so for context me and my ex started dating in january 2023. it was a really good and healthy long distance relationship (NY to FL) and i took many trips to see her and i even went on vacation with her family. we ended in october 2023 in a pretty bad way, but we’ve decided to stay friends. i’ll be honest i never really lost feelings for her, just kind of forgot about them. we started to get close as of recently like facetiming and snapping and stuff but two days ago she got back together w this guy that had ghosted her in april. she still texts me all the time and still wants to facetime me all the time, like for example, she told me that she wants to call today but her bf is coming over so she will call me once he leaves. i have a feeling she still finds me attractive because i catch her staring at me on facetime and also when i send her a snap i look good in she responds with a “🫢” face (not the emoji). anyways we talked yesterday and i asked her if the guy knows about our friendship, she said no. for context he’s a co worker of hers and he knew that we were together for 8 months so if he sees my name in her phone he will know who i am. i told her that if he finds out we’re talking even if it’s completely platonic he will probably break up with her as it is always a red flag if you are still friends with exes if your in a relationship. she said and i quote “im not gonna tell him and if he finds out im just gonna say it’s a different (my name).” i told her that it makes me feel weird and she said “listen it’s not a big deal stop worrying about it.” more context, before i knew about her and this kid, while they were still talking she texted me stuff saying “if you lived here in FL things would be different” (aka if i lived there we’d still be tg) and she also wrote a poem on her spam insta that she stated i was the good path for her yet she always takes the bad paths etc etc (she sent me a screenshot of it and said “you are the good path that i wrote about”) this was all while they were first talking. i know she actually likes this kid because of the way she talks about him but i also don’t know if she still likes me.

Welcome to Reading The Big Book of Cyberpunk!
Each week we (u/FarragutCircle and u/fanny_bertram) will be reading 5-ish stories from Jared Shurin’s The Big Book of Cyberpunk, which includes a curated selection of cyberpunk stories written from 1950 to 2022! We’ll include synopses of the stories along with links to any legally available online versions we can find. Feel free to read along with us or just stop by and hear our thoughts about some cyberpunk stories to decide if any of them sound interesting to you.
Every once in a while, we reach out to people who have more insight, due to being fans of the author or have some additional context for the story. (Or we just tricked them into it.) So please welcome u/RuinEleint who will be sharing their thoughts on "The Yuletide Cyberpunk Yarn, or Christmas_Eve-117.DIR" by Victor Pelevin!
“Deep Eddy” by Bruce Sterling (published 1993; also available in his collection Ascendancies: The Best of Bruce Sterling)
Deep Eddy is acting as a data courier to the Cultural Critic in Düsseldorf, right as the city goes through a Wende (a sort of anarchist “Purge”).

• Farragut’s thoughts: We’ve read Sterling before in Science Fiction. Eddy is a misguided libertarian creep who won’t stop hitting on his German bodyguard and is too dumb to understand the philosophical points that the Cultural Critic is making (for that matter, I’m too dumb to understand, too). He survives his time in Germany, but has learned nothing of value for his punk attitude. What’s the point of rebelling if you don’t understand why? The naivete and creepiness were a little too much for me.
  
• fanny’s thoughts: This did not work for me. Eddy is creepy and annoying. He keeps hitting on the bodyguard and she makes it VERY clear she is only there in a professional context. Eddy also seems to generally not have any clue what he is doing. He is libertarian and against something but no one seems to know what. He doesn't even seem to know what he delivered to the Cultural Critic.
  

“The Yuletide Cyberpunk Yarn, or Christmas_Eve-117.DIR” by Victor Pelevin (1996, translated from Russian by Alex Shvartsman)
A corrupt mayor’s computer is infected by a virus that causes chaos in Russia.

• Special Guest Ruin: This was a fascinating story to read. The way the narrative segued from a discussion on poetry to a darkly comedic look at a Russian city was remarkable. The author seems to like to start or lead with a theme or themes which seem to be only tangentially related to each other such as for example the name of the computer virus, or Gerasimov and his dog. But both elements circle back into the story and are crucial to its structure. As for the content of the story itself, I amused myself by imagining the events as being a movie that blended the stylistic elements of Tarantino and Wes Anderson. So we have brutal, bloody violence in increasingly absurd settings and the way it is all described makes it easy to imagine it all taking place amidst the highly stylized sets and characters we would expect in a Wes Anderson movie. Overall, I really enjoyed this story.
  
• Farragut: We’ve read Pelevin before in Modern Fantasy. First of all, this is a fantastic title for a story, period. Second of all, I just enjoyed Pelevin’s style here (via Shvartsman’s translation), with an omniscient narrator telling us about a completely ridiculous situation. It gets a little cagey with the identity of the perpetrator and the ending, but I’m very curious as to how darkly I should read it (now that I think about it, it’s directly connected to the original, so I should read it very darkly indeed). Shvartsman’s occasional footnotes were very helpful, however, especially with the context surrounding Gerasim(ov) and Mumu.
  
• fanny: Ruin's review is so good, I am not sure what to add. The style of this story fit the elements so well. It starts with a poem whose themes carry through the story. The footnotes were a really great addition and helped contextualize. The narrator keeps upping the ridiculousness until we get to the end and everything gets wrapped up.
  

“Wonderama” by Bef (1998, translated from Spanish by the author)
Lalo (or is it Eduardo?) wakes up every day in the most awesome life in 1974, but it’s revealed to be a lie and ends tragically.

• Farragut: Bef is a Mexican SF writer, a crime writer, and a graphic novelist, and honestly his whole bibliography sounds cool as heck. Told in a series of diary entries with some small interruptions, we follow a kid whose life is like a Mexican kid’s sugar-fueled dream. The reason for its inclusion in this thematic section of the anthology becomes clear however, and I yelled, “Noooo!” at the ending. Sigh. It’s very good!
  
• fanny: I am a sucker for diary entry style stories and this was no exception. Lalo’s life seems almost perfect, but it feels so off. The story feels progressively more off until we start to question everything. Also, yelled “Nooo!” at the ending. Very good. Absolutely loved.
  

“comp.basilisk FAQ” by David Langford (1999) (link to story)
A FAQ-style story that clearly describes a bizarre future where images on the web and TV are banned due to the risk of death.

• Farragut: Langford is famous for having the most Hugo wins (29), mostly for the Fan Writer category, but also Short Story (not this one) and Best Related Work (not this one either). This is a delightful story that made me think of it as a precursor to qntm’s later story “Lena” from Week 5 (though obviously only in general form). Apparently I love the faux-nonfiction style where some of the horror and plot is between the lines. The final FAQ about Microsoft was darkly funny.
  
• fanny: This was fun and very short. The FAQs related to basilisk and writing were great. It goes between funny, dark humor, and just dark. I liked the commentary on technology and software. I also really appreciate the standard response answers explaining they should post someone else. This is something I deal with often and this was great.
  

“Spider's Nest” by Myra Çakan (2004, translated from German by Jim Young; also available in the anthology The Apex Book of World SF 3 edited by Lavie Tidhar)
Spider, uh, does something? Is looking for drugs, maybe? But something else happens instead?

• Farragut: Çakan is a German writer from Hamburg, and after reading this story, I’d say Shurin made hamburger out of me, too. The main thing I got out of this story was that Spider really wanted something, maybe. I thought it was drugs, but he got angry at his dealer and then got super weird with his friend’s girlfriend? And then there was a Silver Spider, who wasn’t him, but maybe he plugged himself in to replace her? What is happening?
  
• fanny: Spider definitely wanted drugs from his dealer, Ant. I think. Ant got annoyed at something then Spider got into a voyeur situation (maybe). There is a Silver Spider in his dreams that makes him feel better. I couldn't tell if this was dream or drug induced or technology induced. The end is super weird and makes even less sense than the story. Spider might have done a murder on himself? I have been confused before in this anthology, but not to this level.
  

That’s it for this week! Check back the same time next week where we’ll be reading and discussing "The Last American" by John Kessel, "Earth Hour" by Ken MacLeod, "Violation of the TrueNet Security Act" by Taiyo Fujii, "Twelve Minutes to Vinh Quang" by T. R. Napper, and "Operation Daniel" by Khalid Kaki.
Also posted on Bochord Online.

