#people who try to argue it's too christian or too sexist from a stance of ignorance will be blocked with extreme prejudice

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Writing Advice #?: Do NOT over-explain your sci fi nonsense.

The whole recent discussion about The Rules of Morphing got me thinking about how one of Animorphs’ great strengths is that is explains morphing juuuuust enough.  We can follow its internal logic, but it doesn’t get so detailed that we run into the nitty-gritty of all the ways humans cannot turn into dolphins.  We know that your base form “passes through a singularity... into z-space” (#45) and that the DNA of another animal “in your cells” comes to replace your base form (#49).  And that’s about all the detail we get.

I think sometimes writers think more is more when it comes to explaining your fake science, because it’s tempting to go “look at all this research I did!”  But you can have sci-fi mechanics informed by real science without ever explaining the real science.  For example, flip to the back of some editions of Jurassic Park and you get a Works Cited with dozens of scientific papers Crichton used while writing it.  HOWEVER, the actual science is introduced in-text as “bird-like blood cells contain DNA, and you can get traces of blood that mosquitoes ate, and if these are Cretaceous-era mosquitoes preserved in amber, then [mumble mumble] dinosaur clones!”  Of course, that [mumble mumble] contains like 40 different reasons you can’t get enough DNA from degraded traces of blood to make an entire genome, but there’s just enough logic in the explanation to make it feel scientific.

By contrast, Starship Troopers spends entire walls of text explaining the mechanics of the characters’ armor.  It’s mildly interesting, but it slows down the plot and doesn’t come up later.  If it’s going to be a crucial plot device that the Jurassic Park dinos have DNA transcription errors spliced with frog genes, then include that explanation.  If it’s just a cool fact you read in Stephen Hawking’s essays that will never be plot fuel, leave it in your notes.

You also risk doing more than boring your audience; you risk breaking their suspended disbelief.  For example, the Twilight series has more sci-fi-esque vampires, which mostly works most of the time.  EXCEPT in Breaking Dawn there’s a scene where Carlisle tells Jacob that he’s trying to figure out how to abort the vampire-human hybrid that’s growing inside Bella because it’s eating her from the inside out.  That’s fine — I love reproductive horror – but then Carlisle goes on to say that humans have 46 chromosomes, vampires have 50, werewolves have 48, and the monster-fetus has 48.  And the whole sci-fi reality breaks.

With a B- in high school Biology, I know that humans with 47 or 48 chromosomes exist, and that 48 chromosomes doesn’t mean “werewolf” it means “human with some congenital disabilities.”  I also know that there are diseases that can fuck with epigenetics, but that altering the chromosomal structure of every cell in a person’s body is both nonsensical and unable to produce the changes (diamond skin, venom, immortality) ascribed to the vampire pathogen.  I stop enjoying the scene, I stop suspending my disbelief in vampirism-as-pathogen, and I have a little voice screeching “but that doesn’t work!” for the rest of the book.

Ya know what would be a better explanation?  Carlisle saying “vampires are different on a cellular level from humans. Werewolves are similar to humans, but still different. I think this fetus is physiologically vampire-like, and that’s why it’s currently ripping through Bella like she’s a wet paper sack.”  How are vampires cellularly different from humans?  [mumble mumble mosquitoes in amber]  All you need to know is that they are, and that that’s why Carlisle is so scared of this thing.

Angel the Series has a similar plot: vampire-human hybrid fetus starts eating its host mother from the inside out, when it shouldn’t even exist.  And during that whole sequence the characters don’t know where the fetus came from and never figure it out.  No explanation at all is BETTER than an overly-detailed one that breaks the series’ reality.  (Not to pretend Angel is perfect, given that unlike Twilight it’s quite misogynistic in its relative prioritization of mother and fetus, but “nobody can figure out how the hybrid happened” is still great plot fuel for the rest of said hybrid’s life.)

