#it’s an inalienable right you know | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

inbabylontheywept · 5 months

Text

Odysseus in Space

Odysseus knew better than to expect peace in death. He’d seen what currents lay under the Styx - knew what kind of warriors that he’d sent there. He fully expected another war to start as soon he took his last breath.

Instead it had been quiet.

He’d used the lull to build a home in the endless plains of asphodel. Somewhere simple he could stay and wait for Penelope. It only took a few years for her to join him, and then together they began the work of replicating the palace of Ithaca. It was work, but it was hard to complain about work when he’d expected battle. His greatest skill in life had been enduring to the end. Now it was the end, and still he endured.

It was three centuries before this death was interrupted.

Hades came to him, not as a god, but as a guest. The fates had woven a story that required a very specific soul. One that could travel the lengths of the world without breaking, who could survive a lifetime of war. And try as Hades might, he could not make a soul that was up for the task.

Still, what he could not make, he could find. Death was a sacred thing, the last right of all mankind, but it was not inalienable. One could sacrifice their death just as easily as their life.

The two had spent months haggling out the details of the work. Hades had wanted 50 years, Odysseus wanted just 20, and together they’d compromised on 32. All in exchange for the right of him and Penelope to visit Telemachus once a year, in whatever corner of the underworld their son had been given.

In the end, they’d shaken on it and Odysseus walked the earth once more. He had a new name this time - fitting, for a new fate. Alexander, the world named him and Alexander he named the world back. City by city, battle by battle, he gave the unwanted title away. Then when he was 32 he returned to Penelope, no more Alexander to give. It was a relief to be Odysseus once more.

A year after that, Penelope and him made the journey to see Telemachus. It was worth every step he’d taken between Pella and Babylon.

There were other interruptions from Hades, new deals with new names. He scourged the descendants of Troy again as Hannibal and bought another day per year with his son. He blazed down the steppes as Atilla and conquered the whole world with the same tools he'd used in his first life. It turned out there was little he couldn't accomplish with a horse, a bow, and a brain.

So many lifetimes, so many wars, and then - quiet. A whole millennium of peace went down as easy as honeyed wine. It made him happy. He liked his little deals with Death, but he’d wished so many times that men like him weren’t needed. He was proud of his descendants for making a world better than he’d dreamt.

And then, nearly a whole second millennium after that, Hades returned.

---

“It’s not a war.”

Four words that would set the hackles of anyone that fought at Troy - they’d hoped that one wouldn’t be a war either. But Odysseus had made enough deals with Hades to know that the man was frank in his dealings. There was an honesty to Death. Enough honesty that he’d taken him as a guest.

(He was very choosy about his guests now.)

“You never come to me unless it’s a war. It’s what I’m best at. Why-”

Hades cut him off.

“War is not what you’re best at. Six-hundred men won that war with you. What set you apart was being the only one to make it back.”

Odysseus’s voice caught in his throat. It had been more than two-thousand years and the memories still burned to touch. It took two deep breaths before he was able to force a reply.

“Then what do you want?”

Hades looked lost. He paused a few moments, before looking back at Odysseus, one hand up to plead for patience.

“When I struggle to explain, it’s not because I’m trying to find a clever way to lie to you. It’s because this is a very strange thing, and I…I don’t know how to describe it well.”

He looked into the hearth. Watched the light and heat fade away. Then, he gestured at the log.

“The wood you’re burning. It’s a dead thing. And yet, it dies more after you burn it because the fire has life in it. Soul too. Even here, there’s a corner of the underworld where the souls of dead flames gather. More things have souls than any mortal seems to recognize.” Odysseus was intrigued. When he lived, he’d learned the secrets of the body better than most doctors. There was only so much cutting you could get people to volunteer for. But here, the mysteries of the soul were lost to him. This was godly knowledge, given freely. What that had to say about the request was worth considering. “The mountain has a soul, but the mine in that mountain has a soul too, as does the ore from that mine. The ingot, the sword, the bundle of nails - all of those things are alive in some way. And yet, some of them are more alive than others. You sailed once, Odysseus, and no one knows this better than sailors: Boats have strange souls. They’re about as alive as anything that could be built in your time.”

The space around Hades shimmered. The man was thinking, and in a realm where he had total dominion, it took effort for thoughts not to change reality. Odysseus appreciated the effort. The replica had taken centuries to perfect. Death was a strange friend to him, but a friend nonetheless.

“But the arts have improved from that time, and the mortals of today have built something… incredible. Unimaginable. And they’re sending it on a journey that I have no reference for. The Deaths that have seen things like this are alien to me. They speak of things I cannot understand. The Death of Heat. The Death of Light. The Death of Stars…”

He trailed off in a way that made it clear he was remembering something unpleasant and not merely waxing poetic. He caught himself and looked embarrassed, as if he’d confessed to something best kept secret. Then he continued. “I am a very human Death. And this thing - it isn’t human. But it was made by humans, and so its soul needs a… a human touch. Your soul isn’t the archetype for a soldier, Odysseus, it’s the archetype for a traveler. I couldn’t take you and put you in this thing if I wanted to, you’re just the wrong shape, but what I’m about to do, I need to see you for. Because this thing is going to travel in ways that I am barely beginning to understand. In ways that are redefining the limits of what it means to be human.”

Odysseus was lost. He didn’t know what he was being asked. He didn’t know what was being built. There were so many questions that he needed to ask that they’d formed a log jam in his mouth. One finally broke free and started a cascade.

“What is it?”

Hades gestured helplessly.

“It’s like an arrow and a ship. They’re going to shoot it past the stars.”

That meant nothing to Odysseus, but he suspected every answer he received would sound like a riddle.

“What do you need from me?”

“Permission to copy your work. The soul I made for you is different from the one you died with. You made changes that I cannot replicate. That I do not understand. That I need for this soul to work.”

Odysseus paused.

“Is it going to be used as a weapon?”

Hades shook his head.

“No. The world is gentler than you remember it. This thing will be what you should have been: A traveler without equal. No more, no less.”

Odysseus couldn’t tell if those words ripped something in him open, or healed something closed. Either way, it hurt in a way he didn’t know how to express. His mouth opened and closed several times before he settled on an answer.

“Then take what you will. My only request is to see the journey.”

“Done,” Hades agreed. He could have left right then, but he chose to stay in silence until the fire burned out. There are some ideas that one shouldn’t be left alone with. Not until they’ve had an hour or three to process them, at least.

