I Volunteer as Leader

And now we come to the end of this extended cut of sacrificial kingship as a concept, what happened this got so out of control. It's just... I just love this theme so much, and, and, I got carried away, and...

Hokay, so. When last we left off, we'd established that the idea of a king as a noble leader willing to sacrifice himself for his people is fundamentally rooted in our worldwide mythology. That's why we all love characters like Aragorn, who are willing to sacrifice not only their lives but also their personal happiness for their people.

That's all fine and well in a fantasy setting where you have pure evil and pure good, but is it really relevant in a modern-day context? Does the divine right of kingship have a place in the modern world?

Let's talk about Tom Bombadil for a hot second.

He's of the jolly, beardy sort.

In case you've forgotten him, or never read The Lord of the Rings (since they wisely left him out of the movies), Tom Bombadil is the most powerful character in LOTR. Gandalf and Elrond and everybody says so. He could hold the One Ring forever and never be corrupted by it. And if Middle Earth fell to Sauron, he would be the very last to fall.

But none of that matters, because it's not in his nature to fight. He will not take a stand against Sauron, and therefore all the power in the world doesn't matter. Lesser men are forced to do the things he technically could do - but won't.

In ye oldeny days and even now, leadership and goodness are often conflated with genealogy. There's a few reasons for this - one is that when kings were running things you needed justification for their rule and you wanted to be reassured that the right guy was in power. And also, it's just easy. Heyyy, this guy is awesome because God made him born into this family, therefore he was MEANT to do this job. Abracadabra.

I like to think we've made a bit of progress. Leadership abilities are not restricted to a particular gene pool - or a particular gender, for that matter.

Instead, I propose the notion of sacrificial leadership. Where the strength of character to lead others and be willing to sacrifice yourself (or at least a part of yourself) for them comes from within whatever you are.

A really great example of this is Katniss in The Hunger Games. Don't worry, no spoilers, although it applies to later events in the series too... But all we really need to look at is the very beginning.

They’re not our kids, of course. But they might as well be. Gale’s two little brothers and a sister. Prim. And you may as well throw in our mothers, too, because how would they live without us? Who would fill those mouths that are always asking for more? With both of us hunting daily, there are still nights when game has to be swapped for lard or shoelaces or wool, still nights when we go to bed with our stomachs growling.

When her father dies, twelve-year-old Katniss chooses not to give up. She chooses to provide for the sister she loves and the mother she doesn't. She puts their welfare ahead of her own, feeds them when she can't feed herself. And of course, we all know that she makes the ultimate sacrifice for Prim.

“Prim!” The strangled cry comes out of my throat, and my muscles begin to move again. “Prim!” I don’t need to shove through the crowd. The other kids make way immediately allowing me a straight path to the stage. I reach her just as she is about to mount the steps. With one sweep of my arm, I push her behind me.

“I volunteer!” I gasp. “I volunteer as tribute!”

This doesn't only apply to life-or-death situations. In my upcoming book, the hero is a rich CEO who runs the family business out of duty. He knows that he has the means to employ a large number of people and to make positive changes in the world, so he feels that it would be irresponsible to step down and just dabble in hobbies and have fun for the rest of his life.

So yes, as much as I have always loved the theme of sacrificial kingship in literature/film, I think we've moved past the idea of divine right. Nobody deserves anything because they happened to be born in a certain situation. But life isn't about what we deserve. Life isn't fair. We have to make the best of what we have and the best of what's inside us. We can use the term sacrificial leadership to encompass heroes and heroines both past and present. Some people are born leaders, and (at least in literature) in order to complete their character arc they need to embrace that ability in themselves and be willing to sacrifice themselves (or part of themselves) for the greater good.

Like Aragorn.

Tolkien once killed a man in an outlining contest.

Just, not like his crown.

A Locked Monday

I'm sure there are many interesting facts about this guy, but I don't know any of them. I just like his poetry.