Week 3: Limericks and the Art of Humor
Day 1: Decoding Limericks - Activity: Analyze classic limericks for rhythm and humor. - Lecture: Discuss the AABBA rhyme scheme and distinctive rhythm. - Discussion: Share favorite humorous poems and discuss elements that make them funny.
Day 2: Crafting Limericks with Wit - Activity: Write limericks individually, focusing on humor and rhythm. - Lecture: Explore the balance of humor and structure in limericks. - Discussion: Share and discuss individual limericks, highlighting successful elements.
Day 3: Understanding Free Verse - Activity: Analyze free verse poems for structure and expression. - Lecture: Introduce the concept of free verse and its flexibility. - Discussion: Discuss the liberation and challenges of writing without a strict structure.
Day 4: Writing Exercise - Expressing Emotions in Free Verse - Activity: Explore emotions and write a free verse poem. - Assignment: Craft a free verse poem exploring a personal experience or emotion. - Vocabulary Words: Enjambment, Cadence, Anapest.
Day 5: Peer Review and Feedback - Activity: Peer review workshop for free verse poems. - Lecture: Discuss the artistic freedom and impact of free verse. - Discussion: Share insights gained from reviewing peers' free verse poems.
Study Guide Questions for Week 3: 1. What defines a limerick, and how does its rhythm contribute to its humor? 2. Discuss the importance of the AABBA rhyme scheme in limericks. 3. How does free verse differ from structured forms of poetry? 4. Explore the challenges and benefits of writing without a strict form in free verse. 5. Reflect on the emotions and experiences expressed in your free verse poem.
Quiz: Assessment on limericks, the AABBA rhyme scheme, and the principles of free verse.
Week 4: Free Verse and Acrostic Poetry
Day 1: Embracing Free Verse - Activity: Analyze diverse free verse poems for individual expression. - Lecture: Discuss famous free verse poets and their impact on the genre. - Discussion: Share personal reactions to the artistic freedom of free verse.
Day 2: Crafting Emotion in Free Verse - Activity: Write a free verse poem expressing a specific emotion. - Lecture: Explore the role of emotions in free verse and the use of vivid imagery. - Discussion: Share and discuss individual poems, highlighting emotional impact.
Day 3: Understanding Acrostic Poetry - Activity: Analyze acrostic poems for clever wordplay. - Lecture: Explain the concept of acrostic poetry and its various forms. - Discussion: Share examples of creative acrostic poems.
Day 4: Writing Exercise - Personal Acrostic - Activity: Craft an acrostic poem using your name or a chosen word. - Assignment: Write an acrostic poem exploring a theme or concept. - Vocabulary Words: Strophe, Stanza, Consonance.
Day 5: Peer Review and Feedback - Activity: Peer review workshop for acrostic poems. - Lecture: Discuss the playfulness and creativity of acrostic poetry. - Discussion: Share insights gained from reviewing peers' acrostic poems.
Study Guide Questions for Week 4: 1. Explore the role of emotions in free verse poetry. How does it differ from structured forms? 2. Discuss the impact of vivid imagery in free verse. How does it contribute to the overall message? 3. What defines acrostic poetry, and how is it different from other forms? 4. How can clever wordplay enhance the impact of an acrostic poem? 5. Reflect on the creative process and thematic exploration in your acrostic poem.
Quiz: Assessment on understanding free verse, emotional expression in poetry, and the principles of acrostic poetry.

1. Parallelismus Membrorum:

- *Definition:* A rhetorical device where phrases or sentences are structured in parallel form. - *Example:* Create a poem using parallelismus membrorum to emphasize a profound truth or observation. 

1. Rubaiyat:

- *Definition:* A form of Persian poetry with quatrains and a specific rhyme scheme. - *Example:* Write a rubaiyat exploring the themes of love, mortality, or philosophical reflections. 

1. Blues Poem:

- *Definition:* Poetry inspired by the musical and emotional elements of blues music. - *Example:* Craft a blues poem expressing the struggles and resilience of everyday life. 

1. Erasure Poetry:

- *Definition:* Creating poetry by erasing or blacking out existing text, leaving only selected words visible. - *Example:* Create an erasure poem using a page from a newspaper or a novel, transforming it into a new narrative. 

1. Anaphora:

- *Definition:* A rhetorical device involving the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses. - *Example:* Write a poem using anaphora to convey a sense of urgency or reflection. 

1. Tetractys:

- *Definition:* A five-line poem with a specific syllable count (1, 2, 3, 4, 10). - *Example:* Craft a tetractys exploring the stages of personal growth or a transformative experience. 

1. Sijo:

- *Definition:* A traditional Korean poetic form with three lines, each with fourteen to sixteen syllables. - *Example:* Write a sijo capturing a moment of beauty or introspection. 

1. Blitz Poem:

- *Definition:* A form of poetry with a rapid, stream-of-consciousness style and repetition. - *Example:* Create a blitz poem exploring the chaos and beauty of urban life. 

1. Epitaph:

- *Definition:* A short inscription on a tombstone or a commemorative poem for the deceased. - *Example:* Write an epitaph honoring a fictional or historical figure with a poignant message. 

1. Prothalamion:

- *Definition:* A poem celebrating a forthcoming marriage or wedding. - *Example:* Craft a prothalamion capturing the anticipation and joy surrounding a wedding day. 

I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

The Scriptures seem to imply that the kingdom of God isn't exactly synonymous with what is called "the Church." The Church was a temporary eschatological community of believers that existed on earth in preparation of a kingdom where God Himself would reign, and said community had Christ reign over them in the meantime. The head of the Church was Christ, with the Father serving as his head (1 Cor. 11:3). The Scriptures teach that, when all Christ's enemies were to be made his footstool, he was to give back all authority to the Father (Psa. 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:22-28), and it is this page's belief that this happened in 70 AD.
The following quotation is from the above hyperlink:

As for the "1000 years" mentioned in Revelation, they are apocalyptic metaphor for the 40 years Christ "reigned" (triumphed) over his enemies both human and spirit, with the final triumph being the judgement of apostate Jerusalem. The "1000 years" began with his ascension, and ended with this judgement.

Thus, the community to replace the Church on earth was to be the kingdom of God. But, what even is the kingdom of God, and why did God have to reclaim authority of His own creation in the first place?
To be as succinct as possible: man sinned, and so the great level of authority God initially granted us ourselves over the creation was stripped. As a result, the human condition has suffered and it must be redeemed for God to allow us to reign with Him in the way that He originally intended for us. God has always been sovereign, of course, but He seeks the good of man to make us stewards over His world with Him, as that was His original plan and this was His original view of what a kingdom of His truly looks like: a kingdom characterized by man's love for Him and love for others.
A Biblical understanding of Adam's sin, contrary to popular thought, isn't that we are guilty of what he did personally. We simply inherit his fallen nature and a fallen world as a result of his sin, the same way a baby could leave the womb already addicted to certain substances because the mother abused said substances while pregnant. It's not the baby's fault for its condition, it was the parent's. But the baby is born with this condition and enters the world like this nonetheless.
The implication of this is that we are all only guilty of our own sins, and whether or not we ever seek to treat (or possibly cure) our condition in the first place is on us. We were dealt a bad hand due to Adam, sure, but God doesn't hold us responsible for what our forefather did. God only holds us responsible for what we do, and whether or not we seek to be liberated from the dark forces which keep us in bondage to our sinful condition (Gen. 4:6-7, Deut. 24:16, Jer. 31:30, Ezek. 18, Matt. 9:9-13).
The whole Old Testament is essentially a record of God's people constantly breaking their covenant(s) with Him. There are individuals mentioned throughout that were, of course, commended by God and the Biblical authors for their righteousness in honestly pursuing to remain faithful to their covenant with Him. But even the best of these people often faltered and, in fact, did rather heinous things in their lives at one point or another. One of the greatest examples of this is king David, who was literally called by the Scriptures "a man after God's own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14, Acts 13:22). Yet, this same man at one point committed adultery and then murdered the man he stole the wife of to try and cover it up. This was a heinous thing, and David repented of what he did with genuine sorrow and guilt toward God. God ultimately forgave him, but not without a heavy hand of chastisement and earthly consequences for his actions.
All throughout the Old Testament, you see various men of God who were deemed righteous, but these same men were usually shown to have some major flaw that prevented them from living a life that could be characterized as consistent obedience to the commandments to love God and love others as themselves. There is something deeply wrong with man's heart, according to the Bible. Something so wrong, in fact, that a whole prophecy had to be given that promised to address the issue of man's seeming incapability to accomplish fulfilling the commandment to love consistently on their own without some sort of divine help from above:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."-Ezekiel 36:26

