I have a question: in light of boundless historical fallacies, is it possible to be a Christian, or a believer in the biblical God in general at all? God as we know Him/Her/It first came into parlance through a small tribe of people that was struggling to survive in a desert land, beset by much more powerful empires all around. Something like God becomes a survival mechanism, a means of uniting the people. And it's no wonder that this God was vengeful and vindictive, given the harsh circumstances. What better way to keep law and order than to invoke the most powerful being in the universe? This image of God evolved over time, becoming a loving Father, and further yet to be some gender neutral force-field. Anyway the point is that God evolved throughout history until the one we started with did not resemble the one we inherited in the 21st century. Where's the grain of truth in this inconsistency? You might say that God stayed constant while those we changed our minds over what God is. But ultimately, God started as a survival mechanism for a patriarchal society. I really want to believe in God, but is it not possible that he is ONLY the God of Israel and nobody else? Furthermore is it possible to discredit the Bible and still be Christian? It's one thing to reject the Church, but the very text itself is something else. But each book in it was hand-picked by a council of men who decided that this version, this point of view would be what all Christians must follow for ages to come. Who's to say they were right? None of the Gospels were written directly at the time of Christ, and none of the Church fathers who decided this canon even knew Jesus, personally. The faith of St. Paul appears very different from the faith of St. Peter, or Jesus himself and yet it's Paul's religion that spread across the mediterranean and beyond, taken up by the gentiles who became the inheritors of the Christian faith. And then at the Council of Nicea, they disputed over whether Jesus was literally the son of God or whether this was mere metaphor. the way we see Jesus and God was decided over a vote, not divine intervention. I'd like to have been there when they decided that, and how one side won out over the other(s). I just find it really hard to take what has been handed down to us for centuries to be the be all and end all of Christian doctrine. Why did the other Gospels not make the cut? What was wrong with them? Not to mention how drastically the whole thing changed when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, undergoing further surgery and cross-pollenization with pagan customs. The Good News starts to feel like an f#$%ing long game of Telephone spanning two millennia.

So nothing that I'm saying is new. This is something that plenty of believers and non-believers alike are aware of. I'm not trying to discredit the religion. I think it's a beautiful faith, so much so that I wish I could return to it. I believe in everything the Bible stands for, but when I think about the fact that it's the final draft of what could have been many editions at the hands of very fallible albeit well-meaning human beings, I can't help but feel cheated, like I'm missing the bigger picture, and it's hard for me to take the Bible for more than just great literature. How do you take it for more than a human construct? Some might say that it's how it is written that gives people the sense that its Author is divine. But then I've found other works just as uplifting or insightful as the Gospel, works from people who don't claim to be prophets or messiahs. So I ask as someone desperate for spiritual nourishment, not someone out looking for a fight with belief. I believe there is something greater than us, and I am open to the possibility that the God of Israel is that very same force, so I ask: is there enough room in God's universe for skepticism, and in light of all of this that I've just mentioned, is it possible for a skeptic like myself retain a belief in a Christian faith? And if so, how? I would genuinely like to know.

Oh and I'm deliberately ignoring all the alternatives because I want the answers to these questions specifically. Trust me, I'm very aware that there is more than just Jesus or nothing at all. The other faiths and philosophies of the world--that's a whole other topic!

