mary_j_59

This entry is going to be--shall we say, a little different? I'm thinking I may actually put it up (or a brief version of it) on the LL Bean review site. I might want advice about that. Anyway, here goes.

Some years ago, I bought Ex officio bug-proof hiking pants for my sister and me. My reason was that we'd both had Lyme disease more than once, and these were recommended as a good defense against ticks. Lyme, though not fatal, is really unpleasant, and the antibiotics you have to take for it are unpleasant, too. I will say I haven't had a tick bite since purchasing these clothes. BUT!

Here comes the caveat. I got a really nasty bug bite, most likely from a black fly.


 I then thought the pants must have lost their bug-proofing over the years, so I bought new ones from LL Bean. And they are excelllent; a good fit and comfortable to move it. But, once again, I ended up with a nasty bite. Two, actually, again from a black fly. They are small, fast, and persistent, and I've read elsewhere they will even bite through fabric. Nasty. And here's the thing.

These pants are not treated with a repellent. They're treated with insecticide. I suppose the unfortunate ants who were crawling on us at one point might have survived. I hope so. I have nothing against ants. The clothes work well against ticks because they will typically crawl around for a while before trying to attach. So they'll stay on you--IF they get on you--long enough to get injured or killed by the permethrin.

Not so with black flies. They will try to reach your skin through any gaps, and if they find one, they'll bite. And they'll keep on biting. The only thing that helps against these is an actual repellent. So you have to double up if you don't want to get bitten. Deet or Picardin work; Cedar oil is some good, though not as effective. You need (I learned) to use one of these three things if you're going to be safe from bug bites.

Also, if you use repellent, you'll keep away beneficial insects who might otherwise land on you and be harmed by the insecticide in your clothing. Not that insects usually land on me! But it happens.

I am writing this for the Easter season, because, for me right now, many of the readings are hitting very hard. The prayer that God should take away our hearts of stone and give us natural, human hearts--wow! Even the drowining of Pharaoh's army in the sea seems different this year. Because who is Pharaoh? And what is that reading really saying?

But I began with an essay on World War 2, which I'm posting below.

WW2 and the myth of redemptive violence

As humans, we’re storytellers, and we use stories to guide our actions and form our communities. If we want good and life-giving communities, we must tell good stories.

This is why we must, somehow, get over our obsession with World War 2.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean we should forget World War 2, which—along with its holocausts—is rightly considered the major event of the twentieth century. We do need to remember history. But we also need to question what aspects of history we focus on, and what lessons we are taught.

I’m American. Some of my older relatives and friends were WW2-era veterans, and I honor their courage, loyalty, and sacrifices. It’s also absolutely essential to remember crimes like the Holocaust, the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so much more. These things must be remembered. They must also be examined so that we can learn from them.( Collapse )

And it did seem, in the period before I was born and even into my childhood, that we were trying to draw the right lessons from the horrors of this war. The war led to the Nuerenberg trials and also to many laws meant to ensure such things never happened again—the Geneva conventions, for example, and the declaration of human rights and more. The principal lesson of WW2 seemed to be how utterly cruel and inhumane we human beings could be to each other, given the right provocations.

But, along with these lessons, we learned several others. First, we learned that the world could be divided into “good guys” and “bad guys”. We Americans and our allies were the good guys. The Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and the Japanese were the bad guys, and had to be fought strenuously and totally defeated.

Which—well, it seems true, doesn’t it? There’s just no doubt that the Nazis did evil, and the Japanese, too, did unspeakable things to the countries they occupied. Both Nazis and Imperial Japanese were following a false story they had learned: that they were the superior human beings and that others—such as Chinese, Jews, and Roma—were inferior creatures worthy of slavery at best and death at worst. These lies led to horrific, unspeakable evil. And that evil did have to be fought.

But here’s the problem. If we are the good guys and the Germans, Japanese, and Italians are the bad guys, doesn’t that make them inferior to us? There’s the trap, you see.

In fact—and this is the major lesson the Holocaust, in particular, should teach us—we are all human beings on this planet together. No group is superior or inferior to another; we are all brothers and sisters. As a Catholic Christian, this is one of my core religious beliefs, but it’s backed by science. The whole concept of race is bad science and false; all human beings have the same origins, if you go back a million years or so, and that’s a blink of an eye in the face of geologic time—or of eternity.