A Locked House - W.D. Snodgrass

As we drove back, crossing the hill,

The house still

Hidden in the trees, I always thought—

A fool’s fear—that it might have caught   

Fire, someone could have broken in.   

As if things must have been

Too good here. Still, we always found   

It locked tight, safe and sound.

I mentioned that, once, as a joke:   

No doubt we spoke

Of the absurdity

To fear some dour god’s jealousy   

Of our good fortune. From the farm   

Next door, our neighbors saw no harm   

Came to the things we cared for here.   

What did we have to fear?

Maybe I should have thought: all

Such things rot, fall—

Barns, houses, furniture.

We two are stronger than we were

Apart; we’ve grown

Together. Everything we own

Can burn; we know what counts—some such   

Idea. We said as much.

We’d watched friends driven to betray;   

Felt that love drained away

Some self they need.

We’d said love, like a growth, can feed   

On hate we turn in and disguise;

We warned ourselves. That you might despise   

Me—hate all we both loved best—

None of us ever guessed.

The house still stands, locked, as it stood   

Untouched a good

Two years after you went.

Some things passed in the settlement;   

Some things slipped away. Enough’s left   

That I come back sometimes. The theft   

And vandalism were our own.

Maybe we should have known.

Fishing for Kings (Sacrificial Kingship Part 2)

So! Now that we've gone into the background of modern thinking about mythologic archetypes, we can talk about two particular concepts: the sacred king and the maimed king.

The sacred king was the cornerstone of Frazer's theories about ancient civilizations. In his work, he postulated that in the past, the life and eventual death of kings represented and growth and death of the vegetation, a "dying and reviving god". This human king provided for his people for a time and then eventually was sacrificed back to the earth. (I have some problems with this theory... namely that back in ye oldeny times most people were nomadic and didn't do a ton of agriculture... but this is about lit theory and therefore my historical issues with it really aren't relevant.) In any case, this connects to the fact that both in ancient and far more modern history, some kings are viewed as sacred beings. This could mean that the king was credited with good fortune. Or it could mean that your people view you as responsible for their well-being and sacrifice you in order to get a better harvest next year.

The maimed king (also known as the Fisher King, as he was referred to in T.S. Eliot's poem The Waste Land) seems to come from Arthurian legend. In the tales, this king was wounded so that he suffered from impotence, and his lack of fertility affected the earth around him and turned it into a barren wasteland. This legend is super freaking weird in all of its incarnations (there's a version where this king asks his followers to cut off his head and then his head keeps talking and keeps them all company on their trip back to Britain idk idk guys the Celts were weird). In any case, when purehearted people eventually come fetch the Grail he was hanging onto and this somehow heals him, his restoration represents the growth of vegetation in spring. Rebirth, if you like.

SO. These are cool and all, but not terribly interesting concepts unless you're super into agriculture and ye olde civilizations that may or may not have been nomadic. So why talk about them at all?

Because I think that these are necessary concepts if you want to understand what sacrificial kingship is and why it works. The idea of a king being responsible for the fate of his people, and being willing to lay down his life for their good, is deeply embedded in not just one culture, but essentially every culture. While history tells us that kings are flawed and often corrupt, our legends and mythology tell us a very different tale. Belief in the goodness and rightness of our kings is practically part of our DNA.

It's why characters like Aragorn work in fiction. We see from his introduction in The Fellowship of the Ring that although Aragorn is a good leader and has royal blood, he has no desire to be king and happily plays around in the mud while the stewards of Gondor do their thing. (Yes, I know that the films gave him all this inner conflict about being Isildur's heir, because of course if your great-great-great-great-great-whatever was susceptible to corruption, so are you, because that is totally how ancestry works. This isn't in the books and it was stupid anyway so I don't care.)

The books aren't overt about it because they aren't nearly as focused on Aragorn as the movies are, but we see clearly that Aragorn is happy in his current circumstances and views kingship as a burden. There is nothing kingship could give him that he wants. He's used to living as free as it's possible for a man to be, as a nomad following whims of the moment. Kingship is a cage - as Eowyn later notes.