A World By Any Other Name

So, any good fantasy story, or story in general, needs to take place somewhere. It has to be grounded in some world. This place might not be revealed to the readers, but the writer, as far as this fairy tale is concerned, ought to know a thing or two about it. So what I need to decide is, is this place supposed to be parallel to our own in some way? Traditionally a lot of fantasy and fairy stories do this, where they inhabit a land close to our own, but just beyond the borders of general knowledge. Or in other cases, the land is completely foreign to us and has no relation to Earth and any similarity is pure coincidence. Both are valid options. What I like about having a world that resembles ours, say some period before the Age of Exploration, is that there are still corners of the world that haven't been explored and charted. Imagine living in the middle ages, or the classical age, when your country was the bastion of civilzation, and just beyond the sunrise the world just ends, or worse, is full of dark places that none dare go. Imagine a world full of monsters, and mystery. It was this unknown that made these legends and myths possible in the olden days. Which makes it cool to think that any fantasy world you create might simply be another part of the world that civilizations in our regular, documented history just haven't found yet. You can make all sort of extrapolations, like "these people were the ancestors of the Gaels" "this kingdom was here before the Persians ever set foot here". It's filling in the gaps of history, assuming there are gaps to be filled. That is why I find the idea of a world parallel to our own (but just a little more magical), or part of our own in a forgotten place at a forgotten time, to be so appealing. In this case, what stumps me is who are these people? What are their names? How do they resemble us? How do I figure that all out? The alternative is that I make everything up without delving into older stories and myths and create my own world, completely emancipated from us. The plus of that is I don't have to consult anyone for it. If I want to call this city suchandsuch and that person soandso then I can and it won't matter. The problem with that is I have no idea where to begin, and might end up making something that will resemble our own just because that's all I know. This World is not in the future. The future means less mystery. I want a world where oaths and curses were just as potent weapons as steel and fire. Where people feared and revered nature because they knew it was inhabited by spirits. Where the world was a wide and scary place and reason hasn't completely eradicated the possibility of ghosts, and dragons and hydras and goblins and witches and valkyries and spells and rivers that lead into the underworld and all the trappings of an overactive human imagination that lead to marvelous yarns. So, it's not in the future. It's not right now. It's in the past. But if we are to use some place in history, then where? And when? It's a question of to what degree do I want this world to resemble ours? Just looking at a celtic myths and legends book the other day, it was full of fantastic names like Cuchulainn and Balor and Nuada. Names I really like, but it also feels kind of like cheating if I just took those completely out of their context as well. I'd like to invent new names if I can. But it's hard inventing names that can sound authentic and organic, and not sound overtly like something the writer made up for his fantasy novel. I need to give the sense that these people, this world exists without our witnessing it. That long after the last page is turned, life in this place will go on and many other adventures will be had. It's hard doing that without borrowing a thing or two from already existing yarns. Not that I object to taking old stories and reinventing them. Hell, that's what everybody does. But I fear that if I do, I'll do it clumsily. There needs to be a seamless quality to it. You can't have one person named "Brie" and another person named "Alshkabazar" both living in the same town and nobody asks why. It's really stupid and I hate it when fantasy stories do that, without paying any attention to continuity. It's disrespectful to the world you create and to the readers. Plus, the names usually sound really fake. So, what to do? Should I borrow from some very real sources, as far as names go (the stories I'm using anyway, that's for certain), or should I make up some new ones?

RIP, Michael Jackson

It's come to the end of a strange tale indeed. Yes, he was a controversial, bizarre man in the latter years, AND he also brought music and joy and entertainment to millions, which I'd say is a great service to the world, regardless.

Chillin' With a Villain

In light of the world spotlight being Iran, I was reminded of a project I did in Art class in high school:



There's Mr. Ahmedinejad himself. I did it out of a fascination not so much with the man, but the perception of the man. He was demonized in the West for his anti-Israel views, his nuclear power ambitions and his distaste for the West, and he was lionized in the Middle East for those very same reasons. What I wanted was a picture neither sympathetic nor critical, but a close up on the grey shades of a man completely stripped of politics and power. Just thought it would be interesting to share this.

Canada, cont'd...

I just finished watching One Week, with Joshua Jackson. That movie kind of sums up my search for Canadiana in 90 minutes. It's a very Canadian movie, but thankfully not to the point of overkill. Yet even so, somehow that wouldn't have bothered me too much.

I know it's a mean thing to say about our neighbours, but I think Americans have made me ashamed of being proud of my country. There are many books, movies, plays, songs devoted to homelands. Some of the best love stories are dedicated to the land, the country, the people. It's as soon as it gets warlike that I'm kind of turned off of patriotism. Not to mention countries, like everything else, are made of imaginary lines that shift and ripple as easily as string. Romans were so damn proud of their Roman-ness, until one day it went kaput. Or Alsace-Lorraine: one day it's French land, and the next it's German. America will crumble. Canada will crumble. Maybe not from war or revolution, but just maybe from the very forces of nature. Maybe not in the next century, maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but it'll happen. So with that in mind, national anthems don't give me much pause. BUT, if you follow that logic to its natural conclusion, I shouldn't really love anything, which just isn't going to happen, in spite of reason. It's rather callous in fact, not to love something just because it's going to die. So with that out of the way, my quest continues. Sure I know what it means to be Canadian, after living here for 20 years, and learning more facts here and there aren't going to enhance it by a great deal. At least not right away. I feel knowing my history will open a door to a place I never knew about, and I can understand it by breathing its air, swimming in its waters, talking to its inhabitants. But I can't stop at the door. If I do I will never get there and see this world with that same innocence and wonder that set me afoot in the first place. My heart is errant, for what it's worth. Hopefully it will still be when I have the courage to REALLY go out there and explore and connect with my fellow human beings and my fellow spirit. Oh, and the movie was really good, too.

