I am seriously concerned about the casting directors on Reign...
Guys, are they ok? Are they even trying? Do they think we’re stupid? Have they employed a script adviser to check the consistency of what they’re making? If they have, they need to fire them real quick, because whoever they are hasn’t seemed to realise that CATHERINE’S CHILDREN ARE ALL REAPPEARING AS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE who are WAY TOO OLD!
Let’s take a trip down memory lane to the good old days when Reign was kinda alright.
Remember this little guy? This lil’ cutie from Season 1? Lil’ Charles. Just in case this picture doesn’t make it quite QUITE clear that this person is a young CHILD, here’s another one:
He’s tiny right, I mean Megan Follows is small, and he barely reaches her shoulder. Ok good, we’ve established that Charles in Season 1 was a young child of around eight years old. Good stuff.
Now I know Reign has a habit of stretching, embellishing and basically destroying history. Mary and Francis are supposed to be like 14 at the start, and clearly they’re older, but that’s ok, that’s fine, we’ll roll with it.
The show begins in 1557:
Nice, some fluffy goats and fluffy clouds just to prove this. I’ve done my research people.
So in real life, ol’ Francie Boi was supposed to die in 1560 after being King for roughly one year
And sure thing, as I said, Reign likes to stretch history like, BEYOND the breaking point. So it’s entirely plausible that on the show Francis was king for a little bit longer, maybe we’ll give him an extra year or two. Which means the next time we see young dude Charlie he’ll have aged… hmmm around five years or so? He’ll be approx 12, right?
WRONG! What the FuCk ma dudes, this guy right here is NOT CHARKLES I don’t know who he is, but Catherine and the rest of them should all be really concerned, they’ve been hella duped! He’s frickin old enough to fool around with this random chick
He’s aged like 10 years in 5, and NO ONE EVEN NOTICED, not Catherine, not Francis, not Mary, and especially not anyone in the writing or casting department apparently.
Now let’s move onto Elisabeth, Catherine and Henry’s eldest daughter, dis chick from the pilot
Remember her? The one who married the Spanish dude, and then they had to have sex while a whole lot of old men watched, and Mary and her lil’ sweet naive buddies got all hot and flustered cos they were sneakily watching too? Yeah that one.
As you can see, this woman is clearly a BRUNETTE. Well, apparently Spain has really changed Elisabeth. Like, REEAALLY changed her. So good to see her back in 4x01! She goes by Leesa now, she’s blonde and older and basically looks like a completely different person…
I guess Catherine just has so many children she honestly can’t keep track and doesn’t even notice when they return to France looking like they’ve endured intense plastic surgery to reconstruct their faces, or somehow age them enormously.
Catherine has the names of all her children written in her bible, although her youngest son Hercule is missing, but I think the camera has just cut off the bottom of the page.
At the end of Season 3, Catherine brings back this dude below to lowkey threaten Charles with MUrdEr (the most ooc Catherine has ever been, honestly this show is just…)
Now god knows who this one is, I mean it could be Lil’ Henry making a comeback from Season 1 when he was blonde and cute (see below) and got kidnapped by his insane potato-sack-wearing half sister
If so, he too has had a significant dye job at the castle salon. Except whoever this kid is in Season 3, he can’t be Henry because he’s considerably younger than Charles
I mean, what’s the deal? Charles gets hit by the ageifying-ray gun, but his little bro Henry doesn’t? How is that fair?? They never actually mention him by name, so possibly it is Hercule.
