literary creation


This is it. This is happening.

Upon the amazing discovery that the new A Series of Unfortunate Events is as Jewish as it gets in mainstream entertainment, I’m embarking on a mission to document every reference to Jewish culture.

I do this so I and any other Jew out there who feels like they don’t get enough representation (because let’s be honest, having that one side character in your movie/show/etc. be Jewish is awesome, but having an entire series about us is something else entirely) gets a chance to watch the traditions they know get a main role on a show.

I know that Lemony Snicket is very Jewish, and that he himself said that all the characters in his books are Jewish, but I unfortunately missed out on his wonderful literary creation when I was younger. I never read his books (which I feel now is like I missed something important in my childhood). 

So when the original movie came out with Jim Carrey, it was my first introduction into Snicket’s world. And I think it’s safe to say that the Jewish part of his world didn’t fully make it onto the silver screen. 

So watching this now on Netflix.. I almost have no words. The story is amazing, the culture is there, Snicket’s words are finally done justice (even though I think that’s because he’s head of the screenwriting department). It’s all around and entirely wonderful.

So without further ado, here’s all the references I can find form episodes 1 and 2.

Click the photos to read what episode it’s from, and an explanation of what each reference means. 

If I missed any, make sure to message me and I’ll add it in!


When you come across the name Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, you immediately think of his most famous literary creation, Sherlock Holmes. But Doyle was a prolific author beyond the Holmes stories, particularly of supernatural terror tales (fueled by his own personal interest in spiritualism and the occult). Thirty-one of those tales have now been collected in Gothic Tales, a gorgeous new hardcover edition from Oxford University Press, edited with an introduction and notes by Darryl Jones.


Adolf Wölfli     

Adolf Wölfli was born in the canton of Bern, Switzerland. At the age of seven he was abandoned by his father. The boy remained alone with his mother for two years, before being placed in peasant families where he worked as a goatherd and farmhand. Later he became a woodcutter, then a labourer. A few years afterwards Wölfli was arrested for indecent exposure and imprisoned for two years. On his release, he committed the offence again and in 1899 was admitted to the hospital in Waldau, near Bern, where he stayed until he died.

Adolf Wölfli started to draw, write and compose music at the age of 35. His output was colossal. It included 25,000 pages strewn with graphic compositions done with crayons, but also collages, literary creations and musical scores. In his drawings, figures whose eyes are surrounded by a mask are combined with musical notes, snippets of text and brightly coloured shapes. The ornamental elements have both a decorative and a rhythmic function.

I. a poem begins

❉ Chapters | 1 | 2 | 3 |

A poem begins with a lump in the throat, a sense of wrong, a homesickness, a lovesickness—a poet once said. Theirs began in ponderous silence, continued in quivering breath, and grew with the uncertainty of a child who has just started to walk, but aches to run towards a love which, although still small, cannot be concealed. 

Baekhyun x Reader | Professor!Baek | Chaptered

Genre: fluff | slight angst

Word Count: 7k

Author’s Note: It’s my first time posting a story. I hope you enjoy it!

September 18th

In the asphyxiating silence of an ancient library a man stood still. Around him, the sweet redolence of old books welcomed him, the only source of comfort when he was about to face the unpredictable consequences behind a poorly-thought decision. A nervous sigh fell from his rosy lips, a tiny sound, that evanesced rapidly amidst the rustle of passing pages.

“Frost or Whitman?” he murmured, voice limpid but strangely tremulous.

She turned around with a question in her eyes, a glimpse of recognition, a smile that would not bloom, not just yet. “Excuse me?”

Keep reading

Fyodor Dostoyevsky 1821 - 1881

Fydodor Dostoyevsky was a Russian Writer and Philosopher. His works explored Human pyschology in 19th century russia. His Philosophy was built around the hardships and beauty of life. 

Dostovesky was born in Moscow in the year 1821. His father was an doctor in the russian army. His mother died when he was 16 and Fyodor travelled to st Petersburg where he entered the army engineering corps, in 1839 his father died and he had his first epiletic seizure. Fyodor would graudate from millitary academy but was soon convinced millitary life didn’t suit him and he left the army in 1844. His first novel “Poor folk” was published in 1846. 

With no actual job and over excessive lifestyle coupled with a gambling addiction put Fyodor in a bad financial position. His novel was made to raise funds however his works earned him a place in St petersburgs literary circles. His book became a commercial success. Before he knew he was in a social circle concerned with spreading socialism throughout russia. He was arrested in 1849 and was sentenced to 10 years hard labour in Siberia 

The experience altered Dostoyevsky mentally. His exile in Siberia became the root of all his writing his novels after 1859 when he returned from siberia were focused around despair and realism. 