All Gone To Look For Canada

Ever since missing last fall's election, I've become determined to stay abreast on Canadian politics. I'm doing my best, and I so badly want to participate in this democracy as much as I can, but it always seems like I don't know enough to have anything to say. I try to follow Parliament's goings-on via Globe and Mail and CBC almost every day now, but there are so many mixed messages that I don't know who to believe. I can have an opinion about this topic or about that politician, but in the end it's only conjecture, and relatively uneducated at that. For example, when Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper came to an agreement that averted a potential non-confidence vote, the Bloc Quebecois and NDP criticized him for not forcing Harper to call an election; even Tories were riding his back, accusing him of being a pushover like his predecessor, Mr. Dion. Now, my knee-jerk reaction is sympathetic toward Ignatieff. He was probably well aware that the other parties would deride him for not confronting the PM head on, and that an election would be very unpopular right now, during the recession. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Personally, I think he was sticking to his guns and had the peoples' interests in mind, and he wasn't just pandering to a very aggressive head of government. In the end, we'll never know for sure what Ignatieff's motives were, but I'd like to think it was a strategic choice to work with the Prime Minister and the government, rather than against them, which so often seems to happen in Canadian politics. Ultimately though, if I brought this up with people who knew more, I would be argued under the table, no matter what side I took. Maybe if I looked a little closer, I wouldn't be so sympathetic to Ignatieff. My knee-jerk may be justified or it may not. But I don't know yet. So this remaining ignorance has prompted me to find out more about my country. To learn more about the people who are actually running it, for one thing. But that's just the beginning. Politics is but a tiny slice of the pie. I really do ought to get to know Canada better as a whole; not just what happens in Ottawa, but from one ocean to another. I do know a fair deal about this place I call home, but it's not very in depth; it's the result of nearly 20 years of bombardment of media, images, icons, slogans, customs etc. etc. But a lot of it is just scratching the surface. I want to know its history, and to remind myself always why I can be proud of it, or why it should be ashamed of it as well. I've never been the patriotic type, but I think it's a must to know history, especially your own history. I've had the misinformed view that the national context in which I grow has little to do with me, the individual. I am who I am in spite of Canada. Well, I know now that this is complete garbage. I am who I am because of Canada, for better and worse. There's a wealth of culture and knowledge and values in our own backyard (not to mention skeletons in our closet) that are often overlooked in the shadow of not just America, but the huge import of cultures and histories from far away.

Nothing, right now, folks. My apologies. It is 5:00 in the morning right now. I do wish to talk, but all in good time, right?

Not to be a bleeding-heart, self-righteous blowhard, but...

The death toll after a week of this conflict is at least 17, according to the Globe and Mail, and it could be more. I haven't heard who of these people are for or against the government, but it doesn't matter. They're all human beings, who died in a really messed up situation. Apparently the police are stalking the streets, virtually empty of protesters now. But I have to suspect that's not the end of it. If I could have predicted one thing, it's that people were going to react with anger as soon as Ayatollah Khamenei said what he said on Friday. And now this sort of thing happens:

Warning: this video is extremely graphic and disturbing.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQxq5N--Kc"

It seems so voyeuristic in the worst sense that these images are being put up for everybody see, but in a way, it's kind of inevitable, and perhaps the only way to show just exactly what is happening in Iran. With restrictions on foreign journalists in the country, we rely on amateur videographers to show us the brutality on the streets of Tehran and abroad in the Islamic Republic. The authorities need to be held accountable for their actions, and the world needs to be shocked out of apathy.

