, that is the literary ancestry of the Legendarium and I would not discredit it.

It is not bad for works to include racism or other sensitive topics, I would instead turn the Eurocentrism present in the Legendarium into a commentary on the ignorance of Middle Earth on the rest of Arda and the woes of a limited perspective. This idea was present in some drafts, that the entirety of the Legendarium was a story told to a human sailor that had washed up on the shores of Tol Eressëa and thus what the audience sees is actually a story within a story, thus making all the biases of the Legendarium the biases of that in universe storyteller. Of what Tolkien ever drafted, most of it is Noldorian history or history recorded by those associated with the Noldor. We barely hear mention of the Elves that refused the Great Journey presumably because the Noldor did not care for the histories of those people, placing themselves (Eldar and Calaquendi) above the Avari. Even the words used to describe groups of Elves are primarily Noldorian (or High Elvish) or Sindarian (normal Elvish) and the Sindar were greatly influenced by Thingol who saw the light of the Trees and Melian who was a Maia. Much of the Lord of the Rings is told from the perspective of Middle Earth (Gondor, Elrond, Hobbits), instead of completely eliminating the racism I would tone it down and make it more clear that the racism present if a product of the in story authors and their perspectives. Another option though I am not as fond of it and it would be harder to do is to lean into the bigotry, confirm that it is baked into the universe and thus lean more heavily into the tragedy that all the character's live in a universe there racism and a lack of free will are inherent parts of the fabric or reality and inescapable (more on this later).

There are many social issues I could talk about here, but for me what is most blatantly chaffing is the Catholicism. Tolkien's Legendarium is a Catholic work. Professor Tolkien himself was devotedly Catholic and traditionally Catholic, and that undercurrent of Catholicism permeates every aspect of the Legendarium. The Catholicism shows up everywhere from the mythos have a one true god that is a all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent creator, to how weird the Legendarium is about divorce (like a divorce had the butterfly effect causing most of the First Age's problems), discussions of morality and free will are very much made with Catholic theology in mind, the Catholic focus on purity, marriage is a sacred act between two soulmates destined for each other, sex is what makes a marriage real, and divorce is evil. It would be impossible to remove all the Catholicism and have the Legendarium to still be recognizable. As someone who recognizes the sheer amount of cultural destruction Christianity has wrought upon this world, if I were to rewrite the Legendarium, to create its ideal form, I would tone down the Catholic-ness of it though not entirely eliminate it, the question is how.

In the Legendarium, alignment with Eru Ilúvatar's will equates good and to turn away is to be evil. Melkor, Sauron, and Saruman are all examples of this, all three started out wanted to do good, to improve the lives of the people of Arda. For example in the beginning of the universe Melkor wasn't out for destruction and suffering, no what he wanted was freedom of will and choice, individuality. It was in defying Ilúvatar that he was corrupted because Ilúvatar's will is good and to rebel against it is to do evil, good and fix are fixed universal constants in Arda. I personally am fascinated by the inherent existentialist themes present in the Legendarium's cosmology. If there is a fixed path before each person and to stray from it means to become cosmologically evil, what is the moral thing to do? The relationship between creator and created, Elves and Dwarves were designed for a purpose what does it mean to fulfill that purpose or nature? Ilúvatar's Theme as first envisioned was never realized, Arda was created marred, suffering and discomfort are inherent aspects to existence on Arda. Similar themes can be found in other existentialist series such as the NieR games. Elves in Arda are bound to it, they cannot escape their fates even in death, their very essences are tied to the fate of Arda. It is curious then that humans are the sole beings that can escape Illuvatar's will and the fate of Arda, the have what Morgoth sorely coveted, the freedom to individually choose how to live their lives, The Gift of Man. I would keep this aspect even if it does still reek of Catholicism.

This brings us to one of the pivotal events of the First Age, The Finwë Divorce Saga. Tolkien himself wrote that he did not intend the Legendarium to be a Catholic allegory mostly because he hated allegories, but the man was so deeply Catholic that it just permeated everything he created. One could view The War of the Jewels as a cautionary tale of how divorce is evil and will only cause trouble to everyone even if Tolkien did not intend that specific reading, his views on marriage and divorce still leaked through. But Feanor and his family drama is such a keystone to the events of the First Age that the entirety of that era cannot exist without him. What I would do then in a rewrite is shift the narrative blame away from Finwe and Miriel and over to the Valar. The problems that followed were primarily because of the Valar mishandling the situation, not that Miriel and Finwe wanted a divorce. Hints of this interpretation already exist in The Silmarillion and HOME so its not that I would be creating something new so much as shifting emphasis.

This would also necessitate making the Elves less Catholic as Elf culture is very Catholic. Because Elven spirits (fea) are tied to the fate of Arda they are immortal so long as the world exists, unlike humans when Elves die their spirits do not leave the world, so their loved ones and partners are not truly gone. To each elf, they have one true soulmate and thus their marriages are eternal, until the end of existence. I would just get rid of this or at least tone it down, remove some of the mysticism or marriage being a literal magic bond. For one I feel what the Elves do takes away the true joy and uniqueness of each romantic relationship, that it is something people chose, that people chose each other and they could have chosen differently. I think Tolkien wanted to highlight the unchanging eternal nature of his Elves, because to support divorce would mean acknowledging that people and feelings change (just like his marriage, yes I said it, in their later years John and Edith lived lives that little to do with each other even if they shared a house). There is something to believing that because each soul is inherently and immutably good, every single person can be saved no matter how far they fall because its impossible for that base nature to change. I do not believe that, but even if it were true (which would fit the cosmology as discussed above), that does not discount all the "surface" level changes a person can undergo. Take Maedhros one of my favorite characters for example, even if he had an unchanging immortal soul or whatever Catholics are calling it these days, his behavior changed. Maedhros had all the set up of a classical hero (eldest son of a storied and prestigious lineage, skilled at both pen and sword, a diplomat, a leader, loyal, determined), and his story is about him failing to become that hero and just becoming worse over time to where by the end he's killing innocents and people fighting against the great Evil, and he commits the ultimate sin of killing himself (also suicide being a sin is very Catholic).

Others have discussed the problems with depictions of women in the Legendarium but to cover a couple major points, the Legendarium just lacks women there are barely any female characters, and of the women present it's like they are only allowed to act within the bounds of traditional European femininity. Take for example Luthien who is probably the single most powerful non-Maia in the series (well she is half but she's counted among the elves), and yet her power in the story manifests solely through traditionally feminine domains like weaving. This on its own would not be a problem, women are allowed to like feminine things and Luthien has a lot of agency within her story, the problem is that there are so few women in the Legendarium and they are all like this, what powers they have always coming from the feminine sphere.

And of course because the Legendarium is a Catholic work the concept of purity is tied to morality and applied to women. Through reading many different drafts and letters Galadrieal can likely be suspected of being one of Tolkien's favorites. Her role in the Swearing of the Oath and First Kinslaying at Alqualondë vary drastically between drafts. In earlier drafts she sided with Feanor and the Noldor and though she did not swear the Oath of Feanor and thus doom herself, in these earlier drafts she is counted among the leaders of the Noldor revolt and like them is exiled from Aman. In other drafts she alternately does not participate in the attack on Alqualondë or even fights with her mother's brethren the Teleri against Feanor's forces, in some she crosses the Ice with Fingolfin's forces and in a particular draft she has nothing to do with the Exile of the Noldor and comes to Middle Earth by her own boat for her own means the timing just so happens to coincidentally line up. Generally in later drafts Tolkien bends over backwards to make exceptions for Galadrial so that she commits less sins and remains pure, he removes her rebellion against the divine and associations with the Exiled Noldor and thus retcons the most interesting aspect of her character in order to keep her unstained. This is one of two time where I have a strong preference for earlier drafts of the Legendarium (the other is draft epilogue where The Lord of the Rings ends with Sam looking back before closing the door as he hears the whisper of Aman on the wind). Those later drafts do a massive disservice to her character. Galadriel's whole character arc is that she starts off a headstrong, prideful, rebellious princess who want a kingdom of her own because she wants the power to rule over other people and through the devastation of the First and Second Ages she mellows out to become one of the wisest people in Middle Earth who would look power in the face and say no, who rules to serve and protect the people in her kingdom. Galadriel is so much more if Tolkien allows her to make mistakes when she was younger, to carry the guilt of what she enabled and allowed or perhaps participated in and have that weight shape her for the better. Then her actions in Middle Earth become not about how she was always good and pure, they become about redemption and taking the marred and the ugly and making something worthwhile out of it.

