Those Mormons and their polytheism

Check out this article from The Wild Hunt--interesting, nay? I've never personally encountered anyone who considered the LDS religion to be a polytheistic (and therefore "pagan" and "non-Christian") one, but it comes up occasionally in articles that I read, and always, without fail, I am taken aback. Of course it never occurred to me while I was in the church to wonder if my religion was a polytheistic one, and once I left, I had other things on my mind. But now I have all the time in the world to consider such things! 

So. Are Mormons polytheists? This is not really the kind of thing that I think matters, but lots of other people do. Generally I feel like if Christ figures into your belief system as a personal and/or universal savior, you are probably a Christian, and by this measuring stick, the LDS church is a Christian one. I have more than once explained this to people, but it didn't occur to me until just now to wonder whether those people were implying that Mormons were pagans when they said that they didn't think the church was a Christian institution. Maybe they were! Maybe everyone thinks Mormons are pagans and I'm just really oblivious! I think, being in the church and worshiping as a Mormon, it doesn't cross most members' minds that they might be polytheists. But then, if it does, I also think it doesn't cross their minds that this automatically makes them not Christian.

The problem for me with this whole conversation is that there is apparently one very narrow definition of Christianity. You could argue, as some do, that Catholics are pagans and polytheists for their veneration of Mary and the various saints. The possibility of Heavenly Mother adds to the perception of the LDS as polytheists (if you know enough about the church to know about possible Heavenly Mothers). Indeed there is a good bit about Mormonism and the history of the LDS church that is quite pagan--Joseph Smith utilized what amounts to fortune-telling and divination methods (and one of his and following prophets' titles is "Seer"); temple architecture and ceremonies take many aspects from Freemasonry, with its mysterious origins and pan-religious membership, and the mere existence of sacred (or secret) temple rituals is somewhat analogous to mystery cults; and an entire new mythology is found in the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, Lorenzo Snow's couplet "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be" is very close in spirit to the popular pagan adage "as above, so below," generally attributed to Hermes Trismegistus but said by nearly ever major figure in modern Western paganism at some point. Imagine that! We're all cribbing from the same sources, folks. These are not small things. They certainly make the LDS church a peculiar one. But are they enough to cancel out Christ as the centerpiece of the religion?

Not for me. I suppose the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" is a pretty clear one (then again, so is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," and pretty much ONLY Mormons stick to that one), but then you get into all sorts of arguments about who is speaking: it is God the Father? Is it Jehovah-who-will-be-Christ? Does it matter? If Christ is the same figure as God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, why are they demarcated at all? For Mormons, such questions are even stickier, since LDS dogma indicates that the members of the Godhead are distinct figures, that Jehovah of the Old Testament is Christ, not God the Father, and that God the Father was once a physical human man and is the literal as well as spiritual father of humanity. But does that make Mormons true polytheists? I say ye nay, and here's why--henotheists acknowledge the existence of more than one deity, and active polytheists worship more than one god figure. The LDS church does neither and wouldn't dream of it; you aren't even supposed to be praying to Heavenly Mother in the privacy of your own bedroom. Prayers are without fail addressed to God as "Heavenly Father," and ordinances such as baptism are carried out "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" much as other Christian churches' rites are. Practically and functionally speaking, there's no polytheism to see here. Theologically speaking...it's a thicket, man. If you consider the LDS doctrine that all humans who reach the celestial kingdom will eventually become deified, well, that's a very un-Christian idea both in concept and in practice--as far as I know--to think that there are a myriad other worlds with their own Heavenly Parents and Saviors. Mormon theology's greatest sin may be that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Ultimately, for me, the church's emphasis on Christ as the Savior is enough to make it a Christian institution. That isn't the case for everyone, but I very much abhor the idea that Christians must be monotheists. Basically, to Christians who are concerned that voting for Romney means they won't be voting for a "Christian" I would say: have no fear, he and his running mate share all your bigotries.

The case for Wonder Woman's virginity

Now. I don't mean that Wonder Woman has never had sex or should never have sex. But I do think there's something to be said for using a different definition of "virgin" when considering the Amazon, a la Marilyn Frye. In this meaning, a woman may have sexual relations but, if unmarried or unpartnered, is considered a virgin, she who is without fetters, not under anyone's control: the willful virgin.

(she dates herself...)

This is the light in which I prefer to read Wonder Woman, for several reasons. First, this definition allows for same-sex relationships, which is useful for people who read Diana as a bisexual or lesbian woman (as I do). Furthermore, it allows for a woman having multiple sexual partners or no sexual partners, according to her lights. I like this because I view Wonder Woman as loving both men and women--but chiefly women--and also as having no particular interest in long-term relationships. Part of the reason that I find the new Superman/Wonder Woman As Official DC Power Couple so distasteful is that I don't see much in Wonder Woman's persona that is interested in being with one person. Her love goes elsewhere; it can be directed to a child in need of help or whole countries. She loves everyone, as a goddess loves. And like a goddess, she might take a consort for some time, or she might not. 

(she's authoritative...)