Naturalistic philosophies see the physical world as all that exists. Humans beings are the result of mindless, chance causes and processes. Humans are essentially animals – highly evolved, but no different in significance than any other living thing. Thus naturalistic views demote humans. But this view leaves a lot unexplained. Why do humans practice altruism, benevolence, or acts of heroism? And what explains acts of incredible evil? Sure, naturalistic arguments have been made that true altruism doesn't exist, and that "unconditional love" is really just an illusion that's been disguised very well by our survival instincts that we've developed over a long period of time at certain stages of our evolutionary process. However, many people have found such arguments to be unpersuasive and naive when compared to their actual experience of the world as they mature in their lives and have what they know to be truly meaningful experiences that can't simply be reduced in the way that the naturalist wishes them to be. This realization was ultimately why I transitioned from hard atheism to agnostic spiritualism at one point or another.
On the other extreme of these things, transcendental worldviews and philosophies say that the physical world is illusory. Only the spiritual world is ultimately real. Humans are an expression of the divine spirit that is the essence of all things. If naturalistic views demote humans to the level of animals, transcendental views promote human beings. God is not “out there” somewhere; we are God. God is all, thus God is us. But this view doesn’t explain real evil. Why are people selfish? Why do they hurt others? What accounts for personal acts of evil like rape or terrorism? If we are all truly "God," then why would we ever do such things to what is ultimately "ourself"? And why can't a person who practices the belief that we are all actually "God" be only loving? There are so many people who adopt this view of reality who are constantly, day by day, finding that they struggle to be as truly loving as they wish to be because they will still sometimes find themselves thinking and doing rather evil and selfish things. I can speak from experience here, remembering throwing myself into the New Age movement when I was desperately seeking what I did not know at the time was forgiveness for and redemption from my sins because of who I was as a person up until that point. I was seeking the mythic "ego death" that promised me that I could truly be loving and find the forgiveness and redemption I was searching for, because I thought that if only I truly realized I was "God" all along, I could then accomplish these things all at once and simultaneously. I eventually found even this philosophy unsatisfactory when I came to the aforementioned conclusions concerning our great capacity for evil, and also realized that forgiveness can only exist if there are two parties: forgiver and forgivee. Such a thing is impossible if there is only really one being at play at the bottom of reality, and I knew deep down that forgiving oneself (at least, on its own) will never satisfy one's pursuit for redemption that we all inherently take part in whenever pursuing to mend even our own relationships with each other as humans. Further, love would be an illusion in this philosophy too, being that there is only really one party behind and in all of existence if "everything is God." Such an idea would make true altruism a farce, as well. There would be no such thing as real sacrifice for another, because there is no "another."
The French mathematician and Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal said, “Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach both.” Any philosophy that cannot fully account for human greatness and human depravity at the same time should be abandoned because it misses something obvious about the human condition. The religion of the Bible has a valid explanation for human greatness: people are made in God’s image. Thus we have dignity, value, and capacity for good. The Bible also explains human evil: the image of God has been defaced by sin. Our great capacity gets used for the wrong purposes. Our creativity is placed in the service of evil and our best intentions twisted for selfish gain. Something has gone terribly wrong. While other worldviews unduly demote or promote humanity, the Bible gets the tension just right.
Thus, human nature is puzzling and conflicting. Other worldviews—both secular and religious—struggle to account for this enigma, and don't offer satisfying solutions to the problem itself. The Bible, however, explains what happened when it tells us that man rebelled against God in the paradise that was prepared for him called "the Garden of Eden." We fell into temptation and estranged ourselves from God by tarnishing the image we were created in, and now are born with a natural proclivity to do evil, despite our best efforts to do good (that is, to do good consistently).
And so, the Bible promised a solution in the prophet Ezekiel that God will literally change our natural human condition, if we simply choose to humble ourselves before Him in faith to allow for such a change. While as unbelievers our inner disposition towards God is often rebellious, we at least still have the capacity to choose to do the righteous thing in seeking God that He may change us and forgive us if we so let Him. This is one reason why Jesus, (the one who made the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy even possible by his coming, sacrifice, ressurection, and outpouring of the Spirit upon his ascension), said that only faith the size of a mustard seed was required for something so miraculous as moving a mountian to happen, because so little is required from us to allow God to change us into the kind of person He's always wanted us to be, and yet changing the condition of our own heart can be compared to literally moving a mountain if we were to try and do so on our own strength alone. The mustard seed was the smallest of seeds, and yet if one simply planted it and nurtured it, it could become a bush so large that it was comparable to a tree with branches that stretched to the heavens for the very birds of the air to rest on.
It was when I came to these realizations that I prayed to God for the first time again, having been years since I did so, going so far back as to when I was a little child even. I prayed in the dead of night in my room, and asked God to show me the truth and to reveal Himself to me if indeed these things were true, and in an instant I felt His very presence in my room, and my heart was changed. To describe such an experience would be like trying to describe the taste of something to the man born without tastebuds, the color of something to the man born blind, or the sound of something to the man born deaf; there are no words, and it is only something you can know by experiencing it for yourself. Suddenly and all at once, I knew right then and there that Jesus really was who he said he was, that the one true God is the God of the Bible, and that I have been forgiven. As the time of this post, it's been 5 years since then, I'm 23 now, and I'm still walking with God.
My prayer for anyone reading this that may not know God for themselves yet is that one day, you will too.
Back to the topic at hand.
When Adam sinned, we fell under the tyranny of death, corruption, evil heavenly powers, and sin itself. When Jesus came, Jesus was the new and exalted human, the new Adam, through whom humanity could now realize their original destiny that was laid out for them in the Garden of Eden. Because Jesus, being a man, obeyed unto death, he has defeated the powers which held us so long under bondage; we are now promised liberation so long as we simply place our faith in his sacrifice to wash us of our sins and receive the Spirit of God that is also promised to all who exercise this faith.
We often think of ‘the gospel’ as the part that brings the forgiveness of sins (and of course, that is part of the idea), but ‘gospel’ is the announcement that everything has changed in the coming of Jesus and it leads us to a new kind of living.
The gospel Jesus preached and the gospel the apostle Paul preached were different, in that Jesus preached of a kingdom where God reigns directly and with all His faithful subjects as participants in that reign. The gospel Paul preached was about the exaltation and reign of Christ, and because Christ reigned, the consummation of the kingdom of God with earth could now finally take place (Col. 1:12-13). This consummation was put on hold during Christ's "millennial" reign, which transpired between his ascension and his return. However, the consummation has come to full fruition since that return.
We will be arguing for some of these claims by pointing out how central the kingdom of God actually was to Jesus' earthly ministry and message, and demonstrate what Jesus taught about how it actually looks like.
The term 'kingdom' appears 53 times in 42 places in Matthew, 17 times in 13 places in Mark, and 41 times in 29 places in Luke. When the 'kingdom' is qualified, Luke always refers to the 'kingdom of God' (32 times) and Mark follows this pattern (14 times). Matthew, on the other hand, prefers the term "kingdom of heaven" (31 times), using the phrase to refer to the same idea "kingdom of God" only four times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43.
The Gospel of Luke records an event where Jesus responds to the population that lived near Simon Peter's house who believed in him after he had done his miraculous work there, but saw that he was leaving them:

"And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them. And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore [i.e., for this pupose] am I sent." (vss. 42-43)

The Greek word euangelion is often translated as the word “gospel.” In the Bible, this word is always used whenever it concerns the announcement of the reign of a new king. And in the New Testament, the Gospels themselves use this word or the phrase "good news" to summarize all of Jesus’ teachings. They say he went about “preaching the gospel [good news] of the kingdom [of God]” (Matt. 4:23).
There’s this beautiful poem in the Old Testament, and it’s in chapter 52 of the Book of Isaiah. The city of Jerusalem had just been destroyed by Babylon, a great kingdom in the North. Many of the inhabitants of the city have been sent away into exile, but a few remained in the city, and they’re left wondering, "What happened? Has our God abandoned us?" This was because Jerusalem was supposed to be the city where God would reign over the world to bring peace and blessing to everyone.
Now, Isaiah had been saying that Jerusalem’s destruction was a mess of Israel’s own making. They had turned away from their God, become corrupt, and so their city and their temple were destroyed. Everything seemed lost. But the poem goes on. There is a watchman on the city walls, and far out on the hills we see a messenger. He’s running towards the city. He’s running and he’s shouting, “Good news!” And Isaiah says, “How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings [news]” (vs. 7a). The feet are beautiful because they’re carrying a beautiful message. And what’s the message? That despite Jerusalem’s destruction, Israel’s God still reigns as king, and that God's presence is going to one day return with His city, take up His throne, and bring peace. And the watchmen sing for joy because of the good news that their God still reigns (vs. 10).
Jesus saw himself as the messenger bringing the news that God reigns. Jesus also claimed to be the Son of man. This was Jesus' favorite self-designation, being used some 80 times in the Gospels. Notice, not just a son of man, but the Son of Man. Jesus was directing our attention to a vision described by the prophet Daniel:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:"-Daniel 7:13-14a

At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus: "Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed [God]?" His answer left no room for doubt. "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62). Because Jesus' was rejected and killed for threatening the power the religious authorities had over the people, the consummation of God's kingdom with earth had been put on hold until all of Christ's enemies would be put under his feet after his ressurection and ascension.
But again, what is the kingdom of God? What does it look like exactly?
Well, the way that Jesus described God’s reign surprised everybody. I mean, think about it. A powerful, successful kingdom needs to be strong, able to impose its will, and able to defeat its enemies in physical combat. But Jesus said the greatest person in God’s kingdom was the weakest, the one who loves and who serves the poor (Matt. 23:11-12). He said you live under God’s reign when you respond to evil by loving your enemies, and forgiving them, and seeking peace (Matt. 5). To us, this is an upside-down kingdom. But to God, it's right-side up. This was what God had originally planned for us: a kingdom where God reigns in our hearts.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."-John 3:3

Jesus was being quite literal here. You can’t see the kingdom until you’re born again and have the life of that kingdom. When you’re born again, you start 'seeing' differently. You see what others don’t see, you hear what others don’t hear, you know what others don’t know. And yet you may be physically in the same earthly location as they.
The kingdom of God is the totality of God’s influence that covers the world and heaven. It’s everywhere, but its manifestation isn’t everywhere. It manifests on earth wherever there are those who are born again and live as if God reigns in their hearts.
Before Jesus, John the Baptist announced to all people, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2), as he saw a soon coming kingdom of God that would be ushered in by the Messiah. Notice that John the Baptist didn’t say that something “like” the kingdom would come and he didn’t say that the real kingdom might be thousands of years away. He said over and over that THE kingdom was at hand! Do you believe him? Did God inspire him to give a clear and accurate message or a mistaken one? If we dare to believe him, things might become surprisingly clear, simple and exceedingly optimistic.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."-Matthew 6:10

Jesus taught his followers of his generation to pray that God's kingdom come and that His will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Why pray for something that will just inevitably come by force, unless it was actually through our willing participation? That is, unless God's will is carried out through us "in earth, as it is in heaven"?