Which would mean that this hunky blonde dude Megan’s been posting on her Instagram and captioning with “My boys”…
IS HENRY WHAT THE FUCK YOU GUYS! He looks even older than Charles, I CANNOT BELIEF THIS
This makes absolutely ZERO sense, I do NOT understand. The casting directors and writers of Reign either don’t comprehend human viewer intelligence and the ability to pick up on the ENORMOUS INCONSISTENCIES THEY THROW AT US WITH WORRYING REGULARITY, or they themselves have serious memory issues. Or possibly they just don’t care. I really don’t know.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to watch Reign now is by ignoring these massively aged characters, ignoring the yawn storylines, ignoring when the only original characters we have left suddenly rewrite their whole personalities; I’m looking at you Catherine ‘I would literally die for my children’ de Medici, suddenly going, ‘Oh yeah Charles, I have loooads of other sons, don’t you forget that, I might just kill you to become regent again, k, love you, bye.’
I’ll just focus on the pretty clothes and Megan Follows’ profound talent to somehow make something out of this steaming pile of insanity.
Long story short, the only thing Reign is consistent at, is being inconsistent.
Even so, I’ll watch it every week cos I’m total trash. Rip me.
so i saw @nipuni ’s absolutely gorgeous art and got inspired, because i just really love angst, apparently.
His transformation is unwelcome, but not
The first orb he had found had been Dirthamen’s,
buried deep underground, in one of his lost temples. When he had taken its
power with the Anchor, fueling himself, he had woken the next morning to
crystalline, snowy irises that reflected the light. There had been two sets of
slits on his forehead, connected by thin, shadowy lines, resembling the closed
eyes of his mosaics.
He reaches into himself, and finds what he had
feared most. The ancient being within his soul, the first spark that had shaped
his nature, is stirring, feeding on the power he gorges like a glutton yet
needing more still. There is no Mythal, no Inquisitor to calm that part of him,
now, to soothe and humble, and shrink back into himself.
His attention makes it stir, and its stirring
There is nothing he can do, save watch, as his
skin turns grey, as hard nodules of scales begin to creep along his elbows, the
back of his neck, over his scalp. He watches, despairing, and remembers words
he’d once spoken to her, so long ago: I would not have you see what I
I never understood the people that said Anakin was whiny. Honestly, he can pout and complain whenever he wants. He was a fucking slave with no rights at one point. Let him speak.
After Sebulba caused Anakin to wreck Watto’s podracer, he has to deal with the consequences of destroying his master’s possession. Anakin withstands this abuse regularly, with a strength I cannot begin to fathom.
[Watto] was angry, but Anakin had seen him angry before and knew what to expect. He did not cringe or bow his head in submission; he stood his ground and took his scolding unflinchingly. He was a slave and Watto was his master. Scoldings were part of life. Besides, Watto would wind down shortly now, his anger released in a manner that would satisfy his need to cast blame in a direction other than his own, and things would go back to normal.
For years, this boy took the abuse of slavery with unwavering strength. I know when I was 9, I was nowhere near as brave and resolute as Anakin. If this boy wants to express his discontent to people later in life, I think he is allowed. He wasn’t allowed to have an opinion for the majority of his childhood. No one should ever have to go through this.
Also, does this behavior remind you of anything? It distinctly reminded me of the way he often behaved when Obi-Wan would discipline him as a Padawan. Obi-Wan generally meant no harm and was just trying to impart some wisdom, but Anakin stood his ground, often arguing back. Remember when they were arguing on the couch in Padme’s apartment about how best to protect her against assassins? Anakin has these vestiges of his slave life that prevent him from ever being the humble Padawan learner the Jedi expect from their students. I think it may have been hard for Anakin to distinguish when he should accept scolding from the Jedi, since they operated in such a grey area of servitude.
You may think that this is a lot of text and too long to read but I implore you to try so that you can better understand these points of view.
I apologise if this isn’t as eloquent or measured as I intended it to be but I am honestly so angry at the Sherlock fandom right now. Not all, obviously, many are conducting themselves amazingly no matter their opinion on the episode. However, there are a large (and loud) number who are not and not only are these people making the rest of us look bad and acting as if they speak for the fandom as a whole, I fear that they are doing (and may have already succeeded in doing) irreparable damage to what could have been a great community.