Taking her original origin (I am also serenely ignoring her new origin), Diana is gifted by the Greek deities to be "as beautiful as Aphrodite, as wise as Athena, as strong as Hercules, and as swift as Hermes," as well as receiving other blessings from deities such as Demeter and Hestia. All told, these gifts combined with the love and will of the Amazons create a demigoddess who is very similar in many ways to the goddess Artemis, and even shares her Roman counterpart's name, with Artemis and Diana being two of the most well-known virgin goddesses. Pre-Olympian stories indicate that Artemis occasionally loved humans; the stories of Orion, Endymion (where Artemis and Selene are considered to be two parts of a tripartite figure), and possibly Actaeon fit into this scheme, as do the numerous nymphs and maidens Artemis had about her as companions and supernatural/divine versions of Sappho's colony on Lesbos. The pre-Olympian Artemis is the quintessential willful virgin, and as her avatar on Earth, Wonder Woman is too. Both are active, powerful, complex female figures whom misguided souls attempt to cram into too-small boxes.

(...but always diplomatic, even in war)

Seeing Diana placed in a heterosexual long-term relationship grates. Romantic relationships are not the be-all end-all of female characters; heterosexual sex is not the only sex; sex and relationships don't have to go hand in hand. And let me be frank: I ship my lady with a whole slew of people, from Batman to older versions of Dick Grayson, from Batwoman to Power Girl. It's very easy for me to imagine her in the throes of passion--she isn't sexless--but my reading of her personality and her life and her mission is that she won't be distracted for long. She won't give in to relaxation and pleasure when there's work to be done. And she won't tie herself to another person, because she belongs to the people and the world first. Most importantly, she belongs to herself.

Republicans in the Big Guava

This Salon article is both deeply depressing and extremely accurate. As you all probably know, the Republican National Convention is taking place in my fair former city, Tampa, starting this weekend. When this was first announced, I shuddered in horror and thanked my lucky stars that I would already be gone when it came time. It would even worse than when we hosted the Super Bowl! And by all accounts it's going to be--the city is playing host to a slew of birther nutbars, and the prison on Orient Road is just waiting for people to be arrested. 

A new billboard greets GOPers as they roll in from the airport, seen below:

Believe me, to live there you would have no idea that this is actually true. The only reason Tampa is occasionally a spot of blue in a sea of red is because there are large amounts of students and people of color living there. Nothing in the city's infrastructure or plans for the future indicates the presence of liberal devils; I've posted here before about the utter lack of parks, the dangers of being a pedestrian or bike-rider, and the terrible public transit, including our idiot governor's rejection of the high-speed rail and Hillsborough County voters' rejection of a one-cent tax raise to fund light rail. On the other hand, the city doesn't display many of the virtues of conservatism, either--the tourism business is a shambles. There is nothing that Tampa has for tourists that every other Florida city doesn't have--Tallahassee doesn't have a beach, but then neither does Tampa proper--and a good bit of what it does have isn't being promoted properly. A rich and interesting history, sure...but where do you go to learn about that history? A lovely waterway...almost entirely ringed with unwalkable roads (the Riverwalk project, mentioned in the Salon article, has been in progress since before I moved to Hillsborough). Beautiful and historic houses...in the poorest parts of the city. Seminole Heights is to date the only successful attempt at gentrification, and frankly, gentrification isn't what the goal should be. The neighborhoods on all sides of Seminole Heights, including V.M. Ybor where I used to live, could see the same level of success that Seminole Heights has, but there's no initiative to make that happen, and even if it did, it would most likely manifest in the same old "push locals out, put Starbuck's in". Hillsborough County is a patchwork of extreme cases, where expensive high-rises sit next to urban-ugly tenements, and there are few hard dividing lines between "neighborhoods" as many other major urban centers have. The "solution" to distasteful urban spaces has been to push ever farther away from the city center, creating white-flight suburbs like New Tampa.

Tampa is a city that displays some of the worst excesses of typical Florida urban hubs: development run rampant with comparably few gains, extreme dependency on automobiles with all that entails (including some of the worst traffic in the nation, high rates of pedestrian injuries, and pollution), and a fatal disconnect between residents of the city proper and residents of the larger county. It has no essential spaces and it's far too spread out to be livable. There is very little that stitches Tampa together--other than 275. There is no overarching meaning to living in the place, little cultural identity unless you've been rooted there for generations, and most folks would rather say they're from somewhere else.

It's kind of a wreck. But I love it: it's home to my favorite restaurants, breweries, and bookstores, it's hot and bright and exquisitely scented, and it's lousy with memories. I'm sad the Republicans saw fit to descend upon it in their locust-like waves. Give them hell, Tampons! Since stand-your-ground is still in place, you might as well make good use of it.

Suck my status quo, J-boy

It was announced yesterday that, come Justice League #12, Wonder Woman and Superman would be shacking up. This sent yet another wave of outrage through DC fans (oddly enough I have yet to see any comments supportive of the decision; the most lenient ones are people who don't care or who are out of fucks to give--usually there's at least one person who's willing to keep sucking DiDio's dick) for several reasons: foremost for Superfans is that this is yet another blow to the Clark/Lois relationship, which is one of the oldest and most popular relationships in superhero comics. For some WW fans, including myself, this development dashes any hopes that we might have seen Diana with a female partner at last.

Also, you know, this exact thing has happened and been retconned like eight times because everyone hates it. Whatever. I will anticipate some glorious subtext in Wonder Woman's upcoming crossover with Batwoman (gaaaaaay Batwoman) and serenely ignore any goings-on with Supes unless it touches her title outright. Which, I'm sacrificing a goat today to ensure that it doesn't. Get thee hence, thou unclean thing. Pairing the two most powerful characters in the DCU is both the most obvious and least inspired relationship choice the bigwigs could have made. It's boring. Superman and Wonder Woman have a wonderful friendship, Clark and Lois have a wonderful romance, and if I really get an urge to see the demigods doing it, THAT IS WHAT FANFIC IS FOR. There are much better fic writers than you, Johns.