Anyway, just like it’s nigh-impossible to write a character who is smarter than you, it’s nigh-impossible to invent an impossible wheel that doesn’t already exist.  So don’t get too into the mechanics of your sci-fi type of wheel, just say “it runs on singularities.”  Tell us just barely enough that we’ll know what it means if one of those wheels slips an axis 100 pages from now.

#writing advice #animorphs #writing #science fiction #fantasy #morphing #angel #breaking dawn #jurassic park #starship troopers #reproductive horror #body horror #YES Twilight contains discussions of medical abortions #YES Twilight is less sexist in some regards than the Buffyverse #happy to entertain informed critiques of the twilight saga #BUT #people who try to argue it's too christian or too sexist from a stance of ignorance will be blocked with extreme prejudice #read the fucking book before you criticize it #and only then will i respect your opinion

[every-angel-is-terrifyingg-blog]

Raphael

I won’t lie, I’ve wanted to put off this post.

There are a few things I need to get off my chest and a few elephants I need to address before I can really talk about my boy Raphael.

 If you’ve ever spent five minutes in the Good Omens tag, then you’ve heard of the “Crowley is Raphael” headcanon. It’s compelling to some people because the Archangel Raphael is a healer who looks out for humanity and snakes have a traditional connection to healing. Not to mention we don’t see Raphael in the show.

When I first saw this headcanon, I thought it was an interesting “what if.” However, it’s a “what if” that presents complications. Crowley doesn’t perfectly align with Raphael’s lore, which I’ll be getting into today. It also presents a bit of a paradox. There would need to be a pretty good explanation for why we humans know about Raphael and why we consider him one of the Big Four Archangels (ie Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel) if he’s fallen.

I’m not here to try and change minds. I’m here to enthuse about angels. So, if you like the Raphael headcanon, please understand that you need to find a good solution to a few roadblocks to make it work. I also hope the information I’ll provide is helpful.

If you headcanon Crowley as a different named angel, any named angel, I’m happy to talk lore and give information. Again, not here to change minds. At the end of the day, I just want more excuses to talk about angels without people assuming I’m religious. Also, I sometimes worry that the Raphael headcanon will drown out other voices/ideas and, well, that’s just not cool. The wonderful thing about fan communities is creativity and the stifling of creative expression is always something to be mourned.

My personal take? I think Crowley was a worker bee angel who very accidentally got where he is today. I also kind of like the idea that he was one of the fallen angels who taught humanity about astronomy/astrology as mentioned in the Book of Enoch, but my preference is that Crowley was essentially a nobody. It’s more satisfying to me to think that a nobody became the serpent in Eden and what not. If you disagree, that’s fine.

Okay, I’ve delayed things long enough. Let’s focus on Raphael, Archangel MD. Who is he and what is he about?

Raphael (God has healed) is one of only three angels that are named in any canonical text, the other two being Michael and Gabriel. This alone makes him the third most important angel we have.

He is first mentioned in the Book of Tobit, a text that is outside of the Hebrew canon and Christians are split on (Catholics say canon, Protestants say not canon). In the Book of Tobit, Raphael heals Tobit’s blindness and acts as a travel companion to Tobit’s son Tobias. He disguises himself as a a human, claiming to be a relative named Azarias (Yahweh helps). After a long journey and some miracles, Raphael reveals that he is one of the seven Archangels who sit by God’s throne.

After the big reveal, Tobias and Raphael reach their destination. Tobias wants to marry a woman named Sarah, but the demon Asmodeus keeps killing her husbands before they can consummate the marriage (rude). Raphael tells Tobias to smoke the demon out by burning a fish’s liver and heart. It works and the two humans can get married.   

Raphael is attributed as a doctor angel in a few other places. The Zohar states that Raphael is the one who is in charge of healing the earth and is a protector of humans. In other stories, Raphael helped Abraham heal from his circumcision, fixed Jacob’s leg after some celestial wrestling, and gave Noah a book of medicine.  