His next big work “Crime and Punishment” was published in 1866. The sotry was focused around a young man who leaves university. In order to gain money he plans to rob and kill a pawnbroker. Yet he is not sure why he feels the urge to kill, he murders the pawnbroker with an axe but her sister walks he. He panics and kills the sister aswell, eventually taking only a small purse and leaving most of the wealth behind. He is plagued with guilt and regret. He turns himself into the police. 

It should be noted that Fyodor became a christian during his time in prison. He focused on Jesus christ and the new testament because it was the only book allowed in Prison. He wrote that “even if someone were to prove to me that the truth lay outside Christ, I should choose to remain with Christ rather than with the truth”

His next great work was the Brothers Karamazov. The story centered around 4 brothers each with very distinct personalities. Ivan: the atheist intellectual, Alyosha: the Christian good boy, Dmitry: the passion driven lover of women, and Smerdyakov: the sly and cunning illegimate son. Their father is an very bad guy and he falls in love with the same woman as Dmitry. Dmitry threatens to kill his father, the Bastard Smerdyakov murders his father and frames dmitry. He Later hangs himself. The two other brothers now on their own clash over religion. Ivan cannot believe in god and says if he does he must hate humanity and Alysosha helps people and believes god will eventually come through for him. The conflict of morals in the book inspired the philosophies of Jean Paul satre. Sigmund freud called it the “Greatest book of all time”

Fyodor died in 1881 to a brain hemorrhage. His works has been translated in 170 languages. 

“Pain and suffering are inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men, I think must have a great sadness on earth”

taehyung-the-baehyung  asked:

changkyun (monsta x) - "our flats are opposite each other..."; only if you have time, love! good luck i can't wait to read it :)

3:06 AM.
Sent from: Kihyun
What are you still doing up?? Turn off your lights and go to sleep!!!

The notification flashes across your computer screen with a barely audible ping, but it’s enough to momentarily distract you from the paragraph you’ve been editing. Suppressing a yawn, you scan the contents of the threadbare message and roll your eyes as best as your heavy eyelids will allow. Go to sleep? That’s a bit on the rich side, coming from a guy who stays up every night of the week to indulge in his anime marathon sessions.

Ping. Another message from Kihyun, this time accompanied by a slew of emoticons that make you think the man has entirely too much fun abusing the instant messaging system.

3:07 AM.
Sent from: Kihyun
I’m serious, I’ll go over there and tuck you in bed myself if I have to

You send him a poop emoji in return before closing the chat window. Behind his exaggerated nagging and endless stream of messages he means well, you’re well aware of that. But what you’re also aware of is the fact that three in the morning is perhaps (or at least, in your opinion) the best time to write and breathe to life all of those untold stories waiting to blossom in your chest. Your literary creations, your life’s most gorgeous accomplishments (“you mean your porn fics?” Kihyun had snorted when you’d tried explaining this to him), they simply glowed with a magic that only 3 AM could bestow upon them.

Keep reading

…a language is a kind of natural ambience wholly pervading the writer’s expression, yet without endowing it with form or content: it is, as it were, an abstract circle of truths, outside of which alone the solid residue of an individual logos begins to settle. It enfolds the whole of literary creation much as the earth, the sky and the line where they meet outline a familiar habitat for mankind. It is not so much a stock of materials as a horizon, which implies both a boundary and a perspective; in short, it is the comforting area of an ordered space.
The writer literally takes nothing from it; a language is for him rather a frontier, to overstep which alone might lead to the linguistically supernatural; it is a field of action, the definition of, and hope for, a possibility. It is not the locus of a social commitment, but merely a reflex response involving no choice, the undivided property of men, not of writers; it remains outside the ritual of Letters; it is a social object by definition, not by option. No one can without formalities pretend to insert his freedom as a writer into the resistant medium of language because, behind the latter, the whole of History stands unified and complete in the manner of a Natural Order.
Hence, for the writer, a language is nothing but a human horizon which provides a distant setting of familiarity, the value of which, incidentally, is entirely negative: to say that Camus and Queneau speak the same language is merely to presume, by a operation, all languages, archaic and differential futuristic, that they do not use. Suspended between forms either disused or as yet unknown, the writer’s language is not so much a fund to be drawn on as an extreme limit; it is the geometrical locus of all that he could not say without, like Orpheus looking back, losing the stable meaning of his enterprise and his essential gesture as a social being.
—  Barthes, R. (1968). Writing Degree Zero. New York: Hill and Wang. p.9-10
Things you think are in the Bible, but aren’t:

(from an ex-fundamentalist and preacher’s kid who attended two separate Bible colleges on the “preacher” track myself before becoming an atheist)

*”God helps those who help themselves” (It’s just not in there)

*Lilith, or “Adam’s first wife” (”Lilith” was the literary creation of an 8th century rabbi; the closest thing in the Bible is a type of desert demon that later became associated with her)

*Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed for “teh gay” (although unspecified “abominations” are listed, the only prominent specific charges against Sodom were that they were arrogant, and did not care for their poor)

*Jesus as a socialist (he was arguably an anarchic-communalist, or perhaps a communist, but not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination)

*”The Seven Deadly Sins” (an invention of the church)

*”Eternity in Heaven” (according to the Bible, believers will occupy a “new Earth”)

*Humans becoming angels when they die (angels were a separate, and earlier, creation to humans)

*Female angels (angels are, most Bible scholars agree, sexless and genderless, but in every Biblical appearance in which they take on human form, they appear as males–because the Abrahamic religions are intensely patriarchal)

*Cherubs as winged babies (Cherubim are actually fucking badasses with flaming swords–at least the one set to guard the Garden of Eden is)

*Mary Magdeline as a prostitute (this was simply church headcanon)

*Anything about abortion (abortions were practiced in Biblical times, but not one reference is made to the practice being disapproved of by god)

*”Thou Shalt Not Kill” (a more accurate translation would be, “Thou shalt not commit murder.” The Bible is full of God-approved killing. Hell, God both commits genocide, and orders the ancient Hebrews to commit genocide against the Canaanites.)

*Lying as a sin (”Bearing false witness against thy neighbor” means just that–making false claims against someone–so it’s a very specific type of lie that is forbidden)

“[Michael] Hirst, in his interview with me, pointed out with some justice that while The Tudors got slammed for its gaps and inventions, Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall gets nothing but praise for its liberties with history. Wolf Hall, he says, is "complete fiction. But nobody says that. They all say: ‘What a wonderful book, what insights it brings to the Tudors.’ Isn’t that bizarre?”

Mantel’s quirky, magisterial portrait of Thomas Cromwell is a wonderful book … yet Hirst is right, it doesn’t shy away from tweaking the facts. Ignoring the fact that Cromwell and Anne had many of the same religious commitments for most of Anne’s reign, Mantel paints Anne through Cromwell’s eyes as a predatory calculator, brittle, anxious, and cold- a view that Cromwell is unlikely to have held during the period that Wolf Hall takes place. Mantel’s 2013 sequel, Bring Up the Bodies, which deals with the chilling, sudden turnabout of Anne’s fortunes “as it might have looked from Thomas Cromwell’s point of view”, goes even further, presenting a “theory” about Anne’s fall that is quite different from what most historians now believe- namely, that Cromwell played the leading hand in cooking up the ruthless plot that cost Anne her life. Mantel’s Cromwell … has some fortunately timed gossip fall in his lap and simply follows the wind, never quite sure of the truth himself- and leaving the historically uninformed reader unsure as well. “What is the nature of the border between truth and lies?” Mantel has Cromwell musing as the bits and pieces of rumor pile up. “It is permeable and blurred because it is planted thick with rumour, confabulation, misunderstanding and twisted tales.” In Bring Up the Bodies, Mantel brilliantly recreates that permeable and blurred experience (even Anne’s guilt or innocence remains undecided at the end of the novel), which is what makes her fiction remarkable. Yet it is as blurred with regard to the truth as the false rumors that swirled around Anne’s sexual behavior.

Although historians complain about the distortions of history in The Tudors, the show actually sticks much more closely and in greater detail to the historical record than any other production. … And despite the condescending remarks of the British press, the show is actually intellectually far more demanding than The Six Wives of Henry VIII. Perhaps its chief offense is being “pop” rather than “literary”.“

-Susan Bordo, The Creation of Anne Boleyn

Poetry And Intersectional Feminism | Charles Bane Jr.

I was precocious as a boy and devoured the western canon, unknowing that the body of work I was reading was all- white and male. But we are lucky to be living in exciting times: rapidly, cultures are accepting queer and bisexual, transexual and gender fluid souls as an identity deserving of respect and the beach-head of their personal expression lies in poetry.There is obstinacy, of course, in institutional sexism. I was so certain that Matthea Harvey would be a finalist or winner of this year’s Pulitzer Prize for Poetry that I emailed her good luck at Sarah Lawrence the day of the awards announcements, and when the laurels were shared only with men, I was aware of the misogyny underlying it.