 (I mean this is just straight-up RUDE)

And let's be honest--if I go searching for smut involving Clark and Diana, there needs to be a Bruce filling in the middle of that sandwich. Pure Trinity porn or bust! Don't suppose we'll be getting any of that in the JL title.

In other news, Rob Liefeld, the most hated man in mainstream comic book creation, is rage-quittingleaving DC. Really! This time he means it! We can only hope. I can't blame him if the creative atmosphere is that dreadful--which I assume it is, with the possible exception of people working on Batbooks and Green Lantern titles, which are all the bigwigs care about--but his comment about overseas talent is pretty fucking nasty. A number of the best artists DC currently employs are not Americans, and guess what? This isn't news! Ed Benes and Guillem March might really enjoy drawing big tits, but their art isn't bad. Eduardo Risso is one of the greatest comic artists to ever live. Marcus To and Yanick Paquette are Canadian; do they count as evil talentless-hack foreigners? If Mikel Janin is good enough to work with Jeff Lemire, he should be good enough for you, Liefeld.

The bottom line to all of this is that comics should be good. I am only willing to spend money on things that I think are good. I don't buy books that have grammatical errors, crappy, boring plots, and suspect ethics; why would I buy a comic with the same? There seems to be a really low bar for consumption of comics, like, well it's just a comic book. No. It is not just a comic book and if you've let yourself be tricked into thinking that, you are part of the problem! Get some standards --they don't have to be MY standards, just A set of standards--and quit giving money to comics you don't actually like.

Male-pattern badness

So I went to see The Expendables 2 for my birthday, as one does (surely you all recall how I feel about The Expendables). Possibly even more exciting than the most homoerotic fight scene ever filmed outside of gay porn is the inkling that an all-ladies Expendables movie might possibly happen. 

I KNOW you all can tell how I would feel about that. Of course I have some suggestions as to who should be involved in such a venture: Maggie Q, Michelle Rodriguez, Gina Carano, Milla Jovovich, Gina Torres, Zoe Saldana, the flawless Lucy Liu, and of course a cameo by Pam Grier, to name just a few. If I can't get my Birds of Prey film or All DC Ladies All The Time miniseries, I'll settle for a gynocentric Expendables venture.

Ok, back to the really gay fight scene. I canNOT, dear readers. See, the best thing about this sequel is that Jean Claude Van Damme is in it--playing the baddie, no less, sleek Eurotrash in sunglasses who's trying to sell plutonium to...whoever wants it. His name, obviously, is Vilain. So inevitably he and Sly Stallone's main bad-mother-do-gooder have to mix it up, and though there could have been more actual fighting in their Thunderdome showdown, the lines spoken make up for it. "I'll man you up," Sly snarls. "You must really want to hurt me," JCVD hisses back. "Taste good?" Sly grits as blood drips from JCVD's jaw.

I mean really. This scene is a gift from the gods of war.

(also, Jason Statham joins the roster of sexy Hollywood priests)

Belts are ripped off! Guns and knives are tossed aside until the only phallic objects around are actual phalli! And at last Sly triumphs (which would totally not happen, said the Jean Claude fangirl) and his reward is a heart-to-heart with Maggie Chan, the team's lone female member. Dear talented, badass Yu Nan, what are you even doing here? Bruce Willis coins the phrase "male-pattern badness" early on in the film and really, that's what the movie is about and the reason why anyone goes to see such movies. Shoehorning in women as a nod to diversity or as romantic interests is really beyond the ken of a movie that is only trying to be a slugfest. There's nothing at all wrong with slugfests but I don't necessarily enjoy it when they try to be more than what they are. This is not to say that women can't be action stars or that there are no action films that utilize female characters skillfully. Being the only person alive who enjoyed Haywire and Salt and who can't stop going to all the Resident Evil and Underworld films, I consider myself a big fan of ladies shooting and/or stabbing things. But action movies that work with female characters are ones that don't make a big deal about them being there. Maggie, of course, gets to go through the mild gauntlet of being underestimated by Sly and hit on by Dolph, until finally she has proven herself as good as one of the boys. Hopefully, if a female-cast Expendables comes to fruition, the plotline will be something other than this. In the first Expendables movie, Giselle Itie's character Sandra had a  fairly solid plot-driven purpose for being present, but in this sequel, Maggie's purpose is more tenuous. As a government agent, she could be anyone, and she has no real investment in the plan going off without a hitch other than "not dying". Ultimately both Sandra and Maggie's higher purpose is to serve as the mode for Sly's introspection. Will they help him out of his shell? Will he eventually open his heart to luv? Sorry, but no thank you. Barney Ross will continue to seek refuge in blowing shit up.

Final words: Stallone and his cowriter seem to have made a drinking game out of fitting into the script as many action film references as possible. Chuck Norris is that kid who follows you around on the playground but demurs when you invite him to play with you. Charisma Carpenter is sorely underutilized by these movies. And will someone please, please cast Terry Crews to play Luke Cage already?

Happy birthday, Jimmy and Karen!

Yes, it's true, yesterday saw not one but two of my best-beloved creators celebrating birthdays! Jimmy Palmiotti, comic book writer and artist, and Karen Healey, YA author, are August babies, and bear with me as I gush a few words about them (alas, as my laptop is busted in various ways, there will be no schmoopy photos of me and my fave titles this time).