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."-Mark 1:14-15

It's very telling that these are the very first words the Gospel of Mark chooses to record Jesus as saying.
The kingdom is NOT something to wait for. Jesus says the kingdom is NOT something visible, and it is NOT something in the sky. The Kingdom Jesus taught is a spiritual reality that comes into the world through us. Considering that Jesus even said the kingdom was in and among the Pharisees in Luke 17, which seems almost offensive to consider, perhaps it is like a spiritual seed that has been planted inside each of us, and that activating faith in God makes it grow.

"Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."-Luke 13:18-19

Jesus talked about the kingdom as if it would be a present reality, yet one that was growing in the world like a seed grows into a tree.

"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."-Luke 13:20-21

To Jesus, the kingdom was something growing in us like yeast through dough, increasing in effectiveness.

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."-Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."-1 Corinthians 4:20

Paul says the kingdom isn’t something you taste or touch like physical food. It’s not even saying the right words. But rather the kingdom comes in the realities of righteousness, peace, joy and power that flavor our lives when we live empowered by the Spirit of God and God's Spirit in us.
Since Jesus the Messiah returned only 40 years after his earthly ministry, putting all enemies under his feet, the complete consummation of earth with the kingdom of heaven has finally taken place.
The kingdom of God has come, and it continues to come through us as believers. It makes progress like light shining into the world and dispelling the darkness.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 5:14-16

Eivor is a bit of a strange protagonist.
She’s basically flawless and without blame. She’s brash and bold, proud and unashamed — brave and wise far beyond her years, yet able to be soft and compassionate when not brandishing spears. She’s got a knack for leadership, a strong moral compass and an even stronger muscular system with which to enact justice.
And she’s got bars?
As someone not deeply versed in medieval European histories, imagine my shock and confusion upon discovering that Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla included rap battling.
My first experience with Flyting had me asking so many questions about what I just witnessed that I couldn’t wait to begin Googling. I figured flyting probably was historically accurate, but if that’s the case, then what else can it tells us about the medieval warrior and about Eivor’s characterization?
I set off to find out.
--
Wikipedia and howstuffworks combined gave me a robust definition of flyting.
A ritual, poetic exchange of insults practiced mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. Examples of flyting are found throughout Scots, Ancient, Medieval and Modern Celtic, Old English, Middle English and Norse literature involving both historical and mythological figures. The exchanges would become extremely provocative, often involving accusations of cowardice or sexual perversion.
The idea behind flyting was to influence public opinion of the participants and raise both of their profiles. And each participant wanted to make himself look better than the other, even if they were friendly.
Not only that, but flyting’s also the first recorded use of shit as an insult. That right there is worth this whole essay and then some.
--
I came away from those definitions with some small Euphoria, as they reinforce what I already expected from Ubisoft — historically accurate and (arguably) immersive side activities grounded in realism.
Unfortunately, none of the flyting foes that Eivor faces in this fantasy are founded in any real-world flyters. I was particularly frustrated when I realized Fergal the Faceless and Borghild the Alewife’s Bane were fictional features, not real historical fiends of rhythm and rhyme.
Two of Eivor’s syntax competitors are “real” in some sense, however.
In Norse mythos, Odin, Thor, Loki, Freyja and more would handle their Family Matters over a flyte from time to time, dueling wits and words as competition and entertainment.
In fact, one flyte we do see in game — Odin as he flytes over the river with Thor in the Asgard Arc — is likely a reference to a real medieval Norse poem; The Hárbarðsljóð.
In it, Thor jaunts back to Asgard after a journey in Jötunheim. He comes to a junction in which he must jump a large river, and thus hunts down a ferryman to shepherd him across. The ferryman, Hárbarðr, is Odin in disguise. He then begins to diss guys.
Ahem. ‘Guys’ being Thor, obviously.
First, Odin drops a yo-mama joke:

Of thy morning feats art thou proud, but the future thou knowest not wholly; Doleful thine home-coming is: thy mother, me thinks, is dead.

He keeps going, taking more shots than a First Person Shooter, this time saying Thor dresses like a girl:

Three good dwellings methinks, thou hast not; Barefoot thou standest and wearest a beggar’s dress; Not even hose dost thou have.

Thor says watch your mouth before I clap back:

Ill for thee comes thy keenness of tongue, if the water I choose to wade; Louder, I ween, than a wolf thou cryest, if a blow of my hammer thou hast.

Odin replies by saying Thor’s wife is fucking another dude:

Sif has a lover at home, and him shouldst thou meet; More fitting it were on him to put forth thy strength.

The version we play out in game isn’t identical to the real-world poem, but carries some similarities; Thor’s threatening to cross the river to fight Odin as well as his boasting of slaying giants are present in each.
Ratatosk is the only other ‘real’ flyting enemy in Valhalla. While Odin doesn’t flyte with Ratatosk in Norse myth to my knowledge, the flyting against the squirrel is thematically accurate, at least.
Ratatosk’s purpose is to scramble up and down Yggdrasil, scurrying spoken messages from the eagle that sits at its peaks to the snake that slithers at its base. The nature of Ratatosk’s messages is in line with the act of flyting — the mischievous rodent carries falsehoods and aggressive statements to stir up drama and distrust between bird and serpent.
Flyting took place not only in poems and folklore, but in town squares and royal court. It was a facet of medieval life and social interaction. This weaving of prose then, in this time period, seemingly was just about as much of an admired skill as the swinging of a sword. It’s no wonder our unbreakable warrior Eivor is so proficient with word.
--
Like, really proficient with word.
I mean, I know it’s me choosing the dialogue options, but sheesh, is there anything she can’t do?
Actually, Eivor’s expertise in flyting is strange to me. It feels random and unearned — out of character, even. It comes more unexpectedly than Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us.
It probably only feels out of character, however, due to our modern understanding of proficiency with words versus proficiency with might. Our current interpretation of verbal ability compared to physical ability would perceive verbal ability as the ‘softer’ of the two skillsets. Physical strength is typically interpreted as tough and more dominant. You don’t expect to see an MMA fighter composing poetry, do you? The qualities that modern thought attributes to writing and physicality don’t mesh.
But in reality — and historically accurately in Valhalla — medieval warriors weren’t just blind berserkers. They were actually artists, poets and writers.
We’ve already demonstrated how Odin and Thor — Norse myth’s most famous warriors — carried out flyting. There are plenty more examples of the burly and the brawn, the Viking and the warrior breaking out poetry and song. Other poems and sagas include the same thing, among the most famous of which is Egil’s Saga — Egil, a tough Viking warrior, would frequently break out into prose throughout the saga’s telling.
Beyond Vikings though lie other other examples from around the world. The Illiad contains instances of public, ritualized abuse. Taunting songs are present in Inuit culture while Arabic poetry contains a form of flyting called naqa’id. Further, Japanese Samurai were known to be frequent composers of haiku, while Japanese culture also gave birth to Haikai, poetry in which vulgar satire and puns were wielded.
This historical accuracy ends up eliminating the randomness of Eivor’s flyting ability. Despite her verbal finesse feeling unearned, we can surmise historically that Eivor has practiced the wielding of words plenty in her life before we take over as the player. She’s dedicated time to this.
Now that we know why she has it, we can take a closer look at what it does for her.
--
So, Eivor can rap. She can match you with her axe or she can match you with her words. She’s just about unbeatable.
Her mastery of words demonstrates on some level that she’s not all Push Ups and might is right. She’s not all bruiser and bluster, burn and berserk. She’s an appreciator of the finer things — the more abstract, mental skills that require brain power, deftness and finesse.
This duality of strength and genius rounds out Eivor into a deeper, richer, more admirable character. More than just raw muscle in pursuit of glory, Eivor’s mastery of verse demonstrates her prioritizing not just her body, but her mind.
And it goes a long way for her.
Eivor can use her prowess with prose to progress past pointless plot points throughout Valhalla’s plethora of arcs and missions. It’s just a stat check in the end, but with enough practice flyting and enough charisma gained, Eivor unlocks new dialogue options that bend the world around her to her will.
Witch hunters in Eurvicscire on the brink of terrorizing Moira can be dispersed verbally rather than brawled or killed. There’s an entire riddle-solving fetch quest in Wincestre that can be skipped completely by telling King Aelfred’s abbot fuck off (figuratively). Eivor’s sharpening of her mind protects her body, saves her time, and allows her to frictionlessly fell her endeavors.
Her articulate advances don’t just alter her into admirability, they allow her to influence people and progression. With semantics from her mouth and twists from her tongue, Eivor can have her way whenever she wishes. In a game this large, I’m only left longing that the opportunity to make use of this charisma wasn’t relegated to niches.
Regardless, if medieval England is butter, Eivor’s tongue is the hot knife that behooves her move through her subduing more smoothly.
It all just goes to show that ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ flyte is right.