But we humans do like to get together in gangs of various sizes. We do like to see our gang, whatever it is, as good and superior and other gangs as bad and inferior. Looking at the Nazis of the 1940s, or supremacists of any type today, shows us exactly where that type of thinking gets us. And those supremacists do include Zionists, Christian and otherwise. I empathize with Jewish Zionists who are ruled by fear and anger after what their people suffered in the twentieth century. I think they’re wrong, like all who would divide human beings into superior and inferior groups. But I can see why they act as they do. To achieve real peace and real justice, however, we have to live in truth. And that means that we must move away from nationalism and groupthink of all kinds.

There’s more, though. There is the idea that violence—even the utterly horrific violence of war—can be good. It can be redemptive. It can save us, and save the world, if the “good guys” use sufficient violence against the “bad guys” and defeat them thoroughly enough. After all, that’s what we—the good guys—did in Word War II. We defeated Japan and Germany utterly, and forced them to surrender without conditions. Then, so our version of history goes, we rebuilt their countries into prosperous and peaceful democracies. But they had to be shattered before they could be rebuilt.

There are a couple of things to note here. First, Germany had suffered a humiliating defeat already in World War I. Our rebuilding of the country after World War 2 was, in part, based on what we learned from the failed peace after the first World War. Second, even if everything I’ve said above is true—even if Germany and Japan did have to be utterly defeated in order to be rebuilt—that doesn’t justify war in general.

For war is always a crime, the worst crime human beings can commit. It is always a failure. My Church developed a theory of a just war in the Middle Ages, but many are now arguing that no war can ever be just. No war can ever be justified—not if you are truly a follower of the Jesus movement. My dad was one of the World War 2 era veterans I mentioned earlier. During one of the Gulf wars, he said, with great sincerity and sadness, “There’s no justification for war in the New Testament. None.” He was right.

And that’s why, though we must always remember the facts of Word War 2, we must somehow let go of the myth. The myth teaches us that war is just, and that we have a right to do whatever is necessary to our enemies in order to win, because we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. And only violence can defeat evil. This is the myth that has guided my country’s actions for the last seventy years. No matter what we do, we are still the good guys. So we—or our allies—can bomb civilians relentlessly. We can impose sieges. We can destroy entire cities, including priceless historical sites and even schools, pharmaceutical plants, religious buildings and hospitals. We can kill millions through our bombings and sieges—and we remain the good guys. We are judged not by what we do, which is often monstrous, but by who we are.
And that is toxic. That is a lie. It’s a lie we must let go of if we are to live as mature, free, and peaceful humans in a free and peaceful world. We must also somehow repent of the harm we’ve done in so many places, from the Congo to Haiti, from Honduras to Palestine.

May we live in truth and let go of lies.

Today is the feast of the Holy Innocents. I intended to make a movie memorializing all the children killed in Gaza, but it's beyond me. Nothing I could do could touch the raw truth. So I am linking to a CNN film of a loving grandfather and granddaughter. There is some disturbing imagery, as CNN itself reported.

So far, more than thirty Israeli and close to ten thousand Palestinian children have died. This "war" is a war on children. It must stop.

May there be peace--a true, just, and active peace--and may we help to bring it.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/29/middleeast/gaza-truce-israel-grandfather-returns-home-intl-hnk/index.html

I am posting this here, in the open, with some trepidation. My heart has been breaking for the Palestinians for years--actually decades--now. If I am kicked off of livejournal because of what I say, well at least I have spoken the truth as I see it.

Here is the letter.

Mr. President, I voted for you in 2020, and was proud to do so.

You have lost my vote.

It breaks my heart that you are assisting in a genocide, and sending bombs to be dropped on the heads of Palestinian children.

One can deplore what Hamas did on October 7 without justifying Israel's horrendous response. Sixteen Israeli children died that day. Nearly four thousand children have died in Gaza. How can that possibly be justified? Israel has bombed churches and hospitals, killed journalists and medical workers, and committed many other war crimes.

Mr. President, you have the power to stop this. You can deny funding to Netanyahu until he withdraws from Gaza and agrees to make peace. Again, Hamas, however much we may deplore some of their actions, has offered to release all the hostages. It's Israel that has refused.

As to making peace, we know what a just peace would look like. Either Israel becomes a true democracy, with no walls, no discrimination, and equal rights for all, or there is a two-state solution. Israel, again, has rendered the two-state solution nearly impossible by its settlements. All the settlements must be disbanded, Israel must withdraw to the 1948 borders, and Palestinians must be given at least a nominal right of return.

As I said, you have the power to do this. You have the power to stop Netanyahu and work for peace.