Palmiotti has written and/or illustrated several of my favorite comics titles, including several with his wife, amazingly talented Amanda Conner, and his longtime collaborator, similarly amazingly talented Justin Gray: these include Jonah Hex and the current ongoing All-Star Western (one of the greatest of DC's New 52 titles), an utterly classic run on Power Girl, and the superfun miniseries The Ray. He also had a hand in Gail Simone's first arc of Secret Six following Villains United, Six Degrees of Devastation. I was lucky enough to meet Palmiotti at Megacon one year and can confirm that he's a stand-up dude who enjoys talking with his fans.

(recent All-Star Western issue featuring my fave Old West femme fatale, Tallulah Black)

Healey is the author of two books, with a third coming out NOT SOON ENOUGH; I've written about her here. Guardian of the Dead and The Shattering are both rooted in New Zealand cultures and provide wonderfully well-rounded and diverse casts while also creating exciting and original stories. Healey is outspoken in the realms of YA lit and geek fandom, and her blog is a great place to go for informed opinions and recommendations, as well as hilarious musings from Down Under. 

(Healey with her debut novel)

Happy birthday, Karen and Jimmy! Many happy returns to you both.

Geek Girl Con 2012

This past weekend I was lucky to be able to travel to Seattle and attend the second annual Geek Girl Con gathering. I was prepared for awesomeness, but not quite the level of great that occurred. It was definitely the best convention experience I've had thus far: excellent and varied programming, some truly sweet guests, an exhibition hall where I wanted to buy something from every table, an astonishing amount of talented cosplayers, and general good vibes.

I met literal social justice warrior Purple Reign and her partner Phoenix Jones; I attended panels about disabilities in comics and other popular media, feminist concerns in YA literature, creating well-rounded characters, and gender and race in The Hunger Games; I chatted with three of my favorite comic book writers (one featured below); I hooked up with amazing Internet friends; and I managed not to empty my bank account on swag.

(your faithful blogger with Greg Rucka. Yes, THAT Greg Rucka)

It was a wonderful view into a portion of fandom that is motivated, thoughtful, smart, talented, and passionate. I really hope I can go back next year, and every year after. If you'd like to see some of the pictures I snapped (mostly beautiful cosplay), check out my Tumblr and the official con Flickr. I also have a couple of posts about the con experience up at my other blogge and the comics website Between the Panels.

Blergh, just blergh

It's been a pretty bad few weeks for attacks on American citizens on American soil by other Americans--you know, domestic terrorism. It's also been a pretty bad few weeks for the media refusing to call these people what they are. Between the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the burning of a mosque in Missouri,  and the Colorado movie theater shooting, I'm not real proud right now to be a white American (am I ever tho?). On (somewhat) less dire fronts, bigots lining up to be counted at fast food restaurants is hardly worth lauding, although I like it when assholes identify themselves for me, and NBC's general terrible Olympic coverage and specifically their tendency to ignore certain Black female athletes' triumphs has been giving me a little of the old throwing-up-in-my-mouth feeling.

Good news, anyone? IS there any so far this week?

REALLY BRAIN?

Normal people have nightmares where they're back in school, sans pants or with a test to take they didn't know about.

Former Mormons have nightmares where they're sitting on the stand in sacrament meeting, about to give a talk that hasn't been prepared.

Happy birthday, Gail Simone!

Today is the birthday of one of my favorite comic book creators, Gail Simone. Simone has written all of my favorite characters at one time or another, including Wonder Woman, Renee Montoya as the Question, Deadpool, and of course the superteams Birds of Prey and Secret Six...and she recently got to use Batwoman in the Batgirl title, an issue I'm very much looking forward to!

She's one of the best DC Comics has got and I wish her many happy returns. Have a great birthday, Gail!

Godspeed, Dr. Ride

In case you missed the news, Dr. Sally Ride passed away on Monday. She was sixty-one years old.

Being that Ride was the first American woman to travel in outer space (as well as the youngest astronaut, aged 32 at her first flight), I heard a lot about her growing up on the Space Coast. She was a staple of Florida history classes and science lessons. As an adult, I have even more admiration for this remarkable woman and her legacy. She did much to break barriers for women in the sciences and provides a wonderful example for youth to look up to.

If you'd like to learn more about Dr. Ride, check out Sally Ride Science.

Talking about it

In the interest of continuing to think about that blasted Hairpin thread/giving myself an ulcer, happy Friday!...having lived on the Internet since I was fourteen and begun unpacking my spiritual knapsack about five years ago, it really seems to me that it's very difficult for people to have a useful discussion about a religion they aren't and have never been part of. 

I don't mean that only people who have directly experienced a religion are the ones who can talk about it.

Or maybe I do. Because really, what useful things do I have to say about Catholicism or Judaism or Islam? All my knowledge of those religions is strictly academic and must ever remain. Any opinion I have about the Catholic church has little to do with personal experience, and religion is all about personal experience. As we can see in the Pin thread, there are people who have poor opinions of the church and its followers, and there are people defending the church and its followers who largely draw from the pool of "all the Mormons I've met are nice people." Yes, it's true, most LDS folk will not tell you to your face that you are going to Outer Darkness--unless you used to be part of the church. Like, those arguments just do not work on apostates. I can say the same thing about Catholics; I have never met a Catholic who told me point-blank that I was a heathen sinner. But my ex-Catholic gentleman heard plenty of that ilk when he was a teenager. What exactly are we trying to prove with these statements of "but all the [blank] I know are nice"? Your lack of experience does not cancel out my lived experience. 

