Flexibility in Religiosity

Religious systems are flexible. Membership isn’t restricted to one faith.

It’s only in the West that singular devotion to one religious pathway is the norm, so much so that westerners struggle with the concept of people belonging to multiple religions. This view is, ultimately, unhelpful and unrepresentative of the wider truth.

Many people who follow Paganism, Shintoism, Dharmic faiths (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) or Chinese faiths (Confucianism and Daoism) equally follow another religion without issue.

Most people who follow one Chinese faith also follow the other as well as Buddhism. All the Dharmic faiths blur into each other. Indeed, Hinduism sees the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, the most popular god in India.

Further, in areas where indigenous, native religions still hold fast (from Africa to Asia and the Americas), additional identification with a global religion is very common. They blend the faiths together and take what feels right from each.

In the West, people find this confusing. What if there are contradictions in the different religions’ teachings?

Here it’s important to remember that what religious leaders teach isn’t unanimously accepted by all believers. Compare this to a political party: members identify with the one that fits most with their own views.

People make up their own minds on what to believe. Official opinions between different religions often contradict but this doesn’t mean believers think either opinion is true, let alone both. And if they do, the believer will find a compromise that suits their needs.

The point of every religion is to live a good life so pick the best one(s) for you. Taking bits and pieces from one religion doesn’t mean you aren’t staying true to another. It’s like nutrients: you get them from eating your main meals but you can supplement that with vitamins to make you healthier and feel good.

Referenda Infinitum (Brexit)

Democracy is about listening to the people and not ignoring their wishes. Democracy is about fulfilling the wishes of the public.

This is achieved by providing people with choices in elections and referenda. In this manner, the more often people are listened to, the more choices they are given, the more democratic their society. Thus countries are more democratic if they provide more choices.

Subsequent choices don’t ignore what people said before.

Instead, follow-up choices are a way to hear what people say now, to hear further contributions from the public. People have a habit of changing their minds so they should be able to express this with new choices.

If the public change their mind on something, it is democratic to follow through on it.

Without doubt, the talk of a second Brexit referendum is the best example.

More people wanted to leave the EU than stay so it is only right that we start to leave. But if more people now want to stay in the EU then that should happen, then it is only right that we stop Brexit.

It is democratic to fulfil the wishes of the public, wishes dictated by people who can change their minds.

This doesn’t lead to referendum after referendum on the issue.

If a second one favours leaving the EU then that is the end of the matter. If after people know what leaving the EU entails and they still vote to do so, it is only democratic to follow through and proceed with Brexit.

Remainers would have the right to complain but they wouldn’t have the right to demand a third Brexit referendum. Instead, they could only demand a referendum on re-joining the EU.

I say all this as a Remainer, as someone who sees leaving the EU as a massive mistake. But my belief in democracy is more important than my political affiliations.

Besides, Brexit was fought for certain reasons: if those reasons can’t be achieved, the UK shouldn’t leave the EU (see the link below for an article on this). Brexit was for full sovereignty and, with the delicate Irish border, it seems farfetched that we can escape the Court of European Justice. If so, there’s no point in continuing with Brexit.

Critique: The Tethered Mage (Melissa Caruso)

This story follows Lady Amalia, booklover and daughter of La Contessa Lissandra Cornaro (‘The Countess Lissandra Cornaro’) when she becomes a Falconer to Zaira, her Falcon (a mage). It takes place in two locations: Raverra, capital of the Serene Empire, and Ardence, where Amalia’s university friends live.

Background

There are four kinds of mages: alchemists, artificers, vivomancers (manipulate plants and animals) and warlocks (the elements, so fire and storms). Mages can be identified by the ring they have around their pupil. Zaira is a fire warlock.

Lissandra sits on one of the four de facto hereditary seats on the Council of Nine which rules the Serene Empire from Raverra. Lady Amalia living up to her Cornaro name and testing her capabilities to be in charge of the empire are recurring themes which are undercurrents to the main story.

The Council of Nine is led by the Doge of the Serene Empire. (‘Doge’ is equivalent to ‘Duke’ and empires are ruled by emperors, not dukes, so I don’t know how that came about.)

Usually Falconers have to live with their Falcons in their compound. Due to La Contessa Lissandra Cornaro’s elevated position, she gets her daughter out of that arrangement and instead uses the situation as an opportunity to test out her daughter’s tactical capabilities.

Falcons are used for the Serene Empire. Zaira hates that she no longer has control over her magic and movements (her bitterness is very prevalent). Most Falcons are a bit more laid back: Istrelle (an artificer) is happy as a Falcon, although this is because her Falcon (Lieutenant Verdi) is also her brother.

***SPOILERS***

Story

After buying a book, Amalia sees a girl (Zaira) being accosted by a man. Amalia tries to interfere but Zaira uses her fire magic to get away. Lieutenant Verdi (who’s been tracking Zaira) asks Lady Amalia to tether Zaira which stops her magic.