In fact, in the books Aragorn proposes to Arwen and she accepts, but Elrond forbids them to marry until Aragorn is king of Gondor. And Aragorn does nothing. He loves Arwen, but he loves his freedom more. You could argue that he doesn't want to upset the political situation with things being kinda shaky in Middle Earth, but know who's on the throne as steward? Denethor.

This guy is definitely a savvy political player; I foresee no problems at all.

While in the movies Aragorn has to achieve self-actualization and gives himself lots of hugs, in the books Aragorn's arc is him eventually deciding to put the needs of others before his own needs and becoming king despite his own wishes. We get a bunch of lines like, "I have come because Gandalf begs me to do so." and, The hobbits still remained in Minas Tirith, with Legolas and Gimli; for Aragorn was loth for the fellowship to be dissolved. "At last all such things must end, but I would have you wait a little while longer." Also this: "I have," said Strider. "I dwelt there once, and still I return when I may. There my heart is; but it is not my fate to sit in peace, even in the fair house of Elrond." 

And while in the movies Boromir is all tetchy about GONDOR HAS NO KING; GONDOR NEEDS NO KING; EFF YOU ASSATHORN, in the books Boromir flat-out begs Aragorn to come fight for Gondor as its king. "I was not sent to beg any boon, but to seek only the meaning of a riddle," answered Boromir proudly. "Yet we are hard pressed, and the Sword of Elendil would be a help beyond our hope - if such a thing could indeed return out of the shadows of the past." 

And later... "Mayhap the Sword-that-was-Broken may still stem the tide - if the hand that wields it has inherited not an heirloom only, but the sinews of the Kings of Men." 

"Who can tell?" said Aragorn. "But we will put it to the test one day." 

"May the day not be too long delayed," said Boromir. "For though I do not ask for aid, we need it. It would comfort us to know that others fought also with all the means that they have."

The ending in the book is not a happy one for Aragorn. He is forced to take up his right of kingship and do his best by the people of Gondor, no matter what he would rather his fate be (and, just to rub it in, Gondor does have peace under his reign as he sits on the throne - just like he claimed his fate wasn't). It's not a tragedy of course, but his happiness is qualified by the fact that he'd rather be somewhere else doing something else. BUT he's a good king doing right by his people, which takes precedence over personal happiness.

But what about divine right of kingship and that whole ickyness, you may ask? Does blood (either through ancestry or sometimes trial by combat) really justify kingship? Does it matter?

Well... Check back for part 3.

The King is Corn, Let's Eat

WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT SACRIFICIAL KINGSHIP?!

Yeah, well, too bad.

In 1890 a Scottish guy named James Frazer published The Golden Bough and everyone immediately dove for their fainting couches. The Golden Bough was a comparative study of mythology and religion that analyzed both alike from a dispassionate perspective. His analysis concluded that human thought progresses over time from belief in magic to belief in religion to belief in science. While that seems like a common enough thought now, back in the day if you didn't go to church every Sunday they started gathering logs in anticipation of the witch-burnin' party. (Not really, but back then effectively everyone was religious. Atheism was almost unheard of.) So to analyze religion from an anthropological standpoint was revolutionary, and in fact completely revitalized the field of anthropology.

By the third edition this sucker
expanded from one volume into
TWELVE. 

While most people today haven't heard of The Golden Bough, almost everyone has heard of the people whose work was self-admittedly influenced by it (this sentence structure and verb/noun agreement is so horrendously awful that I actually decided to keep it instead of edit. Such horror must be preserved), including but not limited to: Sigmund Freud, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, D. H. Lawrence, Aleister Crowley, Ezra Pound, William Gaddis, Mary Renault, T.S. Eliot, William Butler Yeats, and H.P. Lovecraft.