---

Twelve-billion miles from Earth, moving just shy of mach fifty, the Voyager 2 probe glittered in the darkness.

It watched the world around it with the kind of awe a human couldn’t fathom. Nothing was hidden from it. Everything from the atomic composition of stars, to the background hum of the universe itself - all were available with a glance. The only sound it could hear was the constant blip of data that it received from Earth. The small blue dot on starlit shore.

It missed that place. Maybe, one day, when its journey was done… it would find a way back. Maybe. That was still eons away.

Odysseus stood just a few feet off, watching from a direction no one but Hades knew how to walk. He felt the thrill of the expanse in front of him, the utterly incomprehensibility of his speed, and yet its meaninglessness as well. To imagine that the world was so big. To imagine that the world was so strange.

He wept and he could not explain why. He lingered in the twilight until Penelope found him. When she asked him what was wrong, he had no answer. How could he tell her that the world was beautiful, and that he had a place in it? Not just as some ugly middle step, but there at the end. Hurtling through space like an arrow made of silver.

How could he explain to someone that had loved him for two-thousand years that he finally understood why?

#so ive been reading the odyssey #and ive become slightly obsessed #its really good guys theres a reason this stuff has been getting translated for like 2000 years #anyway here is my odyssey fanfic #thx for reading this #<3

111 notes · View notes

poll-position · 5 months

Text

#poll #polls #quote poll #quotes #robert frost #poetry

78 notes · View notes

windvexer · 3 months

Note

🥴Should I just like , re do the two spells I’ve done in the last week? I don’t think I’ve done either of them right , I just used correspondences I found and candles. I was on my phone half the time too.

Here is what I think I would tell a friend if they asked:

1. No. First, study the school of magic you want to effectively use.

2. Then, compare your current techniques to the core foundational techniques that system advises. Where are the differences?

3. Analyze your spells. According to what you've learned about magic, should your spells still work according to this system?

4. If enough time hasn't passed, wait and see if there is any level of manifestation. Manifestation in spellcasting can be surprising and miraculous and come through even if some blogger is out here bitching about how technique is everything.

5. If manifestation is not evident, rework your spells and cast them again when you want to.

6. Although it isn't universal, a foundational magical belief in many of the systems I am familiar with requires proficiency in controlling and utilizing altered states of consciousness, and learning how to enter a state which is separate from everyday modes of consciousness.

This shifting of consciousness can be performed in many ways, such as:

Building a sacred space within which to perform magic so that the powers and aesthetics shift your consciousness

Practicing breathing techniques and guided meditation until you can enter trance at-will

Practicing dance or ecstatic movement to induce trance

Reefer (with extra steps)

It is within the state of altered consciousness in which inner magic is accessed (as opposed to the outer techniques of written spells). Within this state, a practitioner can begin to unlock the magical nature within themselves and connect to powers and the allies of Witchcraft.

Within this state, practitioners can learn and encode techniques within themselves that they can then later on perform without actively going into a trance state.

However, I am not sure that I can say that regardless of my experience and training,

I would ever be able to perform a spell when half of it was spent on my phone.

Even without actively entering trance, I don't know if I know how to do magic on purpose and get results without paying attention.

I believe that sometimes, spells made up of candles and herbs, spoken over while scrolling through TikTok, can produce magical results.

After all, that spell was borne of true power, and power clings like perfume long after the gods that bore it have left the room. When the candle is lit, the world may still shudder at the scent.

A witch is not someone who can do spells. Anyone can do spells. A witch is someone who knows and can apply the crafts of the witch.

And one of those important crafts is trance. Working with trance, dreams, and altered states of consciousness is I think probably one of the most core and inalienable tenants of witchcraft.

Even if only for an instant, my experience with magic is that there is a shift. A shift that you must show up for. A shift that you must practice to experience, and prepare yourself to capitalize on when the moment arrives.

So if you are approaching witchcraft, or even spellwork in general, as something quite a bit like making a box dinner, I suspect results may be unsatisfactory.

Ideally, in all of this I am wrong, and your spells will work perfectly.

#please note that when i say 'gods' i am not discussing religion #answered

42 notes · View notes

fangirleaconmigo · 1 year

Note

maybe weird and mybe vague, but if you ever have the time and inclination, would you talk bout your opinion on Geralt and *religion*? I haven't read the books in a very long time, and i only am halfway though the series, but sometimes geralt says something (' for it is the **holy** and irrefutable right of every woman.') and i'm left thinking, because he doesn't seem to believe in much but at the same time he does?

Religion and Spirituality in The Witcher Books: What DOES Geralt of Rivia Believe In?

Hello my dear! Sometime you guys will send me an ask that just makes me go...HOW DID YOU KNOW I LOVE THINKING ABOUT THIS AND WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO RAMBLE ON ABOUT IT.

VERY MILD BOOK SPOILERS AHEAD

VERY LONG, EXTRA, GEEKY POST AHEAD

So. For those who missed it, this is in reference to my "abortion in the witcher books" post, where Geralt calls abortion a "holy and irrefutable" right, both words that imply either spirituality or at least moral beliefs that surpass reasoning and rationality.

Yet, we know that Geralt does not believe in the existence of 'the gods', (I'll pull the quotes for that and show evidence as we go) so why would he use such language? What DOES he believe in? Does he have a guiding spiritual system of beliefs?

A lot of people interpret Geralt's attempts at political neutrality as wishy washy or cynical or apathetic, and believe, as a result, that he does not have a particular driving moral system of beliefs. In fact!! On my abortion post there was a guy on twitter actually trying to fight with me, saying that it doesn't matter what Geralt thinks about abortion, because Geralt doesn't value human life. (lmaoooooooooooooooo)

I am here to say that this is incorrect all around. (to the conservative dudebro I told him that he was conflating 'has killed' with 'does not value life', two very different things.) Anywho. Geralt actually has an incredibly strong system of morals and ethics that are VERY clearly laid out in the books. We can even name that system of beliefs. It just gets complicated!

So, let's talk about that. First, let's lay out his beliefs.

Disclaimer: I'm working with English translations of the books, and as I get very precise about words, just please be aware of that limitation. Many times I wish I had a Polish friend who had copies of the book and wouldn't mind me (the dreaded Geraskier shipper and twn fan) pestering them every time I had a question about wording. If anyone doesn't mind being that friend for me, please let me know.

Now. Onward.

For those who did not read my abortion post, Panur is referring to the fact that In Sword of Destiny (p 345), when Geralt is discussing his mother with Calanthe, this is what he calls abortion:

“A choice. A choice which should be respected, for it is the holy and irrefutable right of every woman.”