There are several points I wish to address in this post so I will try to dissect each one individually to the best of the ability.
No matter what you thought of the episode it is NOT okay, or even productive, to harass members of the cast or crew in any way (whether it be through social media, through official complaints (which can actually have further effects on their professional lives also which are definitely not yours to mess with) etc.). It started with Amanda back when season 3 was announced and that was just downright cruel and now it seems the lesson has not been learnt. They have worked hard on this show and even if it did not turn out as you personally expected it or wanted it to you cannot hate them for having a different view of where things should go than you. I have seen many people on Tumblr saying things along the line of ‘it our show anyway we can do what we want and it can be what we want it to be’. No. It is their show, we merely enjoy it - they created it and they have final say on what happens. I for one would not wish to see a world where the fans get to decide what happens as that would only ever cause further divide in communities and result in one section of a fandom having superiority over the others which is already happening in the Sherlock fandom with some Johnlockers/TJLCers.This harassment also extends to the harassment of other member of the fandom - labelling someone as homophobic because they don’t ship a same-sex ship is not only detrimental to the LGBT+ cause it puts up further barriers for the normalisation of non-traditional relationships.
On a similar topic, complaining to the BBC because you didn’t like the episode is not only petty but also counterproductive - these people are not asking for change in doing so they are calling for an end to the show and a witch-hunt in which those who created it are to be mocked in a public sphere. I have seen many people proudly posting images of their complaints and encouraging others to do the same and even petitions to a similar effect and it saddens me that people have become so arrogant in believing that the show is theirs and they were owed more that they would stoop to such levels. You were not owed anything. You didn’t like it, deal with it, move on.
I cannot express how much I dislike this term. Sometimes, yes, the teasing of fans with a potentially queer couple is done in an interpretably malicious way. With Sherlock, this is not the case. The cast and crew have said from the start that Johnlock (the main ship brought up in such discussions) was not going to happen. If you missed that and were not aware - fine; but if you knew this and then continued to be upset that it wasn’t happening - that is on you. It is not queerbaiting if there was never any potential for the relationship in the first place - especially when neither character has been canonically stated to be queer.
Fetishisation of Gay Relationships and the Anti-Straight Trend in the Progressive Community
Wow, that was a long title. I have seen many of the aforementioned complaints to the BBC, petitions and Tumblr posts claiming that by not making a ship such as Johnlock canon they have let down a large portion of the community who are LGBT+ and have not given them the representation they deserve. Whilst representation is good and everyone does deserve to be able to see someone like them on television, as I said before, we have known from the stat that this was not going to happen with these characters. If you didn’t understand that clear message - again, it is on you, not the creators who have always been honest about the future of such a ship. You can be upset that they did not become canon in the same way that you would for any other ship but you cannot claim that you have been robbed of representation, misled in any way or owed better because you were never promised it in the first place.
As for the title of this section, I have seen a common trend in fandom communities towards making canonically straight characters gay, which whilst harmless if not taken to the extreme (as I feel some members of the Johnlock community have) actually highlights a double standard and serious problem that must be addressed. If one were to take a canonically gay character, strip them of their identity and make them straight they would be called homophobic in an instant. However, when it is the other way around, no one complains. Heterosexual is an identity too and to keep classifying it as separate from the others, in a class of its own, is only going to slow down progress and make it harder for true unity to occur. By stating that two characters, one of whom has categorically stated that they are not gay (and of course only one would be enough) have to be gay because of they way they interact (via your personal interpretation - often though tinted lenses) you are not only arguing that two men cannot be simply very good friends without harbouring romantic feelings for each other, you are also denying John of his own self-proclaimed identity.
The Bad Side of TJLC
(The previous paragraph is also relevant to this section and thus again I must state that whilst shipping two characters is fine, outright ignoring their identity and labelling them yourself is not.)