Éowyn the one character who noticeably steps beyond the boundaries for women, gets shoved back into traditional femininity at the end of her story, choosing to leave the battlefield to tend hearth and home. Now this likely was not intentional on Professor Tolkien's part. What he intended was a continuation of his anti-war stance seen throughout his works. World War I was brutal and massive shock to the world, recent innovations in technology made killing easier and faster, so while not the bloodiest conflict in history it was an abrupt wake up to the traditional modes of war. Soldiers went out and were slaughtered, most of Tolkien's tight-knit friend-group died in that war. On the battlefield Tolkien found no glory or honor, all he saw were the horrors of war, the human cost and the purposeless suffering inflicted. His anti-war stance can been seen most clearly outside the Legendarium in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son which is a dialectic between an veteran soldier and a new soldier. Within The Lord of the Rings we see this is how Sam in the true hero of this story, in how hobbits value peace and good food over war or politics, in how the best men like Aragorn and Faramir are peaceful and would rather choose the pen over the sword. We see this most strongly in "The Scouring of the Shire" which arguably is the most thematically poignant part of The Lord of the Rings, because the a person's story does not end with the battle, sometimes war never ends for some people, and yet there are things worth fighting for in this world. War is terrible, but sometimes we have to fight to protect the simple good things in the world and it is not some destined hero that will save us but ordinary people rising to the occasion together. However it is incredibly conspicuous that the only major female character shown on the battlefield was the one forced to carry this narrative of putting down her sword to take care of a household. There are dozens of men in this story that fight in the War of the Ring and we do not see any of them retiring from fighting and choosing domesticity. It would have been so powerful if Tolkien chosen her brother the war chief Eomer to carry this message, imagine if it were him who came from a warrior culture and becomes warrior-king who chose to put down his sword and forswear fighting. So yes I would have rewritten Eowyn's ending, let malewife Faramir have his kickass girlboss wife. Let Eowyn's arc be her fielding herself out of despair and a desire to prove herself, and her character development learning that she is more powerful than she thought and that she will continue to wield the sword in service of Rohan, her people, and in service of peace.

Now I have typed some 3000 words about what I would change and why so let me end on some of the things I would keep the same for I love the Legendarium dearly and I would preserve far more than I would change. I would keep the hope and love that is written into these stories. I would keep that there is beauty in this world, there is good in friends and family. I would keep the awe and wonder for the natural world, that mountains and forests and streams can be their own characters. I would keep the sense of magic, not in the sense of spellcasting and sword and sorcery style magic, but that wonder and joy for the world that makes everything magical. I would keep that life is a journey and all you have to do is take the first step out your front door. I would keep the believably that this is just an untold forgotten history and like it there are still many mysteries in the world. I would keep the wide scale of continents and forces beyond us moving to their own stories. Tolkien crafted the Legendarium out of love, from that first poem about the woman he was in love with, to his love of philology stories and creation, Arda was made with love. In the Legendarium is deep love of the world, the natural world and the people that inhabit it, in here is hope too that no matter what evils plague the world there is still good there too in the hearts of the most ordinary person.

#tolkien #lotr #jrr tolkien #lord of the rings #silmarillion #the hobbit #middle earth #eowyn #galadriel #Last time fundamentalist christian tradwife tumblr found me so im gonna say: #christianity is a force of western colonialism imperialism bigotry and hate #It has been globally one of the biggest drivers of genocide ever #also TRANS RIGHTS terfs get out

[sukunasbabygirl]

When it comes to Dracula’s character, it is always worth noting that while he is indeed a sickening and vile man with none of the redeeming qualities recent media has given him, these qualities were born out of xenophobia on Bram Stoker’s part.

With Victorian fears surrounding foreign domination of the land, especially from Eastern Europe, it is no wonder Dracula’s character is written the way he is. He is an Eastern European man described to have animalistic features and the nature of a predator who wishes to take root in England and spread his infliction, feasting on the blood of innocent English women. Not to mention the hair on his palms likely being a reference to an old myth I’m not sure I can say without tumblr murdering me, but it’s pretty easy to search up said myth and the negative connotations that would have surrounded it, as well as Bram’s intent with said detail.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that ‘Dracula is a monster who wears the skin of a man and this is an example of great horror’ and ‘Dracula being dehumanised and compared to a predator is written based on Xenophobic beliefs’ are ideas that can co-exist. It is genius horror as it creates a sense of unease in his actions, especially when he attempts to mimic the manners of a human, but when doing deeper literary analysis, you cannot ignore that this horror was written by a Victorian and for a Victorian audience, and would thus reflect societal fears of the time. Most Gothic Horror novels tend to reflect societal fears at the time, take Frankenstein or The Picture of Dorian Gray for example.

I suppose my point here is that yes Dracula is a deeply disturbing and discomforting villain, but when doing a more in depth literary analysis on him and his actions, you cannot separate Bram Stoker’s beliefs and intent from the character. This goes for a lot of things in the novel, and old novels in general, hence why critical thinking is a very important skill to have when going into them, but I’m mainly pointing out Dracula’s double-sided coin here because someone’s gotta be the Dracula apologist on this site! (This is a joke of course, I am in no way a Dracula apologist I just do way too many mini analyses on him in my spare time)

I have probably made a post similar to this before but I do not remember doing so and therefore I will treat this as a completely new and original post. The joys of having ADHD and choosing the worst character ever to fixate on.

#Dracula #count dracula #Dracula analysis #xenophobia tw #i think this is part of why classic literature is so important to study #it is a direct look into society at the time and the often author themselves #this goes for all literature really but I digress

[otrtbs]

Hi!! I was wondering if you knew any useful resources to research mythology in art throughout history.

ahb! has inspired me to research this in depth despite the fact that ik absolutely nothing about art atp in time, especially it’s history 😭

any help would be welcomed as i haven’t yet started!! big fan of your works btw (just read winterlude), i love them <3

i. would start with maybe narrowing it down slightly?? is there a specific mythology you want to hone in on??

i took an introduction to classical mythology class in undergrad coupled with an art in the lives of ordinary greeks and romans class which was super cool so some resources for that would be:

Early Greek myth: a guide to literary and artistic sources by Timothy Gantz

the MET has a great free resource on Roman art you can find here!

The Inquiring Eye: Classical Mythology in European Art by the National Gallery of Art in Washington you can find here!

Anything by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill but shout out to Houses and society in Pompeii and Herculaneum by him.

This site will help you identify common iconography associated with greek and roman mythological figures.

Also cannot speak highly enough of this site here!

But!! If you're looking for egyptian mythology in art or celtic mythology, or norse mythology that's a whole other can of worms!! (i could help you with celtic resources though because i took a celtic art class of early britain and ireland during post-grad. but otherwise i'd have to do some digging to find some reputable resources.)

#asks #ARH talks #hopefully this was somewhat helpful?? fingers crossed ?? if you need something more specific or have more questions please lmk!!

[nation-of-bros]

Hi. Even though I don't share your ideas about politics, vaccines, climate, etc. (I say this for intellectual honesty), I found your idea of androphilia curious, even if extreme. There is, however, one inconsistency that I would like to bring to your attention. I think that the culture that expressed your concept of androphilia in the highest and most all-encompassing way is not the Eastern Muslim world at all, but a civilization more than a thousand years older, namely Ancient Greece. Searching for androphilia in Islamic culture, as you did, involves forcing it, when instead among the ancient Greeks already mythology, that is, the highest expression of their religion, contained this theme, even if sometimes modern culture did not allow us case: think of the warrior loves of Achilles and Patroclus or of Theseus and Pirithous, or the myth of Caeneus, who was a woman transformed into a man. For the ancient Greeks, loving other men increases one's virility, one's honor, one's strength, while the sole love for women makes one weak and weak. There is an entire oration by an author of the late Roman period that celebrates the androphilic ancient Greeks who managed to defeat the Persians, who were inferior because they were heterosexual; even Alexander the Great, who also had an androphilic relationship with Hephaestion, completely conquered and subdued the Persians. You can read the oration here: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/21*.html. No Islamic people has ever expressed androphilia in such a strong and explicit way. Even gymnastics and wrestling, which you consider your nation's sport, originate from the Greeks and not from the Arab world. In the Middle Ages, Muslim culture itself drew considerably from Greek culture for its literary works and technologies, whose superiority it recognized. In short, the Greeks were declared androphiles, a thousand years older than Muhammad, inventors of the fight, they subjugated the eastern peoples and knew how to combine strength and wisdom. I would take them as a model of the perfect androphilic society. Certainly this would involve a total rethinking of aesthetic categories on your part, given that modern Western canons descend directly from the Greek ones and are therefore also in this case much, much older than your ideal (bald head, hair, belly, etc.), which for the Greeks it was a total disgrace. Make of my suggestion what you like: I have never insulted anyone who thinks differently from me. However, I invite you to observe that the roots on which our Western civilization is based (because the ancient Greeks are this) are far more androphilic than the Arabs or Persians ever were, and our European aesthetic canons are the fruit of that truly androphilic culture.