Mirëmbrema and greetings from Greece, vëllezër. I hope it's ok if I post this here, as I'm not trying to advertise anything commercial, but I would like to point your attention to my latest project: the past year I've finally started doing research into my Arvanite heritage. While my relatives are all mostly convinced we have no relation with the Arvanites, because our grandfather claims that his grandfather changed his name to "Arvanitis" and hence they don't consider it an indication of our origin.
The truth, however, is that my great-great-grandfather's original name, "Kakissis" was even more incriminating, as it's clearly an Arvanite name referring either to the name Kakia (which is an Arvanite nickname for Paraskevi, i.e. it would refer to the children of Kakja), or, maybe ka kishë (has a church, indicating that they didn't want to convert to either Islam or maybe Catholicism, as my family comes from Southwest Morea, so most likely descend from Dredh/Arbëresh stock who fled Italy in the Middle Ages to avoid becoming Catholic). Regardless, all this information pushed me to do my research and try to learn the language on my own. Finding people to teach you Arvanitika is impossible in Greece, as even most native speakers only speak it partially), but, fortunately, there are a few books available (although you won't believe the hoops I had to jump to even get my hands on them), and with the help of modern Albanian textbooks and dictionaries I've actually been making a lot of progress, I think. Nowhere near being able to speak it reliably, but I can at least translate and form coherent sentences in writing, which leads me to the topic of today.
As a way to practice the things I've been learning I've decided to start writing poetry again (I used to write extensively almost a decade ago before stopping) but this time in Arvanitika. I've started simple, writing haiku, senryu (basically a haiku, but not focused on scenery so much as human interaction and/or commentary etc.) and tanka (another japanese form similar to haiku but extended by two more verses), but have already made a major discovery in what could become a new, Arvanite form of poetry, called Ethëna (a saying, basically). Ethëna seems to have been a major social activity among Arvanite communities, by which one would invent a little verse or proverb based on some experience or insight and share it among their peers. In terms of poetry it's still something I'm developing, and, while not all my ideas are groundbreaking by any stretch, I would say it mostly combines attributes of an aphorism with epigrammatic poetry, often with a healthy dose of satire.
Either way, I feel this is probably the most significant journey I've embarked upon, solely motivated by a desire to preserve and, better yet, hopefully enrich a language which has languished in neglect for far too long -- as well as to master it for myself. For example, I wrote a poem about the word faleminderit, inspired by the fact that Arvanitika has no official word for "thank you", while both falem and nderi exist in our vocabulary. So I'm constantly on the lookout for words the Arvanites may have known, either from Albanian, Latin or Medieval Greek, the latter of which probably had the most significant influence on Arvanitika as we know it today, as all the dictionaries available in Arvanitika are woefully incomplete.
So anyway, if anyone's interested, please check out the following link: https://gjuhaezogut.wordpress.com/
I'd love to hear any and all of your feedback, especially since I'm not a native speaker. Faleminderit.

Conversation about Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) on this subreddit tends to be really limited, with many people taking at face value the "smartest man in the world" claim (which was published in a magazine Veidt owns!) and interpreting the ending as a moral quandary over whether killing millions is worth it to avert nuclear war.
But that's not how Veidt's character is written. Veidt is written, instead, to show how ego, anxiety, and detachment from humanity can drive people to do horrific things.
I collected examples from the text on several facets of Veidt's character, hoping to highlight how -- both through analogy and through plot -- Moore worked to paint a complex picture of Veidt as a person driven mad by anxiety and impotence, his fears fueled by isolation and obsessive media consumption, who did something unthinkable and unnecessary.
Is this post, itself, a bit obsessive? Yes. But I hope that people can link this post in the future the next time someone inevitably asks: "Was Ozymandias right?"

I. Veidt is mentally unwell.

• Dan: “I mean, who’s qualified to judge something like that? This is the world’s smartest man we’re talking about here, so how can you tell? How can anyone tell if he’s gone crazy?” (Chapter XI, page 3).
• Veidt: “By day I imagine endless faces. By night… well, I dream, about swimming towards a hideous… No. Never mind. It isn’t significant.” (Chapter XII, page 27)
• Veidt tells his life story to a bunch of dead bodies. (Chapter XI)
• Veidt: “I don’t mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn’t this one.” (Chapter XII, back matter)
• Veidt is mirrored by the mariner in the Black Freighter, who has visibly gone mad by the time he embarks on the raft and is raving by the time he arrives home.
• We see a reference to Tarkovsky’s iconic film The Sacrifice (Chapter XII, page 31), which also features a character going insane in an attempt to prevent nuclear war.
• Veidt’s plan is, in essence, a form of projection: the squid makes people go insane, have constant nightmares, and kill each other out of fear. The squid is, itself, a nightmare given form.
• Graffiti (Chapter I, page 24) reads “One in eight go mad.” Of the eight Minutemen, Mothman was put in an asylum. There were eight attendees of the Crimebusters meeting. After 11/2, the graffiti has been modified (Chapter XII, page 31) to read “One in three go mad.” Only three of the attendees remain: Veidt, Dan, and Laurie.
• Just look at his expression while killing the Comedian. (Chapter XI, page 26)

II. Veidt is detached from humanity.

• In present day, we only see Veidt in his personal skyscraper or thousands of miles from New York at his private Antarctic fortress -- never on the street.
• Pulling at the Tales of the Black Freighter parallels again, the mariner is marooned and goes mad because he has nobody else to talk to.
• Veidt refers to “stepping back” from humanity: “My first step was to stand back as far as I could, to view the problem from a fresh perspective, my vista widening with my comprehension. [...] I took another step back, and thought again.” (Chapter XI, page 21).

III. Veidt is obsessed with media and pop culture, and it deeply influences his worldview.

• Veidt is constantly engaged with his “multi-screen viewing” (Chapter XI, page 1), which we see originating in 1963 with just a few screens (Chapter XII, page 18). For 20+ years, Veidt has been gleaning a lot of his understanding of humanity from obsessively watching TV.
• The squid is straight out of sci-fi, with Veidt literally hiring famous artists, writers, etc. from literature, comic books, and so on to design the squid and the nightmares planted within it.
• We also know that Veidt has read Tales of the Black Freighter, not just because he hired Max Shea to help with the squid, but also because he references it twice: “I dream, about swimming towards a hideous…” and “I know I’ve struggled across the backs of murdered innocents” (Chapter XII, page 27). The mariner literally sails on the bloated corpses of his innocent crew, and at the end, swims towards the Black Freighter.
• Veidt makes frequent media references: William S. Burroughs (Chapter XI, page 1), Man From UNCLE (Chapter XI, back matter), a bunch of musicians (Chapter XI, back matter) -- there are definitely more.
• Nova Express, heavily implied to be owned by Veidt, is another Burroughs reference.
• Veidt takes personal investment in forming narratives in his advertising, micromanaging plots in TV shows, toys, etc. (Chapter X, back matter).
• Veidt is mirrored by Bernard, the newsstand owner. Both Veidt and Bernard’s parents moved out of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power. Both Veidt and Bernard think they understand the world because they see a constant stream of media (Veidt with his TVs, Bernard with his newsstand) and are terrified of impending war. Both cite popular culture as evidence of impending war despite themselves selling to those audiences (Veidt via his advertising and publications, Bernard via his newsstand). Note Veidt’s obsession with finality and Bernard’s frequent refrain: “... inna final analysis.”

IV. Veidt undercuts his plan for his ego.

• Veidt is careful to distance himself from most of his assassinations, but kills the Comedian by hand -- something he’s not prone to doing. (Dan: “This is Adrian, for god’s sake! We know him. He never killed anybody, ever.” [Chapter XI, page 3]) This immediately clues in both the detectives (“No way this is a straight burglary… somebody really had it in for this guy.” [Chapter I, page 3]) and Rorschach.
• Veidt does this because of his ego: “Recognizing me, he attacked anyway, ‘mistaking me for a criminal.’ I studied his limitations: skillful feint, devastating uppercut; little else… He won. In the short term. [...] I also swore that when next I met Blake or any other foe, though perhaps not on my territory… it would certainly be on my terms.” (Chapter XI, page 19).
• Veidt makes his password “RAMESES II”, leaves lots of clues (“Pyramid Deliveries”), and only teleports the squid when he sees Dan and Rorschach approaching (Chapter XI, page 4). The title of Chapter XI is “Looks on my works, ye mighty”. Veidt wants an audience of his peers. If he had teleported the squid earlier, Rorschach likely would have died.
• Along similar lines, Veidt leaves the Comedian alive for as long as possible and doesn’t kill Rorschach -- sloppy choices, born out of his need for peers who know his plan.

V. Veidt’s plan is doomed and ill-conceived.

• Veidt idolizes Alexander the Great, who failed. Veidt: “Amongst [Babylon’s] ruined ziggurats, I saw at last his failings… He’d not united all the world, nor built a unity that would survive him.” (Chapter XI, page 10)
• Veidt named himself after Ramesses II (aka Ozymandias), famous from the Shelley poem about the impermanence of greatness, which the comic also references. (“And on the pedestal, these words appear: / My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; / Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! / Nothing beside remains. Round the decay / Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare / The lone and level sands stretch far away.”)
• Dr. Manhattan: “Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.” (Chapter XII, page 27)
• Tales of the Black Freighter shows the mariner accidentally attacking his home to save it from a threat he thinks has already arrived, only to discover that the threat was in his head and he had become the thing he feared. Veidt, similarly, was so terrified of nuclear war that he became the threat.
• Rorschach’s journal is the last panel, implying that Veidt’s artificial peace will soon begin to deteriorate.