Keep reading

Rowling does NOT regret Ron and Hermione's relationship.

In some ways Hermione and Harry are a better fit”

Thats it. Thats all she said.

It is official, the sunday times and hypable are jerks. The full wonderland article is available to read now and though some of the quotes that were released ARE actually said, they were taken completely out of context with the initial ‘sneak peeks’. 

But more importantly all the sites and news reported this story with the headline rowling 'REGRETS’, putting a negative spin on the entire thing and sparking massive fandom wank. Even the sunday times article was titled 'JK ADMITS HERMIONE SHOULD HAVE WED HARRY' 

she does no such thing. she regrets nothing. and I feel I was totally correct in assuming it was a publicity thing. Imagine the spikes in traffic these news outlets got from their totally false headlines. So A+ sites, you not only took it out of context but used words and phrases she never used herself. And Emma too! It was reported that Emma agreed with her, when you read the article (below) it comes off like the opposite. It seems to me thats she’s just as much a Romione shipper as she ever was.

And can I just take a moment to applaud Emma’s reluctance to filming the tent scene? Whether you liked it or not, it DID imply harmony when there was none and i think its a good job on Emma for not wanting to do something that was so different from the book just because the filmmakers wanted to. So even tho Heyman and Kloves weren’t trying to keep Jo’s story the same, at least someone was. SO ANYWAY,

Jo has been massively criticized, the fandom boarded ship and went back to war, everything was chaos for a few days,

Congrats, Sunday Times, Hypable, you are both literally Rita Skeeter. And oh yes I blame those two. They are the root, they’re where it started and they are the ones that chose the headlines and set the tone for everything that followed.

Click the read more for the full interview (i’ve left in the stuff not related to the ships too), if anything whats actually said makes Hermione and Ron’s relationship more real. Because most people knew they’d need some work, but that they’d make it anyway.

Keep reading

“I have always thought that art is not a category, not a realm covering innumerable concepts and derivative phenomena, but that, on the contrary, it is something concentrated, strictly limited. It is a principle that is present in every work of art, a force applied to it and a truth worked out in it. And I have never seen art as form but rather as a hidden, secret part of content. All this is as clear to me as daylight. I feel it in every bone of my body, but it’s terribly difficult to express or to define this ldea.

A literary creation can appeal to us in all sorts of ways–by its theme, subject, situations, characters. But above all it appeals to us by the presence in it of art.”

Boris Pasternak, from Doctor Zhivago (Pantheon Books, 1957)

*Note: This excerpt was taken from The Portable 20th-Century Russian Reader, ed. Clarence Brown (Viking Adult, 1985)

anonymous asked:

You mentioned that you had criticisms of Frozen but didn't agree with some of the criticism you've seen…what did you like/dislike about Frozen and what criticisms specifically do you disagree with?

The post I read the other day said a lot of things but some of the criticisms I disagreed with were:

  • The most peculiar criticism to me was that it is sexist the way the narrative ‘shamed’ Anna for wanting to marry Hans so quickly, and having Hans turn out to be evil sends a sexist message that only women would be so silly and emotional. Like… lol I don’t agree with this at all — for starters it isn’t only men, as the criticism suggests, who “shame” Anna; the whole conflict starts because Elsa’s like “uhh, no”. Besides, Anna is very lonely and she’s desperate because she’s so lonely, and Hans preyed on that loneliness. Plus the whole thing is obviously a parody of the typical Disney hey-I-just-met-you romance, which has already been criticized before for being sexist. Defending Anna’s right to rush headlong into teenage marriage with a guy she literally just met is so silly.

Keep reading

jjk3  asked:

Hi Father, I hope you're doing all. I'm just wondering, does the Church still teach that Modernism is a heresy? I know it did at the time of St. Pius X but I can't find a clear answer if we still do. Many thanks, Jack.

Hi Jack, 

Absolutely, yes, the Catholic Church still teaches that the “modernism” condemned by St. Pius X is a heresy.

However, “modernism” is NOT making modern changes. Modernism is NOT having the priest face the people at Mass or pray in the vernacular. And modernism is NOT having dialogue with Protestants or treating non-Catholics with greater respect.

Modernism is something quite different, as Pope Pius X explained. Modernism was the practice of certain scholars to use the techniques or methods of Bible and patristic study to explain away the historical nature of Jewish sacred history, or Jesus, or the Church.