Thanks for sharing your opinion! I like to use this as an opportunity to justify my worldview.

The West can never be a role model!

The list of topics at the beginning shows that there is much more disagreement than just a different image of men. In my opinion, it is confirming that you represent the Western system opinion – I guess as an academic – and at the same time defend the West's image of men. As you yourself stated, I have an absolutely clear position on these topics and expect the same from my bros, because for me these are indicators to measure mental fitness. Of course, you are welcome to see it differently and continue to get the dirt of some criminal mafia-like pharmaceutical companies injected into you, or believe that 0.039% CO2 in the atmosphere, 96% of which is of natural origin, would be a reason to give up our industry and destroy any prosperity.

Just the other day I read how Green Maoists in Germany are slitting the tires of thousands of SUVs because these cars are supposedly "harmful to the climate." Then more news about athletes and other prominent persons, who died suddenly and unexpectedly; or that "non-binary" teen from Oklahoma, whose death is certainly not due to violence, as this clientele in particular was very willing to pick up several boosters. And here too I wonder how you can defend the West, which wants to turn everyone into androgynous, sexless and emotionally dulled grays through LGBTQ+ ideology, brain-destroying chemicals in vaccines, and a completely dysfunctional selection, regarding whether reproduction or social life. I just have to look at our politicians who are the epitome of incompetence lacking any basics. How can this dirt make it to the top of the most powerful states?! How can Western men willingly let these scum tell them what to do?!

From this context, it is impossible for me to accept the Western canon of values, even if it is just some reference to its roots.

The official historiography is completely falsified

I can very well understand your reverence for ancient culture. However, there are also a few problems here: You always talk about “Greeks”. But the people you are referring to are called “Hellenes”. Today's Greeks don't really have much in common with the ancient Hellenes, apart from language. It is also often forgotten that there was a major period in between, that of the Byzantine Empire, which is the true origin of Greek-speaking settlement around the Mediterranean and in Asia Minor. Most likely, all of the supposedly "antique" looking buildings originate from the Byzantine period and later served as inspiration for an ancient "Hellas"; or they are even remains from a much older civilization technologically superior to us.

But ancient Greece as portrayed in official school textbooks is just a modern fiction that aimed to create a glorious past for itself, much as it was typical for European nobles to imagine a family tree that goes back to some ancient personage or tribe, to cement their claim to power, especially among usurpers.

What hardly anyone knows today is that the "ancient" appearance of Greece emerged at the time when Prince Otto of Bavaria became the first king of Greece. He was incredibly fascinated by the Hellenistic world through childhood stories; and then, unsurprisingly, went wild during his reign and had everything in Greece redesigned according to his fantasies. In this way, typical medieval post-Byzantine cities became ancient-looking landscapes with the recreated ruins of old temple complexes. It is also significant that all sites in Greece are unquestioningly declared to be ancient. For example, when medical tools are unearthed, it is immediately said that they are "testimony of the great ancient Greek culture", although they could just as easily have been medical equipment from the late Middle Ages or the 17th century. Most of what can be seen in our museums today is probably incorrectly dated and only cements an existing false image of history.

I am therefore a critic of historical chronology according to the views of Wilhelm Kammeier, Uwe Topper and Heribert Illig, who spent their lives going into the archives that still exist and studying the original sources. They recognized contradictions to the official interpretation and had to realize that many centuries simply could not be proven and were thus extremely questionable. For example, a development took place in a century, then abruptly there was no progress for a long time, total stagnation with no finds, and suddenly the development continues where it left off 150 years earlier. The most obvious conclusion here is that these were centuries added later, possibly in the monasteries of the late Middle Ages or later on a larger scale by the Jesuits. This may sound strange to begin with, but we must not forget that the Church had the monopoly on education in Europe until the 18th century and in fact no one except the clergy and nobility could read and write.

Moreover, the chronology critics found that for every ancient event you can also find a similar one from modern times. But even medieval greats like “Charlemagne” may never have existed.

Most ancient texts are modern fictions

Many of what we now call "ancient lore" are simply fictions of Italian humanists, for whom it was a popular sport to invent such texts under Latin or Greek pseudonyms. This was often a medium to differentiate themselves from the stronger north by attaching a primitive past to it: Wild Germanic tribes who lived in longhouses with their animals and were simply inferior in every respect to the great civilization of Rome. At this point you will understand why, as a German, I am already vomiting and simply refusing to identify with this forerunner of the West.

I don't think this primitive image of Germanic people is true in any way, especially since there is also evidence that German cities are significantly older than assumed. Consequently, this Western classicism as a supposed “retrospective” is thus a means of cultural oppression.

In addition, it seems pretty silly to me to identify with those ancient Greek legends, which is why I still avoid seeing myself as a "European". That's just an idiotic fantasy term from some fiction of a Greek setting. It's not much different if we would call Europe "Middle-earth" after Tolkien. I would much rather prefer the name "Germania", because it was the Germanic peoples who subjugated and shaped the entire continent, and not some donkey republic called Greece!

My roots are not Greek!

Furthermore, I think that the ancient Indian culture from which Muslim architecture emerged is superior to the Western one. The shapes, patterns, warm colors are truly much more organic, more inviting. On the other hand, cold classicism adorns every western government building and thus became representative of an empire that functions according to unrestrained exploitation, mindless materialism and blind obedience to authority; all things that I fundamentally reject!

It is also known that Germans, Iranians and North Indians share a common Indo-Germanic heritage. I am even of the opinion that my Germanic ancestors most likely came from Central Asia, and later mixed with the subjugated farming peoples of Europe, which went down in common Germanic mythology as the war between the superior Aesir ("Asia"?) and the rural Vanes. The linguistic connection between Germanic languages, Persian and Hindustani / Sanskrit is a well-known fact and can only be explained by a common origin or a common phase of proximity. In addition, you can still find tribes in Iran and Central Asia today that are not very mixed and appear surprisingly Germanic with light eyes and blonde or red hair. There is even the theory that the Germans are descendants, a reincarnation, of the ancient Assyrians, but I have not yet found any solid evidence for this. So it's easy to see that there are much more reasons for me to turn east!

You forgot their Greek dicklets!

Those homoerotic and supposedly "ancient Greek" stories are definitely very nice, but I just have to shrug my shoulders here and ask myself: Are they fiction or did this setting actually exist? Perhaps these stories were just the only way to express homoerotic ideas by publishing under a Greek or Latin pseudonym in a time when sex was considered fundamentally immoral and limited to procreation. And since the church itself relied on ancient greats to justify its claim to power, ancient authorship was the only way to express itself freely in literature. In contrast, the pre-colonial Muslim world was much more sexually permissive, homoerotic and bisexual. If I had had the choice back then, I would have definitely preferred a life as a Muslim man in Al Andalus over the Western Christian crap with their chastity and poor hygiene!

And if you really want to uphold the ancient Hellenic male ideals, then please don't forget their glorification of mini dicks:

At that time they wanted to distance themselves from the animally hairy Anatolian beasts with their large monsters. That included tiny dicks, for whatever reason…

If you look more closely, the overall features even appear very androgynous; maybe some alien ideals, since the "gods" were also smooth and small-dicked, if they ever had genitals; in order to be closer to their divine creators by distancing themselves from the lower, more earth-typical tiervolk (animal-like people).

Sorry, but I'd rather stay true to myself and watch my dark blonde Germanic beard grow longer and longer, parallel to my belly, while my baldness continues to work its way to all sides. That sets me apart more, because I don't want to be a dead, smooth statue of the West with androgynous features, but a real man!

