#marta blathers

[marta-bee]

@amberly333 asked for more about Ashtoreth and why I found it so interesting Crowley chose that name when he worked as Young Warlock’s nanny. So let’s do that.

Ashtoreth is either a variant spelling or one of the related gods later culture rolled into one (depending on who you ask) with Astarte or Istarte. Small-g god, to be sure; unlike the Israelite God, she was one of many. I’d hesitate to describe her or most of the pagan gods in the region as actually evil. It’s more that they’re false gods, and the worship of them lured Israelites away from worship of the One True God. But if Crowely needed a feminine name associated with evil he’s sadly not suffering for a lack of options. Eve, certainly, or even Adam’s first wife Lilith. Delilah and Salome also jump to mind as interesting options. As I said, it’s a bit of a list.

What’s interesting, though, is all these women are sexual temptresses in some sense. Lilith you can make the case her sin was more about refusing to submit than seducing a man, but it’s a bit ambiguous and depends a lot about which version of the story you read. Ashtoreth is different. For one thing she’s from outside the Jewish and Christian pantheons. so she’s not evil in the sense she’s openly rebelling against god. She’s just this person other peoples are wrong to think exist. She’s not even particularly associated with the demonic (her sometimes-consort Baal was, at least in later times). She just kind of.... is.

Nor is she particularly erotic, much less seductive. I see from Wikipedia she was later syncretized with Aphrodite which, yeah, definitely argues against this point. But again, that seems controversial, and Astarte in particular seems less wedded and/or bedded than warrior-queen. Believe it or not, I’m not actually an expert in near-east pagan cults of antiquity, but I do think if Gaiman wanted to call to mind something in the mold of Leta or Zeus’s other conquests, or even Helen of Troy, he certainly made an odd choice with this namesake.

Also, she’s associated with the dove, that famous symbol that the Great Flood was at last over. Given I’m not even sure if the Noah scene from the miniseries was in the book that may be a complete coincidence, but I for one am enjoying the connection.

The most important things, though?

1) Not actually evil.

2) Not getting in trouble for shaking her groove thing.

3) Not even kicked out of the Garden for refusing to submit.

And if that’s not Crowley in a really interesting way, I don’t know what is.

#marta blathers #good omens #book omens #mythology #good omens meta

[wvsteria]

post event starters call!

can double as a starter/plotting call. 

for the after effects of the ball or whatever really! 

if we do a new thread here, then most likely we’ll end the event thread (a swap-aroo if you will)

( 3 / 5 ) audrey rose | sarah jeffery | descendants | 22 | not aware

prince phillip ( @papcrrings​ )

daphne blake ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

erica reyes ( @irongcld )

( 1 / 5 ) dani powell | aurora perrineau | prodigal son | 32 | aware

malcolm bright ( @mccnlighht )

( 1 / 5 ) tara carpenter | becky g | scream | 19 | not aware

zed necrodopolis ( @hiddenpxpercuts​ )

( 2 / 5 ) bucky barnes | sebastian stan | marvel | 32 | not aware

mark sloan ( @papcrrings​​ )

matt murdock ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

( 4 / 5 ) arya stark | bailee madison | game of thrones | 19 | not aware

sansa stark ( @mgrhee )

cersei lannister ( @withinthem )

catelyn stark ( @papcrrings )

robb stark ( @skyfcll )

( 3 / 5 ) missandei | nathalie emmanuel | game of thrones | 33 | aware

rhaenryra targaryen ( @mgrhee )

drogon ( @youllalwaysbemyporcelain )

blathers ( @mvsicinthedvrk )

( 2 / 5 ) reva sevander | dewanda wise | star wars | 28 | aware

leia organa ( @mcrcki )

ezra bridger ( @skyfcll )

( 1 / 5 ) bail organa | adam rodriguez | star wars | 30 | aware

leia organa ( @mcrcki )

( 2 / 5 ) emily fields | cassie steele | pretty little liars | 25 | aware

spencer hastings ( @viicnna )

hanna marin ( @mccnlighht )

( 1 / 5 ) ekko | jonathan daviss | arcane | 20 | newly unaware

noah czerny ( @mvsicinthedvrk​ )

( 1 / 5 ) laenor velaryon | jordan fisher | house of the dragon | 24 | not aware 

eddard stark ( @svnlvght )

( 0 / 5 ) kiara carrera | madison bailey | outerbanks | 22 | newly aware (and now a vampire)

( 1 / 5 ) jacen solo | jacob elordi | star wars | 27 | not aware

winter celchu ( @skyfcll​ )

( 3 / 5 ) rue | celeste o’connor | the hunger games | 20 | not aware

eurydice ( @youllalwaysbemyporcelain​​ )

katie gardner ( @svnlvght )

katniss everdeen ( @nightwhispcrs )

( 2 / 5 ) kang sae byeok | jung hoyeon | squid games | 25 | not aware

ji yeong ( @mccnlighht​ )

kim jihyo ( @devilsmenu )

( 4 / 5 ) pietro maximoff | jesus castro | marvel comics | 29 | aware

emmeline vance ( @svnlvght )

stephanie tanner ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

loki laufeyson ( @mischiefxmuses )

lorna dane ( @devilsmenu )

( 2 / 5 ) america chavez | herizon guardiola | marvel | 23 | aware

james sirius potter ( @svnlvght​ )

azari t'challa ( @devilsmenu )