A Falconer tethers a mage with magical jesses (making said mage a Falcon) and uses words allow and stop their Falcon from using their magic. So as Zaira didn’t have permission to use her magic, Amalia putting jesses on the mage stopped the magic. This also meant Amalia became a Falconer.

            After Lady Amalia is acquainted with Falconer life, the Doge sends her and Zaira to Ardence. The heirs to all the important families have gone missing and the Ardence’s Duke blames the Falconers. (Yes, the same empire has both duke and doge which mean different things despite being part of the same Italian-based culture.)

Amalia, being both Falcon and heir to the Council of Nine, is thus the perfect person to represent the Doge’s interests: convince Ardence not to secede from the Serene Empire with politics and, if failing that, with Zaira’s fire.

            The Duke is hosting Prince Ruven, son of one of the thirteen Witchlords of Vaskander (the country north of the Serene Empire). Amalia discovers Ruven persuaded the Duke into secession to distract the empire, making it easier for Vaskander to invade. With the help of Zaira and Verdi, Amalia seeks to solve the situation.

Mistakes

This idea of bonding mages with someone else and, the mechanics of this system, is interesting. There were a few inconsistencies that weren’t addressed, however.

The Falcon-Falconer bond is lifelong and this causes contention throughout the book because no one can think of a way to get Amalia out of it. (Except, that is, for these same characters explaining one Falconer retiring so their Falcon gets a new Falconer. The book seems to glance over that, though. No one thought to transfer Zaira to another Falcon?)

            A mage only becomes a Falcon once someone puts on jesses and then that someone becomes a Falconer. Yet when Istrella and Verdi joined the Falcons, Istrella grew up wearing her jesses yet Verdi had to wait four years to become her Falcon.

There were two outright grammatical mistakes that were really obvious. I hope they were unintentional but if they were conscious decisions on part of the author or editor then I despair.

            The first: ‘Half Ruven’s servants’. Where is the ‘of’ between the first two words? If it was all the servants, would ‘All Ruven’s servants’ have been written?

            The second: ‘So it was two days after the Council of Lords meeting, we prepared to leave.’ That comma has no business being there. It is purposeless. It’s neither separating items on a list nor separating clauses from one another. The comma should have been remove and perhaps replaced with ‘that’.

Verdict

The politics of this novel were well thought out and thoroughly enjoyable. That alone makes this story worth a read. Plus the Falcon-Falconer relationship is fascinating, if a little flawed here and there to suit the story as and when needed. Zaira, whilst annoyingly (if not understandably) bitter, came up with the best lies and was rather humorous. My favourite character was Ciardha, La Contessa Lissandra Cornaro’ maid. You’ll have to read it to discover Ciardha’s brilliance.

Hungarian PM Orban deserves the Nobel Prize?

According to Dutch populist Geert Wilders, Orban does.

This comes after the EU Parliament voted for punitive measures against Hungary because its government has breached academic freedom, equality, judicial independence, human dignity (especially of minorities/refugees), the rule of law etc.

Now, the Nobel Prize is given for achievements and advancements in six categories: Chemistry; Economics; Literature; Peace; Physics; and Physiology/Medicine. From what Orban has done, I fail to see how the PM qualifies for any of these Nobel Prizes.

Worse, Wilders has failed to elaborate, his only justification seeming to be that he supports Orban’s anti-immigration measures. Anti-immigration policies don’t add progress to any of these categories.

Indeed, anti-immigration policies do the opposite, detracting from Peace: they build unnecessary tensions within society and promote discrimination based on what someone is rather than what they do. Immigrants are often seeking peace, so to win the Peace Prize on immigration, surely one would have to gladly accommodate immigrants?

Singular Pronouns You and They, previously plural pronouns

‘You’ was once just a plural pronoun with its singular version being ‘thou’. Nowadays, ‘you’ can be (and mostly is) used as both a plural and a singular pronoun. No one denies this. Hence there is nothing grammatically wrong with pronouns shifting. (Any linguist knows pronouns are the shiftiest of word types.)

‘They’ is officially a plural pronoun but it has been used as a singular pronoun at least since Shakespeare’s time. If you deny that ‘they’ can be singular pronoun then you forfeit the right to use ‘you’ as a singular pronoun, too. Do you use ‘thou’? No you do not.

There is no reason why ‘you’ is allowed to be singular but ‘they’ is not. If your reasoning leads to two different conclusions then it is senseless and illogical.

So yes, from a purely grammatical point of view, ‘they’ is a singular pronoun.

Why Banning the Burka is Ridiculous

To the wearer of a burka, it carries spiritual significance. For non-Muslims, the burka is just a bit of cloth. So why not let them wear it? Seeing as burka-wearing Muslims are a minority, I don’t understand why it’s become such a big issue in the Western world.