I don't know if things would have turned out differently if the ballot count was more accurate. From an outsider's point of view it seems like Mousavi supporters might not have reacted this drastically if the results were actually representative of their vote, even if Ahmedinejad did win fair and square. But there's no way of telling, now. And it doesn't seem to matter anymore because the issue has moved beyond partisan politics. People are dying. The swelling mass of protesters shows a country deeply unhappy with the system itself, regardless of who won the election. Maybe the West is more sympathetic to Mousavi and his Green Revolutionaries as is the Western media, but even so, that mass of protesters is a number too sizeable to overlook. I'm not one to say that one form of government is better than another. Each nation has to figure that out for themselves, given their history and values. But no matter what guise the system takes, I cannot tolerate a government violates its social contract, that ignores its own people and then attacks them when they try to speak up. The same goes for any government, theocracy, parliamentary or republic or whatever. As soon as innocent people like this woman get shot, there's no question something's got to change.

Oh and I know I'm stating the obvious with all of this, but it has to be said. Again and again and again, if necessary.

Bonjour!

Thanks to Genevieve and Kesinee for your comments on the earlier post. The dilemma hasn't abated in the least, but there's not much I can do about it right now, except let it run around my head like a hamster in a wheel. I'm banking a lot on the next semester to see if I can. I'm just going to go full tilt in R&J and school, and make a decision when I get to the other side.

Anywho,

here are some notes on the "Great Kingdom".

King Frey hasn't spoken directly to his people for nearly twenty years. His advisors have urged him to appear before them every once and a while, just to prove that their King is still alive. His officials have made announcements and royal addresses in the King's name, but the truth is he hasn't spoken a sane word in all that time. They are afraid of unseating Frey because he has strong allies, and they cannot kill him because of a spell that's been cast on him. So they use him as a symbol while they go about running the country. Some of the court officials are loyal to the King, and for the most part they have been keeping a cap on things until Frey's son is old enough to run the show. But there are those who have other interests, and try to bully and intimidate the loyalists. There have been several attempts to kidnap the King and put him in exile, claiming that he is dead. But these plots have all been stopped. However, in the years of the King's hiatus, the court has become stricken with paranoia and protectionist. The military arm has been allotted more power in the King's Court, and the state has become increasingly warlike over the years. Ever since the King's affliction, the country's been at war with an invisible enemy (or imaginary, some suspect), a rebellious Wizard who people blame for the King's spell.
How DID Frey get the spell? Tampering with magic, fighting the rebel Wizard head to head, which naturally led to the severe distrust of Wizards. Other races are looked upon with distrust, like Dwarves, Nymphs, Talking Beasts, Giants, Taurids (Centaurs, Minotaurs and Satyrs, the first two of which are generally enemies of Humans anyway. Satyrs are neutral.) How does this sound?

Oh, and some things I'd like your opinion on:

So far, I'm including Humans, Fays, Wizards, Dwarves, Nymphs, Beasts, Giants, Taurids, and Dragons. And then there's a plethora of cthonic, unsightly monsters What other mythical peoples/creatures could I include in here?
ALSO, in my last post I hummed and hawed over the final point: should the drama of the highest order in this story revolve around a feud between husband and wife, who discover Mortal creatures, and while the Husband favours controlling them, the Wife opts for guiding them while letting them remain free? Your thoughts on this?

Notes on a Fairy Tale

Okay, I'm continuing with my fantasy story, no matter what. It's not one of those things you'd put down on a list-of-things-to-do-before-you-die and then flake out and never do them. This non-existent story has possessed me for a good 7 to 8 years now, and if I have one madman obsession, it's this. Yes, it was born from the desire to imitate Tolkien. But when it's ready it won't be. And if it is, oh well. I have to do this. I've thrown around a lot of different ideas, but ultimately I just can't settle on anything. However, these basic elements remain throughout:

1. In the world which this story takes place, there is a Great Kingdom (the name is undecided). It's basically the Roman Empire of this place. The story begins as its reign begins to crumble. Their monarch, King Frey is deathly ill and nobody knows how to cure him, he will not appear in front of his people or even govern, for that matter. He's been reduced to a something of an old fool (not unlike King Lear, at least in outward appearance). his advisers have been governing the country for him, and many believe they are corrupt, though few will speak it. The arena for much of the first part of this story takes place in this Kingdom. It is both the problem and the solution. A mighty ally to have on anybody's side.