This Pin thread was really disheartening to me. At the most basic level, I was disappointed to see the comments devolve into name-calling. As I said in the previous post, I had a genuine critique of the article, one which was barely mentioned in the comment thread and which, for my money, is the only viable critique (other than maybe you just aren't into cute travel writing, which is pretty valid. I think the market for that is sort of over-saturated, myself). I have no idea how or if the site editors will address yesterday's mess. But I really am beginning to think that I Just Don't Care about your opinions of my former religion unless the conversation is purely academic, as in, Let us discuss how Jewish temples and Mormon temples are similar! or something of the kind. This thread was not academic in the slightest; it could have been, if anyone had been interested in talking about why and how missionary work is problematic, but that didn't happen. This thread was a case in which I just wanted to scream at everyone on both sides of the argument to do their homework before opening their mouths.

...so yeah, I'm pretty glad it's Friday. I need a stiff drink after this week.

No Mormons allowed?

So this was posted on the Hairpin, one of my favorite websites, yesterday. As you can see if you skim the comments, there were some posters who were displeased with the article and others who weren't. Honestly the comments are a pretty big mess and I don't agree with most of the dissenting ones, despite being a bitter apostate. The bulk of the dissenting comments were in the mode of "Mormonism is toxic, we should not have articles about LDS culture/belief here," a few veering into "Mormons should not be writing for the Hairpin, period" territory.


I'm not chill with either of those statements. It might seem, reading Ye Olde Blogge here, that I am angry at the church and by extension anyone involved with it. That's largely true, but it doesn't mean that I'm uninterested in the church and its people. I spend a good chunk of my time online reading LDS-related blogs, and not just the ones written by the disaffected. If I thought there was the skinniest chance that I would never encounter another LDS member or have to hear about the church again, I might be able to just let it all slip away. But having been very devout for fifteen years and with LDS parents and a Mormon running for president, there's just no way. It's always going to be there, tendriling into my life, and trying to force it out completely is more tiresome and less rewarding for me than trying to continue engaging with it in non-toxic ways. For me this means thinking about who I was when I was LDS, considering the aspects of the church that most influenced who I became, considering how the church relates to the world at large, and keeping abreast of news and changes. Because I would like very much to see changes occur in the church. I can't think of a change that would make me want to return to it, but it would give me joy to think that all members could be married in the temple, for instance. If that happens, I want to hear about it and think about it and talk about it. Just because I'm no longer part of the membership doesn't mean I'm no longer affected by its workings. 


I don't often defend the church or its members. Everyone knows nice Mormons,  indeed most Mormons are nice Mormons. But within the context of the article presented, there was an issue for me and that issue is missionary work. I have no good feelings about missionary work, any missionary work. That is my problem with the Hairpin piece; not that it was written by an LDS church member, not that it concerns a facet of the LDS belief system, but that it concerns the imperialist-based act of going into a country with the set goal of converting the inhabitants. Missionary work is not neutral to me. This was why I looked at the article askance, but based on the rest of the comments, there are few interested in presenting a critique that isn't "Mormons are bad, we don't want Mormons here." That's a bullshit criticism and I was glad to see a few commenters say that Hey, I am a Mormon actually and I am allowed to comment here.

I hope that the Pin editors maybe think about inviting a few LDS bloggers to talk about other aspects of church belief and culture which aren't quite so rooted in privilege and colonialism. There are so many interesting Mormon topic blogs, so many conversations going on that are relevant to topics that the Hairpin talks about frequently--gardening and canning and baking, parenting, and of course, feminism. I don't think barring Mormon writers from the website is a good idea, but I also don't think that a missionary travelogue couched (somewhat oddly) in "weight loss tips" is a necessary item.

For the good of humanity

Not much to report other than that cookie butter exists, and it is delicious. My gentleman is out of town for three weeks and so I'm slowly falling into a state of natural Dianitude: endless Netflix queue of brooding period pieces, spending hours at a time reading, never cooking dinner.

Cookie butter. Go get you some. 

In which I use more exclamation points than usual, all very warranted

Today in the mail I received a book I won in a giveaway on Rue's blog: Jude's Herbal Home Remedies (by Jude C. Todd). Also included was a package of celandine seeds! Must find a pot and get planting. I'll be reviewing the book here once I've finished it. Many thanks to Rue!

Something else arrived in the mail today too...a signed George Perez sketch of my favorite superpowered lady, Wonder Woman herself! My cousin commissioned it at a recent convention and sent it as an early birthday present. What a guy!

Thing relevant to my interests #82: Tampa

So, Magic Mike. Here were the things I knew about Magic Mike prior to seeing it:

• Channing Tatum is in it
• So is Matt Bomer, otherwise known as Dick Grayson
• Channing Tatum used to actually be a stripper
• Matt Bomer AKA Dick Grayson wasn't (except in various fics where Dick is TOTALLY a stripper, and, you know, if you want to read those I will link them)
• Strippers
• Lots of junk flying around presumably
• Ew, Matthew McConaughey, please keep your clothes on please please please
• Made by Steven Soderbergh

These things are all true (there is a lot of junk flying around. Also ass). Here is a thing that is also true, which I was not aware of until right before seeing Magic Mike, and which makes me unfathomably happy: Magic Mike is set in Tampa, Florida. This makes a lot of sense, if you think about it; Tampa is known for having oodles of strip joints, and not all of them are geared toward straight men. When I found out this film's setting (it shot there too, AND CHANNING TATUM IS FROM TAMPA WHAT THE HELL) and told some of my fellow Tampa expat ladyfriends, they all made the same expression: confusion, followed by delight. I will be honest; the thought of seeing Matt Bomer and Joe Manganiello shake their stuff in very little clothing is nice, but the thought of another movie paying attention to my fair former city is even nicer. I have my priorities.