On paper, TJLC (The JohnLock Conspiracy) is not too harmful, you can speculate as much as you want. Where it becomes harmful is where people delve into the realm of delusion. There are many TJLCers who wholeheartedly believe that Johnlock is already canon or has to be canon and it is these people who appear to harbour the strongest negative beliefs about the recent episode and who are doing the most damage to this community.
I have seen countless posts recently along the lines of the following: 'clearly we know more than Moftiss’, 'how could they not see it was so obvious’, etc. Such arrogance as to your own beliefs is extremely harmful to the wider community. You do not know more than the creators of the show, the show is as they intended it to be - anything that you find within the show (with your TJLC-tinted glasses) that supports your predetermined theory is simply you putting two and two together and making five. It was not intended and therefore not symbolic of your beliefs and so your interpretation is no more than that - an interpretation not fact.
Believe it or not, for those of us not in the TJLC community, JohnLock was not obvious - for someone like me, when I first heard of this ship and TJLC I was incredibly surprised because I saw no romantic connection whatsoever - just two friends; and that was all that they were intended by the creators to be. If you were aware of the cast and crews comment of the subject and still deluded yourself into believing that TJLC was true - that was on you. No one else is to blame for your beliefs not lining up with the facts of the show.
Your ship does not rule this fandom and you do not speak for the whole fandom so those of you saying they didn’t give the fandom what they wanted - you are wrong. They didn’t give you what you wanted. You don’t speak for me and you don’t speak for the countless others like me who actually enjoyed the episode and/or are not in any way JohnLock shippers.
Sherlock Holmes and the Delusion of the Fake Episode
For those of you who still believe in some way that the episode was a fake one, that a new episode will come out and say that it was all a dream etc. Again, you are deluding yourself and this is not healthy and will only lead to disappointment. It is what it is. Failure to accept reality for what it is and move on from there, living in a constant state of denial is a serious problem.
I have so much more to say and honestly not the words to say it without going off onto too much of a tangent right now. I may add continuations (in fact I most likely will once I can formulate sentences again) to this if I think of anything.
I know that one post on Tumblr isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference and the fractures in this community may never heal but I honestly could not hold this in any longer.
You are welcome to ask questions or for clarification on any point made or any point you wish me to address.
third worldism gives national struggle an ontological character, stripping it of its status as the outcome of concrete and material relations between people which can change and can be changed
it absolutely forecloses on the possibility of demystifying racism or racist relations between people and, in New Zealand to give on example, puts the entire impetus for revolutionary organising on an ethnic coalition comprising maybe 30% of the population. This shit does not work. It cannot work. Proletarian internationalists can recognise that racism is a real and dangerous quality of white proletarians while also recognising that racism is an effect of specific social relations in which it is possible to intervene.
If we give up on the idea that white people can ever be on our side, the only resolution to the present situation we have is a retreat and surrender to the presently existing world order (repugnant to me, as a socialist) or a war of racial extermination to drive all white people out of the country (a war which we could not possibly win).
Third worldism just doesn’t go anywhere and doesn’t do anything and frankly I think it’s a cowardly attempt to cut the Gordian Knot of racism which just ends up chopping off its own hands. We have to grapple with the presently state of things and change them. Third worldism refuses to deal with the complexity and difficulty of struggling against and defeating racism so it casts it as an eternal, ontological problem which cannot be changed.
This is despite concrete evidence to the contrary in the history of Māori national liberation struggles in New Zealand, a white settler-colony. If white workers can never not be racist then why has the labour union movement, when it has been at its strongest, consistently supported Māori national liberation? The answer is that racism is an actually existing set of social relations which we can intervene in, and third worldists have retreated from that.
Zendaya is probably Mary Jane or a Mary Jane adaptation part II
This is Mary Jane’s first ever appearance.