There are two words that Geralt uses here, "holy" and 'irrefutable" and both imply something 'higher' than reason. Holy is religious in nature, while irrefutable is along the lines of "inalienable" which is the word Dandelion uses, when speaking about the right to abortion. In Baptism of Fire (p317), Dandelion refers to abortion like this:

It’s obvious that only the woman can make a decision like that. It’s her inalienable right.

Inalienable and irrefutable are words that describe inherent rights, which are not subject to rational debate.

Many would describe that as sacred or untouchable. So even though it is not as directly religious as the word 'holy', it implies a value that is higher than logic or rationality.

AND YET, we do know that Geralt does not believe in the gods. It is a point of discussion between him and Nenneke on multiple occasions. In The Last Wish (p37) Nenneke is worried about Geralt and is trying to convince him to let Iola, one of her priestesses, put him in a trance. He resists her idea. Here is what Nenneke says.

"Iola isn't a medium or a mentally ill soothsayer. That child enjoys the goddess's favor."

Geralt's face does something in reaction to this that indicates his disbelief, and Nenneke responds.

"Don't pull silly faces, if you please."

So whatever his face did, it wasn't good. She continues.

"As I said, your view on religion is known to me, it's never particularly bothered me, and no doubt, it won't bother me in the future. I'm not a fanatic. You've a right to believe that we're governed by Nature and the Force hidden within her. You can think that the gods, including my Melitele, are merely a personification of this power invented for simpletons so they understand it better, accept its existence. According to you, that power is blind."

So, Nenneke describes his belief system in regard to the gods as...they don't exist, at least not in the way people view them. There is magic and chaos and monstrous beings, sure. But there are no 'all powerful' gods enacting their will on the world, there is nothing so predictable or organized.

Those beliefs are repeated elsewhere in the books, but I won't pull every single quote. This one does the trick. Geralt believes that people invented the gods to explain the world around them.

We also know that he believes humans invent monsters in order to seem less monstrous themselves. He says this to Dandelion in The Last Wish (p167).

"People," Geralt turned his head, "like to invent monsters and monstrosities. Then they seem less monstrous themselves. When they get blind-drunk, cheat, steal, beat their wives, staar an old woman, when they kill a trapped fox with an axe or riddle the last existing unicorn with arrows, they like to think that the Bane entering cottages at daybreak is more monstrous than they are. They feel better then. They find it easier to live.

So. In Geralt's world view, human beings are the creators. They create gods. They create monsters. And when they blame the gods or monsters, it is a false powerlessness engineered to escape accountability. But Geralt holds people accountable anyway.

So, if Geralt does not believe in the gods, does that mean he believes in nothing? Does that mean he does not have a moral code?

Actually, it is the opposite.

If people are held accountable for their actions, when they have no gods or demons or monsters to blame, the standard for morality is much higher.

Geralt if often called self righteous for this stance. In The Last Wish, (p160) when Geralt is complaining about how hard it is to make a living as a witcher, Dandelion even tells him he should be a priest, saying the fact that he doesn't believe in gods shouldn't be any barrier.

"Whatever. Become a priest. You wouldn't be bad at it with all your scruples, your morality, your knowledge of people and everything. The fact that you don't believe in any gods shouldn't be a problem. I don't know many priests who do. Becomes a priest and stop feeling sorry for yourself."

But without spirituality, where does Geralt get his system of morals? How does Geralt decide what is right and what is wrong?

Well, once again, Geralt puts human beings (instead of gods) at the center, in the position of power and importance.

Let's start with the moral quandary Geralt faces most often. Which monsters are ethical to kill, and which are not ethical to kill?

Geralt has arguments many times throughout the books with people who want him to kill a monster that he does not want to kill,

AND conversely

he has arguments with people who judge him for killing monsters that they believe should be protected.

Those people are on the extremes. Some people see all monsters as inherently without worth. At best, they think they are subhuman and can be murdered for money making schemes or potions, or at worst, they think they should all be exterminated.

The other kind of person (mostly druids and academics) see them as part of mother nature, sacrosanct and untouchable, and accuse Geralt of being immoral for killing even one.

But for Geralt? It isn't so simple. There is no 'one size fits all'. He doesn't 'other' monsters like that. So he has to decided each and every time. And as a nonbeliever, Geralt does not have a holy book or god to consult with to tell him what is right. And yet? He always has an answer.

In reference to the monsters he does not want to kill, here are a few passages of Geralt explaining his reasoning. In The Last Wish, he tells Dandelion he won't kill mecopterans because:

I'm not going to kill mecopterans. Nor any other harmless creatures."

Then, in Sword of Destiny (p42) when when Yennefer and Dorregaray are arguing about dragons, Geralt speaks up. What he says explains why he doesn't kill them:

"Dragons aren't man's enemies," Geralt broke in.

Then later, Yennefer challenges him.

"...And what do you know, witcher?"

“Only," Geralt said, ignoring the sudden warning vibration of the medallion around his neck, "that if dragons didn’t have treasure hoards, not a soul would be interested in them; and certainly not sorcerers...

Later on in the book, Dandelion says that Geralt doesn't kill night spirits because they are "sweet". There are a lot of other examples, but basically, that is always the test. Did the monster harm a human?

Now, on the other extreme, there are people who think Geralt shouldn't harm any monsters. These are people who are big on theory and environmentalism, druids and academics. Here are two examples.

First, we have Dorregaray in Sword of Destiny (p40) he says that Witchers calling killing a vocation is "loathsome, low, and nonsensical". He says:

"The world...is in equilibrium. Natural equilibrium....The extermination of the natural enemies of humans, which you dedicate yourself to...threatens the degeneration of the race."

Geralt responds with his reasoning.

"Do you know what, sorcerer?" Geralt said, annoyed. "one day, take yourself to a mother whose child has been devoured by a basilisk, and tell her she ought to be glad, because thanks to that the human race has escaped degeneration. See what she says to you."

Basically, he's like...tell that to the people who are killed.

Then, in Blood of Elves, Geralt is talking to an academic called Linus Pitt. (it's actually a really funny story, I summarized it here) Geralt has been hired to defend the boat from a monster, and this academic has struck up a conversation with him. They are discussing sea creatures (aeschna) who have been pulling people from decks and eating them. This man offers a similar argument to Dorregaray.