Muslims are more collective and androphilic

My country is literally flooded with Turks, Arabs, Afghans, North Africans; therefore I can very well observe the difference between these and western men. While Western men prefer to be alone, you will almost never see a Muslim not surrounded by some his bros. And you will never see women in their midst as they are either well hidden or at home. Cunts are effectively out of sight, so all eyes are on their brothers. You are thus more likely to receive a compliment from a Muslim about how beautiful your eyes are or how great your beard is. In the Middle East you can even see them hugging or kissing, which is already considered totally gay in our culture. They simply think more of their own kind and stick together closely in men's groups, while Western dudes are simply loners who reject any contact with one another as "wrong". In short, Muslims are much more androphilic than Western men; hence I have to disagree with you at this point too.

I'm honestly not interested in your stories about some smooth androgynous Hellenic world conquerors, because they're just stories that I have no connection to and whose veracity I generally strongly doubt. I'm a realist and pragmatist, and the current reality is just completely different. Identifying myself with something that supposedly took place 3,000 years ago is, as I've already said, not much better than cosplaying Tolkien's Middle-earth. It's silly. Especially since, as an East German, I have a significantly more anti-Western viewpoint that I will never give up. I feel more connected to my Arab and North African brothers than to anyone else on this planet because, not least, we share common destinies as unpleasant nations that the West wants to destroy. There is therefore no reason for me to adopt your canon of values.

Last but not least, I have already described in my other essays that I fundamentally want a synthesis between our cultures, between Germanic, African, Arabic, Persian and other Central Asian nationalities; a new androphilic culture that combines the best of the existing ones, embodied by a brotherhood and new shared way of life that focuses on love between men. This also includes the question of the best model of life for us, such as gender separation and the preference for masculine women in order to gradually adapt their external physiques to men without losing the ability to give birth; here, secondary male sexual characteristics are good indicators. For example, in the Arab world you can already find some women who are naturally quite bearded and thus form a good basis for better reproductive partners compared to weak Western women, who are often physically overwhelmed by just giving one birth, although they are perceived as more feminine (possibly because they are too weakly built due to incorrect sexual preferences over the last thousands of years); whereas Arab and African women calve much more easily. So, unlike you, I don't want to reject heterosexuality, but rather make it androphilic.

—

By the way, wrestling was not invented by the Greeks, but is much older and even typically oriental.

#androphilia #androphilic #love #histroy #islam #muslim #essay #reply

[ancestorsalive]

Season of the Witch

- The origins (and places) of the Cailleach

The Cailleach, divine Hag/Crone of Gaelic folklore, is often portrayed as the embodiment of Winter. She is said to appear as the earth is dying, and is known as a bringer of storms. She is said to control the weather and determine the length of Winter and its harshness.

She is also said to be responsible for the formation of many of the country’s most prominent landmarks, and there are probably more geographical and archaeological features on the Irish landscape, that are associated with the Cailleach, than any other character in Irish folklore (see pics for landmarks & associations).

As a creator of the land and controller of the weather, the Cailleach would appear to represent an archetypal sovereignty/land goddess, whose origins may be traced back to Bronze-Age, or even Neolithic cosmologies.

However, despite her presence on the landscape, the Cailleach does not appear in ANY of the Irish literary myths. In fact, most of the traditions we now associate with the Cailleach (such as her association with winter), can only be traced back as far as the late-19th Century Gaelic revival in Scotland, where she features much more prominently than in Irish folklore.

Her earliest appearance in any written form is in an ‘untitled’ poem from a 16th Century manuscript (though its language suggests some of it was written at a much earlier date - possibly 10th Century) which, after it was first translated in 1899, has come to be known as ‘The Lament of the Old Woman of Beare’.

In the poem, the woman (name unknown) describes herself as an aging Queen of the Beara Peninsula in southwest Ireland; lamenting the passing of her youth and the riches and attention that went with it. The poem’s essentially christian narrative holds no hope of redemption or regeneration for the the old woman or the ‘old ways’ that she seems to represent.

Although the poem is untitled, the original introduction line reads… “Sentainne Bérri Cecenit íarna senad don chríni” (The Old Woman of Beare said this when senility had aged her).

The Old-Irish word ‘Sentainne’ meaning ‘Old-Woman’ would come to be replaced in later Middle-Irish with the word ‘Caillech’ - which in Old-Irish means “the veiled one” (specifically a ‘Nun’) but by the 10th Century, had come to signify any woman beyond childbearing years (which was OLD in those days).

The Old Irish ‘caillech’ ('veiled one'), from Old Irish ‘caille’ (‘veil/cloak’) is generally thought to be a loan-word from the Latin ‘pallium/palli(i)’ meaning ‘cover’ or ‘cloak’ (usually in reference to religious vestments - hence the 'nun' translation).

If so, this would make the Cailleach a ‘relative’ newcomer (etymologically speaking), which has led many medievalist academics to propound that she is an early-medieval folk figure rather than an ancient divinity (no surprise there !). . . However, this could be yet another ‘folk-etymology’ - where the meaning of a word changes due to a popular misconception regarding its origins.

Classical writings indicate that the “Cailleach” may have been known as early as the 5th Century BC; in the area known today as Galicia, which gets its name from a Celtic tribe known as the Callaeci. This tribe on the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula were first named as the ‘Kallaikoi’ by the Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th Century BC; before being Latinised by Roman writers to ‘Callaeci’ in the 2nd Century BC - a name which Ptolemy suggested as meaning ‘worshippers of the Callaec’.

Interestingly, in Spanish folklore, another name for Galicia is "Terra Meiga" (Land of the Witches).

Given that recent archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence points to a migration into Ireland by ‘Proto-Indo European/Proto-Celtic’ speakers during the Bronze-Age (c.2000 BCE); rather than the traditional view of a later migration of ‘Celtic/Old Irish’ speakers during the Iron-Age, (c.500-100 BCE): It seems unlikely that the word(s) ’caillech/caille’ would be ‘borrowed’ from Latin into Irish at such a late date.

Both Italic (Latin) and Celtic (Irish) are closely related branches of the Indo-European language family; with both languages diverging from the original Proto Indo-European (PIE) language sometime after 2000BCE (The similarity between the Celtic & Italic languages has even led some scholars to believe that there was a Proto Italo-Celtic language spoken prior to their divergence from each other).

Therefore, it now seems likely that the word ‘caille’ derives directly from the PIE root word, *kel- meaning ‘to conceal/hide/cover’.

However. *kel- is also the root of another PIE word - *Kolyo - meaning ‘the coverer’, which is thought to describe a (hypothetical) goddess who is half maiden / half grotesque, governing the realm of death, but also the life which is sustained by death… sound familiar?

It is therefore possible that the modern Cailleach is a variation of this ancient female deity/character (*Kolyo), brought here in the Bronze Age by the same Indo-European speakers, from whom the peoples of Ireland and Scotland are descended ?

- Jane Brideson

The Labbacallee (Hag’s Bed) Wedge Tomb in Co. Cork is said to be another of the Cailleach’s dwellings; which in this instance, she shared with her husband, the druid Mog Roith. Local folklore tells us that during an argument, a huge rock lying in the nearby river was thrown by the Cailleach at her fleeing husband, pinning him to the riverbed. . .

#Cailleach #ancestors alive! #what is remembered lives #memory & spirit of place #ancient ways #sacred ways #folkways #traditions #old woman #crone #wisewoman #hag #Irish #megalithic #ancient history #Celtic #galicia #iberia #ireland #scotland #folklore #myth

[whatthecrowtold]

#unhallowedarts - "I spread it over centuries, and time is on my side" - Bram Stoker's Dracula

“You reason well, and your wit is bold, but you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are, that some people see things that others cannot? But there are things old and new which must not be contemplated by men's eyes, because they know, or think they know, some things which other men have told them. Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all, and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain. But yet we see around us every day the growth of new beliefs, which think themselves new, and which are yet but the old, which pretend to be young, like the fine ladies at the opera.“

(Bram Stoker “Dracula”)

It was a indeed a dark and stormy night, the one in the year without Summer back in 1816, when the Shelleys, Byron and his physician John Polidori sat down to make pop culture history. Cut off from the world, bored witless and full to the brim with laudanum, his lordship challenged the gathered Romantic enfants perdu to lift the burden of ennui with telling ghost stories in the German fashion. And while both Byron and Shelley brought off rather nothing except consuming more narcotics that night, Mary famously began to write “Frankenstein” and Polidori engendered the other treasured dread, the aristocratic, suave, blood sucking king of the undead, the vampire. The myth itself was, of course, centuries old and only two generations before, a downright mass hysteria ran through Europe when repeated cases of vampirism were reported in the Balkans along the Austro-Turkish military border.