2. Wizards and Witches. They have been banished from the kingdom. Official royal policy is that they are traitors. Magic is treason. Witches and Wizards will be either killed or exiled. Anybody caught assisting or harbouring them will be arrested. People fear their power. Many Witches and Wizards have gone into exile, and some remain in hiding. I haven't decided for how long this policy has been in place, but it has made long-effects on many peoples' lives.

3. Witches and Wizards are mortals who wield extraordinary powers, which they must never use for selfish gains. There was a rogue wizard who did however, and as a result, sullied the name of these individuals and made them an enemy to the Kingdom, with him as their ringleader. The truth is he is not the leader at all but he was close to the Chief of Wizards and Witches, and many people believed the Chief was in kahoots with him; nobody has seen this "rogue" for years. He might not even be alive anymore and is just used as an ever-present all-encompassing "enemy" used as propaganda to mobilize the people. It's the idea of him that frighten them more than anything.

4. Fays. Not unlike Nordic Elves in appearance, I'm not gonna lie. But their fate is FAR different from anything in Tolkien's or scandinavian legend. Rather, it more closely resembles that of the Fays/Fairies of Celtic legend, and they're integral to this story. They have remarkable healing powers, and it was the Queen of the Fays who taught the Wizards everything they know. Basically the children of Gods. They're believed to be extinct.

5. One of our protagonists: Ganny (short for Ganimen). Don't ask why this name. I came up with it when I was about 10 years old, actually for a story I was writing before I even read the Hobbit. It doesn't mean a thing, but it stuck for some reason. Generally I've made him the same age that I was whenever I tried writing the story again (started at 10, then went up from there). But I want to keep no older than 12. I don't want him much older. The manly hunk of a protagonist is a bit cliche for me. I want part of his struggle to be the fact that he is a child, who gets caught up in something much larger than anything he's ever known. I've always liked child protagonists, like Oliver Twist, Charlie Bucket, Harry Potter, etc. In spite of this, this story is not meant to be for children. Not only children, anyway. Nevertheless, Ganny is a stubborn, willful and imaginative boy, who longs for adventure.

6. Our other protagonist, and Ganny's best friend in the whole world: Aeas (Aias?). She's his childhood friend, possibly sister (but if so, only adopted). I've toyed with the idea of her being a little older than Ganny, certainly more mature anyway. She can often be rough with him, but she cares for him like a big sister, whatever their direct upbringing is. The precipitating event, the catalyst for the entire story is the discovery that she is the only living Fay left. There are huge ramifications to this. There might be a way to bring them back, and prevent a country from falling apart. She is the compass. Some people start to see her as a saviour, which she absolutely hates. Nobody could be more reluctant than her, and nobody could be more envious than Ganny.

7. One final ingredient. What would a fantasy novel be without an all-pervading, diabolical force, hellbent on destroying everything our heroes hold dear? This beast will lurk in the shadows for the first part, letting the mortal men and beasts quarrel amongst themselves. This monster is quiet, a calculated predator, and its heart, of course, is a bottomless pit. I've toyed with the idea of this role being split between a dark-lord-satanic-saurony-darth-vadery character, who is in hiding, being nursed back to health by his wife/consort, a figure no less monstrous. While he is in hiding gathering his strength and military might, she is out among the land, deceiving mortals of all kinds, spreading word of a King who can restore their country to prosperity if they follow her. She is a pied piper in a sense. She's a bit like Morgan Le Fay meets Lady Macbeth. The dark lord I'm considering basing loosely on Oberon, King of the Fairies, as in he was once husband to Laleith, Queen of the Fays, until he turned rotten, and he would stop at nothing to efface Laleith and her children and any who take her side. Long ago there was a war between him and Laleith, which eventually ended in an impasse that lasted several hundreds, if not thousands of years. While I'm intrigued by the idea of this whole story being the result of a long-standing domestic dispute on a divine scale I've been hesitant to go with it because it doesn't directly involve the people who have to deal with it, the mortals never asked for any of it, and they just get dragged along whether they like it or not. This seems too loosely put together for me. If mortals get involved, it has to be through their own doing, so when the time comes, they will be the ones to clean it up again. I dunno. I might go with the first notion; it would nicely mirror the helplessness that I imagine little ones like Ganny must be feeling. But there's a lot of unsatisfactoriness in that. Everyone involved must be responsible. There must be no bystanders. If any child suffers it is from the sins of his or her father, not a god. That I'll need to give more thought.