( 6 / 5 ) alaric saltzman | andrew koji | the vampire diaries | 34 | aware

rebekah mikaelson ( @viicnna )

elena gilbert ( @mccnlighht​ )

mabel pines ( @mccnlighht )

hayley marshall ( @ofxbloomed )

katherine pierce ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

alec lightwood ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

( 1 / 5 ) willa lykensen | chandler kinney | disney’s zombies | 20 | aware

addison wells ( @youllalwaysbemyporcelain​ )

( 6 / 5 ) roxanne weasley | zendaya | harry potter | 21 | aware

dora tonks ( @mgrhee )

nancy thompson ( @withinthem )

anne wheeler ( @viicnna​ )

ginny weasley ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

fred weasley ( @svnlvght )

fleur delacour ( @mischiefxmuses )

( 3 / 5 ) cindy berman | emily rudd | fear street | 25 | not aware

marco del rossi ( @hiddenpxpercuts​​ )

reggie peters ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

noah foster ( @devilsmenu )

( 4 / 5 ) lucas sinclair | keith powers | stranger things | 23 | aware

eddie munson ( @recklcssabandon​​ )

maxine mayfield ( @hiddenpxpercuts )

henry creel ( @mischiefxmuses )

jamie/nine ( @devilsmenu )

( 5 / 5 ) rachel green | haley lu richardson | friends | 27 | not aware

joey tribbiani ( @jessiwrites )

marta cabrera ( @svnlvght )

monica geller ( @nightwhispcrs )

carrie bradshaw ( @viicnna )

ororo munroe ( @rainbowmuses )

( 5 / 5 ) rosita espinosa | lindsey morgan | the walking dead | 31 | not aware

aerith gainsborough ( @hxartbreaker )

daryl dixon ( @ofxscavengcrs )

siddiq ( @mgrhee )

andrea harrison ( @withinthem )

glenn rhee ( @softsliders19 )

#hw: starter call

[owpollard]

Memo of John (#1) (Ramble Write #1)

John, a dull and uneventful name for a dull and uneventful man living a dull and uneventful life, was sitting in his office ten stories above the streets of Stockholm. He worked as a middle manager for the government. A mediocre position for a mediocre man with mediocre pay. The department he worked for, simply referred to as NOVEL, over-saw the many cases that the public were not to be exposed. This included extra-terrestrial encounters, monsters from other realms of existence, along with other things John found entirely dull.

He flicked across the memos on his desk. A stone frog had come to life outside a small town in the west. John placed it in a stack of assignments dedicated to Karen, an American. She was awful and John hated everything about her, especially that she was American. She was incompetent and complained when people didn’t do exactly as she said. He’d reminded her several times the previous week that he was the manager, but she persisted and the government refused to transfer her. John took joy in filling her life with large amounts of tedium.

Speaking of joy, Joy was the newest member of his office John liked her very much and felt as if she was his grand-daughter, which was odd as John was only fifty-six. She was flamboyantly gay and had a secret relationship with Marta from an office upstairs. John was sure no one else knew of their relationship, but he’d always prided himself in his perceptive ability.

There were other members of their office, but their stories are to be saved for another time. Finishing separating the stack of paper he passed them around to their respective desks as people began entering the office at 9:00am. Monday mornings were the best mornings to John, as no one had energy enough to bother him or complain about their work load. As 9:01 rolled around, Joy fumbled into the room out of breath. The faint shadow of lipstick on her cheek. 

“I’m sorry, I’m so sorry for being late.” Joy blathered in swedish.

“It’s no issue, it’s only one minute.” John replied in the same language. Swedish was the language of the office despite it being a subsection of the UN. It was one of the small fondnesses that drew John to NOVEL.

As Joy moved out of the doorway the girth of a fat woman squeezed through it, “Get out of my way!” said the human mass in an English dialect so crude that was bound offend William, the office’s local Brit.

“Why are you late, Karen?” asked John.

“Your Expresso House took too long to make my coffee.” She complained, “Star-bucks much more efficient. You could learn from them, but I see your socialist pride won’t let you learn from the superior nation.”

“Must I remind you that this is not a socialist nation? And we speak Swedish in this office.”

“FOX news disagrees. ” Karen retorted, refusing to speak the local Swedish despite having a questionable fluency in the language.

John, his Monday already ruined, simply responded, “Get to work.”

John quickly pulled out a sticky note from his jacket pocket and a pen from his chest pocket and scribbled Clear lipstick. He walked past Joy and dropped the note on her desk.

Back in his grey office, he slumped back in his chair. Unfortunately a suit strode through the cubical room.

John muttered some inappropriate words.

The suit strode into his office, “Mr. Erikson, we were unable to stop the third eye. Yorguindr has been resurrected. Your office is best equipped to handle the bureaucracy. There is a meeting in one hour. Be there.”

#writters on tumblr #writers #cult #demon #sweden #un #memo #Memo of John #MOJ #short fiction #rambling

[tradcathsermons]

Tweeted

“St. Joseph entered into the mystery, and did so with concreteness” - ready for today’s Santa Marta blather? https://t.co/UuL2uJaoZz #Catholictwitter #popefrancis

— Novus Ordo Watch (@NovusOrdoWatch) March 19, 2020

#SedeVacante

[marta-bee]

I got a relatively mild bit of anon hate today saying no one liked my posts and I should just leave Tumblr. I'm not mad, if anything I'm gently smiling at it. This is the site that famously doesn't have an algorithm, where people tag more than anywhere else and where there are all sorts of built-in and third-party tools to control what posts you actually see. At a certain point you seeing things you'd rather avoid says more about the viewer than the one doing the posting.

Also, due respect. My posts are regularly liked by upwards of three people online, and they are hardly nobodies.