Polidori though took the revenant peasant prowling around his former home and sucking the blood of his family, clad him in evening attire and modelled him after the pattern of his employer into a Byronic hero. Polidori’s Lord Ruthven became the ancestor of the 19th and 20th century’s vampires that haunted the imaginations of countless readers and the pages of Gothic literature from the likes of Gogol and Merimee to the infamous penny dreadfuls. One of these featured a creature called “Varney the Vampire” who brought in the fangs and the tell-tale bite marks and Sheridan Le Fanu’s “Carmilla” from 1872 gave the myth the structure of a long dead noble á la Coleridge’s “Christabel” haunting a damsel in distress and a group of heroes bringing the creature to bay with the help of ancient lore and occult paraphernalia. The groundwork was laid and along came Bram Stoker.

As a child, Stoker was bedridden until the age of seven, rose as from the dead after his mysterious illness all of a sudden ceased, became a football star at college, graduated in mathematics and ended up a pen-pusher in Dublin Castle. Not satisfied with his lot, naturally, Stoker changed his career to theatre critic at the Dublin Evening Mail, owned by Sheridan Le Fanu, and attracted the attention of the famous actor Sir Henry Irving with a favourable review, the two became friends and Stoker followed Irving to become his manager. Meanwhile he had won the hand of Florence Balcombe, a celebrated beauty, courted by Stoker’s acquaintance form Trinity College Oscar Wilde as well as a host of other suitors. Stoker would bring these experiences into a literary form in his opus magnum “Dracula” with Sir Henry Irving acting as model for the undead count as Byron did for Polidori 80 years before.

Stoker had never been to Romania, during the 1890s a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but he did a thorough research on his subjects that he would add with iconic effects to the imagery of the literary Gothic, from local legends of the 1750s, the late 15th century Wallachian Prince Vlad III. Drăculea who was famed in western European sources for his cruelty and other inspirations from Central Europe like Princess Eleonore von Schwarzenberg, rumoured to be a vampire during her lifetime at the beginning of the 18th century and already an inspiration for German poet Gottfried August Bürger to his poem “Leonore”. Well-known enough known to Stoker and everyone else who read and wrote Gothic literature.

Pitting his research-wise well founded mythical Count and his ancient evil that bears strong resemblances to the feared syphilis as well as despicable moral liberties against the forces of the modern age, trains, the telegraph, typewriters, repeating rifles and established processes and organised teamwork, based on thorough research. Published in 1897, “Dracula” became an instant success and the standard followed to this day, even if Stoker and “Dracula” act only as powers behind the throne of “Urban Fantasy”.

All artwork above is by John Coulthart from his 2018 take on "Dracula" and nicked from his blog linked below

#unhallowedarts #dark art #dark literature #dark academia #gothicliterature #gothic art #victorian gothic #gothic aesthetic #bram stoker #bram stocker's dracula #dracula novel #vampire art

[rappaccini]

do you ever think about how it's now a trend that every decade or so a fandom accidentally yields an incubator for writing talent.

like, how the 2010s were inundated with often-female ya authors who introduced book after book with magic systems based on the classical elements, got the ball rolling on popularizing non-western european fantasy settings for young people, creating a space for female-centric fantasy stories and tend to feature enemies-to-lovers storylines.... and author after author has cited atla and specifically the zutara ship as inspiration. and zutara was one of the first Big Ships to organize fanweeks, which are at their core, about encouraging a community to produce and support art for itself. that art is fun! it's a great way to bond with your friends! it's also practice.

or how the current 2020s wave of myth and classic lit retellings, romance, romantasy and fem gaze new adult fiction is being ridden by women who started out in the reylo fandom in 2015. like, thinking back to how the reylo fandom started as a bunch of nerdy women writing metas applying star wars to legends canon, folklore, fairy tales, and the heroine's journey model, they accidentally predicted the one consistent element of the sequel trilogy years before tlj and they wrote an everest-sized mountain of fanfic in between movies.... and ten years later a ton of them are now bestselling published authors. yup. sounds about right. they literally taught themselves about writing and storycraft through fanfic, they formed critique groups to help each other improve, and after about ten years of practice they're taking the training wheels off.

at this point i'm fully expecting another massively popular tv show or movie series to spawn another intensely literary female subfandom that essentially trains itself through fanfic and story analysis into another cohort of authors. this is gonna keep happening.

and it has to be a particular kind of fandom:

large and organized: the fandom must be of a property that's (usually sci-fi or fantasy, and) popular enough to draw the numbers to make an impact, and they should be close-knit enough to develop the communities necessary to create relationships to make and respond to their art and analysis

analytical: they have to be interested in interpreting the text as it is via metaanalysis, identifying tropes, and making comparisons to other canon and other works of fiction. the work is either deep enough to yield this analysis, or it gives the illusion of depth.

creative: they produce art, fanfiction, video edits, gifs...

transformative: they like the canon, but they do not worship it. they recognize that it can be improved or altered, and they want to do it. odds are, because it isn't giving them what they want or need.

fem-gaze oriented: related to the previous, the fandom's probably gonna be female-dominated. not only because transformative fandom tends to be where women hang out (and they tend to be kicked out of curative fandom)-- but also because the fandom itself is centered around a certain female character and a ship with her as one player in it. there's a mix of appreciation of the female character herself, of herself plus her relationship, and of tolerance of her as a stand-in for the audience in order to ship themselves with her love interest. regardless, it's about women and what they want: both the fictional female character, and/or the real female fans.

but not necessarily feminist or subversive: ... look, the favored character/relationship is always straight, she favors her male love interest over any female characters, and the preferred ending is pretty much always happily-heteromarried-with-biokids. the favored character/ship is usually monoracial white people, they tend to disregard poc love interests who are rivals to the Big Ship, or if poc are involved in the favored ship itself there's a questionable vibe to the fandom's perception of them and their dynamic. the fandom's hope for their fave is a story about how they don't really overcome their world's usually patriarchal structure so much as they become the exception to it or find a way to exist happily within it. usually through finding The One Man Who's Nice (and even then. is he, or is he just hot?). i didn't say this phenomenon isn't without its problems! maybe it'll change someday! but it can't change if the problem isn't acknowledged!)

motivated: and they're either disappointed about canon going a different direction and eager to reinvent it... or vengeful about their canon burning them. either way, they're gonna channel that into writing fix-it fic, and then their own stories. if they're satisfied with the canon, they won't want to build on it. so something can't measure up along the way.

so. who's next? my money's on the daemyra shippers. there was a zutara to reylo pipeline in 2015, there was a reylo to daemyra pipeline in 2022, people are still mad about the ending of game of thrones and have adopted rhaenyra as dany jr. and they're gonna get mad at house of the dragon when it goes a certain way. i bet in 2030 we're gonna be inundated with adult high fantasy stories about morally ambiguous dragon queens in questionable age gap romances with even more morally ambiguous men who are undyingly loyal to them and supportive of their interests in between committing war crimes.

or hey if fallout keeps growing, it might be the ghoulcys who take it. the reylo-to-ghoulcy pipeline is pumping, i see what's happening there. and fem gaze postapocalyptic scifi westerns with death-and-the-maiden romances? i'd be into that. guess we'll see!

regardless it seems like the trend took a while to grow up. ya at first, with a lot of usually-female ya authors being barred from making the jump to older readers. then new adult now that the category's starting to gain ground, and ya authors are finally being allowed to age their writing up. i'm thinking adult sf/f is next.

#thoughts

[save-the-villainous-cat]

I grew up hearing that to be a good artist you have to be willing to steal and it ain't wrong, Disney stole fairy tales, which the Brothers Grimm also stole. Most modern philosophy cribs the notes from older philosophers and don't even get me started on fantasy writers, fucking no good thieves and low lives, the lot of them! Originality is frankly: a myth.

We are all "standing on the shoulders of giants"

Does this mean wholesale copying someone else's work isn't possible?No, no it doesn't. Does it mean that the line between theft and inspiration is thin as fuck? Yes, yes, it does. I prefer not to er on the side of caution even remotely though. Because there's a certain level of conceit in believing your the ONLY person who writes or thinks in a certain way. I've read some peoples writing and thought "fuck do I have a split personality I didn't notice?" then I'll read something else and be like "I could never." But I'd bet you a thousand dollars someone else could.

I have no idea what your intention was, when you were sending this ask. I’m not gonna change my opinion on copyright because some anonymous user on tumblr doesn’t agree with me.