In the apocryphal Book of Enoch, Raphael is further established as an angel of healing. After the fallen angels mucked things up on earth, Raphael was tasked with fixing the planet. Along with this, Enoch names him as a Watcher and a guide to Sheol, the underworld.

Being a very important angel, Raphael is referenced to a number of times in other stories.

It’s thought that Raphael’s equivalent in Islam is Israfil, the angel who will blow the trumpet to announce the Days of Resurrection. Some believe that he tutored Muhammad before Gabriel delivered the Qur’an and that he cries three times a day over the vision of Hell. What’s fascinating is how Israfil is depicted. He’s gigantic, hairy, covered in mouths and tongues, and has four wings: one to cover his body, one to shield him from God, one that stretches east, and another that stretches west.

Here’s what I’m wondering, are the mouths separate from the tongues or does he just stick all his tongues out of all his mouths?

The Midrash Konen says that Raphael was once the angel Labbiel. Before God created humans, there was huge argument in Heaven over whether or not humanity was a good idea at all. Labbiel and a number of other angels supported God’s desire to make humans. Because God is God, He got final say. The angels who disagreed with God were burned (rude) and Labbiel got a promotion and a name change.

In Jewish mysticism, Raphael along with the other Big Four (Michael, Gabriel, and Uriel) observe all the bloodshed in the world and watch over the Four Rivers of Paradise.

In the Testament of Solomon, King Solomon needed help building the Temple, so God sent Raphael. Raphael gave him a magic ring engraved with a pentagram (the Seal of Solomon). This ring had the power to control demons and so Solomon completed the temple thanks to demonic slave labor.

Some traditions place Raphael as a guardian of the Tree of Life, which grants immortality. He also oversees evening winds and is a champion of science and knowledge.

Raphael’s angelic rank is...tricky. He’s called the chief of Virtues, second sphere angels who ensure that miracles are preformed on earth (so, in Good Omens, are these the angels who told Aziraphale he was preforming too many frivolous miracles? I like to think so. Virtues do outrank Principalities after all.).  However, he is also called a Seraph, a Cherub, a Power, and a Dominion.

I’m going to go with the rank my pal Johnny Milton gave him, which is Seraph. I also just really like Seraphim. They’re second to Thrones in my book.

Well, I invoked Milton, so now it’s time to talk about Paradise Lost.

First, Raphael is an important character in Paradise Lost because he is sent to go visit Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and tell them what’s what. Second, I’m pretty sure Adam has a crush on Raphael.

When Raphael is introduced, Milton spends a lot of time describing how beautiful Raphael’s six wings are and just how hot Raphael is in general. He’s so hot that his “glorious shape” is proof alone that he’s from Heaven and not Hell. Raphael tells Adam and Eve that he’s there to answer some of their questions. Eve decides to leave Adam and Raphael alone, presumably because Adam won’t stop making heart-eyes at the angel and it’s embarrassing.

Well, the narration says it is because Eve wants Adam to explain everything to her later, but I like my read better. It’s way less sexist and more fun.

So, Adam and Raphael sit and down to eat and this is A Big Deal. Scholars have argued for millennia on whether or not angels have physical bodies and if they operate like human ones. I’ll do a separate post on this another time, but this whole scene with Raphael is Milton making his stance known -- angels have bodies and they need to eat.

Milton also takes the opportunity to be much more woke than anyone expected. Adam gushes about how amazing sex is and asks Raphael if angels do it. After blushing, Raphael says yes.  Angel sex is the kind of sex that has no lust. It is instead a celebration of love among pure entities. Some scholars believe that Milton wrote this to argue that sex can be enjoyed without shame and sex can be beautiful.

Adam asks Raphael several more questions about Heaven and the nature of existence, which Raphael does his best to answer. One question is about the movement of the stars and Raphael teaches him some quick astronomy.

(I’ve seen several people comment that Raphael has a connection to the cosmos and this is the only piece of evidence that I can find. Did everyone get this from Paradise Lost? I’m genuinely curious.)