#peak tumblr #marta blathers

[marta-bee]

Let’s talk about good and evil, Good Omens-style. 

Pressing on with reading the book, I’m maybe two-thirds or three-quarters through the first chapter. Still not through! But War has made her first appearance, Aziraphale and Crowley are finally sobered p and decided to be god-parents, and I think I’m ready for another mental break. It’s hilarious. It’s harrowing. I am marveling at the sheer genius of the writing. And feeling for Aziraphale being stuck in his own goodness. He’s a cheeky bastard what with the bible-proof pages and all, but still so hemmed in by what he’s defined himself to be. 

Mostly I think I need to take a break, because there’s some really interesting philosophy going on here and I need to unpack it a bit to really feel his weight. 

Last week I’d stopped with Crowley and the Spanish Inquisition. Still feeling the *oomph* of that passage; but this week starts out with its flip-side, which had such an aura of hope to it, for me.

And just when you'd think they were more malignant than ever Hell could be, they could occasionally show more grace than Heaven ever dreamed of. Often the same individual was involved. It was this free-will thing, of course. It was a bugger.

That’s one of my favorite things about humanity, how we’re capable of what my human-bound sense of morality connects with goodness. We’re both. We’re potential. And I think for Crowley, that potential is almost more important than what we potentialize into. Maybe it’s that humans have creativity and a spark that lets them do things stolid heaven and decrepit hell just can’t conceive of. But there’s something very attractive to Crowley about this ability change, to make a choice and not just do or be what they’re predestined to do or be, that’s very attractive to Crowley. If anything connects to what I think of as morality in this world, I think that ability for growth is it. A capacity to surprise and spersede your programming, for lack of a better term.

There’s actually a really delightful exchange I’d forgotten about, on the concept of free will, leading up to that snippet I quoted earlier:

Aziraphale had tried to explain it to him once. The whole point, he'd said-this was somewhere around 1020, when they'd first reached their little Arrangement-the whole point was that when a human was good or bad it was because they wanted to be. Whereas people like Crowley and, of course, himself, were set in their ways right from the start. People couldn't become truly holy, he said, unless they also had the opportunity to be definitively wicked.

Crowley had thought about this for some time and, around 1023, had said, Hang on, that only works, right, if you start everyone off equal, okay? You can't start someone off in a muddy shack in the middle of a war zone and expect them to do as well as someone born in a castle.

Ah, Aziraphale had said, that's the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. Crowley had said, That's lunatic.

No, said Aziraphale, it's ineffable.

Aziraphale. The Enemy, of course. But an enemy for six thousand years now, which made him a sort of friend.

Crowley reached down and picked up the car phone.

Being a demon, of course, was supposed to mean you had no free will. But you couldn't hang around humans for very long without learning a thing or two.

Angels and demons can’t change; except of course they can. That’s the whole point of Satan, as Crowley points out later:

"What will happen to the child if it doesn't get a Satanic upbringing, though?" said Aziraphale. "Probably nothing. It'll never know."

"But genetics-"

"Don't tell me from genetics. What've they got to do with it?" said Crowley. "Look at Satan. Created as an angel, grows up to be the Great Adversary. Hey, if you're going to go on about genetics, you might as well say the kid will grow up to be an angel. After all, his father was really big in Heaven in the old days. Saying he'll grow up to be a demon just because his dad became one is like saying a mouse with its tail cut off will give birth to tailless mice. No. Upbringing is everything. Take it from me."

"And without unopposed Satanic influences – "

"Well, at worst Hell will have to start all over again. And the Earth gets at least another eleven years. That's got to be worth something, hasn't it?"

Now Aziraphale was looking thoughtful again.

"You're saying the child isn't evil of itself?" he said slowly.

"Potentially evil. Potentially good, too, I suppose. Just this huge powerful potentiality, waiting to be shaped," said Crowley. He shrugged. "Anyway, why're we talking about this good and evil? They're just names for sides. We know that."

"I suppose it's got to be worth a try," said the angel.

Satan can change. Satan did change. And Crowley, too, in the first passage; he decided to make a choice when that’s supposed to be very much a human thing. Even Aziraphale shows a real capacity to, not change his mind perhaps, but let himself be swayed, certainly That whole conversation between Aziraphale and Crowley over what to do about the antichrist reeks of motivated reasoning on his part.

"That's it, then," said Crowley, with a gleam of triumph. He knew Aziraphale's weak spot all right. "No more compact discs. No more Albert Hall. No more Proms. No more Glyndbourne. Just celestial harmonies all day long."

"Ineffable," Aziraphale murmured.

"Like eggs without salt, you said. Which reminds me. No salt, no eggs. No gravlax with dill sauce. No fascinating little restaurants where they know you. No Daily Telegraph crossword. No small antique shops. No bookshops, either. No interesting old editions. No" – Crowley scraped the bottom of Aziraphale's barrel of interests-"Regency silver snuffboxes . . . "

"But after we win life will be better!" croaked the angel.

"But it won't be as interesting. Look, you know I'm right. You'd be as happy with a harp as I'd be with a pitchfork."

He’s supposed to want good. He’s with heaven, that’s the definition of being heaven-aligned, to want good; and taking better as a synonym... yeah, probably if the win the Apocalypse (which they probably would), life would be more good. And that thought makes Aziraphale desperate; he’s croaking the words there, see? He’s torn between what he’s supposed to want and what he actually wants, and it’s all coming to a head. 

Then Crowley said it won’t be as interesting, something else entirely, from the heaven- or hell-aligned, and that’s when he starts to crack. It’s a rebellion, or at least a falling (sauntering vaguely downward, if you prefer); because he’s choosing something here too outside what he’s supposed to be working toward: not better, but more interesting. And thank Someone for that.