Notice the characters involved. The blonde is Liz Allen. The brunette is Betty Brant. Their are reasons why we aren’t getting a Betty Brant romance because usually when she is introduced, she is older than Peter and now of days it is taboo for adults to date teenagers. Peter tries, but Betty has always been an adult(except for the Ultimate Universe when she is too sleezy and stuck up that she would do anything for fame.) You don’t see Mary Jane’s face. They build it up as, “Oh my god, she is so pretty.”
This is called anticipation. A lot of super hero movies introduce the female lead as an object of the main character’s desire if not already involved in the hero’s life. Mary Jane does not start out that way. She was introduced without Peter knowing her, but about her.
You want to know how dedicated Stan Lee and Steve Ditko were to her “real debut.” These panels came from Amazing Spider-man #25. She was finally introduced Amazing Spider-man #42. She was mentioned in Amazing Spider-man #15. Comic books were released every month. They centered a debut and anticipation of a character nearly 2 and a half years worth of anticipation and build-up.
Zendaya’s character “Michelle” is not apparent in spite being one of the most well known actresses in this movie. Michelle is the only character without a last name. We first see her after Peter starts swooning over Liz Allen and the trailer is not being subtle about it. It is literally right after we see Liz Allen.
“But why are they keeping it secret then or why doesn’t she have red hair?”
Because people honestly think that what made Mary Jane so great was her red hair and green eyes. That she was a model. That she was gorgeous. But so was literally every other super hero love interest. What seperated MJ aside from her introduction from Iris West, Lois Lane, Batman’s literal graveyard of dead romantic leads is that MJ had depth.
From the very beginning, MJ had this lively personality and was fun compared to ultra-serious Gwen Stacy or popularity Alpha female Liz Allen. What made her substantial was that she was different from the get-go. What made her memorable is that as soon as you pinned Mary Jane as the party girl who does not care about drama going on, she flips the script again.
She was one of the first female leads in comics that actually show depth. The first in Marvel? Gwen Stacy.
Spider-man used to have the most complex female characters for awhile. Like Gwen Stacy had sex with several people before she slept with Peter and no one thought less of her for it or shamed her. She also had a hot and cold relationship with Peter because she was annoyed with how much you can count of Peter being late or disappearing all the time. Gwen also had a bad habit of using sex for solace due to her boyfriend Pete being distant, Harry, her ex having a drug problem, and her dad dying. She was a human being with flaws.
Mary Jane Watson, however, was probably the most interesting. Beneath the party girl veneer, Mary Jane lived in an abusive home. She inherited her love of literary work and plays from her abusive father who was a college professor and a failed writer. She delved into romantic stories such as Romeo and Juliet to escape from the hell of her home and became the party girl to shrug off the stress in her daily life. Mary Jane, the party girl, was a facade. Who she really was is the fragile girl so deeply affected by witnessing an abusive marriage that she had commitment issues and refused to be tied down for fear that what happened to her mother would happen to her.
Yes, giving MJ depth and character is what made her iconic.
How this relates to Zendaya’s “Michelle” is that you can’t use this trope anymore. What made MJ significant back in the 60s will not fly here because that is a dime a dozen. There are no bullies like Flash Thompson and Cheerleaders aren’t as revered anymore.
As someone who has to adapt a story that does not fit in the times, what would you do?
I would keep the same structure. MJ’s iconic introduction needs to remain in tact because what made her significant was drowned out in the first series. So instead of keeping it unknown to Peter on who she is, keep it from the audience as well. And to do that, you have to introduce the character without actually “introducing” her. MJ’s party girl facade will not fly in the 21st century in a world where Cardi B and Miley Cyrus and Nicki Minaj are like revered and celebrated for being that.And it would be way too obvious if Zendaya had red hair because people associate that with MJ and really, MJ does not have to a red head because red headed romantic leads in comics are so overdone.
The structure of Mary Jane and Peter Parker romance resembles Romeo and Juliet in the beginning. Like Peter, Romeo is fixated on Rosaline as a lone interest. You never meet Rosaline in the play and Liz Allen is a really obscure Spider-man character. As soon as he sees Juliet, Romeo becomes fixated on her. When he meets MJ, Peter does not necessarily drop everything and sprint to the alter, but he does show interest or as much interest as he does in her as he does long running Gwen Stacy.