Regardless, Raphael being the “sociable angel” tries his best to explain God in a way that Adam can understand. None of the other angels have tried to get on Adam’s level like this, so it makes him stand out. Most importantly, Raphael tells Adam about the war in Heaven and Lucifer’s fall.

This conversation takes place in Books V-VIII. So, this lasts a while.

When Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden, God sends an angel to tell Adam how much life is going to suck from now on. You’d expect it to be Raphael, but sadly, it’s Michael. Michael is a much more distant angel, so it really drives home that Adam and Eve no longer have that same personal relationship with the divine.

Also, they can never ask their angel friend TMI questions about Heaven sex or admire his hotness ever again. And that’s why they call it Paradise Lost.

Dumb jokes aside, Raphael has very much earned Milton’s title of “sociable angel.” As both doctor and angel, he is closely tied to human affairs and has excellent bedside manner.

Could he be Crowley? That’s ultimately up to you. This Internet Person says no, but I’m just an Internet Person.

Sources for this post can be found under the “My Resources” tab. Check out the “Who Am I” tab for more info on this blog and the author.

#good omens #crowley #headcanons #raphael #archangels #paradise lost #milton #holy shit this is a long post #every angel writes #i also talk a little bit about angel sex in this one if you are so inclined

[thewebofslime]

It appears that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is having a long overdue comeuppance. Seven years ago, inspired by SPLC’s “hate map,” a gunman walked into the Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington, intending to massacre the staff and then stuff Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces. FRC is among many Christian organizations targeted by the SPLC for pro-family stances. During the 1990s, FRC helped draft the Defense of Marriage Act and defended the right of the military and the Boy Scouts to adhere to traditional morality. Over the years, FRC has produced a mountain of meta-research papers that debunk the many spurious studies fed to the media by the LGBTQ activist movement. It was more than enough to get FRC placed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map,” a profoundly defamatory instrument that inspired Floyd Lee Corkins II to try to commit mass murder that day seven years ago. The young gay activist would have succeeded and perhaps gone onto other Christian targets on his list if not for the heroics of building manager Leo Johnson, who was shot in the arm but managed to disarm Corkins and wrestle him to the ground. Corkins pleaded guilty to three felonies, including an act of terrorism, and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He told the FBI that the SPLC’s “hate map” led him to FRC’s door. TOP ARTICLES 2/5 READ MORE 3 U.S. service members, 1 contractor killed in Afghanistan IED attack The SPLC is now ensnared in a scandal that has cost the group its leadership and, it is hoped, its misplaced credibility with law enforcement agencies and corporations. In March, two groups of employees wrote letters to SPLC leadership, warning them that “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racism threaten the moral authority of this organization and our integrity along with it,” and that the SPLC leaders were complicit “in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.” Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, has written to the Internal Revenue Service asking for an investigation into the tax-exempt status of the SPLC, which he described as a “racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation.” The senator’s action came on the heels of the firing of SPLC co-founder Morris Dees for misconduct and the resignation of Richard Cohen, who had been SPLC’s president since 2003. The Montgomery, Alabama-based SPLC, which earned a national reputation in the 1970s for taking on the Ku Klux Klan, had been the gold standard for determining what constitutes a “hate group.” From the U.S. Justice Department on down, the SPLC’s “hate” listings were widely used to identify violent extremists. Housed in what’s nicknamed the “poverty palace,” the SPLC has an endowment exceeding $500 million, including $120 million in offshore accounts. After defeating the Klan, the group needed new enemies on which to raise millions of dollars via direct mail. To the delight of LGBTQ activists, the SPLC began placing Christian conservative groups alongside skinheads, Nazis and the Klan in its materials and on the “hate map.” Soon, companies like Amazon began removing Christian groups like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) from their charitable programs such as AmazonSmile. The charity index GuideStar USA affixed “hate” labels to ADF, Liberty Counsel, D. James Kennedy Ministries and other Christian groups, costing them support. In an April 4 Wall Street Journal article, “We Were Smeared by the SPLC,” ADF Senior Vice President Kristen Waggoner relates how the “hate” designation is anything but harmless. She saw “the word ‘HATE’ plastered in red letters on a photo of my face” on a Google image-search. “Days after I argued the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in front the U.S. Supreme Court, I found the window of my car shot out in my church parking lot after a Sunday service.” As the SPLC wallows in its own bile, it would be natural to take pleasure from their troubles, especially given the ruthless way they’ve treated their victims. As David wrote in Psalm 57:6: “They have prepared a net for my steps they have dug a pit before me; Into the midst of it they themselves have fallen.” It’s not wrong to appreciate when a bully gets smacked and justice prevails. However, Psalm 24:17-18 also warns against schadenfreude: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the LORD see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.” While still insisting on justice, we might learn from Leo Johnson, who has metal rods in his shattered arm. At Floyd Lee Corkins’ sentencing, Leo recalled that after disarming Corkins, he refrained from shooting him because, he said, God spoke to him, telling him not to. “I forgive you but I do not forget,” he told Corkins. “If you believe in God you should pray to Him every day because not only did God save my life that day — He saved yours, too.” The media and corporate America should refrain from using the SPLC as a source until it cleans up its hateful act and stops smearing people.