Let’s go back to that first exchange, though, where Aziraphale and Crowley are discussing free will. Because Crowley makes a really interesting point, both narratively and in terms of real-world philosophy.

Hang on, that only works, right, if you start everyone off equal, okay? You can't start someone off in a muddy shack in the middle of a war zone and expect them to do as well as someone born in a castle.

Ah, Aziraphale had said, that's the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. Crowley had said, That's lunatic.

Aziraphale’s line is one I heard often enough from the Protestant-Christian side of my upbringing. Blessed are those who suffer for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. And Crowley’s right: it’s nonsense to think people who are fighting all day every day to survive will ever be able to do as well at this free choice sanctification scheme as people who have the luxury of a bit of breathing space. Free will, for one thing, is meaningless if you don’t actually have two options to choose from; and the space (mental and otherwise) to actually make a decision.

Personally this isn’t the interpretation of Christianity I’ve found most useful, or consistent with the way I read the (Christian) Bible. It’s not that suffering gives you more opportunities for growth; there’s a sense of to-whom-much-has-been-given-much-will-be-expected shot through so many of Christ’s parables (the Five Talents, for instance), and of course there’s the line that it’s easier for a rich man to pass through the Eye of the Needle than to get into heaven; if you know your Biblical archaeology, that’s essentially saying you have to be stripped free of your baggage, which is the one thing rich people won’t be able to do.

Put another way: those who suffer, those who are poor and week, are blessed not because their suffering lets them achieve more heaven-points, but because they don’t need them precisely because they’re small. Whereas those given more resources, more is expected of them. I don’t think Crowley would approve of that kind of valorizing of smallness, but intellectually at least it makes more sense than what Crowley’s been twisted to think is correct.

I’m more a fan of the Aristotelian approach, myself. There are virtues that ought to motivate actions, but at the same time it’s all tied up in what’s possible for an individual. So a person who’s, say, OCD and deals with excessive anxiety might show more genuine courage in crossing the street than someone without that psychology would need to run into a burning building. Of course there’s certain maladies that make it impossible to exercise true virtue and we should feel pity for those people even if we don’t think of them as virtuous. But at least within certain limits, courage isn’t just about doing the most extreme thing, even necessarily what the situation demands, because courage is being guided by fear in the right way so we behave courageously; and if you’ve got more fear to navigate you need better courage than most to do the navigating.

That’s a much better way of thinking about things to me. Afflicted people aren’t better than those with a better starting out point because they get more heaven-points (whatever form that takes) or reach some better external state than people with a more favorable starting point; it’s that to even get to the same result as other people, they need more oomph, more grace, more whatever, because of all they’re pushing back against. It’s not fair, but it seems at least a more generous interpretation of the reality we’re all trying to struggle through.

Getting back to the book, though, I find it really interesting that Aziraphale and Crowley think of good and evil in these terms. It’s a sign of the headspace Heaven and Hell drive them toward, I think; to the point Crowley says they’re just labels for our side, those words don’t actually mean anything. 

But he’s still shaken by Barcelona. He’s still begging with Aziraphale- test them, sure, but not to destruction. He doesn’t want humanity to be ended, and it’s not for the more self-centered reasons that drive Aziraphale here, those lovely little bits of life on earth he finds so enjoyable. There’s a sense that he shouldn’t allow that to happen. There’s a should, an ought, a moral imperative still, even for a demon who’s been trying to tempt humanity toward his side for six millennia here. And while I don’t want to indulge on simple moralizing, there’s something at his core that won’t let him just let history do its thing. It may not neatly align with what heaven or hell is pointing for, that’s really the point, but there’s still an ought in play that’s somehow independent of all that.

Frankly, I find all that fascinating, not to mention a damned compelling narrative.

And War’s up next, I see. I need a readerly break, but when I get back, I think things are about to get fun.

#good omens #book good omens #marta read #marta rereads good omens #marta blathers

[marta-bee]

Some caveats: I'm nursing a headcold today, so taking off work and more than a bit confuzzled from decongestants. I also 100% recognize what I'm about to say probably wasn't what Neil and P-Terry had in mind. But what is the internet for if not sharing our theories and thoughts just because we can?

So with that rather large grain of salt in mind, I want to talk about Good Omens (obviously), and medieval philosophy (equally obviously from me), and specifically what might have driven Aziraphale's fall. I'm using that term with a bunch of caution flags in my mind, because I don't think it's wholly accurate for angels, but there's definitely something going on with Aziraphale's character because he's changing and growing. Theologically, angels are supposed to start out good and stay that way, so any change can only be a step away from that ideal.

That's the standard view in most medieval Christian philosophy. I don't actually agree and think the possibility of change is what makes life worthwhile. (How boring, to be perfect with nowhere to go!) But my point is if the Aziraphale we meet in Eden is different from the one who says "after you!" outside a bookshop in Soho, that's .... not management-approved angel behavior, to put it mildly. Whatever he's changing into.

(I should probably add a third caveat: I've still not seen the second season, so I'm thinking mainly in terms of Good Omens the book and the first series storyline, and what little of the second series I've gleaned from the Tumblr ecosystem.)

Here's the part that fascinates me. Crowley's fall is a very familiar story if you grew up around Protestant Christianity, even culturally. Humans first sinned when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; when they lost their innocence and understood morality. And Crowley fell because he was just asking questions. That either means he's trying to understand things he should have just accepted, or he's questioning if they really should be that way, or both. In either case it's a very knowledge-based form of falling.