The structure is this:
-introduce a faux lead to make audience care focus on the faux lead
-keep real lead out of focus
-then make the real lead the real interest
So I am hiding obvious tells from the audience while still keeping her character known? Men associate MJ with being impossibly curvaceous. I remember when Kirsten Dunst got the role and immediately comic book fanboys said that she was not endowed enough or something along the lines of that.
I would be extremely subtle about it without it coming out of nowhere.
I would make Zendaya’s character seen and heard, but not apparent. Zendaya is gorgeous. Okay, no make up for the role. She is still gorgeous to me, but dudes are stupid and won’t pay any attention to anybody unless she is gussied up. Mary Jane is an actress. Well actresses do read a lot and tend to read up on obscure roles as research. Give her a stack of books and novels of old novels that were adapted into classic, but obscure films.
I already went over 2 of the books in the stack. A Woman in the Dunes is the second book from the bottom of the pile. The third book is the Wings of the Dove. Both are classic movies with prominent female leads.
The book on the bottom is Democracy which threw me off, but I finally found that there is a novel called Democracy that follows a woman dealing with politics. So, that is right up MJ’s alley?
But why complex female leads?
MJ as an actress resented that her talent was not being used properly and was routinely casted for her looks alone. She always desired complex leads. She wanted a challenge, as any actress worth her salt would.
I cannot figure out what the book she is holding is(looks like a notebook) and the book on top is due to her coffee blocking it.
So we have trendy, hipster MJ or MJ-esque character. Instead of having a bodacious bombshell, we have nerdy, exhausted Mary Jane who really looks like she needs a nap. I really do believe that this is Mary Jane or her adapted substitute. She is still MJ in spirit and character, but not the one we are most familiar with.
Here we are, one year later. I want to post something uplifting, something hopeful, but today has just been surreal, for lack of a better term.
Time passes and people forget. Guests forget. I remember for a week after that the uneasy quiet there was when Guests approached Cast. The sad smiles, the apologies, the questions. I remember the day we found out that every single call in was reason to panic, even more so if the person was a no call no show. Eventually everyone was found
After that, we had to band together and still put on a show, trying our best to not break down on stage. Some of us succeeded, others did not. But Guests didn’t stop coming, so we couldn’t stop either. So many hallow performances, I almost pity the Guests who came that week as they certainly didn’t get the best out of our Cast.
But time passes and we eased back into the routine. Guests stopped being cautious, so we had to stop being sensitive. But everyday was a reminder, especially for those in the LGBT+ community, and doubly for those who knew or lost someone.
Every time a Guest got pissed off about the security you can see somebody flinch, or maybe its just me. You try to wrap your mind around the fact that terror wasn’t the reality for these people. So you go from not talking about it, to causally mentioning it when dealing with these kinds of Guests. And the responses progressively get more infuriating. Going from “Oh, right sorry.” to “Oh, yea.” to “Oh, that thing that happened.” to “So?”. Because it wasn’t their reality, it was just the sad story of the week to them, and they forgot.
Even the Cast changed. College Program kids came and went twice, thoroughly diminishing the people who were actually here for it. So today was nothing more than a historical remembrance, and I cannot blame them. For we all see it everyday. Whether it be specific days like 9/11 or general like Memorial day, most people either just briefly acknowledge it or ignore it completely unless they had someone personally tied to the events.
And you realize just how blissfully ignorant you were, because you know you will carry this scar, this experience, for the rest of your life. And you know that you don’t even have it as bad as the people who experienced it first hand, or lost someone who they were close too.
But you play different scenarios over and over in your head because it could have been you. You had been there before. You had close friends who go. It’s your community, a safe place to go and have fun.