However, I’m not gonna stay quiet when people are starting to lie on here. Especially when they’re disrespecting my culture and the Grimm Brothers, my darlings, who fundamentally influenced the era of Romanticism (aka the best epoch, argue with the wall) and my country.

First of all, your premise solely consists of “to be a good artist, you have to steal.”

I like questioning things, so let’s start with that. Basically, you’re saying that every good artist has stolen something. I think I have to remind you that every artistic epoch in European history has started because someone tried something new. Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso — you can choose.

They were influenced by politics, their personal lives, traumatic experiences etc. And still, they created something new that changed our culture in retrospect.

Monet, the most important forerunner of Impressionism, got criticised for Impressionism, Sunrise by most art critics of the time.

They hated Impressionism. They called the pieces unfinished and no one took them seriously. Because they were new, they were revolutionary. Impressionism is about short, thick brush strokes. Impressionism is about expressing your perception of nature and not about an exact representation of it.

And that was new. That was original. Saying he stole it, is discrediting his work. Monet didn’t suffer most of his life, so you can call his art stolen. Neither did Van Gogh.

Yes, they did get inspired by other artists of the time. But they didn’t copy. They did their own thing. They were original. They changed the culture. They enriched it. That’s why they’re great artists. They were brilliant for the time they were living in.

Now, to the Grimms and Disney. Dearest anon, please do some research before you claim that the brothers stole fairytales. They were Germans. And they collected German fairytales because those were usually transmitted orally. (Also because the era of Romanticism started to dig into the fairytales of the Middle Ages but that’s another story).

The brothers didn’t steal anything. Those fairytales belonged to the public. There were hundreds of versions of those, so the Grimms decided to ask around and write down one version.

And guess what, Disney didn’t steal those fairytales either. Because those fairytales don’t belong to one person. They belonged to the people because they were part of German folklore. Disney built a new version and transformed it into animation. Disney’s Cinderella has very little to do with the fairytale of Aschenputtel (or Aschenbrödel, it depends) I grew up with.

Disney created a version of those fairytales.

Just like when the brothers transformed oral fairytales into literary ones. That doesn’t mean they stole them. Stole them from whom? The German people? How can you steal a story that is part of folklore? Those stories belonged to the people. And the collection of this stories, by the Grimms, did as well.

Now, coming to your philosophy point.

You can divide philosophy into four different categories. They’re called Kant’s four questions and basically structure philosophy.

1. What can I know?

2. What ought I to do?

3. What may I hope for?

4. What is man?

Of course, when you’re a philosopher, your ideas will base on this context. Because generally speaking, those four questions make up philosophy. (Obviously, there are other minor categories.)

So, when you’re a philosopher and argue about ethics, are you copying Kant’s question What ought I to do? No. Because that’s ethics. And you can’t steal the concept of ethics. Kant just found a way to describe it, he didn’t invent it.

How can you steal philosophy, by the way?

Philosophy in itself always tries to answer the same questions. Saying a philosopher is copying someone because they have similar views on the world like someone who came before them is in itself illogical.

Am I stealing Socrates’ beliefs when I say, I want to find eudaimonia for myself? Does that also mean I steal the beliefs of Christianity when I believe in god?

A philosopher is made because they’re having their own beliefs and suggest them to the public. Stealing someone else’s work as a philosopher makes no sense.

Additionally, seriously, what did fantasy writers ever do to you? George R. R. Martin and John R. R. Tolkien are so fundamentally different, I don’t even know what your problem is. Martin got inspired by Tolkien, that’s true.

But Martin also focused on showing the grotesque and political aspects of fantasy. In Tolkien’s work, you’re mostly confronted with good and evil. And brotherhood. Lots of brotherhood. Politics isn’t as important as in A Song of Ice and Fire.

I don’t understand why you have to insult fantasy writers? Fantasy which is one of the most popular genres? What did fantasy writers ever do to you? Why are you so mad?? Of course there are gonna be the same tropes in a certain genre? Of course they’re gonna be dragons in fantasy?? That doesn’t mean they’re copying each other.

You cannot copyright tropes. You cannot copyright an idea. Do you want to copyright dragons?

Also, according to you originality is a myth (Who are you? Mark Twain?). I can only remind you of Van Gogh. Or Mary Shelley. Or William Shakespeare. Or Jane Austen. What did they steal? Words? Paint?

“Standing on the shoulders of giants.” This is true in the sense that we’re standing on something other people have built.

We get inspired, yes. But that doesn’t mean we’re copying. Using the same trope of enemies-to-lovers doesn’t mean you’re copying Jane Austen.

And you can be original while being inspired. Since when does one cancel out the other?

Also, stating “We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.” and immediately following that statement with “Does this mean wholesale copying someone else's work isn't possible?No, no it doesn't.” isn’t logical. You’ve already established that wholesale copying someone else’s work is possible. You’ve already mentioned that the Grimm brothers did that.

So, using this rhetorical question isn’t necessary — this has nothing to do with the discussion, it’s just a poor stylistic choice that bothered me.

I do have to agree with you that the line between inspiration and theft is thin. That doesn’t mean you should simply let it slide when someone is creating something suspiciously close to your work.

I prefer not to er on the side of caution even remotely though. What are you trying to say? You’re not cautious? You’re not interested in someone stealing your work? That’s okay. But then I have to assume that you don’t mind stealing other people’s work either.

And finally, no one said they believe they’re the only person who thinks in a certain way. It’s just suspicious when you write a snippet and a few hours later another user posts the same scene with the same metaphors and the same sentence structure and the same alliterations and the same accumulations. It’s suspicious. That’s it.

At the end, I’ll just mention it again because you don’t seem to have gotten my point. I have no problem with people getting inspired by me. What is making me sad is, that people seem to get inspired without trying something new or finding their own style.

I already mentioned that I’m not trying to harass anyone because they’re getting inspired by me. So, once again. I don’t know what your intention was, when you took your time and sent this to me.

#im sorry to my followers I dunno why we’re having this debate #what was the purpose of this #I will make this about the social network and you won’t stop me #I’m tired of arguing with you #you just have no interesting points :( #long post #no writing

[dutch-and-flemish-painters]

Jan Janssens - Caritas Romana - 1620

Roman Charity (Latin: Caritas romana; Italian: Carità Romana) is the exemplary story of a woman, Pero, who secretly breastfeeds her father, Cimon, after he is incarcerated and sentenced to death by starvation.

The story is recorded in Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium (Nine Books of Memorable Acts and Sayings of the Ancient Romans) by the ancient Roman historian Valerius Maximus, and was presented as a great act of pietas (i.e., filial piety) and Roman honour. A painting in the Temple of Pietas depicted the scene. Additionally, wall paintings and terracotta statues from the first century excavated in Pompeii suggest that visual representations of Pero and Cimon were common, however it is difficult to say whether these existed in response to Maximus's anecdote or preceded – inspired – his story. Among Romans, the theme had mythological echoes in Juno's breastfeeding of the adult Hercules, an Etruscan myth.

Maximus's anecdote of Pero and Cimon posits the following ekphrastic challenge:

Men's eyes are riveted in amazement when they see the painting of this act and renew the features of the long bygone incident in astonishment at the spectacle now before them, believing that in those silent outlines of limbs they see living and breathing bodies. This must needs happen to the mind also, admonished to remember things long past as though they were recent by painting, which is considerably more effective than literary memorials.

The story of Cimon is accompanied by an almost identical story recorded by Roman historian Valerius Maximus, later retold by Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79), of a jailed plebeian woman who was nursed by her daughter. Reporting this to the judicial authorities the mother's sentence is remitted. While the guard does hesitate and wonder if perhaps what he saw was against nature (an act of lesbianism), he concludes that in fact it is an example of the first law of nature, which is to love one's own parents.

Jan Janssens (August 1590 in Ghent – after 1650) was a Flemish Baroque painter and draftsman who is considered to be the most important of the so-called Ghent Caravaggisti. These Caravaggisti were part of an international movement of European artists who interpreted the work of Caravaggio and the followers of Caravaggio in a personal manner. Janssens altarpieces and other compositions offering very realistic representations of religious motifs adorn many churches in and around Ghent. He also worked on commissions for international patrons.

#Jan Janssens #golden age #ghent #Italy #rome #mythical

[jasminewalkerauthor]

Deep dives into folklore: French folklore

French folklore, a captivating tapestry woven from centuries of diverse cultural influences and regional traditions, stands as a testament to the rich heritage of the French people. This deep dive essay embarks on a journey through the heart of French folklore, exploring the myriad legends, mythical creatures, and cultural traditions that have shaped the enchanting narrative of this storied land.