#TheWebOfSlime

[anglosaxon4anindependentque-blog]

Canada is anti-feminist: How Canada drowns Quebec in its religious toleration of sexism.

If there is one thing I have grown tired of hearing is how people think it is ok to lecture women on what they can and cannot wear. We render women into mere objects, and inferiorize them as if they had certain norms to conform to. Lecturing women on what they can and cannot wear shows exactly what we think we have evolved from: a system of stringent patriarchy. Yet when we still have people debating senselessly on what a woman can and cannot wear, it just justifies the objectification of women and their inferior status as individuals. This post is going to focus specifically on lecturing islamic women who choose to cover up, whether from head to toe, in religious garb. 

There is however a fundamental difference between lecturing women on what they can and cannot wear, and on battling something that is so deeply rooted in sexism it is frightening. It is a fine line that we need to divide, and not instantly become cut-throat when individuals begin to lecture these women on the “inappropriateness” of their chosen outfit. Ultimately, the reasoning on being cut-throat with individuals who lecture a woman on her religious garb is that they are lecturing her on what her choice of outfit should be. Undoubtedly in many cases, yes it is her who has chosen to don religious wear and she is entitled to that choice. However, is it really her choice to partake in a religion that is so unrelentlessly sexist and biased against her, or is it ignorance to the ingrained sexism of Islam? Is it not ignorance to the patriarchal interpretations of the Quran that have rendered these women into mere objects and beings that need to protect themselves from the excesses of men? Is it not a religion that excuses the excesses of men in which if you don’t properly guard yourself from these “savage and uncontrollable beasts” you will be sexually assaulted? 

I believe the answer is flat out there. If you deem it sexist to lecture a woman on what she can and cannot wear, don’t you believe it is sexist that a book called the Quran is lecturing woman on what they can and cannot wear? Donning religious garb rooted in unacceptable sexism is unquestionably ignorance, and a comfort of following ignorance. So when we berate these women and demand them to “free” themselves, are we being ignorant, xenophobic, racist sexists or are we actually combatting a form of unacceptable sexism? In Quebec society, at least, from our own historical sexism that grappled the province since its inception up to the overthrow of religion and its extreme sexism, is a newfound intuition. It is unacceptable to a Quebecer, who post-quiet revolution indisputably believes in the fundamental equality between men and women, to accept such stark sexism roam freely and ignorantly.