I don't get that vibe from Aziraphale. If anything, what drives him to change is he loves too extravagantly. I'm reminded of this bit from Augustine's On Christian Doctrine:

But living a just and holy life requires one to be capable of an objective and impartial evaluation of things: to love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally.

Put more simply, we're supposed to love things that are good, and love them in proportion to how good they are. Love God unconditionally and without restraint; love other things as a reflection of God, to the extent they reflect Him. It all reminds me of nothing so much of Othello's famous description of himself: "one that loved not wisely, but too well."

And if that's not Aziraphale to a tee. It's not just that (if I may be allowed my shipper's goggles), is head over heels in love with an actual demon. He also loves the niceties of the created world so durned much: sushi, and crepes, and music that's not The Sound of Music, and all the rest. He loves it so much he'll do nearly anything to protect it, to keep it in existence, even if it means toeing the line over what God Herself actually wants. And loving the created thing so much we value it even above God, which Aziraphale is getting very close to doing, in spirit even if he keeps finding clever ways to avoid actually crossing the line? That's one of the ways Augustine actually defines sin. From The City of God:

These are thy gifts; they are good, for thou in thy goodness has made them. Nothing in them is from us, save for sin when, neglectful of order, We fix our love on the creature, instead of on thee, the Creator.

There's something delightfully queer about all this, or at least something I suspect resonates with a lot of queer peoples' experience. It's not that Aziraphale loves a male-presenting character, or even a demon, but that he loves so carelessly, so extravagantly, he loves everything and not just the things he's been told he should love. And that's enough to stop the apocalypse. To catapult him firmly past your or my side to ours.

And if that's not a delicious and true-to-character way to start his fall, I don't know what is.

#theology #marta blathers #good omens #aziraphale #philosophy #really this should all be taken with a large grain of thought and i can't promise I'll hold to any of this tomorrow #still the thought is an intriguing one

[marta-bee]

I've recently reread The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes and just saw the movie version, and I've been rolling over a question in my mind. Even the question is chock full of spoilers, so let's put even it under a cut.

Namely: does it matter whether Snow really killed Lucy Baird?

If you don't know (and as I said: major spoilers here ....), TBOSAS is a Hunger Games prequel about Snow's schoolboy experiences mentoring Lucy through the Hunger Games. He cheats to insure her survival and gets punished by being conscripted into the military and sent to District Twelve.

Once there, he and Lucy are suspected of shooting the mayor's daughter (Snow rightly, though it's arguably a kind of self-defense; Lucy is innocent but suspected because of her past) and decide to flee Panem entirely and live in the wilderness outside District Twelve. While fleeing they discover the gun used, meaning Snow at least can safely return to District Twelve once he's destroyed it - if he can trust Lucy to keep his secret.

All of which leads to my basic question. Snow, increasingly paranoid, shoots at Lucy with the same gun he used to kill the mayor's daughter. It's ambiguously written and very unclear what Snow actually sees and does and what he's imagining. Certainly Snow didn't find her body (he looked) or any other concrete evidence she actually died. She just sort of disappeared, and a lot of fan forums have discussions on what actually happened in there, if she was murdered by Snow or not.

I'm all for fan discussions, but for me the real question is, would it matter if she had? If she survived she certainly didn't return to Twelve (at least by the novel's end), and the most likely future other than her death is a solitary life lived in exile. Assuming she doesn't somehow find other exiles, would it actually matter if she went on to live decades more but separated from everyone?

I'm enough of a solitary soul, I think I could be quite content living on my own. But Lucy's a storyteller by nature, and that requires an audience, never mind an ensemble to sing the story along side. I wonder how meaningful a life could be if she didn't have anyone to share it with. Snow says he looks forward to getting away from people so the world can't twist him into hurting them. Lucy doesn't think people are so bad. She seems to really regret leaving her family behind, and in the books at least doesn't think she would have been able to force herself to leave Twelve if Snow wasn't going with her.

Again, though, it's not clearcut. She's not driven by actual love the way Katniss is with Prim, and her fight is to survive so she can live on and grow her own character and experiences, not to get back to her home or family or whatever else. In probably her clearest statement of what a well-lived life means for her, she says she's willing to die only "When I'm pure like a dove / When I've learned how to love / Right here in the old there before." You can't learn how to love without another person to love, I guess, but you could paint this as more a drive for self-actualization and developing into a better, more complete person. For moral progress, for lack of a better word: she wants to complete the song that is how we change and what we change into. And while most of us like community, that can be done on our lonesome.

Still. I have to imagine this complete an exile would be a kind of living death for someone like Lucy. Of course I much prefer to think of her living for decades after the book, even if the birds and the wind are her only companions. I'm just not sure for how long she'd agree.

#the hunger games #the ballad of songbirds and snakes #spoilers #meta #marta blathers

[marta-bee]

Well, that's done...

#marta blathers #not so bad all things considered #but definitely as always glad to be on the other side of it for another year

[marta-bee]

I've been thinking a bit about what a Good Omens-type story might look like set in The Silmarillion. It's a weird thought because God/Eru and the various celestials have an entirely different relation to the Plan, ineffable or otherwise. Certainly there are moments of Providence (I'm thinking of Frodo with the phial in Shelob's lair, for instance), but Arda just doesn't seem as Armageddon-oriented as many Christians imagine the real world to be. Somehow.