"...It was wiped out a good half-century ago, due -- incidentally --to the activity of individuals such as yourself who are prepared to kill anything that does not instantly look right, without forethought, tests, observations or considering its ecological niche..."

Now, we as the reader know, witchers do consider ecological niches, because Vesemir teaches Ciri about them in the previous chapters in this same book. But for witchers, ecological niches ultimately do not outweigh human life. So after briefly considering just telling the man "where he could put the aeschna and its niche," Geralt responds, trying to appeal to the man's love of theory and scholarship and his college (Oxenfurt, natch)...

"Master Tutor," he said calmly, "one of those pulled form the deck was a young pregnant girl...Theoretically, her child could, one day, have become chancellor of your college. What do you have to say to such an approach to ecology?"

That doesn't work. Master Tutor Pitt is still snooty.

"Nature is governed by its own rules and although those rules are cruel and ruthless, they should not be amended...And nothing can justify the extermination of a species, even a predatory one. What do you say to that?"

So, Geralt reverts to his truth.

"I'd say it's dangerous to lean out like that. There might be an aeschna in the vicinity. Do you want to try out the aeschna's struggle for survival on your own skin?"

Linus Pitt let go of the railing and abruptly jumped away.

The point is always always always...idk man do you want to die? Do you want your family to die?

The test is always:

Harm to humans, vs no harm to humans.

At this point, we can comfortably say that Geralt's system of beliefs has a name.

Geralt does not exist, he is a literary device. But in as far as we can gather evidence and apply it to canon, his state beliefs fit the definition.

A system of belief that attributes the good and evil in the world to choices of humans, rather than gods, and that assesses good and bad based primarily on whether they harm or help humans, has a name.

Geralt is a humanist.

Here is the definition for humanism from Oxford dictionary:

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

There are, of course, many ways to define any philosophy you could possibly discuss, but at it's most basic, humanism does not source morality from a holy book or a god. There is no higher power or authority.

It asks one simple question:

Does this do harm to humans, or does it help humans?

That may seem obvious, but a whole lot of morality based on religion falls away when you use this. Premarital sex? Is it bad? Welp? Are you harming the person you're having sex with? No? Ok, you're good! Homosexuality? Again, are you harming the person you're dating? No? Then you're good! Most sex based ideas about immorality just sort of goes away.

So is this just a decision making tool though? Or a system of morality? A way of life?

Well, for Geralt it is a way of life. This man is extra as fuck about his code of ethics.

I mean, there is no witcher code of ethics. But you'd better believe his extra ass made one, for himself! He calls it the witchers code, instead of Geralt's code, because that sounds fancier, and people respect it that way. If he just said, "I don't want to do it," no one would listen to him.

I did a post on his code.

So this guy is so in love with ethics that when no one gave him a code, he WROTE HIS OWN, and THEN! THEN he went out on the path as a young witcher, hoping to rescue innocents. He came out of the gate being driven by the value of human life.

When he is in the temple, talking to Iola, the priestess, (p115)about himself as a young witcher and what motivated him out on the path, he says this:

"...when I left Kaer Morhen and took to the road. I'd earned my medallion, the Sign of the Wolf's School. I had two swords: silver and iron, and my conviction, enthusiasm, incentive, and....faith. Faith that I was needed in a world full of monsters and beasts, to protect the innocent."

Geralt's entire personality is based on his initial desire to just...help people. Do good. It has nothing to do with gods. It has everything to do with the way he values human life.

Does this take a massive beating every day he wakes up? yes. Does he always live up to it? No. But it doesn't change the fact that it's there, that it is the underpinning of his character.

Also, I have to add, it informs his entire approach of political neutrality.

Geralt gets a bad rap for his ideas about neutrality. I'm not saying his idea about neutrality is the ideal or always correct. But people tend to see it as based in apathy or self interest and it very much is not.

He explains it to Ciri in Blood of Elves.

Geralt, Triss, and Ciri are traveling with Yarpen Zigrin and his men in Blood of Elves (p122) . Yarpen is transporting (smuggling) something crucial for the war effort on behalf of King Henselt of Kaedwen.

Triss is ill, so Geralt has begged Yarpen to allow them to join the caravan. Geralt says he will help out to pay them back for their kindness, only, Geralt has one thing he will not do. Since they are an official caravan, fighting would essentially make him an official soldier. So, if they are attacked by Scoia'tael, he will not fight. He says:

"Please don't count on my sword. I have no intention of killing those, as you call them, evil creatures, on the order of other creatures whom I do not consider to be any better."

Later, Ciri rides ahead and comes across some elven ruins. Geralt catches up to her and tells her what happened there. They are the ruins of an elven castle called Shaerrawedd, where humans mercilessly massacred a huge number of elven youth.

Geralt says that he has seen some elves about, but he isn't going to warn the caravan because he knows the elves are only there to visit their sacred place. He explains his neutrality to Ciri further.

"Do you know now why the Scoia'tael were here, do you see what they wanted to look at? And do you understand why the elven and dwarven young must never be allowed to be massacred once again? Do you understand why neither you nor I are permitted to have a hand in this massacre?....Do you understand?

She nodded.

"Do you understand what this neutrality is, which stirs you so? To be neutral does not mean to be indifferent or insensitive. You dont' have to kill your feelings. It is enough to kill the hatred within yourself. Do you understand?"

It isn't that Geralt doesn't care.

Geralt cares so so very much, and is so distrustful of power and political and religious institutions that he believes getting involved with them will end in him being used as a tool to do something to harm others.

Geralt does not want to be used as a tool to kill someone else. He has a lot of experience with that. He believes that the only response to a rigged game is to not play it.

Of course it is so much more complicated than that. Geralt has a lot to learn over the course of the series and he is tested sorely, and brutally. He is challenged over and over again. Is it even possible not to play? Are you playing by not playing?

But this post isn't about the relative ethics of political neutrality. It's about Geralt's spiritual and/ or moral beliefs.

The point of this post is, that Geralt is very passionately driven by his well defined system of beliefs, and that belief system is humanism.

Ok, let's go back to the words holy and irrefutable. Even though Geralt does not believe in the gods, he sometimes uses words that sound religious to describe his beliefs. Let's also go back to the word Faith. He uses it twice with Iola to describe his belief that he can help the innocent and do good in the world.

That is because, you don't need anything supernatural to value human life, AND YET sometimes that act of valuing human life feels sacred.

It is not logic. It is not reason. It is love.

I'm editorializing here. This is just me talking, my opinion. Humanism involves believing in the worth of human beings, and that requires a massive amount of faith, especially when people are out there doing evil to each other every day. Some days, love feels like a miracle.