Canada particularly enjoys berating Quebec for this stance, as they often have a perverse notion of what sexism is, and the boundaries we give ourselves to combat it. Canada tends to combat sexism amongst white Canadians, but when it comes to sexism in other ethnocultural groups, it excuses their sexism as their “way of being”. Canada views non-white ethnocultural groups as others, and individuals to which you have no right to judge and put in line because this would be against the principle of “strength in diversity”. Yet this toleration, and cut-throat attitude towards challenging sexism in ethnocultural communities, particularly islamic ones, ultimately, is fundamentally and morally wrong. Canada ultimately is labeling them as inferior and unworthy of being free’d from sexism, as their “way of being” is paramount to combatting sexism. Canada is so enshrined in their belief of seeing them as other, untouchable, that it defends them and ultimately defends sexism at its very core. Canada plays a double-edged sword, defending something they believe is outright unacceptable amongst the white, non-religious ethnocultural groups, but do not dare combat sexism within non-white, religious ethnocultural groups. So the question becomes, is Canada the feminist it touts itself or is selectively sexist, and trying in vain to impose selective sexism on Quebec? I truly believe that if you do not go up in arms and battle sexist ignorance you are ultimately a sexist. Canada is a cowardly selective sexist.

It is so shocking to see how sexist Canada is too. Especially when it refuses to accept the fact that religion, specifically abrahamic religions, tend to render people into things. These religions render people into objects that have no purpose other than to serve not only god, but the male sex. Women in these religions are rendered into meaningless, identity-less things that are enslaved to the patriarchy of a man. 

In particular of Islam, though there is a very small movement of women who are interpreting the Quran in the benefit of improving the status of women in Islamic societies, it still remains that phrases in the religious texts themselves equate women to worthlessness. For example in islam, a male deserves as much as two females in inheritance. Men are also excused to pretty much do whatever they want to their wives because “your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will”. Men are also permitted to enslave women and keep them as sexual objects (those they’ve captured through raids*). They can take up multiple wives, they are to expect 72 houri (particularly beautiful, obedient women) in heaven to pleasure themselves with, and many other sexist horrors. Ultimately, a woman in Islam is an object that must survive around the excesses of men. It cannot be argued that women are worth the same as men in Islam. They are not. Judaism and Christianity are also not exempt as they are equally as sexist.   Ultimately, covering up, though it may be your religious right and conscious choice, is ignorance and sexism at its finest. It is the unquestioned belief that men are superior, and that due to their superiority you must guard yourself from them as they are the authority and are allowed to do whatever they want to you. Because you are so insignificant, you must take the extra precaution of guarding yourself. You are but a thing, without identity, and a subject to men. When your religion dictates what you should wear, it is already sexism.  

The point is: Quebec does these women a favour by lecturing them on their religious dress. Though a lot of it is pure xenophobia and racism, it also stems from an unquestioned belief that women deserve equal status to men. Though xenophobic, it is an xenophobia of seeing women enslaved and enshrined to barbaric sexism that has rendered them into things: Things that Quebecois women once were for the longest time due to their enslavement by the Catholic Church. It is an xenophobia of the possibility, however delusional, that women will be rendered into objects again and not free, equal beings. Religious wear, specifically female religious wear, is an attack on the fundamental notions of basic feminism and stirs relentless fear in secular Quebec which is relatively and indisputably feminist. 

Don’t get me wrong - you should be allowed to wear whatever you want. If you want to cover up from head to toe, even with a full face veil, go right ahead. To berate you for your outfit is the epitome of sexism, objectification, and belongs in decades past. Though when your outfit is rooted in religious and cultural sexism, then it is unacceptable. Quebecers largely believe in the full equality between men and women, so unlike Canada they are incapable of being selectively sexist by ignoring certain sexism like Canada effortlessly does. Quebec is not a sexist coward and due to that, you cannot convince Quebec to  respect religion for what it is: flat out sexist. Quebec should continue to never accept religious sexism no matter how “miserable” and “alienated” they make a practicing individual feel. Quebec needs to continue being relentlessly feminist, and hellbent on it too, because if they don’t, then it will become Canada: anti-feminist, a cowardly sexist afraid of the repercussions of battling sexism in a delusional and overly sensitive society. 

#Islam #sexism #quebecindependence #quebecois #montreal #anglosaxon #angry #niqab #muslim