On the other hand, the Valar and their more lockstep-obedient lackeys would give Good Omens' angels a run for their money when it comes to dickish callousness. Eonwe in his dealings with Numenor would make such a perfect Gabriel. He'd out-Gabriel him, even

Crowley seems easy-ish to cast, or at least easier than Aziraphale, because Melkor had more than a few lieutenants who seem sort of swept away by it all, or just curious or wanting to understand how the world work. Sauron, for instance, younger Sauron before he became corrupted seems like the type who could have just been asking questions at the start. So many of Aule's maiar probably could work.

Aziraphale is harder to nail down for me because the good guys - outside elves, men and the like - all seem so stuffy and removed. Gandalf in his Olorin days has potential; I can see him liking a good laugh and a better pipe well enough to overlook ... let's just say moral deficiencies, if it meant having someone to share it with. And so much for a Silm-version of Good Omens; I've gone and chosen the two most prominent Ainur-types in Lord of the Rings.

Ulmo has potential for an Aziraphale-type, except he's too powerful to really be fun. One of his maiar though. My first thought was Osse, except in a very real way he did cross over until he was pulled back by his hair by his wife.

What we really need is someone minor. Too minor to even have been named, and with Tolkien that's saying something. An OC maia of Ulmo, perhaps, whose stomach turned as he watched the ships' burning at Alqualonde but couldn't get involved, and another OC maia of Aule, who rebelled and joined Melkor but only barely and has his own revulsion to everything Morgoth puts into action. Who's only "fallen" (to the extent that concept applies, but you know what I mean) because he was fool enough to act on it. And they team up to, I don't know, avert the Akallabeth or at least save some Numenorean families from it.

I'm telling you, I'd read the hell out of that fanfic. Please don't make me write it.

#tolkien #the silmarillion #good omens #marta blathers #really i am too tired for a project of this scale #but it does have... possibilities

[marta-bee]

Talking about angels and demons, free will and choosing has me thinking quite a lot about the bit of Augustine I remember from grad school, specifically how Satan could fall when he had a perfect will and perfect knowledge of good and evil when he was the most powerful of the angels. I don’t remember the specifics of his answer, just that i didn’t find it very compelling at the time. But it seemed like an interesting way of framing the question.

I must say I quite like Neil’s and/or Terry’s answer better. “I was just asking questions; that’s all it took in the beginning.” Because what a profound rebellion that would have been, and how necessary for the world to grow. You could make a strong case the world was perfectly complete in the beginning, pre-Fall. Every need was met, every good thing existed; but it wasn’t until you broke the world that you gave it a chance to grow into something greater still. Questioning meant asking what else there could be, whether it could also be worth having or seeing or whatever. And the answer to that is a resounding (if you’ll forgive the obvious pun) “hell yes.” No wonder Crowley had to leave the state of grace that came before In the Beginning. No wonder Adam (both Adam’s!) had to eventually leave the garden. But equally, no wonder it was the right thing for them to do just as they did.

The better, or at least the more interesting question is: does God have free will? Arguably no, in Christian medieval philosophy at least; because it’s in Their Nature that they always have to do what’s best and they always know what that is. I quite prefer the God of Abraham myself, haggling with Abraham outside Sodom on how many righteous residents it would take for God to spare the city; but equally I’m repulsed and scared by Them. As if one, or even none, isn’t enough. As if They needed convincing.

I’ve also been fascinated by how Manichaean Heaven and Hell are turning out to be here. If you don’t know, that’s the explanation for evil that there are two gods, one good and one evil, and neither can defeat the other at least right away; so evil is the result of the good god not being able to protect the world from the evil one. And it’s widely considered a heresy because it means God isn’t all-powerful. Look at the beginning of Job, for instance, where God must allow Satan to make Job suffer. Satan can’t do it on his own. What’s interesting is at least so far we basically do have a kind of Manichaeanism only because God has stepped back and is letting the roughly equal ranks of angels and demons duke it out themselves. It’s vaguely Tolkienesque in a lot of ways. And it does make for a much better story, though my stomach’s a bit turned to how committed to the part God is; letting humanity be tested to destruciton, never mind the whales and gorillas and the Kraken and all the rest. By real-word theological standards, that’s just rude.

I’m really trying hard to enjoy this world on its own terms and not bring my academic and intellectual baggage into this universe when I suspect it’s not really part of the worldbuilding. Still: once a medieval philosophy ABD, always a medieval philosophy ABD, and my brain won’t quite stop yammering about these kinds of things.

#good omens #theology #marta blathers #philosophy #marta rereads good omens

[marta-bee]

This weekend was unexpectedly social: family in from out of town meant a lot of waiting for other people, meeting up, eating out, then decamping back to my place. Each bit was fun and freely chosen, but now Monday's coming down the pipe and I've had no fun me time.

I mean, yes, the risk I took was calculated, but boy am I bad at math. RL really should come with at least a few of these bubs.

#i'm not sure i regret the experiences #the consequences however #marta blathers

[marta-bee]

I've been ruminating (some would say obsessing) on that word I keep seeing used to describe the situation in Gaza. Genocide. Long post is long, so let's put this under a cut.

I know there's debate on some quarters on whether it's accurate; I'm not sure it is, but also think that question misses the point, because whatever else Gaza is, it's a humanitarian fuck-show. And it's caused, beside the obvious, by Israeli willingness to risk human life rather than tolerate a risk to their own security (which they're much better equipped to protect themselves from than the people of Gaza are), coupled with Israeli refusal to make lasting peace with their neighbor enabled by American military and cultural support. So yes, this one feels personal to me both as an American and someone with mixed Jewish-Christian heritage. People who claim to represent me are enabling said humanitarian fuck-show, which is nothing if not uncomfortable.