According to these modern methods, especially the “historical-critical” method, scholars would propose theories that almost everything in the Bible and ancient Christian literature was invented, or made up, like a fable. 

The result, these modernists said, was that if we look at what the Church says about Jesus and itself, most of it is not really true. The modernists believed that all these doctrines and dogmas are cultural and literary creations which express our feelings and ideals about what we feel is our agenda, our values, our ideals.

So, did God actually do any miracles for the Jews? No, the modernists said those stories were fanciful ways for the Hebrews to express their interior feelings or intuition that God exists. But in real history, these things did not happen. Most of the Old Testament, according to those scholars, could be explained by ancient peoples borrowing stories from each other to make life more spiritual and meaningful.

What about Jesus? Well, the modernists believed He existed, but was at best a Messianic preacher who never intended to start the Catholic Church, or have popes or bishops, or institute seven sacraments or reveal dogmas. 

All these things, the modernists said, evolved also from the religious sentiments of ancient Christians who were in need of dealing with the fact that the historical Jesus who walked on earth turned out very different than what they were expecting. So, from the heart and intuition of believers, the Church basically did an extreme makeover and “invented” a new Jesus–the “Jesus of faith” who builds a Church and reveals dogmas.

When all was said and done, according to the modernist Alfred Loisy, what we see is that Jesus preached a futuristic kingdom of justice and God’s reign, and the Church happened instead, with all its structures, authority, and institutional rules. Basically, like other modernists, Loisy was trying to function in a world where scholars were suspicious of God’s revelation in history. They were suspicious of the ideas of miracles. 

They were suspicious of whether God really said or did anything that the Bible says. To deal with these suspicions, they said we could salvage Catholicism by focusing on the happy, positive teachings of faith that lift up the inner values that all good people have inside of them. 

Instead of placing faith in what is external and objective Divine Revelation (Bible and Tradition) the modernists believed that Faith is trusting your inner feelings and intuitions, because that is where God speaks to all good people. They believed very strongly that God exists. But the modernists just did not believe that scholarship could vouch for God actually intervening and acting in history the way God is described by the Church’s Bible and Tradition.

What St. Pius X did was to attack the modernist theory that “truth” was subjective or based on interior feelings and intuition. He pointed out that what the modernists did was dismantle the Catholic “theories” of Divine Revelation and replace them, not with science and fact, but with more “theories” that were of their own invention. He called the historical-critical method of Scripture study a pseudo-science, as it was being preached. 

Based upon the philosophical biases that the modernists did not believe in historical revelation or miracles, they worked on a new spin which would call Scripture and Tradition fables, without being able to prove this, because they modernists did not have a time machine to go back and prove for a fact that Bible stories are just borrowed from other cultures. 

St. Pius stated that Catholic Tradition is believable because the message, in its core dogmas, had not shifted or changed since the time of Christ and the Apostles. 

Yes, there had been development in understanding, but not evolution of one dogma into a brand new dogma. It was the modernists, St. Pius stated, who were attempted to introduce evolution of dogmas into the Church in order to do away with those dogmas they did not like, especially the dogmas which establish apostolic and divine authority in the pope and bishops. And they were attempting this watering down of Catholic Faith with the veneer of modern scholarship and pseudo-science based on their own lack of faith.

In short, modernism is the heresy which attempts to do away with the external and objective sense of God’s intervention, God’s revelation to us through Jesus, by basically denying Revelation and replacing it with a religion of feeling and inner intuition. And this is what was condemned, because inner intuition is looking at truth from God as “whatever you want, or feel like, making of the truth.”

God bless and take care, Fr. Angel

pretty lessons

considered not writing any
‘pretty poetry’
while the Ferguson saga
is still going on

as not to reflect
a remove or denial
a Pollyannish retreat
from reality

instead of vendetta venting
and violation-vitriolled
unto virtualized victory

though in fact
racism is venal and virulent
a vestige of our reptilian brain
which always bears examination

it’s also a fact that
the multi-hued splendor
of autumn leaves,

the perceived sparkle
in that special someones’ eye

the sublimity of the great visual,
tactile, literary and musical creations
by the world’s master artists

all have the power to transform souls
into wonders immeasurable.

as i
reflect on all of
my prior history lessons,
in and out of school;

i surmise
there have always been–
& will always be

with or without any
'pretty poems’
by way of contrast
as we are very much a
both/and species…

at this point in time
they may be needed
more than ever

if in fact
they ever truly were.