VI. Veidt's relationship to the Comedian is crucial, and Veidt may be the comic's true "comedian."

• Veidt’s complicated admiration for Blake extends to early in his career, in the mid-50’s: “As intelligent men facing lunatic times, we were very alike, despising each other instantly.” (Chapter XI, page 18).
• Rorschach says of the Comedian: “No one else saw the joke. That’s why he was lonely.” (Chapter II, page 27). But Veidt did: “Too cowardly to confront my anxieties, I had life’s black comedy explained to me by the Comedian himself [...] [He] opened my eyes. Only the best comedians accomplish that. [...] I swore to deny his kind their last black laugh at Earth’s expense. [...] I would trick [the world]; frighten it towards salvation with history’s greatest practical joke. That’s what upset the Comedian: [...] professional jealousy.” (Chapter XI, pages 19-24)
• In fact, though, it ends up being Blake who doesn’t get the joke. When Blake confesses to Moloch, he says of Veidt’s plan: “I mean, this joke, I mean, I thought I was the Comedian, y’know? [...] I mean, what’s funny? What’s so goddamned funny? I don’t get it. Somebody explain… somebody explain it to me.” (Chapter II, page 23)
• Veidt’s likely namesake is Conrad Veidt, perhaps most famous for his haunting, insane-looking grin in “The Man Who Laughs”.
• We see the relationship between comedy/laughter and mental instability explored in Rorschach’s joke: “Man goes to doctor. Says he’s depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says ‘Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up. Man bursts into tears. Says ‘But, doctor… I am Paglacci.’” (Chapter II, page 27). On the surface, this appears to be about Blake -- but by the end, we can see that it applies just as much, if not more, to Veidt.

VII. Veidt is a Hitler analogue.

• Veidt is a German immigrant whose character design is straight out of a Nazi propaganda ad.
• Veidt idolizes Alexander the Great, a Greco-Roman would-be world conqueror. Nazis frequently invoked Greco-Roman design motifs and obviously had similar goals of conquering the world.
• Dan: “He’s such a caring, conscientious guy. He’s a pacifist, a vegetarian…” / Rorschach: “Hitler was vegetarian.” (Chapter XI, page 15)
• Veidt: “Hitler said people swallow lies easily, provided they’re big enough.” (Chapter XI, page 26)
• 11/2 is Veidt’s personal Holocaust. Over the scenes of carnage in New York, we see the Madison Square Garden sign: “KRYSTALNACHT” (Chapter XII, page 2). Highlighted among the millions of dead: the concertgoers (alternative/punks), Joey and Aline (lesbians), Bernard (whose father fled the Nazis), and a number of Black people (Malcolm, Gloria, Bernie, and the watch salesman). Joey’s posted for Gay Women Against Rape features the band Pink Triangle, a symbol which originated as a badge to identify gay people in Nazi concentration camps.
• Veidt, fundamentally, is obsessed with finding a “final solution” to bring peace -- even if it costs millions of lives.

Kusen, Stone Nest Dojo, 19 May 2024
Yesterday, as I was reading in my study, I heard a thump against the glass of the outside doors. When I looked to see what had caused the noise, I saw a bird twitching on the bricks, but it didn’t twitch for long. It was a yellow-billed cuckoo, its long tail-feathers beautifully dappled, as though a painter had taken pains with each stroke. It was still warm with recent life and pliant, draped across my palm, head hanging down, and its white breast was plush and soft and still, its eyes black as glass beads and dead.
Sometimes we get caught up in the quality of our zazen. We want to make sure we are doing it right. If we have a bad day, if we are uncomfortable in body or mind, we wonder what we are doing wrong, how to make it better. But this is unnecessary, mistaken. Yes, we can make small adjustments, get our knees on the floor, make sure our butt is high enough on the zafu to assist the curvature of the lower spine, bring our shoulders back but not too far back so that our posture is erect, draw the collarbone up and the chin in, and stretch the backbone so that our head presses the sky.
But there the need for assessment ends. The focus need not be so inward or critical.
Every zazen is unique, you have heard me say it before. Every time we enter the dojo, the dojo is not the same as it was last time, and neither are we. It is warm and humid today, sunny after recent rain, and the windows are cranked open to let in the breeze (if there were a breeze) and the songs of the birds in the trees and the cicadas vibrating everywhere. But next time we meet here in the dojo there will be rain, or the trees will be bare, or it will be cold, or the birds will be on vacation or on strike, keeping their song to themselves, the cicadas done with their mating cycle and gone back to their underground lairs.
And next time we meet we will be different, too. As Heraclitus said, we can never step into the same river twice. Another way to say this is, the same person never steps into the river twice.
Ichi-go, ichi-e. This common calligraphy phrase found on so many Japanese tea scrolls means that we have one chance to make the most of our one meeting, whether this meeting is with another person, with the natural wonders, or with ourselves. How do we make meaning of our lives in the moment? How do we grasp the richness available to us in the chance of our one meeting, the one chance meeting that is the here and now? Not the one chance “of a lifetime” that is Frost’s road taken or not, I am not talking about that kind of moment, but rather the moment that comes to us in each moment, the moment we can grasp in its suchness, what is called the tathata: the ultimate inexpressible nature of things. This meeting is, after all, what Dogen meant when he set out to find the rationale for practice in light of the fact that we are all, after all, already enlightened. We all have the enlightenment experience available to us at every moment of every day of our unrepeatable (and inexpressible) experience of ichi-go, ichi-e. Do we pay attention through practice, through zazen, through grasping the chance? Or do we go on our way without giving our cuckoo lives our full attention?
It reminds me of Auden’s poem “Musee des Beaux Arts,” where he views the painting by Breughel in which Icarus has fallen from the sky into the bay where merchant ships go on their way, and even if they bother to look they won’t be able to see “something amazing,” a boy falling from the sky or what the significance of that wonder might be, since they are too preoccupied by the habits of their unconscious day, like the dogs who go on with their doggy lives.
If not for zazen, I might have been like those sailors on the merchant ships and ignored the yellow-billed cuckoo that swooped down from the sky and knocked at my door.
And yet this was a perfect example of ichi-go, ichi-e, one chance, one meeting, a moment to make some sense of our life. At least until we too take a wrong turn, or mistake a mirror for a window, or a window for a doorway, or a doorway for a way out. Until we throw ourselves against an invisible wall that we don’t see coming until it is too late. Until mujo strikes, or until we strike mujo.
Oh, but the beauty of the yellow-billed cuckoo!

Kusen, Stone Nest Dojo, 19 May 2024
Yesterday, as I was reading in my study, I heard a thump against the glass of the outside doors. When I looked to see what had caused the noise, I saw a bird twitching on the bricks, but it didn’t twitch for long. It was a yellow-billed cuckoo, its long tail-feathers beautifully dappled, as though a painter had taken pains with each stroke. It was still warm with recent life and pliant, draped across my palm, head hanging down, and its white breast was plush and soft and still, its eyes black as glass beads and dead.
Sometimes we get caught up in the quality of our zazen. We want to make sure we are doing it right. If we have a bad day, if we are uncomfortable in body or mind, we wonder what we are doing wrong, how to make it better. But this is unnecessary, mistaken. Yes, we can make small adjustments, get our knees on the floor, make sure our butt is high enough on the zafu to assist the curvature of the lower spine, bring our shoulders back but not too far back so that our posture is erect, draw the collarbone up and the chin in, and stretch the backbone so that our head presses the sky.
But there the need for assessment ends. The focus need not be so inward or critical.
Every zazen is unique, you have heard me say it before. Every time we enter the dojo, the dojo is not the same as it was last time, and neither are we. It is warm and humid today, sunny after recent rain, and the windows are cranked open to let in the breeze (if there were a breeze) and the songs of the birds in the trees and the cicadas vibrating everywhere. But next time we meet here in the dojo there will be rain, or the trees will be bare, or it will be cold, or the birds will be on vacation or on strike, keeping their song to themselves, the cicadas done with their mating cycle and gone back to their underground lairs.
And next time we meet we will be different, too. As Heraclitus said, we can never step into the same river twice. Another way to say this is, the same person never steps into the river twice.
Ichi-go, ichi-e. This common calligraphy phrase found on so many Japanese tea scrolls means that we have one chance to make the most of our one meeting, whether this meeting is with another person, with the natural wonders, or with ourselves. How do we make meaning of our lives in the moment? How do we grasp the richness available to us in the chance of our one meeting, the one chance meeting that is the here and now? Not the one chance “of a lifetime” that is Frost’s road taken or not, I am not talking about that kind of moment, but rather the moment that comes to us in each moment, the moment we can grasp in its suchness, what is called the tathata: the ultimate inexpressible nature of things. This meeting is, after all, what Dogen meant when he set out to find the rationale for practice in light of the fact that we are all, after all, already enlightened. We all have the enlightenment experience available to us at every moment of every day of our unrepeatable (and inexpressible) experience of ichi-go, ichi-e. Do we pay attention through practice, through zazen, through grasping the chance? Or do we go on our way without giving our cuckoo lives our full attention?
It reminds me of Auden’s poem “Musee des Beaux Arts,” where he views the painting by Breughel in which Icarus has fallen from the sky into the bay where merchant ships go on their way, and even if they bother to look they won’t be able to see “something amazing,” a boy falling from the sky or what the significance of that wonder might be, since they are too preoccupied by the habits of their unconscious day, like the dogs who go on with their doggy lives.
If not for zazen, I might have been like those sailors on the merchant ships and ignored the yellow-billed cuckoo that swooped down from the sky and knocked at my door.
And yet this was a perfect example of ichi-go, ichi-e, one chance, one meeting, a moment to make some sense of our life. At least until we too take a wrong turn, or mistake a mirror for a window, or a window for a doorway, or a doorway for a way out. Until we throw ourselves against an invisible wall that we don’t see coming until it is too late. Until mujo strikes, or until we strike mujo.
Oh, but the beauty of the yellow-billed cuckoo!