If you do, you will regain my vote. If you don't, all I can do is refuse to vote for you and tell everyone I know not to vote for you.

Thank you,

Here's a link to a new Tolkien essay on my Dreamwidth journal. Enjoy!

I may also put this one up on my author blog. Redundancy for the win! Comments are welcome wherever you're comfortable reading.

https://mary-j-59.dreamwidth.org/109362.html

(Note: this is crossposted from my author blog, as usual. I've also put a link up on Dreamwidth. Comments are welcome here or there!)

There’s been a great deal of discussion about the conversation between little Nerwen and her big brother Finrod at the start of The Rings of Power. Critics are saying things like: Elves know physics! They build boats! They know perfectly well why a ship floats.



Note: this image is cited in https://www.dailyhindnews.com/finrod-in-the-rings-of-power-who-is-galadriels-brother-in-the-lord/ Image of Little Nerwen and her big brother

That, of course, is true. At least one Elf all Tolkien fans know of is a skilled ship  builder—and Cirdan is not alone. But, as this article points out, Finrod is not trying to teach his little sister about physics.


This image is cited in https://www.themarysue.com/what-did-finrod-say-to-galadriel-in-the-rings-of-power/

As the author above points out, Finrod has just broken up a fight (some very astute fans noted this is a subtle reference to the Kinslaying and the theft of ships in Tolkien’s legendarium), and he’s trying to teach his small sister how to discern right action. Young Galadriel points out that light can be reflected, and reflected light is not the true light. “How am I to know which light to follow?” she asks.

What Finrod answers is troubling. Sometimes, he tells her, you must touch the darkness in order to find the light. Troubling though this answer is, we see it in action throughout the series, as Galadriel struggles not only with external evil, but with the evil in her. She is the ship, but also the stone.

In episodes 2 and 8, especially, we see absolutely masterful imagery of light, water, and light on water. Galadriel is, of course, associated with water; she will eventually wield the ring of water and use its power to protect beauty and innocence. This imagery culminates in LOTR, in the phial she gives Frodo that contains the light of the silmaril Earendil, Elrond’s father, carries through the heavens. The light is held in water.

In TROP, Galadriel's association with water is made very clear. One of her first acts is to use water to reveal a hidden truth—that the fortress she and her troops are exploring in the far North was indeed Sauron’s lair. And, in the final episode, Elrond tells how, when he was a boy, Galadriel befriended him and gave him water. So we see that Galadriel uses water to give life and reveal truth—just as she later does in LOTR.

But water can also take life. In the second episode, we watch Galadriel’s desperate swim in the deep ocean. She struggles to follow the light that will lead her back to land and to what she conceives as her duty. We see refugees drown when their raft is attacked by a sea monster, and we see Galadriel, herself, nearly drown when she is swept overboard. It’s no accident, I think, that she sinks in the shape of a cross. Finally, there is the vision she and Miriel share, of the drowning of Numenor.

If water is ambiguous and light sometimes deceiving, how is Galadriel to discern right action? Here, I think, is where Finrod’s advice really comes in to play. He doesn’t mean that we need to look for shadows to find the light. He certainly doesn’t mean that we should deliberately seek out darkness! At least I don’t think so. Then what does he mean?

Let’s look at what Galadriel actually does in this first season. What is her moral journey? Where is her low point, and what does she do afterwards? Finally, where is she at the end of this arc?

To me, her absolute low point is in her interrogation of Adar. Here, she reminds me of another heroine: Kira Nerys in Deep Space Nine.

One of the finest episodes of the first Season—and indeed, of the entire show—is Duet. In this episode, Kira interrogates a man who—as she believes—presided over a concentration camp in which hundreds of thousands of her people were cruelly killed. She wants him dead. Her anger, though understandable, is disturbing.

Galadriel is just as cruel and unforgiving toward Adar. As with Kira, we understand Galadriel, but we’re meant to see she is wrong. She has touched the darkness.  Interestingly, it’s Halbrand who holds her back from murder, as she held him back shortly before.

I believe this—not the eruption of Mount Doom later in the episode—is Galadriel’s nadir. But she has already shown wisdom and self-awareness that will lead her up, toward the light. In episode five, she speaks of her soldiers, her king, and her friend, all of whom refused to support her quest:

“Each of them acted as they did because I believe they could no longer distinguish me from the evil I sought.”