People often want to ban burkas because they claim it’s a form of oppression, that Muslim women are forced to wear them. Yet this is illogical because you’re telling them not to wear it: you’re removing their autonomy over their own body and that too is oppression.

Sure, some women are forced to where the burka. The choice has been removed from them. How does this justify removing the choice from other women?

Then security reasons are cited for banning the burka which seems pointless. Most suicide bombers are male. Should we ban their clothing too? No. Besides, if a man is indoctrinated into extremism and terrorism, it’s a guarantee that they’d take on all of the more conservative views. An extremist wouldn’t ever be seen in a burka.

It also shocks me when people think the burka should be banned but guns shouldn’t. It’s pretty obvious which one of the two is more prone to being a security risk.

(For more on banning of Muslim attire, see my post about the burkini ban: http://onagentlebreeze.blogspot.com/2016/08/burkini-ban-and-secularism.html )

First Impressions

I don’t quite understand why people put so much stock on first impressions.

You make a judgement of that individual based on one, single moment. How can that be a basis for any sort of relationship? One moment can’t accurately represent anyone.

Just think: that person could be in a bad situation. Anxiety, anger, grief, pain. It seems rather heartless to decide you were disappointed and thence use that person’s vulnerability as the basis for future interactions.

Obviously our instincts can be right. (This is especially so with dating. No point wasting time on someone you see no hope with.) But with friendship and professional interactions, using the brain more than the heart seems sensible.

Obviously people do change their minds.

But most people say first impressions are important which makes the willingness to get to know someone a lot harder. It seems more practical to get to know someone because how can you like or dislike them if you know nothing about them?

Everyone should be given a chance to show who they are. If they continue to be unbearable then sure, they’re not for you, but there’s no way to know this before you interact with them more than the once that is a first impression.

So no, I dislike first impressions. If I paid them any attention, I wouldn’t have such close bonds with my friends (and, in all honesty, some family members) and my working relationships with others would be unbearably tense and full of annoyance. To rely on first impressions would have robbed me of many of my most precious memories. So no, I dislike first impressions and ignore them completely.

Colour of Nude

Throughout my childhood, ‘nude’ was never used to reference one’s state of undress: naked was the word of choice.

Nude instead meant a specific shade of beige with nothing to connect it to skin colour. In the UK, white people are pink-to-cream, too light for nude; the olive skin of Spanish and Italian friends was too dark for nude. There was no reason for us to connect ‘nude’ with ‘nakedness’.

American shows turned ‘naked/bum/arse’ into ‘nude/butt/ass’. In America, ‘nude’ referred to the many shades of white people’s skin (none of which could be actually identified as nude, I might add). This meant the cosmetic industry excluded and alienated black people. Why this made sense I don’t know: surely if you’re going to make ‘nude’ cover people’s nakedness, surely you’d extend it to everyone’s nakedness?

This may not seem like such a big deal but oppression is built upon loads of little things adding up to become unbearable pressure. This is just another example of people ignoring black people. So it needs to change.

This is a problem that started in America but it has bled through to other places. I don’t think it’s possible to salvage nude the colour from this mess. The specific shade that we’d call nude needs new terminology (perhaps ‘soft olive’ or warm beige’). The incentive to change it is far stronger than the incentive to keep it: what’s a colour compared to millions of people?

Old Wives’ Tale: Salt makes water boil faster

This is a complete falsehood. Sure, if the water boils faster, the pasta will be cooked sooner. Adding salt isn’t the solution you’re looking for.

Pure water boils at 100°C whereas salt water boils at 104°C. The higher the temperature needed to boil the water, the more time it will take to boil; by adding salt, your water will boil at a higher temperature and thus take longer to do so.

Physics explains this well. The more of something there is, the longer it takes to heat up. Adding salt to water means more stuff and thus a longer waiting time to become hot.

I doubt this info was around when this old wives’ tale began and I understand how it came into existence. Time feels like it goes faster when you are occupied with something. Adding salt to your water just passes the time which, in turn, make it seem like salt speeds things up.

Of course, if you want your water boiled quicker nowadays, just stick the kettle on.

Old Wives’ Tales: Why jinxes appear to work

https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-jinxes-appear-to-work-reality-of.html

‘Old Testament’ vs. ‘Hebrew Bible’

There’s been a push in recent years for the Old Testament to be relabelled the ‘Hebrew Bible’ because ‘old’ has negative connotations.

My first reaction was no, the Bible is the name for Christian scripture so to use ‘Bible’ for Jewish scripture isn’t acceptable. But ‘bible’ comes via Old French and Latin from Ancient Greek ‘biblia’ meaning ‘books’. Hence the Bible named after its role. The same is true of God (from Old English ‘god’ meaning ‘deity’) or how people use ‘Mum/Dad’ as proper nouns when ‘mum/dad’ are ordinary nouns.