image via Just Jared

Anyway, "confusion followed by delight" is a pretty accurate tag for my general thoughts about this movie. I think most people were expecting it to be Showgirls except with dudes, which would have been fine. But Soderbergh wants you to think about the human condition of male strippers. And this movie is actually good. WEIRD RIGHT. The general plot is a tale as old as time--party boy is getting older, trying to figure out what he's going to do with his life--but the acting carries it through. I think I'm turning into a Channing Tatum apologist, but I have great love for She's the Man and I think he's gotten quite a bit better as his career has progressed. Alex Pettyfer was convincing as Adam, the skeezy and irresponsible douchewaffle baby stripper Tatum's character takes under his wing. And Cody Horn, well, haters can hate but I really liked her character, Brooke (Adam's sister). I'm sort of a buzzkill myself and I don't think there are enough characters like Brooke: responsible to a fault, totally aware of what it takes to be an adult without any help, unwilling to put up with shit, sort of stiff and rigid. Let's get a beer and bitch about work and horrible family members, Brooke! All things considered, the three major female characters in the film don't come off too badly despite the strip club owner's belief that audiences of ladies are cash cows and nothing else (though don't be fooled by the marketing--the movie is still largely a male fantasy): Brooke is responsible, controlled, and caring; Joanna, Mike's hook-up partner, is  ultimately sort of villainous but more for not telling him she had a fiance, rather than for being voraciously sexual; and Nora is a person you stay away from because she's into drugs and carries around a piglet, not because she has casual sex. I'm sorry to report that Matthew McConaughey keeps his clothes on for 95% of the film and then you see all the way up his colon. Nas-ty. The rest of the dancing is pretty impressive, though...any excuse to whip out "Pony." All told, Magic Mike is a good choice of film for a goofy night out with friends; the theater I went to was sold out (literally sold out) on a Tuesday night, we smuggled in some hard lemonade (topical!), and had an uproarious good time. My friend was intrigued and amused by my muttered outbursts of "I've been there!" at various points throughout.

Basically, once Magic Mike is on DVD, it will be purchased by me and watched in conjunction with The Punisher on days when I really miss the Bay environs. Maybe that's sort of sad, but everybody gets homesick. Sometimes I like to be reminded of Dale Mabry, drunkass Greek parties, St Pete Beach, the Amphitheatre. And if I was tearing up at the end, it's Steven Soderbergh's fault for sticking "Feels Like the First Time" over the credits.

Can you tell I'm still thinking about Brave?

I've been seeing a lot of beautiful fan art for Brave since the film came out. Here are a few of my favorites:

Merida and Rapunzel admire each other's hair (from skyneverthelimit)

Merida and Angus (from islandinthesun) 

Merida and her brothers (from Osato-kun)

It's Canada Day!

Let's go to the mall to celebrate!

Brave (spoilers)

So, apparently a lot of people didn't like Brave. I will be honest: I don't understand where most of them are coming from, but then I have never been one to fellate Pixar the way a lot of people do (what's the point, when Studio Ghibli exists for all your absolutely fantastic animated film needs?), and it seems that a lot of the criticism is based in "this is a good Pixar film instead of a great one and we are used to Pixar making great movies."

...ok. Well then, from the perspective of someone with no bar for what Pixar films should be: I really liked Brave. As far as this summer's fairy tale movies go, Brave is one thousand times greater than Snow White and the Huntsman. The animation is beautiful--everything you have heard about Merida's hair is true--and I thought the story was very solid. But I like fairy tales! And princess movies, despite all of Disney's flaws! If you aren't into either/both of those things, YMMV with Brave. Here are a few things I specifically enjoyed:

1. Merida and Elinor. It is...hmm, pretty rare in TV and movies to see a thoughtful presentation of mother-daughter relationships with neither side unfairly demonized, and even more rare to find this in what is in many ways a quintessential fairy tale kid's movie (Disney loves its evil/absent mother figures). Elinor and Merida have a pretty realistic relationship which I imagine lots of viewers of the film can relate to--they squabble about how Merida should act, how she would wear her hair and her clothes, and what she should be when she grows up. Shockingly true to life! I was surprised and pleased to find the movie revolving largely around the mother-daughter relationship as it changed through Merida and Elinor's actions--because that is what this movie is about: the part of growing up that means you have to deal with your mom as a person, and she has to deal with you as a person. It's about realizing that your mother isn't infallible, and that your daughter isn't an extension of yourself. I found it very satisfying to see Merida and Elinor come to an understanding and compromise. And yes, I was very scared that Elinor would stay a bear! Oh man I was so nervous. TEARS EVERYWHERE.

2. Fergus and his family. Fergus, Merida's father, managed to straddle the line between goofy Scotsman archetype that we're familiar with and all-around good dad and husband. It is clear that he and Elinor are in love, and that he's a great father to both Merida and his three small sons. He's an effective ruler, he has a good sense of humor, he's brave, and he's loving. I want Fergus to be my dad!

3. The animation. Now, one of the reasons that I'm not a ginormo Pixar fan is that I vastly prefer traditional cel animation. That said, the animation in Brave is fantastic, really beautiful. Merida's hair, as mentioned, is very notable, as are the gorgeous forest and water backdrops. I found Angus, Merida's horse, particularly impressive, and the will o'the wisps that lead Merida on her quest were charmingly eerie. 