That said, every time I see that word it gets stuck in my craw a bit. Not because it's untrue but because mass human suffering caused by violence against an ethnic minority is hardly limited to Gaza, or to the present moment. So I'm questioning whether the Gaza situation is uniquely terrible. Not that it needs to be; I don't post about it much here because Tumblr is my refuge from the offline world, but I am doing quite a lot in RL to support Gaza, and to press my congressmen to take a stronger stance against Israel. I don't want to give the impression I'm not bothered or lukewarm just because I'm not vocal about it here.

But the fact that this suffering and violence isn't unique makes me really uncomfortable with that word because, let's face it, the language is intended to outrage people. I've been thinking about a phrase Fred Clarke (the blogger "Slacktivist" at Patheos, a moderate Baptist who often criticized Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism) used to parody fundamentalist stances on abortion. "Satanic baby-killers" - it was how the fundamentalists supposedly described abortionists and pro-life folks; not sure if they really used it or if Clarke invented it to make his point. The point being, even if you believed this was accurate of what abortionists were doing, the real reason to use it was to make abortionists and fellow citizens who happened to be pro-life seem so other, so --well-- Satanic, that it was morally impossible not to support them. It was meant to radicalize their own side and dehumanize the other.

I'm not so worried about dehumanizing Israelis and Jews more generally. I mean, yes, that's a concern, but it's possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, and this word at least doesn't play into all those old tropes, at least not in a way I can see. I'm more worried about how it shapes the way we think about our fellow Americans. Because America isn't as overwhelmingly outraged by the Gaza crisis as Tumblr and other left-leaning social media would make you believe. A recent Pew Research poll (results published 3/21/24) found that 31% said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with Israel, and another 26% said they were equally sympathetic toward both groups. There are reasons for this, not particularly valid ones today but historically I understand why so many Americans (particularly older ones and more conservative ones) are primed to support, but for the most part those reasons are outdated, something they need to be encouraged to reconsider and move on from. Accusing them of supporting a genocide only puts them on the defense.

(The short version, based on my personal conversations with family and neighbors: they think of Israel as a democracy in a sea of dictatorships and monarchies, no longer true; Israel is our ally so it's unpatriotic to criticize them, would take more space to deconstruct but if we can't criticize our friends when they do shit like this who can; and they see Israel as a necessary safeguard where Jews can go to escape discrimination, which is vaguely racist and surely a much less humane and effective approach than addressing the anti-Semitism where said Jews actually live. As I said, not valid reasons, but reasons nonetheless I'm trying to help them grow out of through our conversations. Which means they need to feel safe enough to consider they might actually be wrong.)

The bigger concern for me, though, is what this does to the people using that language. That's why I brought up that "Satanic baby-killers" phrase. Because it ratchets up the sense that your neighbors are moral monsters. It dehumanizes them, so you don't see people who are wrong because they haven't educated themselves or even because they have some valid reason to support Israel I'm not seeing (I'm human, I'm fallible, and I always want to hear new ideas I haven't considered because I want to grow). Instead, they see someone despicable, someone who's wholly other from people like them. It dehumanizes them. And, speaking as someone who grew up in the American South in the '80s and '90s, so yes, I did live through that Satanic baby-killer mind set if not the actual language: that shit will mess you up. I'd rather my current friends not have to go through that.

On the other hand: Gaza is still a humanitarian fuck-show. And evil still needs to be opposed. I know that, and I do that. Possibly I should just get over my hang-up over that word and focus on the things that matter more in terms of RL consequences. Still, it bothers me, and -- being me -- I needed to take the time to unpack why.

#gaza #politics #marta blathers

[marta-bee]

There’s a reposted tweet making the rounds, of how a world where humans do the hard workthrough low-paid jobs while robots make art and literature wasn’t the future they imagined, and it’s getting under my skin. I really don’t think it’s meant the way I’m reading it. There’s probably a bit of tonedeafness excused by being in pain from the people sharing it, or me imposing my own thoughts on it. Probably a bit of both. Still, it’s bothering me, and better out than in I think.

See, there are quite a lot of working class people, white men in particular, who’ve found a lot of purpose and dignity in doing physically hard jobs; and suffered from the loss of that purpose and dignity when those jobs were mechanized. Manual labor like mining and lumbering trees, factory jobs, even menial jobs at big box stores.

Subjective dignity, I mean: they felt dignified by doing good honest work that required strength, or, more recently, persevering through whatever the boss-man threw at you. At being able to provide for their families, or the illusion of that as the actual wages made it harder and harder to do just that. I don’t think it’s particularly good dignity, and I wish the found that purpose in building communities and actually loving and raising their kids and supporting their friends and what-not. (Not that working-class people don’t do that, too.) I personally think any job that can be done by a robot should, so long as we find a way to share society’s resources so those not needed to do mechanizable labor can still live a good life. (And that’s the tricky bit, isn’t it?) But the fact I disagree with where they found that dignity doesn’t change the fact that they’re experiencing a loss through mechanization and automation. Loss of purpose, of power and control over their lives, of pride at accomplishing something hard and being able to make life easier for the people they love.

What I hear in things like that tweet is people saying that hard word those people took such pride and purpose from is garbage work, fit only for machines, whereas art is the proper work of humans. Which feels dismissive toward the pain of people not like them, who never assumed art could be a career, or a full-time endeavor. Mostly they were too tired to do much of it at all. It seems classist if I was going to put an -ist label on it. And that stings, because I remember being a doctoral student in a program with people who grew up with a lot more money than I had, who had this sort of confidence that sitting around and thinking about theory was their assumed and rightful place. I had to scrounge to fund my education, and most of my family and friends and neighbors were much more likely to work their asses off in factories or at Walmart than they were to be disappointed they had to work as baristas while they waited on their art or writing or music to make them enough money they didn’t have to do that anymore.