Unveiling the Allure of the Ghazal Form**
Summary:
A ghazal is a poetic form with Middle Eastern origins, typically composed of rhyming couplets and a repeating refrain. Each line of the poem shares a common meter, and the last word of the second line in each couplet rhymes throughout the poem.
Examples:

1. "The Beloved" by Rumi.
   
2. "Ghazal" by Agha Shahid Ali.
   
3. "The Ghazal of What Hurt" by Peter Cole.
   

Tips for Creative Writing:

• Embrace Repetition: The consistent refrain creates a melodic quality.
  
• Convey Emotional Intensity: Ghazals often explore themes of love, loss, and longing.
  
• Play with Imagery: Use vivid imagery and metaphor to enhance the emotional impact.
  

Questions for Exploration:

1. How does the repetition of the refrain contribute to the overall tone of the ghazal?
   
2. Can you think of other cultural traditions that incorporate similar poetic forms?
   

Additional Resources:

• Read the works of contemporary poets like Fatimah Asghar and Safia Elhillo for modern ghazals.
  
• Explore classical ghazals by Mirza Ghalib for insights into the traditional form.
  

Creative Writing Prompt:
Step 1: Choose a theme or emotion to explore in your ghazal.
Step 2: Craft the first rhyming couplet with a meaningful refrain.
Step 3: Continue developing the theme in subsequent couplets, maintaining the rhyme scheme.
Example:
In the night's embrace, a silent moonlight gleams (A) Lost in the echoes, the heart silently dreams (A) Whispers of love in the gentle night's streams (A) A ghazal's refrain, where longing redeems (A)

Heartfelt thanks to Vlada for her wonderful characters and for her willingness to share insanely interesting answers with her readers.
___
Dario
Q: Dario, what was your favorite fairy tale as a child and why? And perhaps you still do?
A: Fairy tales have too much chaos for my taste. But I've always loved instructive tales. In seminary, I even wrote an essay on “King Thrushbeard” by the Brothers Grimm.
Q: What admonition do you most often give to those who come to you for confession?
A: The secret of confession doesn't allow me to talk about it, and besides, everything is very individualized. *Grins faintly* But if you are eager to know the answer, come to the temple, and I will be glad to listen to you.
Q: Which of the seven deadly sins do you consider the most serious and why?
A: Sin is a sin that is equally afflicting to the immortal soul. This is what any priest will answer you. As for my personal opinion, pride is the queen of sins. For those who consider themselves superior to others, although by the will of the Primordial One we are all equal, are going against His plan.
Q: How do you manage to look so luxurious at 45 years old?
A: *Laughs quietly* Thank you for the compliment.
Q: Did you become a priest because of sincere faith or because of ambition and a thirst for power?
A: I became a priest because I had no other choice. Everything turned out well, because I have never regretted my calling. *Looks away* And I hope I don’t regret it.
___
Richard
Q: Tell us about your hobby. What do you like to do in your spare time?
A: I don't have much free time. But, if such moments arise, I prefer to spend them in my office with a book and wine.
Q: Do you have any other favorite authors besides Thomas Hardy? Perhaps there are certain preferences specifically in English literature?
A: I value depth in literature. But not darkness. For example, I don’t always like Dickens, and not all of Hardy’s works. I love “Far from the Madding Crowd,” the tabula rasa theme of Kipling and the Russian authors. I recently read “The Name of the Rose” by Eco, and also found this work interesting.
Q: Since what age have you lived in Venice?
A: For a long time. *Purses his lips, clearly not wanting to answer further*
Q: What qualities are the most important for an inquisitor of the Order of the Primordial?
A: Logic, attentiveness, physical strength. Loyalty to Him, of course.
Q: Has there ever been love in your life?
A: I don't think so.
___
Raven
Q: What knowledge about life would you like to pass on to young leaders from your past years?
A: From the heights of my years, I realized that no one needs other people’s knowledge, and everything is much better understood from one’s own experience, no matter how bitter it may be.
Q: In such a long life you have seen different things. What is it like to watch from the sidelines the fall of empires and the disappearance of civilizations?
A: How many people today know about my age. *Bows his head, almost sarcastically* I’ll satisfy your curiosity. When you talk about the fall of an empire, you probably imagine epic battles or legendary deeds. I saw the other side. Take, for example, the Hundred Years' War. How many ballads have been written about the great Battle of Agincourt! About the brave English archers who defeated the outnumbered French. But do you know what I remember about this battle? I remember a barn where a chicken was killed by a poorly aimed arrow.
Q: You must be amazing at speaking many (if not all, including dead languages) of the world. Don't they get mixed up in your head? Which language was harder to learn and which one was easier?
A: Believe me, I've had time to “put my knowledge on the shelves”. Germanic languages are easy for me. Eastern languages are the worst.
Q: The mask undoubtedly restrains you in expressing emotions, although readers have noticed that you express emotions through gestures. Did it take a long time to learn and what were the first steps?
A: *Nods so that you immediately realize he's smiling* It's a matter of practice. I like to make a certain impression, and through trial and error I learned to do it without a face.
Q: From your profile we know that you are inspired by shipbuilding. How do you feel when you see your ship?
A: Freedom. Ships remind me of freedom. And how one storm can end everything.
___
Nikolai
Q: Nikolai, what was your first impression of Lady Crow?
A: *Smiles seductively* I found Madam Crowe a very attractive and interesting person, who has the same devilishness that is not alien to me.
Q: A girl with what character traits would you consider a perfect match for you?
A: In love, as in the sea, nothing is perfect. The more difficulties and discrepancies - the more feelings and sweetness of victories.
Q: Do you spend a long time at sea as a privateer?
A: As much as possible.
Q: After what incident did you gain a reputation as a ladies' man?
A: *Curls eyebrow* Accident? More like cases. Ladies of the world have always been partial to captains.
Q: Please tell us about your most exciting trip to sea.
A: The most memorable was the expedition in the Sea of Okhotsk. Our detachment (and the ships were divided into detachments) was to reach the coast of Japan. I will spare you the less important details, the most interesting thing began when we approached the La Perouse Strait. It was night, the sea was shrouded in fog.
In the silence, a watchman shouted, “Man overboard!” And indeed, there was a woman in the water. Only she was not swimming, but walking on the waves. She had long black hair and very pale skin.
I wanted to drop anchor and offer help, but I was stopped by a young man named Nobuyuki, who was the ship's cook at the time. He was from Dejima Island. Nobuyuki said: “Raise the sails, captain! I'd rather hit the rocks in the night than face the Iso-onna!”
When I looked out to sea again, the woman was gone. We never hoisted the sails - it was too risky to sail at speed in the fog. “Cover yourself for the night with the garments you're going to wear tomorrow! And order the crew to do the same! - Nobuyuki pleaded with me. - Iso-onna will drink the blood of those who are not bound for a future day...”
The young man was too frightened to say more. Not fully understanding the reasons, I still followed his advice.
In the morning, the whole crew was fine except for one sailor who flatly refused to use a clean shirt as a blanket. His bloodless body was found in the hold.
___
Adrian
Q: Where did you get such love for poetry?
A: From the storm and warmth that are born in the heart when words are woven into art.
Q: What is your favorite Shakespeare sonnet?
A: You will be sad when the poet dies, Until the ringing of the nearest church, Will not announce that this low light, I traded for the lower world of worms.
It’s a bit gloomy, I understand, but the words of a genius can turn even the world of worms into a dream. *Smiles radiantly* Don’t frown, it’s not serious. I love a lot of sonnets, this is just the first one that came to mind.
Q: You sow the seeds of culture among the common people. Have you ever received feedback from them that let you know that your efforts were not in vain?
A: I too am a common man. So who better than me to know that culture does not depend on status? It's only the desire and opportunity that matters.
Q: What is your favorite constellation?
A: One remarkable Russian poet wrote: Why are you unhappy? Will people tell me? — That makes me unhappy. Good people are like the stars and the sky - Stars and sky! - and I’m a man!.. All stars are beautiful; it is simply impossible to choose just one cluster of light.
Q: What was your first poem about?
A: About my mother's apron, on which I spilled my father's tincture.
___
Giovanni
Q: How did your fascination with alchemy begin? Why this and not some other direction?
A: Hmm... That's an interesting question, thank you. Alchemy was close to my mamma, I guess that love was passed down from her.
Q: Are you frightened by the specific images lurking in the darkness, or is it the unknown and not knowing what might be lurking there?
A: There is nothing in the darkness but my own thoughts. And I don't like to be alone with them.
Q: Were you happy when your father the Doge officially recognized you as his son and took you to a luxurious palace?
A: *Smiles: politely and a little stiffly* I'd rather leave that question unanswered.
Q: How do you know so much about the underground crypts at the Academy of Magic?
A: How much? No more than all those in the know who have read a guide to the Academy or a couple of historical books about magic.
Q: Could you forgive betrayal?
A: Like any Italian, I would forgive cheating by serving a glass of poison to the one who ruined happiness. *Laughs* I'm kidding! Actually, I haven't been cheated on yet, but if the day comes, I hope I'll behave with dignity. I'll be able to listen, try to understand, and make an informed decision.
___
Alexander Crow
Q: If you had the ability to turn back time, would you change anything in your life?
A: That's a personal thing.
Q: Do you love your daughter?
A: Yes.
Q: What do you think is the most important thing about magic?
A: Knowledge.
Q: What is more important: the result or the path to it?
A: The result.
___
Lucretia
Q: What qualities in people attract you, and what qualities repel you?
A: I am deeply indifferent to other people's manifestations of character. What is repulsive today may be useful tomorrow.
Q: Do you enjoy conducting the Naming Ceremony?
A: Quite a bit.
Q: This next question is probably not the right one, but it is important for the for admirers of the Supreme Witcher Raven to know whether he often gossips with you?
A: Gossip? I didn't know that's what they call friendship these days.
___
Batsheba
Q: Can you tell us about the most interesting ritual in which you have ever participated?
A: In the days of my youth, my sisters and I used to celebrate Man Gevri by dancing naked in the stone circle of Kallanish... *coughs* Ah, those were the days!
Q: Will you reveal your age to us?
A: How quick! A woman's age is her secret.
Q: How do you know the ancient rites of the leaders?
A: Thou! What have the knowers got to do with it? The rituals I know belong to nature.
Q: I would like to know something very funny from the childhood of our Crows (something that is usually embarrassing to talk about, and if they do, it is usually accompanied by a loud “MAM!”)
A: *Giggles* There is such a thing, how could there not be! But I won't tell you about it, I don't want any of the grooms-to-be to find out that Esther can't even boil the simplest broth.
___
Familiar
Q: Will you accept Esther’s man if her choice turns out to be very controversial?
A: *You ask a question to the empty space where you were told the familiar should be, but there is no answer*
Q: What do you do while your witch sleeps? Do you see her dreams?
A: *A sound resembling snoring comes from the void*.
___
Esther
Q: Would you mind sharing your favorite authors and works with us?
A: As the Triad sees it, there are too many! I'm sure a lot of what you've read I've enjoyed as well.
Q: Do you have a favorite perfume? And if not, what perfume would you like?
A: There is no favorite... I have yet to find my fragrance. Perhaps you can recommend one?
Q: Can I know the topic of your dissertation and at what stage of writing is it now?
A: The topic of my dissertation is “Natural curses in mass grave sites and how to deal with them”. I've got the last couple chapters left to write. It's about the Yorkshire moors. But I'm not sure I'll be able to get back to that work anytime soon... The memories of what I learned there are too fresh.
Q: You often turn to folklore to find answers. This seems like a rather unconventional approach (especially for a witch scientist). What was the reason for such an unusual resource for finding answers?
A: Folklore is just like history, only it takes more effort to find the truth. The study of folklore is no less scientific than archaeology.
Q: How would you describe your ideal date?
A: Oh... *Blushes* Perhaps someday I will be able to answer this question. After all, something like that needs to be experienced.