I. Regional Diversity and Local Legends:

France's cultural diversity is mirrored in its folklore, where each region contributes its own unique tapestry of legends and myths. In Brittany, the mythical city of Ys, submerged beneath the sea, echoes tales of hubris and divine punishment. In the Alsace region, the story of the White Lady of the castle Haut-Kœnigsbourg adds a spectral touch to the local folklore. These regional legends not only entertain but also reflect the distinctive character of each area within France.

II. Medieval Romance and Chivalric Legends:

Medieval France, the birthplace of chivalric romance, left an indelible mark on European folklore. The legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, though of Celtic origin, became an integral part of French cultural heritage through the works of medieval French poets such as Chrétien de Troyes. The tales of courtly love, quests, and the search for the Holy Grail continue to resonate in French folklore, embodying the ideals of chivalry and romance.

III. Folk Heroes and Tricksters:

French folklore is rich in characters that blend humor, cunning, and a touch of the supernatural. Reynard the Fox, a trickster figure from medieval beast fables, showcases the French fascination with clever and witty characters. Similarly, Till Eulenspiegel, a folkloric jester known for his pranks, adds a mischievous charm to the tapestry of French folk narratives. These characters embody the oral tradition of passing down moral lessons through entertaining stories.

IV. Fairy Tales and Literary Contributions:

France has been a significant contributor to the fairy tale genre, with Charles Perrault and Madame d'Aulnoy making enduring contributions. Perrault's "Cinderella," "Little Red Riding Hood," and "Bluebeard" have become staples of global fairy tale traditions. Madame d'Aulnoy's fantastical tales, such as "The White Cat" and "The Bee and the Orange Tree," further enriched French folklore with their whimsical and imaginative narratives.

V. Carnival Celebrations and Festive Traditions:

France's folklore comes alive in vibrant celebrations and festivals, where ancient traditions blend seamlessly with contemporary revelry. The Carnival of Nice, with its elaborate floats and costumed parades, reflects the historical influence of Italian masquerade traditions. The Feast of Saint John, celebrated with bonfires and festivities across France, draws from pagan and Christian traditions, marking the arrival of summer with a unique blend of ritual and merriment.

French folklore, with its regional diversity, medieval romance, trickster tales, fairy tales, and festive traditions, paints a vivid portrait of a culture deeply rooted in its past yet continually evolving. From the legendary landscapes of Brittany to the courtly tales of chivalry, and the lively celebrations that echo through the streets, French folklore continues to enchant and captivate, preserving the cultural legacy of this remarkable nation. As France strides into the future, its folklore remains an enduring source of inspiration and a testament to the enduring power of storytelling.

#writeblr #writers of tumblr #writing #bookish #booklr #fantasy books #creative writing #book blog #ya fantasy books #ya books #writers block #teen writer #writblr #tumblr writers #writer problems #writerblr #writers #writers community #writers corner #writers on tumblr #writerslife #writerscommunity #writing blog #writing community #writers and poets #deep dive #mythology #folklore #mythology and folklore #deep dives into folklore

[semi-imaginary-place]

Tolkien's Legendarium in the Modern World

It has been over 100 years since Tolkien first began his work on Middle Earth with the first draft verses of Luthien and Beren's story and the world has changed much in that time. Tolkien never published most of Legendarium until the end of his life he continued to draft and redraft its stories, and this begets the question of what Tolkien would have wished a completed Legendarium to look like and what I would have liked the Legendarium to be.

I personally disagree with most of Professor Tolkien's political opinions. While I do not think he was ever mean spirited, to the grave he carried with him many old fashioned ideas that while not quite bigoted in themselves, underpinned a lot of bigoted talking points. For example after people wrote to him about the troubling implications of his Dwarves on the Jewish people, Tolkien in response changed his depiction and mythology about Dwarves, he genuinely tried to do better. However what he never corrected was the view was that there were inherent differences between the different kinds of people of the world. Giving minorities a positive stereotype is not necessarily a good thing (hardworking, good with money, etc.). It feeds into the model minority myth that pits minorities against each other and acts as a rallying point for white supremacists that X minority is a threat to the white race.

The more racist parts of the Legendarium however are not the Dwarves but the descriptions of the Lesser Men, the Men of Darkness. There exists this hierarchy of the types of Men with the enlightened and European-like High Men such as the Dúnedain at the top, followed by the Middle Men or Men of Twilight like the Rohirrim or most of the other European-like Men, and at the bottom are the Men of Darkness those groups of men who fell under the control of Sauron (note how the European men were wise/strong enough to fight off Evil but the other types weren't) like the Haradrim, the Hill-men and others who are described with racist language that was also used to describe Middle Eastern peoples, African peoples, and really anyone Europeans considered a savage. Yikes, let's just scrub that, it would be impossible to rid the Legendarium of the eurocentrism but I would at least remove the most racist parts. Nor would I want to remove all of the Eurocentrism, Tolkien after all was directly inspired by European literature and epics, that is the literary ancestry of the Legendarium and I would not discredit it.

It is not bad for works to include racism or other sensitive topics, I would instead turn the Eurocentrism present in the Legendarium into a commentary on the ignorance of Middle Earth on the rest of Arda and the woes of a limited perspective. This idea was present in some drafts, that the entirety of the Legendarium was a story told to a human sailor that had washed up on the shores of Tol Eressëa and thus what the audience sees is actually a story within a story, thus making all the biases of the Legendarium the biases of that in universe storyteller. Of what Tolkien ever drafted, most of it is Noldorian history or history recorded by those associated with the Noldor. We barely hear mention of the Elves that refused the Great Journey presumably because the Noldor did not care for the histories of those people, placing themselves (Eldar and Calaquendi) above the Avari. Even the words used to describe groups of Elves are primarily Noldorian (or High Elvish) or Sindarian (normal Elvish) and the Sindar were greatly influenced by Thingol who saw the light of the Trees and Melian who was a Maia. Much of the Lord of the Rings is told from the perspective of Middle Earth (Gondor, Elrond, Hobbits), instead of completely eliminating the racism I would tone it down and make it more clear that the racism present if a product of the in story authors and their perspectives. Another option though I am not as fond of it and it would be harder to do is to lean into the bigotry, confirm that it is baked into the universe and thus lean more heavily into the tragedy that all the character's live in a universe there racism and a lack of free will are inherent parts of the fabric or reality and inescapable (more on this later).

There's many social issues I could talk about here, but for me what is most blatantly chaffing is the Catholicism. Tolkien's Legendarium is a Catholic work. Professor Tolkien himself was devotedly Catholic and traditionally Catholic, and that undercurrent of Catholicism permeates every aspect of the Legendarium. The Catholicism shows up everywhere from the mythos have a one true god that is a all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent creator, to how weird the Legendarium is about divorce (like a divorce had the butterfly effect causing most of the First Age's problems), discussions of morality and free will are very much made with Catholic theology in mind, the Catholic focus on purity, marriage is a sacred act between two soulmates destined for each other, sex is what makes a marriage real, and divorce is evil. It would be impossible to remove all the Catholicism and have the Legendarium to still be recognizable. As someone who recognizes the sheer amount of cultural destruction Christianity has wrought upon this world, if I were to rewrite the Legendarium, to create its ideal form, I would tone down the Catholic-ness of it though not entirely eliminate it, the question is how.

In the Legendarium, alignment with Eru Ilúvatar's will equates good and to turn away is to be evil. Melkor, Sauron, and Saruman are all examples of this, all three started out wanted to do good, to improve the lives of the people of Arda. For example in the beginning of the universe Melkor wasn't out for destruction and suffering, no what he wanted was freedom of will and choice, individuality. It was in defying Ilúvatar that he was corrupted because Ilúvatar's will is good and to rebel against it is to do evil, good and fix are fixed universal constants in Arda. I personally am fascinated by the inherent existentialist themes present in the Legendarium's cosmology. If there is a fixed path before each person and to stray from it means to become cosmologically evil, what is the moral thing to do? The relationship between creator and created, Elves and Dwarves were designed for a purpose what does it mean to fulfill that purpose or nature? Ilúvatar's Theme as first envisioned was never realized, Arda was created marred, suffering and discomfort are inherent aspects to existence on Arda. Similar themes can be found in other existentialist series such as the NieR games. Elves in Arda are bound to it, they cannot escape their fates even in death, their very essences are tied to the fate of Arda. It is curious then that humans are the sole beings that can escape Illuvatar's will and the fate of Arda, the have what Morgoth sorely coveted, the freedom to individually choose how to live their lives, The Gift of Man. I would keep this aspect even if it does still reek of Catholicism.