Later, after the disaster of Udun, Galadriel leads young Theo to safety. Their interactions were very moving to me. The young boy thinks it good that Galadriel has killed too many orcs to count. She answers him: “It darkens the heart to call dark deeds good. It gives place for evil to thrive inside us. Every war is fought both without and within.”  She also counsels him not to take blame for actions that were not wholly his fault—and she gives him her sword.

Giving her sword to a child she has rescued and counseled is a powerful symbol of the renunciation of redemptive violence. it is still more powerful when, at the end of the season, she gives up Finrod’s dagger so that the rings can be forged.

Before she gets to this point, she must face a final temptation. Once again, as Sauron reveals himself, we experience the imagery of water and light. Galadriel is again at sea; again in danger of drowning. Halbrand, revealed as Sauron, presents her with one last temptation. Will she join with him to save Middle Earth?

“Save, or rule? “ she asks him.

“I see no difference,” he answers, and her decision is made. She has faced her darkness. She will not rule over unwilling subjects; she will not call dark deeds good.

And Elrond’s hands pull her from the water, and she is free. This is when, when she asks him to prove his identity, he tells her how she gave him water when he was a child.

It is only after this powerful temptation and her successful resistance that she’s able to do what is needful to help forge the rings.

Throughout this first season, Galadriel is both ship and stone. As she says, she leapt from the ship carrying her to Valinor, the earthly paradise, “because I believed I was not yet worthy of it.” In this, she is correct. She takes a long step toward redemption in these last two episodes, but we won’t see her journey end until more than three thousand years later, when she encounters Frodo in Lothlorien. Then, after that temptation and that choice, she will finally be worthy of the ship to Valinor. Then she will have found the light.

So I'm still at it! Still revising the perpetual SF novel, as a result of another R&R from another small press. And--

It's so much fun! Really, I love this book with all my heart partly because it's been such a journey of discovery for me. I never imagined I would love editing so much; I always preferred the dreamlike state of drafting. But fine-tuning this book is just a blast so far. It's so great seeing scenes come into focus with small cuts or changes in phrasing. I've managed to cut close to 1.3 K words from the manuscript so far and, as far as I can tell, it's helped it. I HAVE added a couple of scenes as well, and there's another scene--a flashback--to be added to the latter half of the story. That's all good. However--

I am trying to correct the position of major plot points as I edit. It was my hope that, by cutting extraneous words and scenes, I'd move the first, second and third turnings where they ought to be (before 1/4 of the way through, before and just slightly after the halfway point). And--it's not happening. You see, as the book itself gets shorter, those percentages don't move. My first turning is still just under 26 percent of the way through, and the second sits at 51 percent.

This is why, in order to force major plot points into position, authors may rely on flashbacks.

As my faithful readers know, I'm averse to flashbacks for this story. I do have a couple already, and as I said, I'll add at least one more. But, in general, I think readers need to experience this world in real time. Else they'll get utterly lost. So I'm kind of stuck.

But here's what I think: What matters more than some arbitrary number is the flow of the story, and its clarity. If I improve those things--and i think I have--it won't matter so much if a plot point happens a few pages after its "supposed to". At least, that's my hope. I'm trying to make sure every word and every scene carries the story forward. If I do that, I really think I'll be okay--if not for this small press, then hopefully for another.

Wish me luck!

It's been fascinating and disheartening to observe all the noise about the upcoming Rings of Power from Amazon. Honestly, it's a lesson in social media and how toxic it can be. There really does seem to be something horribly toxic about social media these days. People seek reactions, and outrageousness and cruelty get reactions. This happens on all sides of every argument, as far as I can see. It's something I think we all have to work to avoid. But here's what I wanted to say:

It seems to me, when adapting a work of art, there is surface fidelity and deep fidelity. Deep fidelity matters more. To give one example, some fans are outraged by sword-wielding youg Galadriel, but I am really looking forward to seeing her journey. Hers, as much as Frodo's, is a story of redemption and sacrifice. We see her redeemed, a mature and wise woman renouncing power, in LOTR. In The Rings Of Power,  she is still young (for an elf) and just at the start of what will be a great character arc. And I think that character arc is there, in Tolkien's words!

Some fans who are slamming the upcomingshow are Tolkien purists. Fans like these, who love the books, would naturally object to any interpretation that wasn't by the letter. I can absolutely understand that point of view.

Bit some of the angriest fans seem to be fans of Jackson's movies. They are claiming Jackson was true to Tolkien and didn't inject politics into the movies. Is this true?