One reason why people might resist a change toward using genderless language and genderless practices involves the difficulty of change itself. While genderless alternatives can make many tasks so much easier (such as using “they” variants instead of “he or she” variants for a hypothetical person), breaking the gendered habits ingrained in so many aspects of daily life might seem daunting for people. This is where media and literature come in.
In a world where gender’s pervasiveness might seem inescapable, media and literature can essentially “lead by example”, demonstrating cohesive stories, worlds, and people without gender. When more and more people are exposed to this kind of media, they will no longer have to search for genderless terminology or other information on their own time; instead, they can learn by osmosis, and this exposure will help them develop the skills and awareness to navigate and influence the world without any gender-based biases.

Here are some ideas for genderless media to develop:

Genderless Stories — Authors, poets, playwrights, and fan-fiction writers alike can incorporate gender-neutral names, pronouns, and descriptions into their stories. This enables character development and plot to be guided by more unique elements of the story rather than gendered stereotypes or plot devices. Previously gendered traits can also be subtly combined in an androgynous mixture, and this subversion of norms will draw audience attention as something novel and iconic.
Genderless Music — Songs, musicals, and operas can benefit greatly from a genderless lens. First of all, many gendered words (especially pronouns) are often extraneous to the message of a song or poem, acting as filler words or easy rhymes, which detract from the meaning or significance of the art. In an artform so sensitive to timing, it becomes essential that every word serves a purpose, and most gendered words only serve a gendered purpose, or they can be easily replaced by a genderless alternative. Furthermore, people singing genderless songs will not have to change the words to match their identity, so more people will be able to participate in the art without qualms.
Genderless Films and Videos — Whether you’re a content creator, photographer, filmmaker, or hobbyist, you can use gender-neutral language and gender-blind filming in your videos. Consider the relative positioning of the camera and subjects through a lens of objectivity, and try to avoid gendered influences on the focus of screen-time and audio mixing. This can be done through an emphasis on purposefulness, as gender should not be the decisive factor in the message of the art nor its development.
Genderless Video Games / Video Game Mods — Video games and other games provide an interactive experience that many people seek out to challenge their skills or relax. Making games or altering them to be genderless gives people an escape, not just from the rigors of the day but also from gender. Providing genderless options in character creation, interaction, and leveling allows people to navigate the world of gaming in a more genuine and accessible way without being stressed by these divisions.
Not only can genderless media and literature encourage more people to receive and realize a genderless world, but it can also improve the quality of writing and storytelling. Quite a few artists nowadays portray or design characters according to worn-out gendered tropes, and this diminishes the complexity and uniqueness of the characters themselves while also contributing to the biased behaviors of people exposed to these caricatures. This cheapening of characters and plots can be seen in the personalities, narratives, and camera angles used to portray characters of different genders.
By presenting media, and literature in a gender-neutral way, biases hidden by gendered justifications can be uncovered, art can become more significant and unique, and people can be enabled to realize a genderless world.
Feel free to comment here about genderfree, genderless, and gender-neutral projects you’ve come across or worked on. You can also make your own post under the Resources or Product Promotion flairs respectively.

Week 7: Limericks and Acrostic Poetry - Lecture and Discussion
Objective: - Explore the whimsical nature of limericks and the creative use of acrostic poetry. - Understand the structure and humor in limericks. - Discuss the artistic possibilities of using acrostic forms.
Day 1: Introduction to Limericks - Lecture: - Definition and characteristics of limericks. - Explanation of the AABBA rhyme scheme and humorous themes.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. What appeals to you about the whimsical nature of limericks?
  2. How does the AABBA rhyme scheme contribute to the humor in limericks?
  3. Can you think of any famous limericks or poets known for this style?

Day 2: Analyzing Limericks - Part 1 - Lecture: - In-depth analysis of classic limericks. - Exploration of the distinctive rhythm and structure.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. How does the AABBA rhyme scheme and rhythm contribute to the comedic timing in limericks?
  2. What humorous themes or scenarios are commonly found in limericks?
  3. Share your thoughts on the importance of concise storytelling in limericks.

Day 3: Analyzing Limericks - Part 2 - Lecture: - Discussing modern variations and themes in limericks. - Exploring the versatility of the form.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. How have modern limericks evolved in terms of themes and structure?
  2. In what ways does the whimsical nature of limericks allow for creative expression?
  3. Share examples of humorous scenarios that might work well in a limerick.

Day 4: Crafting Limericks - Part 1 - Lecture: - Step-by-step guide on crafting the first three lines of a limerick. - Emphasis on establishing humor and rhythm.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. What challenges do you anticipate in crafting the first three lines of a limerick?
  2. How can you establish humor and rhythm within the concise structure?
  3. Share examples of humorous scenarios you might explore in a limerick.

Day 5: Crafting Limericks - Part 2 - Lecture: - Step-by-step guide on crafting the final two lines of a limerick. - Emphasis on creating resolution and punchline.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. Why are the final two lines crucial in providing resolution and a punchline in a limerick?
  2. How can a limerick deliver a humorous twist or surprise within its structure?
  3. Share and discuss individual limericks, highlighting successful elements.

Homework Assignment: - Craft a limerick focusing on a humorous scenario or theme.
Study Guide Questions: 1. Reflect on the challenges of crafting the first three lines of your limerick. How did you establish humor and rhythm? 2. How did you approach creating resolution and a punchline in the final two lines of your limerick? 3. What insights did you gain from the process of crafting a limerick?
Quiz: Assessment on the understanding of limericks, their AABBA rhyme scheme, and the use of humor within the concise form.
Day 6: Introduction to Acrostic Poetry - Lecture: - Definition and characteristics of acrostic poetry. - Exploration of arranging words vertically to create hidden messages.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. What interests you about the creative use of acrostic forms?
  2. How might the arrangement of words vertically enhance the poetic experience in acrostic poetry?
  3. Can you think of any famous acrostic poems or poets known for this style?

Day 7: Analyzing Acrostic Poetry - Part 1 - Lecture: - In-depth analysis of classic acrostic poems. - Exploration of the different approaches to selecting and arranging words.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. How does the vertical arrangement of words contribute to the overall impact of acrostic poetry?
  2. What unique perspectives or insights can arise from using acrostic forms in poetry?
  3. Share your thoughts on the relationship between the hidden message and the overall theme in acrostic poems.

Day 8: Analyzing Acrostic Poetry - Part 2 - Lecture: - Discussing modern variations and themes in acrostic poetry. - Exploring the diverse ways poets engage with vertical arrangements.

• Discussion Questions:
  1. How have modern poets expanded the themes and approaches in acrostic poetry?
  2. In what ways does the incorporation of vertical arrangements broaden the possibilities in written expression?
  3. Share examples of themes or concepts suitable for acrostic poetry.