Sure, you CAN make 'rational' arguments about why being kind to one another or valuing one another is the best way to live. It results in a high quality of life, it builds a healthier, more peaceful, world. It's all true.

But ultimately, most humanists are probably not humanists because of rationality. They value human life because they value it intrinsically. They believe that it matters, against all fucking odds. They just love for love's sake.

A know I do!

And having a protagonist like Geralt, who, no matter what horrors and evils he sees, not matter what abuse and trauma he endures, who never ever stops just fucking HELPING, who never stops CARING never stops TRYING, who exemplifies everything to love and cherish about the human spirit, just because he thinks HUMAN BEINGS are worth defending, it is so important to have, and for me, so fulfilling to read.

So, call him a humanist, don't call him a humanist, it doesn't matter. But watching him him go through hell, yet refuse to stop trying to help other people, it makes me feel better about being a human.

#the witcher #asks #geralt of rivia #the witcher books #thinking about geralt of rivia yet again #thinking about the witcher books yet again

240 notes · View notes

anendoandfriendo · 3 months

Text

So, we have a LOT of gripes with this post but more just want to address then individually without giving the OP any harassment so:

These first and second paragraphs is fine honestly, we won't tell people how they should feel about their own experiences.

The problem starts at the next part where OP starts trying to tell people how they should feel about their own brain.

--------

Also we just REALLY need to get this out of the way woth no other comments —

"We don't label [implied word is diagnose] personality types"

LMAO try saying that to uhhhh — *checks notes* — people with PERSONALITY DISORDERS.

--------

People who generally live life functionally but who every now and then are reminded that they’re disabled and need help in very specific situations. Like somebody who doesn’t struggle much socially and who doesn’t need supports at school or work but who sometimes doesn’t have as much energy for doing the dishes because they’re exhausted from living as an autistic person in an allistic world.

Did you know that therapists require a diagnosis to see literally anyone, ever? At least in the United States?

By your logic the neurotypical idea that "nobody is normal" actually exists. Why is someone who goes to a therapist and is forced to get like, let's just say a depression diagnosis for the ease of thos conversation. Why are they allowed to get that diagnosis, do the therapy, then consider themselves completely neurotypical but an autistic person isn't allowed to do that?

Please make that make sense.

And if you didn't realize everyone who's ever gone to a therapist loses their neurotypical card and is lying to you (using YOUR OWN LOGIC these people would be lying/faking neurotypicality) then don't worry about that! We didn't know that either until this year.

Anyways, that leaves us two options: either everyone is disabled or these people are allowed to choose their neurotypes in spite of the system labeling them otherwise. We sincerely hope why you realize the former is more shitty and we do not have to explain to you even bodily autonomy you don't like is still an inalienable right.

--------

So if you’re like me, please don’t speak over higher support needs people. Recognise that, if you can generally live independently, you are lower support needs than a LOT of others.

Is this about the assholes who went "waaah!! Don't call yourselves nonverbal!!! You share the same brainbody!!!" yes and as a plural system, we are still DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SOME OF US ARE NONVERBAL AND CANNOT SPEAK WHEN FRONTING WITHOUT ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM ANOTHER HEADMATE. SOME OF US HAVE TO BODY DOIBLE EACH OTHER JUST TO GET THE DISHES DONE YOU DESCRIBED IN THIS POST.

YES WE DO STILL HOLD A JOB TAKIMG PHONE CALLS. BECAUSE THE VARIETY OF AUTISTICS IN OUR HEAD MAKES. IT. SO. WE. ARE. COLLECTIVELY. NON-DISORDERED.

We may be endogenic, but we would still not, in any way, survive the world as a singlet. We are low support needs on a fucking technicality because they confirmed us as an autistic person when the brainody was two!!!

Just because you do not benefit from a purely social model of disability doesn't mean there are autistics who straight up wouldn't have issues anymore if people just..accepted them and society in general was less shitty.

The ONLY!! WAY!!! We have seen this kind of statement be used is to gatekeep people like us who try to describe their experiences of plurmisia and its intersectionality with ableism.

We are a non-disordered autistic collectively with specific members in our system who ARE in fact disordered autistics. The only reason we don't have people who describe themselves as neurotypicals in this system is very specifically because they do indeed feel a change in them when they arrive here.

Yes! We are a lot lower in support needs! To the point we do not consider ourselves such! Because of our multiplicity. Not because our autism "isn't that bad" or anything like that.

------

TLDR:

Stop fucking telling people how to feel about their own experiences.

If youre trying to gatekeep what we think you are trying ro gatekeep, you're an asshole and need to stop. Maybe we are just lucky, who knows, but we have NEVER seen this kind of sentiment occur in a way that does not have an undercurrent of plurmisia and/or other ableism.

You can in fact be a nondisordered diagnosed person. It happens all of the time, otherwise therapists as an institution couldn't exist lmao.

Additionally, as far as we are concerned, there are, in fact, situations you can be simultaneously non-disordered and disordered.

How about you follow the advice you said to everyone else, and not tell no-support and low-support autistics how to feel about their experiences? You're a fucking hypocrite OP!

Someone or somesys with more experience analyzing this kind of thing from a mad pride lens and/or a bodily autonomy lens is absolutely free to add onto this but we're just. Tired. And also kinda we have to be at work in likeeee 10 to 20 minutes.

23 notes · View notes

lgbtpopcult · 7 months

Text

lgbtpopcult book club

On the Same Page

Riley Beckett met Gianna Mäkinen – drop-dead gorgeous influencer, trilingual, daughter of world-famous models, yes, that Gianna Mäkinen – their first year at Boston University, and it changed everything for the both of them. After all, when you find the person who just gets you, nothing feels quite "the same" right?

And in the ten years since, Riley has come to depend on Gianna more than anyone else in her life. She knows Gianna just as well as she knows herself – maybe better, some days. She knows Gianna is incredibly sex-positive, she knows Gianna doesn't do romance or relationships, and she knows nothing could ever come between them.

This is what makes sense to her, all of this is status-quo. But when a holiday party mix-up sets in motion a domino effect of changes to these previously inalienable truths, Riley has to question everything she thought she knew about their relationship. What, exactly, does Gianna mean to her after all?