But basically these are some of the things that have been stewing in my mind for the past few years. It might be a long time yet before it's ripe, but it won't get anywhere unless I do something about it. I'm putting all this down because I need your help. If you have any ideas to help me string this stuff together, please share them. Yes, it's dangerously close to following a tired formula. But I just don't care anymore. Besides, Shakespeare stole other peoples stories all the time. Tolkien did, too. It's the details that will make a story good. So, any help would be appreciated.

I'm in a better mood now, oddly enough. My god, if you charted a person's day by how many different emotional shades they went through, there would be no rhyme or reason to it. Well, I'm sure there would be, but those rhymes and reasons would be so subtle you couldn't tell. If we had the ability to remember every single moment of our lives at all times, I think we might go mad. I guess we have the other 90% of our brain to thank for that.

I'm actually feeling very optimistic right now. It is just a feeling mind you, and like any other feeling it can just as easily be replaced by any other feeling, but my resolve is strengthening nonetheless. My mind is going a mile a minute right now. I wish I could write down everything that's going on inside of it. One of the most inspiring thing I've come across was the Celestial, from Marvel Comics (generally found in Fantastic Four, to be specific). Bear with me, now. This is a being 610 meters in height, covered from head to toe in cosmic armour. I read in the Marvel Encyclopedia that while their outward armour is a limited shell, their inner bodies are infinite in space and time. Call it geeky, but this kind of makes a lot of sense to me, I mean in a human context. It sounds not unlike the inner space which the Dalai Lama speaks of, no?

Dear Cyberworld,

Hi, by the way.

In Uta Hagen's Respect For Acting, she mentions the frequently asked question: "should I stay in theatre?" to which she answers "if you have to ask, then no, you shouldn't". I often have to ask myself this question, so does that mean I shouldn't stay? I just want to get this out now: my dilemma has nothing to do with money. I'm aware that theatre, acting especially is generally not a lucrative job. That doesn't bother me. In fact it's comforting that I'm not worried about that. But it's the fact that I should feel ostracised from a wonderful art form simply because I don't want to be married to it, that upsets me. But on the other end, there's a monstrous thing called the entertainment industry. It just sickens me that so many people get recognition in the world for having no talent, while people I know work so hard to keep the art of acting respectable. It's really no surprise that actors are so often the butt-end of jokes. Half the time, they deserve it. I don't want to be associated with people like that. And it's infuriating that it is so closely associated with an industry absolutely teeming with hacks and financial backers to those hacks. It's not that I'm not able to make fun of myself, but I want to be a part of something I can truly be proud of. And there are a lot of people out there who are making acting very hard to be proud of.

It's especially hard because I can't tell whether it's them, or if it's me. I'll always have deep love and admiration for acting, but I have to wonder if it is right for me. How much longer am I going to wait before I give myself an honest answer? I'm sick of having this argument with myself. I don't want to have it until I'm an old man. Ever since I started acting I'd been made to feel like I was supposed to do it. I was encouraged and supported so much, I wonder if I just let it all go to my head or something. But the truth is, I've never felt like I was supposed to do it, like it was absolutely imperative. To be honest, I've always felt like I could do anything I put my mind to. This is a very comforting thought. But this might also point to an error in judgement. I chose UVic over Mt. Allison as if acting was something I HAD to do, when really I could have done English, or Writing or drawing or political science or WHATEVER just as willingly. Well alright, not just anything would do, I think. But I can't help but wonder if I should've taken a degree in something else as a basis for my education, and then have taken acting training afterwards. I can't help but wonder if I was seduced into acting, rather than inspired to do it. As much as I'd rather not believe in regrets, it's hard not wondering what would have been. Regardless, I'm sick of having this argument with myself, like I said. I want to move on to other things to talk about on here, for once.