One of the main things that The Golden Bough tried to do was to isolate the shared ideas of different religions and myths into clearly defined elements - such as fertility rites, human sacrifice, sun worship, etc. Frazer's hypothesis was that old religions were fertility rites that revolved around the worship and eventual sacrifice of a sacred king. The king symbolized plants and I swear to God I am not just making this up. Basically the idea was that the life and death of a chosen king (who also symbolized the sun) mirrored the growth and death of the crops that kept people alive.

Also this Anthropologist/Egyptologist named Margaret Murray (born 1863) wrote a bunch of stuff about how she believed that there was this huge underground cult of pagan covens that practiced frequent human sacrifice until they were driven underground by the witch hunts that started around 1450. Included in this writing was the idea that a bunch of English Kings like William Rufus were secret pagans. And this woman was a professor at University College London and published by Oxford University Press. Academia in the early 1900s, you are crazy. And this really had nothing to do with anything but I thought it was hilarious.

This looks legit.

Sooooo this post is getting way long already, so I think this is gonna be a 2 or 3 parter. Those of you that aren't passed out in front of your computer by now, very good. You have been edified or something.

Disney Princesses, the "Obligingly Sweet" Edition

Hey so, I know everyone is up in arms about the changes to Merida right now (me too don't get me wrong), but can we just talk about the other Disney princesses for a moment? Because their looks have been updated too, and, um...

Why does Belle have sex hair? And why is Rapunzel giving me bedroom eyes? Cinderella's all... wispy, and Jasmine looks like this adorable sweet midget, which is sort of the... opposite of her characterization. Tiana and Aurora are the only two that look halfways normal, and even then, why is Aurora's hair suddenly done in crimped sex kitten waves?

For some reason Ariel was relegated to the B-squad where Pocahontas usually sits, but check this nonsense out!

Her head is as big as her torso and her eyes take up half her face.
I see that Disney has discovered anime.

Mulan looks a little checked out.

Wow Pocahontas, you're looking rather... coiffed. And happy. I miss
your bitchface.

Also, this description of Pocahontas:

Pocahontas loves nature, and she spends her time exploring the land. After she falls in love with a man named John Smith, it's up to her to discover her destiny and bring peace to her people.

"Pocahontas found a man so then she got to do stuff." Eff that noise! And this one gives me rageface too:

Jasmine is a dreamer who loves her pet tiger, Rajah. She's free-spirited, confident, and kind. When she meets Aladdin, she discovers the wonders she's often imagined outside the palace walls.

Excuse your face, Jasmine LEFT ON HER OWN. Before she met Aladdin. That's HOW she meets Aladdin. I know I'm being nitpicky here, but come on, there is a huge difference between "Jasmine is the kind of girl who ventures out of the palace she's always known on a quest for adventure" and "A dude brings Jasmine along on his adventure so she actually gets to do stuff".

These are the Disney princesses I'm used to (except Tiana, because it is actually impossible to find a picture of her and Pocahontas together. Which... hmm). And while they don't exactly promote a range of healthy body types, at least they do have some small variety in build and expression. I particularly appreciate that they have shoulders, which none of the updated princesses seem to possess. I think what I hate most about the updated princess look is the vapid doe-eyed kawaii expression they all have.

I will give Disney credit for one thing, though. This ad is awesome and adorable:

Selma Ruins Hannibal

The other night I started watching the new Hannibal TV show. I was actually pretty excited; I can't resist anything with cops and I enjoyed the Edward Norton Red Dragon movie (to an extent. To the extent that Edward Norton was in it). I'm going to compare the show mainly to the two movies and one Red Dragon book, since that's the closest parallel. Even though the events of Hannibal the show take place before Red Dragon, the subject matter is essentially the same.

The idea behind the show is great. I love the conceit of two men toeing the line between good and evil; one on each side and close enough to touch. You can watch them influence each other, and wonder what it might lead to. The good in Graham highlights the good (or at least... the charming and sympathetic) in Hannibal, and the evil in Hannibal seems very close to the surface in Graham.