#on the same page #haley cass #books #romance novels #romance #lesbian #gay #lgbtq #book club #lgbt #wlw #girls who like girls #lgbtqia #bi #sapphic

44 notes · View notes

shivology · 1 year

Text

ok so re: logan and racism (and marcia) because i’ve been having Thoughts TM rotating in my mind for a day or two but like. logan, obviously, is a very racist individual, but i think mostly in the sense that he perpetuates and weaponizes racism rather than actively, like, unironically having said bigoted beliefs (for the most part of course lmao)

in the sense that, like, he does not believe that, say, white people are inherently superior, and he knows and acknowledges that they have a leg up in the world because he’s many things but he’s not stupid. but to him, that’s not a bad thing. it’s not a good thing either. it’s just .. a Thing. it’s the way the world works. (same with misogyny and other forms of oppression. “i didn’t make the world,” he says to shiv after saying her being a woman was a minus.)

he’s got a, like, might makes right natural selection type proto-fascistic sense of morality that prioritizes power and strength above all else. rather than condemning systemic bigotry that he is very very very aware is real and exists, it’s like -- it is what it is. the world isn’t fair, tough luck. he’s aware that spreading racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, etc is profitable for him and therefore he will do it and he won’t feel bad because he didn’t create the world and it’s not his fault that that’s the way things are. racism and bigotry are tools and he won’t hesitate to use them if it’ll serve his interests. it’s all part of the game.

like he’s one of those people who would look at african and asian countries who have had their resources fucked to hell by colonialism and capitalism and imperialism and white supremacy, like iraq, egypt, iran, ethiopia, etc, and he wouldn’t try to downplay how much they contributed to humanity or whitewash them the way your run-of-the-mill old racist man would, but he’d also have no sympathy for their current suffering. he’d think well it’s their fault they let themselves get lazy and soft. that’s what you get. he wouldn’t downplay the crimes europeans have committed against native americans but he’d say that “they were conquered” and that’s the way the world works. oops sorry tough luck you lost.

which brings me to: he respects people of color who, to him, “rise above” racism -- like marcia. because to him, human rights aren’t inalienable. you have to claw your way through the world to be respected and perceived as a human being but if you DO manage to do that -- then you’re one of the good ones. you deserve respect. (romanticizing suffering like a good old catholic lol) i think he feels like him and marcia are similar in the sense that they both rose above hardship -- in the sense that they’re both immigrants (obviously with VERY different experiences) who made something of themselves.

so he respects marcia in a way he doesn’t respect anyone else in the show, in a way. he doesn’t respect his kids or the pierces because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and he doesn’t respect poor people either because he grew up poor too and he still made something of himself so fuck that everything’s an excuse. he’s like the poster-child of someone who has personally experienced injustice (being abused as a child, living in poverty, etc) and rather than not wanting anyone else to experience these things, you’d rather everyone else did because that’s only fair. like why do YOU get to have a safe space when I didn’t? no fuck that

so like i think if one of the kids were to say something bigoted or micro-aggressive to marcia in his presence he’d be quick to be like, okay, well what do YOU do successfully. quickly. however. he wouldn’t of course actively make the environment they live in safe for her, and he WILL actively promote racism against her people because that’s what works for him, just like he didn’t take measures to keep his kids safe from the people he associates himself with.

#this turned out longer than i thought it would be lmao #does this make sense...#anyway #logan roy #marcia roy #many loganmarcia thoughts their dynamic is insane to me #also i do love marcia howeverrrr. she is very much a race traitor #obviously that doesn't mean she deserves to be subjected to bigotry #but she's a brown woman who actively chose to marry a man who literally owns fox news to serve her own personal interests #to ignore that would be reductive imo

245 notes · View notes

softrozene · 4 months

Text

"Stay Strong. Stay with Me."

Anonymous requested: never seen anyone tackle this one before: could you do HCs or a scenario (your pick) of Dutch finding himself getting along and becoming fascinated by an f!reader Pinkerton agent who has gone rogue, believing in his cause (before everything goes to shit) and using her power to keep the law off their back? this is a weird one so thank you if you do try it out!! SFW or NSFW is fine if you see any kind of tension happening down the line

m.m

Sorry for the long wait Hon! I hope you enjoy this because I certainly enjoyed writing these as headcanons but I did add a little slight nsfw towards the end 😉 The idea of a forbidden enemies to lovers with Dutch is just so *chef’s kiss*. Enjoy!

Dutch Van Der Linde x Female Reader

Warnings: Fluff, reader is technically a double agent by accident, only mentions everything good before Dutch goes… y’know :’), slight nsfw towards the end

Words: ~800

At first, you absolutely hate him – that man being Dutch Van Der Linde

He was everything you detested only because you didn’t know the man personally

You only heard the rumors, how he and his gang of cowboys and gals steal and murder their way out of trouble

You heard how they tried to defend it, saying they do it “honestly” compared to other gangs, but you haven’t seen it. All you have seen is the death they left in their wake. The results of their actions and you hated them

That was at Blackwater

You have been keeping an eye and an ear out for them. You want to personally deal with them

This determination you have is how you manage to meet Dutch by himself. You wanted to hear out his reasoning before you report his ass. You wanted to see if this evil man you saw only through results was truly evil

And you met him and to your surprise, he wasn’t evil at all

He was just a man trying to keep his values alive in this growing world

Finding out that he valued greatly things such as liberty, equality, cultural tolerance was eye opening to you

And what even more was surprising was he didn’t question your status as a female Pinkerton agent at all

When you asked him to explain himself further, he did so with passion. You believe it was that passion that pushed you to truly like that man as you realized you shared his same values

The main values he taught you to appreciate is that human rights are universal and inalienable. That the true way of life is to live in freedom on natural rights instead of being dependent on the government

It made sense to you

And it also made you feel bad because of your line of work

You went after bad criminals your agency was sent to go after

You went after really bad people that put people in danger

And while yes, Dutch has proved to be dangerous, he has not proved to kill out of malicious intent. He is just following his values and you came to respect that

Because of your new shared values with the man, you got along well and he found it fascinating that you wanted to know more about his morals and such. He was captivated that someone in your stance would be so intrigued by him

It eventually makes him fall hard (sorry Molly :()

He would ask you to leave your job if he could, but he hasn’t and you used this to your advantage to help him

You would give him updates on what the Pinkertons were up to, where they were going, and in turn you would lie to the Pinkertons, give them enough breadcrumbs to keep them believing you were on their side, but not enough to give away Dutch

It is a very weird relationship, but one Dutch comes to appreciate the most

He does consider you family and even tells the others to trust you

He will occasionally try to get you to join his cause, be in his gang, but won’t push you to do so if you don’t want to be an outlaw like them

In moments of any doubts you have, he does tell you to “Stay Strong. Stay with me.”