You wonder what would have happened if you had gone that night, or if your close friends had. And it is just so much more real because you can clearly picture the place and the people. And literally overnight the place, hell the name, that had been traditionally be associated with fun and freedom is now whispered because it is now associated with pain, fear, and death.
But the world moved on so you can’t be sensitive about it.
I admire those who have come back with strength because all I can remember is the fear. I smile around my community here that is so strong, but there is always a little pain behind it.
So I’m stuck somewhere between hopeful and terrified.
But who knows? Maybe one day time and circumstance will allow me to smile without pain again.
What sort of stats or abilities would I give Godsend from mtg?
I would say it’s a very powerful magic item. I would make it Legendary, and it would likely be a +2 Glaive that deals +2d4 radiant damage on-hit. To represent its ability to exile creatures “never to return,” I would give it a Banishment effect on creatures slain by it. Such creatures’ souls become locked on whatever afterlife they end up on or original plane they are from. As such creatures slain by it cannot be resurrected. This could probably end up being a technicality for killing liches, banishing their phylactery to another plane. You could also have the weapon cast Banishment once per long rest.
So apparently it was Sam's "artistic choice" not to break down at the sight of Bree's photos. This took away a lot of the emotion for me, especially with the Willie reveal right after. I think I wouldn't have minded the reveal if he would have emotionally acknowledged Bree first. Now it kinda feels like "nice pics, anyway, i have a son". What do you think about his tweets regarding his choice?
Good for him to have that much power to make it an “artistic choice.” Guess he can smack down RDM anytime he wants. I’ve said it before and I”ll say it again - the OL ensemble - cast, crew, production, etc - are sore losers. They cannot deal with constructive criticism so they just talk out of their collective asses and cancel each other out every opportunity they get.
I want to make a Hakutaku inspired centaur, and give it a dapple gray coloration. I’ve doodled him before, but I don’t know what to do with his character at first.
Ok, he’s chimeric beast birthed from Western sorcery using the remains of an unknown animal, most likely a Hakutaku. He’s as knowledgeable as one, but not as divine. He can’t bring good luck, lacks the purification abilities of the real deal, and is prone to tease anyone who came for advice. For now, he’s developing a different way to cast spells using glyphs, and pictographs instead of chants, mainly for magic users that cannot speak.
I disagree that Clark Kent in the DC cinematic universe is not as “good” as Superman should be - and obviously “goodness” is an entirely subjective thing to interpret so whatever - and, more importantly, I REALLY really really dislike the framing of Wonder Woman as like, this profoundly naive, trusting, girl-like woman who comes to man’s world expecting it to be a kind and forgiving place and has her inherent purity somehow tainted by the cruelty of men! I fundamentally cannot stand that interpretation of Wonder Woman. Look, Diana is not naive, okay? The society that she grew up in exists because her mother and women like her mother were literally held in bondage by abusive men until they were able to break free and vow that they would never be subjected to that again. Diana grows up reading about the evil things men do to women in school every day. She doesn’t go to man’s world because she thinks it can’t possibly be that bad, or whatever. Diana is a missionary. And I think that casting her as this character who possesses some inherent innocence that MAKES her “good” in ways that Superman, for example, cannot be (ugh!) and that we as an audience need to see broken on some basic level for her arc to be complete comes way too close to something that looks like a desire to see something that is representative of the concept of womanhood degraded for entertainment.
Diana is not good because she is innocent or naive, she’s good because truth and peace and love are her WHOLE FUCKING DEAL, she is literally a physical representation of those concepts, and as such she certainly can be made to suffer I suppose but she cannot be fundamentally broken in that way, just as the inherent power of a woman’s agency cannot be broken in that way.
I’m so glad you’ve decided to explore Norse paganism! I will give you an incomplete list of my favorite sources, mainly because I’m tired from a 23 hour drive yesterday, and the fact that I tried to answer this question once and it was deleted, which is just silly and frustrating.