This brings us to one of the pivotal events of the First Age, The Finwë Divorce Saga. Tolkien himself wrote that he did not intend the Legendarium to be a Catholic allegory mostly because he hated allegories, but the man was so deeply Catholic that it just permeated everything he created. One could view The War of the Jewels as a cautionary tale of how divorce is evil and will only cause trouble to everyone even if Tolkien did not intend that specific reading, his views on marriage and divorce still leaked through. But Feanor and his family drama is such a keystone to the events of the First Age that the entirety of that era cannot exist without him. What I would do then in a rewrite is shift the narrative blame away from Finwe and Miriel and over to the Valar. The problems that followed were primarily because of the Valar mishandling the situation, not that Miriel and Finwe wanted a divorce. Hints of this interpretation already exist in The Silmarillion and HOME so its not that I would be creating something new so much as shifting emphasis.

This would also necessitate making the Elves less Catholic as Elf culture is very Catholic. Because Elven spirits (fea) are tied to the fate of Arda they are immortal so long as the world exists, unlike humans when Elves die their spirits do not leave the world, so their loved ones and partners are not truly gone. To each elf, they have one true soulmate and thus their marriages are eternal, until the end of existence. I would just get rid of this or at least tone it down, remove some of the mysticism or marriage being a literal magic bond. For one I feel what the Elves do takes away the true joy and uniqueness of each romantic relationship, that it is something people chose, that people chose each other and they could have chosen differently. I think Tolkien wanted to highlight the unchanging eternal nature of his Elves, because to support divorce would mean acknowledging that people and feelings change (just like his marriage, yes I said it, in their later years John and Edith lived lives that little to do with each other even if they shared a house). There is something to believing that because each soul is inherently and immutably good, every single person can be saved no matter how far they fall because its impossible for that base nature to change. I do not believe that, but even if it were true (which would fit the cosmology as discussed above), that does not discount all the "surface" level changes a person can undergo. Take Maedhros one of my favorite characters for example, even if he had an unchanging immortal soul or whatever Catholics are calling it these days, his behavior changed. Maedhros had all the set up of a classical hero (eldest son of a storied and prestigious lineage, skilled at both pen and sword, a diplomat, a leader, loyal, determined), and his story is about him failing to become that hero and just becoming worse over time to where by the end he's killing innocents and people fighting against the great Evil, and he commits the ultimate sin of killing himself (also suicide being a sin is very Catholic).

Other's have discussed the problems with depictions of women in the Legendarium but to cover a couple major points, the Legendarium just lacks women there are barely any female characters, and of the women present it's like they are only allowed to act within the bounds of traditional European femininity. Take for example Luthien who is probably the single most powerful non-Maia in the series (well she is half but she's counted among the elves), and yet her power in the story manifests solely through traditionally feminine domains like weaving. This on its own would not be a problem, women are allowed to like feminine things and Luthien has a lot of agency within her story, the problem is that there are so few women in the Legendarium and they are all like this, what powers they have always coming from the feminine sphere.

And of course because the Legendarium is a Catholic work the concept of purity is tied to morality and applied to women. Through reading many different drafts and letters Galadrieal can likely be suspected of being one of Tolkien's favorites. Her role in the Swearing of the Oath and First Kinslaying at Alqualondë vary drastically between drafts. In earlier drafts she sided with Feanor and the Noldor and though she did not swear the Oath of Feanor and thus doom herself, in these earlier drafts she is counted among the leaders of the Noldor revolt and like them is exiled from Aman. In other drafts she alternately does not participate in the attack on Alqualondë or even fights with her mother's brethren the Teleri against Feanor's forces, in some she crosses the Ice with Fingolfin's forces and in a particular draft she has nothing to do with the Exile of the Noldor and comes to Middle Earth by her own boat for her own means the timing just so happens to coincidentally line up. Generally in later drafts Tolkien bends over backwards to make exceptions for Galadrial so that she commits less sins and remains pure, he removes her rebellion against the divine and associations with the Exiled Noldor and thus retcons the most interesting aspect of her character in order to keep her unstained. This is one of two time where I have a strong preference for earlier drafts of the Legendarium (the other is draft epilogue where The Lord of the Rings ends with Sam looking back before closing the door as he hears the whisper of Aman on the wind). Those later drafts do a massive disservice to her character. Galadriel's whole character arc is that she starts off a headstrong, prideful, rebellious princess who want a kingdom of her own because she wants the power to rule over other people and through the devastation of the First and Second Ages she mellows out to become one of the wisest people in Middle Earth who would look power in the face and say no, who rules to serve and protect the people in her kingdom. Galadriel is so much more if Tolkien allows her to make mistakes when she was younger, to carry the guilt of what she enabled and allowed or perhaps participated in and have that weight shape her for the better. Then her actions in Middle Earth become not about how she was always good and pure, they become about redemption and taking the marred and the ugly and making something worthwhile out of it.

Éowyn the one character who noticeably steps beyond the boundaries for women, gets shoved back into traditional femininity at the end of her story, choosing to leave the battlefield to tend hearth and home. Now this likely was not intentional on Professor Tolkien's part. What he intended was a continuation of his anti-war stance seen throughout his works. World War I was brutal and massive shock to the world, recent innovations in technology made killing easier and faster, so while not the bloodiest conflict in history it was an abrupt wake up to the traditional modes of war. Soldiers went out and were slaughtered, most of Tolkien's tight-knit friend-group died in that war. On the battlefield Tolkien found no glory or honor, all he saw were the horrors of war, the human cost and the purposeless suffering inflicted. His anti-war stance can been seen most clearly outside the Legendarium in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son which is a dialectic between an veteran soldier and a new soldier. Within The Lord of the Rings we see this is how Sam in the true hero of this story, in how hobbits value peace and good food over war or politics, in how the best men like Aragorn and Faramir are peaceful and would rather choose the pen over the sword. We see this most strongly in "The Scouring of the Shire" which arguably is the most thematically poignant part of The Lord of the Rings, because the a person's story does not end with the battle, sometimes war never ends for some people, and yet there are things worth fighting for in this world. War is terrible, but sometimes we have to fight to protect the simple good things in the world and it is not some destined hero that will save us but ordinary people rising to the occasion together. However it is incredibly conspicuous that the only major female character shown on the battlefield was the one forced to carry this narrative of putting down her sword to take care of a household. There are dozens of men in this story that fight in the War of the Ring and we do not see any of them retiring from fighting and choosing domesticity. It would have been so powerful if Tolkien chosen her brother the war chief Eomer to carry this message, imagine if it were him who came from a warrior culture and becomes warrior-king who chose to put down his sword and forswear fighting. So yes I would have rewritten Eowyn's ending, let malewife Faramir have his kickass girlboss wife. Let Eowyn's arc be her fielding herself out of despair and a desire to prove herself, and her character development learning that she is more powerful than she thought and that she will continue to wield the sword in service of Rohan, her people, and in service of peace.

Now I have typed some 3000 words about what I would change and why so let me end on some of the things I would keep the same for I love the Legendarium dearly and I would preserve far more than I would change. I would keep the hope and love that is written into these stories. I would keep that there is beauty in this world, there is good in friends and family. I would keep the awe and wonder for the natural world, that mountains and forests and streams can be their own characters. I would keep the sense of magic, not in the sense of spellcasting and sword and sorcery style magic, but that wonder and joy for the world that makes everything magical. I would keep that life is a journey and all you have to do is take the first step out your front door. I would keep the believably that this is just an untold forgotten history and like it there are still many mysteries in the world. I would keep the wide scale of continents and forces beyond us moving to their own stories. Tolkien crafted the Legendarium out of love, from that first poem about the woman he was in love with, to his love of philology stories and creation, Arda was made with love. In the Legendarium is deep love of the world, the natural world and the people that inhabit it, in here is hope too that no matter what evils plague the world there is still good there too in the hearts of the most ordinary person.

#tolkien #silmarillion #tolkien legendarium #lotr #lord of the rings #the hobbit #eowyn #i love the catholic elves i hate the catholic elves im using the catholic elves as a chew toy #just to be clear since tradwife tumblr of all groups has found this post #christianity is the religion of western imperialism bigotry and hate #also terfs can fuck off