That being said, I don't think it's ever been executed particularly well.

I freely admit, this is a HARD concept to pull off. The fundamental nature of this relationship is that it's two brilliant minds clashing with each other. Therefore, the show/movie/book has to portray two believably brilliant characters and their interactions. That is not an easy feat. There's a reason that most stories about geniuses are told through the lens of an everyman.

In the books and movies, I think the main problem tends to be veering into the ridiculous. Cannibals aren't exactly the most subtle subject, and THEY ARE NOT EVEN THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HERE. I mean, the villain of the Red Dragon book and movie is called the Tooth Fairy.

The show suffers from a similar problem, in that it's about as subtle as a piano falling off a cliff. Into a bear trap. That's run over by Optimus Prime.

Either the show thinks we're stupid or it's clawing desperately at every semi-clever idea it comes across. Every point is repeated a zillion times (OKAY WE GET IT GRAHAM IS AUTISTIC FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP TELLING US ABOUT HOW HE HATES EYE CONTACT). And when they do get hold of a nifty idea, they BEAT IT INTO THE GROUND. Like when Graham comes across a dog on the way home from a crime scene. Dogs are known to be man's best friend, and good judges of character. We see that this clearly domesticated dog (as evidenced by the leash and collar still tied to it) has to be convinced with food and patience to come anywhere near him. When it does, he takes it home and takes care of it. That's a pretty clever way to show that Graham is trying to reconnect with his humanity.

But then Graham says, "Say hello to the family," and we see FIFTEEN FRIGGING OTHER DOGS IN THE HOUSE. Good lord, show! We get it! He really really really is worried about the state of his humanity! Do tell!

On top of that, Graham just doesn't look the part. When Edward Norton played the role he looked tired and wan, but there was clearly iron in him. You believed that he was a man on the edge holding it together by force of will.

In the show, Graham twitches with nerves all the time. He looks on the edge of a breakdown, but not the kind where you'd turn into a serial killer. More like the kind with a lot of crying jags involved.

I mean come on, he looks like Robin Williams and Q
had a lovechild!

And to be honest, the constant fantasy sequences where he acts out a killer's deeds or sees their handiwork just served to make it feel even more exaggerated and cartoonish. Then Thranduil's party elk showed up to hover symbolically outside his window and it just... no.

"Do not fall down these evil paths, my son. The dude
abides. I promise you, the dude abides."

"Son, do not attempt to jack my swagger."

Not to mention Hannibal himself. I'm fairly certain his directing consisted entirely of "BE MORE EVIL". With Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal, there was an aura of menace but he was also capable of looking harmless and grandfatherly. This guy? There is no way anyone would trust this guy to hold their ice cream cone, let alone to be involved in a criminal investigation. He oozes slime.

Come on, I'm pretty sure you can do better than this,
c'mon, really FEEL the evil...

There you go.

While there were a few clever touches I liked (the best of which was Hannibal's careful interactions with Graham, where he comes to Graham on his own terms and reinforces his behavior with continued patient interaction and oblique compliments), it wasn't worth it overall. Unless you enjoy your thrillers being administered with a sledgehammer, I'd give this one a pass.

It Could Be Monday

William Stafford was a pacifist and a poet. He was prolific, and known for his personal approach to the little details of life. Have a quote:

"A writer is not so much someone who has something to say as he is someone who has found a process that will bring about new things he would not have thought of if he had not started to say them."

A Story That Could Be True

If you were exchanged in the cradle and
your real mother died
without ever telling the story
then no one knows your name,
and somewhere in the world
your father is lost and needs you
but you are far away.

He can never find
how true you are, how ready.
When the great wind comes
and the robberies of the rain
you stand on the corner shivering.
The people who go by--
you wonder at their calm.

They miss the whisper that runs
any day in your mind,
"Who are you really, wanderer?"
and the answer you have to give
no matter how dark and cold
the world around you is:
"Maybe I'm a king."

- William Stafford, 1977