Don't get me wrong--I love the films and think they are a great achievement. But they are not always deeply faithful to Tolkien's books and sometimes they flat-out contradict them.( Collapse )
I've already blogged about this, several years ago when the movies came out. I pointed out that Jackson, for all his virtues as a filmmaker, was blind to the virtue of courtesy. That'st true, but there's more. Here are some very significant alterations:
1. The character assassination of Denethor, who, in the book, was corrupted by pride and despair, but nevertheless loved both his sons and took steps to defend his city.
2. The character assassination of Faramir.
3. The minimizing of Sam's role as ringbearer. In fact, the minimizing of his role altogether.
4. Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron.
5. Gandalf's use of violence against Denethor.


6. And, most egregious of all, this scene:https://imgur.com/jn260S8

In the film, Gandalf is helpless before the Witch-King of Angmar when that black rider enters the city. Not so in the book. Gandalf stands his ground, and then Rohan comes. To Tolkien, as a practising Catholic, love was stronger than hate and hope stronger than despair. The Witch-King's power is despair, but both Gandalf and the horns of the Rohirrim symbolize hope. It isn't blind hope; it doesn't deny the cruelty or the power of evil. But the hope is there, and it is victorious.

To change this is a fundamental misreading of Tolkien, IMHO. For all that Jackson got right, he got Tolkien's theology very wrong in this scene--and also in his slightling of Sam, and in the ridiculous mes he made of the stairs of Cirith Ungol. In other words, though I love the movies, I love the books a lot more.

And it is just possible the new series may be truer to Tolkien's essentials than the movies were, even if the TV show differs more in minor, surface details.

Besides, why shouldn't there be elves and dwarves of color in Midde-Earth?

In the library where I work, there’s a popular series of thrillers for adults. It has, I believe, reached 21 books and counting. There are audiobooks and even a TV show, and titles in the series have been bestsellers. The series I’m referring to is the Gabriel Allon series by Daniel Silva. When I first heard of it, the main character—spy, killer, patriot, art restorer—struck me as a perfect Gary Stu.  If he were a fanfic character, no one would believe him. But he’s the main character in mainstream, popular, adult novels, and his readers delight in his exploits rather than noticing how improbable they seem.

There is an excellent critique of this series, focusing on one title in particular, at this link.

If we believe words—and stories—have power, we must take that power seriously. Mr. Silva does. As he says himself, his goal was to influence his readers and cause them to support Israel. And I think he’s largely been successful in this.

If we are to challenge imperialism, racism, greed, and violence, we need to change popular culture. For one thing, I’d love to see a series, whether for kids or adults, with a Palestinian crime-fighting hero! I am not the person to write such books, but I hope there’s someone out there who is.

But, regardless of whether we are writers or readers, we can’t simply consume popular culture mindlessly. We need to examine and question it. And we need to show children how to do the same.

Because we build our lives on stories.  If the stories we base our actions on are false or toxic, our actions will also be toxic.

That’s why it’s so important to become aware of our own myths, whatever they are. That’s why it’s incumbent on us, as responsible adults, to examine them. If they prove to be untrue, we must tell ourselves different and better stories. May heaven in its mercy give us the strength and wisdom to do so.

Like millions of others, I am in shock. I'm deeply upset by what happened in Washington DC yesterday, on the feast of the Epiphany. Our democracy, such as it is, has survived for another day. But here's the thing:

I know, after the turbulence of the last four years, that many of us are longing to get back to normal. But what was that "normal", anyway? Constant war? The Patriot act, and surveillance and entrapment of Muslim citizens? The continuing violence against Black Americans and Native Americans? Fracking and pollution? Economic uncertainty and poverty? Not to speak of murder by drone, and oppression abroad.

Because none of these things went away under Obama. They certainly didn't go away under Trump! And--

We can't go back. We mustn't try to. We can only go forward.

This incoming administration will have a lot to handle, and a lot to repair. And I'm honestly not sure they are capable of it. We MUST change if we are to repair our country, and help to repair our world. We must end the wartime economy, and think of better ways of living. I think it can be done, but I also think the impetus will have to come from us, and some of the younger and/or more enlightened Pols, not the President and Vice President. (I love Bernie so much! and, right now, I am cheering on the Squad as they draw up articles of impeachment. But we CANNOT rely on politicians, no matter how well-meaning or principled, to be the change in the world. We have to be the leaders. As my man says, it's not me; it's us.

So I am tired, scared, overwhelmed, and also--just a little--hopeful. Let's all try to hang on to hope, and help each other.