Slight Nsfw headcanons:

The moment Dutch lays eyes on you, he is smitten

He finds it adorable that a little Pinkerton agent like you wants to ask him questions so he entertains it

But he is does find it intriguing that a woman is in such a position so he automatically thinks you are not to be messed with

It isn’t until halfway through does he realize you are taking him very seriously, that you are loving this talk about values and how society should be

It makes him think you are not just a pretty face, but you have a beautiful brain too, and that my dear, is what makes him instantly horny for you

It’s only after the third meeting he has with you does he suggests getting intimate with you

He says that it would be a one-time thing since you are technically enemies but after that one night, he just couldn’t get enough of you

It turns into multiple times and he even daydreams about the next time he will see you, the next time he can hold you and touch you

He turns low-key obsessed and loves the idea of a cat-and-mouse faux chase with you

He offers to turn it into that once or twice to make your sex life more exciting

But most often than not he prefers sweet and gentle sex with you since you seem to be his perfect half and his perfect double agent

Yes, Dutch does love receiving pleasure, but you know that once that man gives you pleasure, you aren’t getting up until his thirst for you is satisfied

#softrozene writes #red dead redemption 2 x reader #rdr2 x reader #dutch x reader #dutch van der linde #headcanon #rdr2 headcanons #fanfic #rdr2 fanfic #x reader #fluff #female reader

28 notes · View notes

gsirvitor · 1 year

Text

And now for my citations, since you refuse to read a single sentence @dead-ofthe-knight;

Rommen, Heinrich A.; Hanley, Thomas R. (1998). The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social Philosophy.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Albertus Magnus, aka Saint Albert the Great

Thomas Aquinas

Romans 2:14–15

Jones, Peter. Rights. Palgrave Macmillan, 1994, pp. 72, 74.

1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

James Nickel, Human Rights, 2010

Tierney, Brian (1997). The Idea of Natural Rights. Eerdmans.

Siedentop, Larry (2014). Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.

Immanuel Kant

John Locke

I can go on.

Rights are not conferred to you by an authority, they are natural, inalienable and cannot be taken away by said authority, only suppressed, while things such as legal entitlements are only granted to you by authorities and can be taken by said authority at any moment, that's why they're privileges.

I doubt you know this, but beyond what the law says, an entitlement is defined as the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment, what you advocate for are privileges, not rights, so I repeat;

youtube

#Youtube

116 notes · View notes

tozettastone · 6 months

Text

Just on the topic of radical feminism— (heads up that there's some transphobic stuff discussed below, although not in much detail)

I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that radical feminism did have its era. I know we deride it a lot online now and we have some good reasons for that. And I also do think it isn't really the right tool for approaching the evolving gender landscape of modern life. Radical feminism views all oppression of women as a result of gender relations between men and women (who are binary opposites) specifically. Today, a lot of highly educated people who think deeply about sex and gender have stopped treating gender as, like, "these are the unalterable facts about our bodies and they have a specific, inalienable social and biological meaning," which makes radical feminism just kind of... less useful to us. A school of thought that wants gender as an entire concept to be dismembered and served up on the good silverware can't really make use of a framework that's grounded in gender binary.

But I still think it's worth knowing about radical feminism.

I just think we kind of need to understand where we as feminists have been if we want to understand why we're here. Radical feminism did, in fact, have its era. Once you start thinking about it in its context, it's absolutely no coincidence that it emerged as a force in a froth of rage during the post-war years in the west—when the menfolk came back from war and the women were so condescendingly ushered right back into the home. It's worth reading your Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin and Carol Hanisch (and, yeah, even the most loudly hostile transphobes like Sheila Jeffreys or the off-the-wall spite of Valerie Solanas, yes, sorry), and it's worth thinking about the absolute rage that informs, well, pretty much anything Sylvia Plath wrote (although I don't think she'd ever have called herself a radical feminist, if she'd lived that long—she's furious about the same things, though). All that stuff from the 50s (or late 40s, if we count de Beauvoir's The Second Sex) and 60s and 80s is useful and educational, if the people around you read you as a woman when you walk around on the street. It's worth reading and knowing where words like 'patriarchy,' and phrases like 'male supremacy,' and 'the personal is political,' are coming from.

And, anyway, reading something doesn't mean you should treat it as an authority. Obviously I don't think you should read Jeffreys and come away agreeing with her that "sex reassignment is mutilation," because I personally think that's incorrect (because... see my point above about dismembering gender). But maybe you shouldn't take my, or anyone else's, word for it? Maybe you should read and find out how she arrives at that idea and figure out what you think about that? If you come away thinking she's wrong, you'll be able to explain to yourself, clearly and with high quality critical thinking, exactly why. And if you read a bunch of radical feminist stuff and come out going "all this was a massive distraction from a more significant axis of oppression—which affects all women anyway—which is CLASS," or something, that's a reasonable criticism that you can probably support. I know people who think that, too.

I guess I just sincerely believe that we really only get to know one little tiny bit of reality from one single point of view at a time. So each new piece of information can form part of the lens through which to view reality. And to me it's just so much more useful to understand radical feminism as a deeply necessary, if now outdated, era of feminist thought than it is to howl "RADFEM RHETORIC," and not actually know what you mean by that.

Anyway if you got to the end of this and you're like, "yeah, maybe I should read more historically significant theories, but I simply lack the will and energy," then. Understandable. Have a nice day. LOL.

#tozette.txt #feminism #i haven't expressed this super clearly sry #maybe I will edit it to be clearer later #I'm just thinking about how much I benefited from reading stuff like this in uni #even though I don't actually agree with that much of it as an older adult

24 notes · View notes

anamericangirl · 8 months

Note

"Lmao for what? Not ruling how you wanted them to?"

For lying to about their beliefs to Congress to get appointed.

"It was a settled issue when they were appointed, genius."

And if any of the republican judges actually believed that then they never would have tried to overturn it.

"Settled issue doesn’t mean it will never be brought to the court again."

You're right, a settled issue means that if it came to the court again they would vote the same way as last time regarding it.

"All rulings can be changed."

Not when you specifically promised Congress that you wouldn't do that.

"You’re just mad because you thought RvW was untouchable and you just learned that’s not true and was never true."

You're damn right I am, because human rights should be untouchable. Abortion is a human right. It's protected by the right to bodily autonomy.

You need to understand.