As I said, I really don’t think this kind of talk was meant this way. I feel silly even putting it into words, and I certainly don’t mean to be flippant toward folks who do create art professionally or hope to. But seeing the work a lot of people around me found purpose in as the kind of job fit only for machines? That’s hit a bit close to home.

The meaning I’m taking from the whole AI shitstorm is that people need something meaningful to work for, and ideally they need to find it in a place that’s actually worthy of giving them meaning, something authentically dignifying; and that being told, no, this thing you thought let you be worthy of respect and dignity is actually easily done by machines and people only care about the output and not what you put into it? Well, that hurts, no matter who you are. Unity and mutual support between blue-collars and creative-types, and maybe (dare we dream) finding a way to put bread on all our plates so we’re free to invest in the stuff that matters. Not making yourself feel better because really you’re better than those people who are rightly replaceable by robots, no matter what the boss tries to do.

I don’t know. Probably I’m reading too much into this attitude; or writing over it with my own insecurities that really don’t have anything to do with what’s being said. Still: it’s pressing a nerve, and that nerve’s aching quite badly, no doubt about it.

#marta blathers #ai #class politics #personal

[marta-bee]

There's a Sherlock monthly challenge where the February theme is fear, and because my brain is a persnicketty little thing and my Tolkien inner-fan has been making itself known with a vengeance, I've been thinking abot the fun of instead of writing a story about fëar as in the ...Quenyan?... word for souls.

Aristotle's quote about a single soul in two bodies may also be playing into it.

I swear, I swear, (risky business where Tolkien is concerned), I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to write it. Too mentally exhausted. But this is really how nuzgul are born.

Anyway, it does have me thinking about just the kind of Tolkien fan our Baker Street Boys would be. Leaving aside the obvious Freebatch Hobbit parallels, John strikes me as sort of a casual, cultural Tolkien fan. He probably read The Hobbit as a child, and is reading it to Rosie, too. Probably saw the Jackson movies. Maybe grew up overhearing the BBC radio dramatization playing over his grandmum's radio. He knows it the way he knows Doctor Who or James Bond. A fun adventure, vaguely aware of the high points, but not necessarily a superfan or anything.

Sherlock on the other hand was more or less oblivious to it, because it's a) pop culture, and b) not obviously his type of thing. Sentiment, fairy tales, etc. But overhearing John reading The Hobbit to Rosie could definitely be a gateway drug. He'd yell from the other room how even trolls couldn't be so oblivious as to not noticing the sun rising, or how really Elrond had a much better claim to the Gondolin blades than any of the dwarves did. John prefers not to mention the three-day long rolling argument of whether balrogs had wings. And Eru help him, at some point Sherlock would read the Silmarillion, and.... yeah. Just Eru help him. (Him being John, but also Sherlock.)

It would be a magnificent obsession.

It would be a bloody mess.

And it would be such glorious fun.

#sherlock holmes #johnlock #tolkien #marta blathers #let's blame this post on the australians #at some point sherlock would discover the swg and #well #just Someone grant all parties involved strength on that one

[marta-bee]

I’ve been thinking a lot about how all the different Elven factions would have reacted, if after Maedhros and Maglor seized the silmarils at the end of the Silmarillion, they just ... gave them to Elrond and Elros.

Do elves have a concept of adoption? If so, couldn’t the Feanorians view the twins as de facto grandsons of Feanor? As long as they’re the ones possessing them, wouldn’t that satisfy the oath?

The Sindarin have no reason to object in terms of inheritance- these are Beren’s and Luthien’s closest living descendants as far as I can work out- though I can see them not liking the fact that it also satisfied the Feanorian claim to the gems.

The other Noldor lines, the descendants of Fingolfin and Finarfin, have no real skin in the game other than historical resentment that the Feanorians should get them after all the kinslaying. So I can see them being happier it’s going to the twins, who are biologically descended from Turgon, too. Someone has to possess the jewels, and better a member of the House of Finarfin than someone like Celebrimbor, who’s more purely Feanorian. They don’t seem to have any great love of the Valar either, or shouldn’t at this point.

Maedhros and Maglor should be okay with it, too. It wouldn’t actually harm the twins. The silmarils aren’t like the Ring, they’re not corrupting influences, they’re just painful to possess if you’re already corrupted. That makes it hard for Maedhros and Maglor to hold on to them, but shouldn’t be a problem for these literal babes in the woods.

And Eonwe can hardly insist the twins surrender them to the Valar. As I recall he said Maedhros and Maglor and the rest of the Feanorians weren’t worthy of the silmarils anymore, but he never actually argued that Feanor and his descendants had no right to them in principle. So unless he wants to reopen the whole argument between Feanor and the Valar after Ungoliant’s devouring of the trees (which would be... messy), he’s in a very tight spot here if there’s any living Feanorians who aren’t literally burning their skin off when they try to hold on to the damned things.

Conclusion #1: With seven sons and centuries spent in court life, you’d think at least one of the Feanorians should have become a lawyer. It would have been quite useful.

Conclusion #2: I can’t imagine Elrond would want to hold on to them, given everything we learn about him later. Elros, though. And suddenly the Akallabeth just got a lot more interesting.

#tolkien #the silmarillion #elros #elrond #marta blathers #fellow silm-fans am i missing something here #i mean this is really not my area of expertise so i may well be missing something #but the possibilities are fascinating