Also, please note that when I use the term runes, I am specifically referring to Elder Futhark runes, the only ones I work with. Edred Thorsson, mentioned below, explores other rune sets as well if you’re interested.
I’ll give you a mixture of websites and books, although I personally recommend studying from books because I believe it is easier for the mind to retain information if it isn’t read on a screen. That being said, it can be a financial burden to purchase these books (I think the range for each individual book is between $8-20) and sometimes it is nice to do a quick website search instead of paging through physical writings.
Here is a photo of a portion of my books. I believe my husband is borrowing some to study, so I can’t show you all of my Norse collection.
It is always best to study from primary sources, which would be VIking and Skaldic poetry. The Poetic Edda is a great place to start. I have to admit I’m still working through it, because it can be a bit of a mental overload for me to read in verses for long periods of time. I enjoy it, and it still wears me out. I often make notes and write runes next to different verses that I believe embody the essence of that rune- that way, I’m constantly evaluating my understanding of the runes with the mythology. I like to read a portion of the Eddas and then go back to the other authors, since their insights help me understand the poetry better.
Other great resources include (but are not limited to):
Northern Mysteries and Magic: Runes and Feminine Powers by Freya Aswynn
Runelore: The Magic, History, and Hidden Codes of the Runes by Edred Thorsson
Futhark: A Handbook of Rune Magic by Edred Thorsson
Northern Magic: Rune Mysteries and Shamanism by Edred Thorsson
A Practical Heathen’s Guide to Asatru by Patricia M. Lafayllve
Essential Asatru: Walking the Path of Norse Paganism by Diana Paxon
Taking Up the Runes: A Complete Guide to Using Runes in Spells, Rituals, Divination, and Magic by Diana Paxon (note: I haven’t actually read this one, I intend to when I have some free funds. I’ve enjoyed other Diana Paxson writing, so I feel relatively confident recommending this. I’ve also heard other Heathen practitioners mention it.)
Please note that I may or may not agree fully with any of the websites or books I recommend. Many of the Norse myths and lore have been lost, either through time or through active destruction by Christians. In my opinion, that is why you have so few primary sources for Norse goddess information in comparison to gods. The Christian missionaries weren’t too fond of feminine magic and power. Because of the loss of information, many of these authors are trying to rebuild and remake a new version of Northern beliefs or Asatru. It is based in as much historical and ancestral knowledge as we currently have, and these people are doing their best in their own personal view. There will be conflicting information, such as the placement of Dagaz or Othala as the last rune. Personally, I enjoy Freya Aswynn’s explanation of Dagaz as the final rune. I have another friend who has only studied Othala as the final one, and was surprised to even hear about this theory. She has studied a lot of Edred Thorsson, and I began my journey with Freya Aswynn’s book. This will inherently change how we work with the runes, especially the numeric aspect of bindrunes and other practices. I cannot say who is right, only what feels right to me. You may end up siding with the Othala camp- and I could fully understand why.
Although I don’t believe in one right way to do Asatru/Heathen/Norse practice, I do feel there are some wrong ones. I would avoid Ralph Blum’s writings. He himself admits to making up a great deal of information (which is different than coming to your own conclusions via studies). The most notable aspect is the blank rune, which serves no purpose. There are 24 runes, and when you do a rune casting, some will inevitably be face down. Those are your “blank” runes, and to have an additional one is unnecessary at best. I also believe that those who use Northern paganism to espouse hate are obviously simple-minded idiots who can’t comprehend a complex world, so lash out at other races and beliefs to justify their inability to reach higher levels of consciousness. They cannot understand the idea of evolving beyond certain concepts, and certainly can’t grasp the fact that Northern peoples were explorers who mated with people of other cultures and lands. Honoring your ancestors does not have to come at the expense of other belief systems or peoples.
This still managed to be quite a lengthy post, and I hope it helps. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or thoughts!