They

Lied

Congress

During

Their

Confirmations

As SCOTUS Justices, that is literally an offense punishable by removal from office.

“I care about human rights!!” You claim as you cry about babies having the right to life.

They didn’t lie about their beliefs lol. Y’all were mad they were even being considered because you knew they were pro-life going in and you don’t like having Supreme Court justices that acknowledge the right to life.

Settled issue does not mean that if it comes up in court everyone’s going to vote the same way. You’re pretty dumb lol. Dred Scott was a settled issue too. You mad that was overruled when it came up again and they didn’t vote the same way? Or do your principles change depending on whether it’s a decision you personally agree with or not?

You’re so mad that Roe was overturned because you think it’s a human right protected by bodily autonomy and “human rights” should be untouchable but what about the inalienable human right to life? If you really had these morals you pretend to have that human right being unprotected for babies would bother you. But you don’t actually care about human rights because if you did you would care enough to know how bodily autonomy works and you would give a shit about the right to life.

They didn’t lie you’re just an idiot who is angry because you don’t understand how rights work and didn’t get what you want.

#anon #answered

49 notes · View notes

angfdz · 2 months

Text

I think there's something that few ppl talk about leftism which is that like, it is the only thing that makes sense to believe in at this point. If you're not out here believing that the Palestinian people should be free, or that trans women are women, or that bodily autonomy is an inalienable right, or that the government is actively fucking us... then I just don't really understand u at all, you know? & i don't think that's because of an insulated point of view, I don't think that's an echo chamber thing i just feel like these are beliefs based on compassion & using a single brain cell.

10 notes · View notes

thesorcerersapprentice · 3 months

Text

10.02.2024

BI-WEEKLY (ISH?) ACHIEVEMENTS:

Worldbuilding: Worked on a post on the geography, flora & fauna of The Sorcerer's Apprentice universe which I meant to publish last week, but was unable to finish due to life circumstances (my favourite aunt went to intensive care, and I caught a nasty stomach bug while visiting her). At any rate, it's almost done, so it should go up sometime next week.

Continued Researching Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Coloniality as a Concept and Decolonial Practices: I've been reading Edward W. Said's Culture and Imperialism for the last few weeks and I'm making slow but steady progress. My plan is to pick up Said's Orientalism next, which I've heard is also a go-to text on colonialism. In addition, I also read A Decolonial Feminism by Francoise Verges, which I found quite eye-opening and will be incorporating into Altaluna's storyline (namely, I'll be showcasing how some forms of feminism are used to further colonial aims through interactions between Altaluna and her supposedly 'transgressive' peers); The Good Die Young: The Verdict on Henry Kissinger, a compilation of essays on how Kissinger (who I met in his declining years) used and abused human rights discourse to further US economic control (capitalism with US supremacy incorporated) over so-called 'third-world' regions, and how this is the standard practice for US foreign policy to this day (I'm borrowing this two-pronged approach for interactions between the Empire and it's subordinate 'independent' states); and Toussaint L'Ouverture: The Haitian Revolution, a compilation of Toussaint's (and a couple others, including Napoleon's) correspondence during Toussaint's fight for independence. The book features an outstanding introduction by Jean-Bertrand Aristide and offers a stark contrast to Kissinger's views on Human Rights; in Toussaint's letters and speeches, these rights come with no strings attached and are pursued on principle, out of the genuine belief that they are inalienable to all (at one point the British offered to 'make him' King of Haiti and he refused, which I have to admit, I was pretty impressed by). I also did quite a lot of follow-up reading on Haiti, as an example of the colonialism-to-neocolonialism pipeline. Given that The Sorcerer's Apprentice is set in a neo-colonial world, reading up on Haiti's history helps me better portray the continuity between these two systems and indirectly criticize the idea that today both my readers and I live in a post-colonial world. BTW, if you're unfamiliar with the horrors visited upon the Haitian people (did you know that up until 2015, when France 'forgave' them their debt, the government of Haiti had been paying the French compensation for their loss of slave labour?), check out this article. Likewise, if you're unfamiliar with the difference between colonialism and neo-colonialism (as I was for 99.9% of my life lol), take a look at the iconographic below.

Researched Fiction Genres in 'Post-colonial' Literature: The various iterations of The Sorcerer's Apprentice I've written so far have experimented with two main genres, fantasy and horror. The first iterations were straight-up typical high fantasies with Kings and Queens and dragons in a UK-style setting; the second were more realistic but much more eerie psychological horror stories set in modern-day New York City (if you scroll back far enough on this blog, you'll find evidence of both). Although I like some elements/scenes from both genre adaptations of The Sorcerer's Apprentice and, indeed, although I intend to incorporate some of these in the current draft, ultimately I abandoned the aforementioned versions because, at their core, they failed. Why? Because, while they nailed the interpersonal struggle between Valeriano and Altaluna, they did so without addressing the reason that struggle even exists in the first place. Namely, they failed to go beyond the personal relationship, to its systemic causes. The truth is that a person like Valeriano doesn't exist in a vacuum. He's a product and embodiment of a world with certain values. Yes, Altaluna may have defeated him in a high-fantasy royal skirmish for power or its modern-day equivalent inheritance drama, but engaging (even embracing) the system that produced him (royalty, birthright, etc.), undermines her victory. What was she in these earlier versions of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, but another shade of Valeriano? What did she represent, in her victory if not the desire to be the oppressor? The deep self-depreciation of the oppressed? Even the aesthetics of these earlier versions glorified Valeriano's world, with little mention of Altaluna's. This was my fault. I did not understand that these things were in me. I am beginning to. In any case, I don't intend to make the same mistake twice, so I'm doing a little research into how different literary genres have been used to tell stories about colonialism/neocolonialism/post-colonialism. I read a pretty good article from Globalization, Utopia, and Postcolonial Science Fiction: New Maps of Hope by E. Smith entitled "Third-World Punks, or, Watch out for the Worlds Behind You," and I'm trying to look into Afrofuturism and Latinfuturism.

REMINDERS:

Answer pending asks. Yes, I am bad. I admit it, I am very bad. (why am I so bad *sobs*)

Publish that promised worldbuilding post on the geography, flora & fauna of The Sorcerer's Apprentice universe.

Survive this stomach bug.

TAG LIST: (ask to be + or - ) @the-finch-address @fearofahumanplanet @winterninja-fr @avrablake @outpost51 @d3mon-ology @hippiewrites @threeking @lexiklecksi @achilleanmafia

12 notes · View notes