4. Holy shit, no prince?? No prince! Well, actually there's three sons of Scottish clan lords, but none of them marry Merida and none of them are important characters. This film is not about princes: it's about Merida and her personal journey. Refreshing.

Merida defending her mother, via  Pixarblog

 

And the princes bring me to my final point, which is both a good and a not-so-good thing: gender! Yay gender, everyone loves talking about gender, especially in Disney films. See, Merida is really good at some traditionally "manly" pursuits, including archery and serious rock-climbing, she doesn't like sitting still or wearing pretty clothes, and she eschews getting married, so some short-sighted people think she must be gay. That isn't what I'm concerned with, although if there happened to be a Brave sequel where Merida was indeed involved with a lady, well, that would be nothing short of a miracle. Still, beside the point. The major conflict in the film stems from Merida's ideas about what she wants to do with her life versus her mother's. This is not unfamiliar territory, but the way in which it is resolved I found interesting. Ultimately Merida and Elinor reach a compromise and work together to solve their problem of how to settle the clans without Merida having to marry any of the clan lords' sons. This scene is really sweet, I thought, involving Elinor (in her bear form) coaching Merida through what is really her first diplomatic speech to four reasonably het-up leader men. This is good practice for Merida's eventual queenship, and also signifies that she and her mother are reaching a place in the middle where they can work together with their separate strengths and ideas to present a unified solution. 

But there's one more problem: Elinor is still a bear, oh noes! The climactic scene combines the things that are great about both women to protect their families from the monstrous bear Mor'du and to turn Elinor back into a human. Part of this involves Merida repairing a tapestry of she and her parents which her mother had sewn and Merida had torn in anger, part of it involves bear!Elinor fighting Mor'du, and part of it involves Merida using her bow against Mor'du and defending her bear-mum from angry and terrified Fergus. A lot of people, it seems, did not like the tapestry-repair angle, as they saw it in terms of Merida capitulating to traditional femininity, but I saw it as more of that compromise between the past and the future, a blending of where Merida comes from (her mother) and where she's going (who knows? That's part of of the fun of growing up!). Elinor is never painted as a bad mother, only as one who has strong ideas about what she wants for her child, and Merida is never painted as a bad daughter, only one with her own, pretty teenage-typical, ideas about what she wants for herself. 

These are good things, by my lights. It's a good message in a good movie. Brava, Brave. Honestly, this movie hit me where I live, I think because anything that goes beyond the surface of moms and daughters gives me All The Feels. No, issues with forced marriage are not out of date in 2012--not even in the US and certainly not in many, many other countries. No, not everyone has a rosy relationship with their mother. Not everyone reconciles and not everyone even wants to reconcile, but seeing Merida and Elinor make it up and move forward together is really touching. Am I wrong in thinking that some of the dismissal of this movie stems from dismissal of women's stories and relationships?

What makes a queen?

Assuming a reading order of The King's Peace, The King's Name, and The Prize in the Game, the reader first meets Elenn ap Allel in The King's Peace, when she arrives in Tir Tanagiri as Urdo's queen. Thus for two books we see her only through the eyes of Sulien, who likes Elenn but doesn't understand her very well. They are two wildly dissimilar specimens of womanhood. It isn't until The Prize in the Game that the reader finally gets a glimpse into Elenn's head, as well as viewing her through the eyes of other characters who know her well and yet not at all. The reading order of these books doesn't really matter that much, but I imagine that reading The Prize in the Game first would be an interesting experience. Regardless, Elenn's complexities are hinted at in the Sulien duology and elaborated on in full heartbreaking spectacle in Prize.

Elenn is a queen who has been raised to be a queen. She has never thought of being anything else; indeed she admits this to her friend ap Ringabur, a lawspeaker of Tir Isarnagiri. However, that conversation is also notable for Elenn considering her options (as a warrior, a lawspeaker, or an oracle) and then deciding that yes, being a queen is actually what she does want to do. Her sister Emer is more akin to Sulien, though again very different in significant ways, in that all she's ever wanted is to be a warrior and dreads the thought of being a queen, though ultimately she is forced into it. Emer and Elenn approach queenship from vastly different perspectives. Emer is doomed to her crown, having married Lew ap Ross when she believed her beloved, Conal ap Amagien, had been killed; though she is a good queen for her people, she is at heart a warrior as well as being a woman in love (Conal isn't really dead, of course), and these traits combine to sometimes cause her to do things which confuse Sulien and enrage Elenn. On the other hand, Elenn is on the surface the quintessential fairy-tale queen: fantastically lovely, with songs and poems written to her beauty, composed at all times, capable of small talk and soothing the egos of important men, intelligent and savvy and generally good at running the day-to-day nuts and bolts of a castle. Indeed, the first we hear of her is a description of her beauty from Gwyn ap Angas, who opines that Elenn is "strictly the decorative type" of woman; in Prize Conal compares Emer to her sister, with Emer coming out on top for having "more wit than hair"; and Sulien confirms Elenn's beauty when they first meet--but in that same meeting, Elenn's first words within the text of The King's Peace are a polite, pointed speech in which she tears the Jarnish lord Alfwin a new one for refusing to meet with Sulien and Marchel, two of Urdo's war-leaders and most trusted personnel (Alfwin's words: "Women don't conclude alliances." To his credit, he becomes more used to the Tanagan way of doing things when his niece Alswith becomes a decorated warrior and king in her own right). Clearly there is more to Elenn than her nearly supernatural beauty. She is trained in fighting and chariot driving as a matter of being an Isarnagan noble, but the martial arts are not where her interests or strengths lie. When Urdo marries her he gets not only an alliance with a kingdom of Tir Isarnagiri but also a woman bearing every queenly aspect and accomplishment.

...except one, and it's the big one: fertility. Every queen is assumed fertile until proven otherwise, and Elenn, sadly, is proven otherwise. In her years married to Urdo she produces no heirs, and only conceives once, miscarrying due to the subtle machinations of Morthu. This is the great sadness of her life,  perhaps compounded by a revelation in Prize that she was born "at the Feast of the Mother" (around the beginning of February, when the goddess Brigid was celebrated with the festival Imbolc) and felt a certain closeness to that goddess. Ultimately being infertile might have caused even more pain if Elenn felt that the Mother had forsaken her. Unlike the other Guenevers she is modeled on, she doesn't turn to any other man, whether out of grief, love, or belief that maybe Urdo is the problem. After the events of Prize, one suspects that childlessness is the final nail in the coffin of Elenn's self-esteem, given that  her mother Maga effectively whores her out to the warriors of Tir Isarnagiri in exchange for them fighting for Connat's side against Oriel, and Morthu later uses manipulations similar to Maga's to turn Elenn against herself. Worst of all, one of the warriors  used by Maga is Ferdia, the man Elenn truly loves and closest friend of Oriel's champion Darag. She is aware that he only marries her because Maga blackmails him into it; his sense of honor allows him to be shamed into the marriage and then into fighting Darag (as the text suggests, the person he truly loves). This knowledge is devastating to Elenn. The very things she has to hold onto, the things she has been raised to value--her beauty, her skillset, her position and responsibilities as a princess, her goodness and pliability--are used against her, first by her mother Maga, then by Morthu. In a horrible scene reminiscent of the events of The Prize in the Game, Morthu appears to have intentions to marry his king's wife, referring to her as "dear one" and other endearments, and attempting to kiss her as Sulien and  Ulf Gunnarsson watch helplessly. This scene, taken with an earlier one in which Morthu uses evil magic against Sulien, implies that Elenn's mind is undergoing a form of molestation stemming from Morthu; since we have no view into her imprisonment with him, it is unknown whether her body has also been violated. Morthu, like Maga, is able to exploit Elenn's upbringing and her beliefs about her status, position, and purpose, as well as her general isolation; despite the strides she has made with Urdo in terms of trust, once subjected to the brand of manipulation Morthu wields, Elenn's walls go right back up.

As Sulien, Darien, and Urdo state on various occasions, Elenn is the ultimate queen. She is everything a queen should be and everything Urdo could want in a partner, and he truly doesn't care that she has been unable to bear children, beyond his care for her heartache. But as the poem from which The Prize in the Game takes its title states, "they wear my favor but my arms are empty"; this can be taken to signify that though she has many husbands, they are never hers to keep (the warriors of Tir Isarnagiri are married to Elenn, then go to their doom at the hands of Darag, who is undefeatable--Urdo is rarely at home, being busy keeping his kingdom in order). Further, despite her many wedding nights, she has no children to fill her days and heart. Her arms are empty. In spite of this, the idea of Elenn visiting another man's bed is never brought up, either by her or by Urdo, who mentions it as an impossibility to Sulien; instead Urdo and Elenn are firmly loyal to one another, making Elenn's grief over her childlessness all the more palpable. In most Arthur stories, from the medieval romances onward, Guenever and Lancelot are--overtly or covertly--the cause of the downfall of Camelot. The Sulien books dispense with this plotline entirely (though a lesbian romance between Sulien and Elenn would certainly be an interesting interpretation, had Walton chosen to keep the Guenever/Lancelot relationship), though a subtle twist through rumors is presented: that Sulien and Urdo had an affair prior to Urdo's marriage, and Sulien's son Darien, the stand-in for Galahd--who notably is not known as "Darien ap X" but as "Darien Suliensson"--was fathered by Urdo. Elenn becomes somewhat obsessed with this rumor, her fears stroked by Morthu, though it is well known that Sulien eschews all sexual relationships. In another nod to traditional Arthurian stories, Morthu also encourages the rumor that Sulien's son is the product of incest between her and her brother (as Mordred was the product of Arthur and either Morgan or Morgause's incest). In a very moving scene, Emer and Sulien speak with Elenn and point out that if Darien isn't Urdo's son, then Urdo and Sulien were never lovers, and Elenn at last opens herself to the possibility of truth without fact.

Dispensing with the familiar story of Arthur's cuckoldry also dispenses with the crumbling of the kingdom. At the end of The King's Name, Morthu is defeated, the King's Law upheld, peace restored, and though Urdo has passed on, his crown passes to Sulien's son Darien. As Sulien relates at the beginning of The King's Peace, the Peace they created remained; this is not the story of Arthur and Camelot we are familiar with, but it is a pleasing newness, the idea of shining Camelot enduring to become a truly united land. Ultimately Elenn finds peace as well, reconciling with both her sister Emer and Sulien near the close of The King's Name and seeking solace in her relationships with them and her religion (true to legend, she enters a monastery and eventually becomes its leader). Knowing that Elenn is a woman with major trust issues, it is with hope and tenderness that Sulien suggests Elenn found "trust and healing" with the monks. As a reader, I hope she did too.