But the reasoning for replacing ‘Old Testament’ with ‘Hebrew Bible’ still gives me pause. ‘Old’, it’s reasoned, is considered bad with negative connotations, connotations that are only accentuated when compared with, or placed next to, the new (i.e. the New Testament). Yet renaming something to get rid of the negatives simply legitimises and confirms these connotations as true (because you can’t get rid of something unless it’s real). Elderly people get enough trouble as it is.

So I’m going to stick with ‘Old Testament’.

Why is Jesus White?

Despite being Jewish, Jesus is typically depicted as Caucasian.

Understandably this confuses people. Whilst this depiction of Jesus is popularly thought to be modelled on Cesare Borgia, this could only happen in the first place because Christianity was (and is) a missionary religion.

(Jesus had been shown as white long before Cesare Borgia was alive. Hence people using Cesare Borgia as the sole reason for white Jesus is faulty to the extreme.)

Missionary religions (including Buddhism, Islam and the Hare Krishna Movement of Hinduism) seek to spread their religious beliefs to other ethnic groups aside from their own.

Humans are social creatures that make bonds based on similarities of identity, from shared interests to shared ethnicity. People will then start to depict important religious figures as their own ethnicity to heighten the shared identity. It helps indigenise the religion to the ethnic group. It’s a process I call ‘ethnic shift’.***

For example, in regards to ethnic physiological features, fashions and hairstyles, statues of the Buddha look Chinese in China, Japanese in Japan and Greek in Gandhara, (the area in Afghanistan where Greeks settled after Alexander the Great’s failed conquest of India). This is true even though Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) was ethnically Nepalese.

Depictions of Jesus have undergone the same process.

            Aboriginal Australian and Native American Christians depict Jesus as their own ethnic groups. Jesus is considered, after all, God become Man: if Jesus looks like you then God looks like you. God is no longer ‘foreign’.

White people did the same. As Caucasian men dominated the world and most forms of Christianity, Jesus will ultimately always be depicted as white to a western audience.

This had led Christians to antagonise Jewish and Arab people as the other, to abuse them and to use them as a scapegoat. This brings up the question: should depictions of Jesus have an ethnic shift back to His true Jewish ethnicity?

***

Anthropic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are forbidden in Islam so this process couldn’t happen.

There are photographs of the people Hare Krishnas venerate so for them to undergo an ethnic shift would be odd.

In Hinduism, there are strict rules for how a deity should be depicted and murtis are only worthy (and able to host their deity) if these requirements are met: for Krishna to become a white Caucasian instead of blue and from Mathura would be unthinkable.

Old Wives' Tale: Why jinxes appear to work

In folklore, a jinx is someone commenting on good luck and, in doing so, attracts bad luck.

You go the cloudy outside expecting rain yet it’s sunny. You comment on your good luck and say, “I can’t believe it’s sunny.” Your companion replies, “Don’t jinx it.” And what happens next? It rains.

There’s a good explanation as to why a jinx ‘works’. Drift away from the folklore explanation and instead view it as a matter of probability.

Again with the sun/rain example, the jinxed sentence is an expression of surprise that the unlikely outcome (i.e. the sunshine) has happened. Following this, the most likely outcome (i.e. rain) happens. The jinx doesn’t ‘work’ as a causal relationship (as one would expect when reading ‘jinxes are real’) but instead is simply recognition of probability.

Even with a basic understanding of probability, the fact that the most likely outcome ends up happening is hardly surprising. The more likely the outcome is, the more often it happens.

A jinx, then, is just like incorrectly calling an election before the results are finalised: there’s still plenty of time for things to change. The more opportunity for change, the more divergence there will be between the most likely and least likely outcomes happening.

The jinx itself doesn’t influence outcomes but it does influence the way humans perceive the world. Perception influences the views and opinions of a person and, as such, a jinx can very much be real.



Old Wives’ Tales: Salt makes water boil faster

https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2018/08/old-wives-tale-salt-makes-water-boil.html

Why Omnipotent Entities cannot do the Impossible

Omnipotence is a word of Latin descent (‘omnis’ meaning ‘all’ and ‘potent’ meaning ‘power’) to describe a being as ‘all-powerful’.

This is a feature usually ascribed to a religion’s deity. Omnipotence is one of the Classical Characteristic of God in Christian theology, for example. Yet some view omnipotence as allowing said being can do/achieve anything, even the impossible.

However, I find this is interpretation problematic. Something being impossible is so called because it isn’t possible, that is, it cannot be done. From this, if something can be done, it is possible, not impossible. Thus if an omnipotent being does something, it is (by definition) possible.

True, it may not be possible for a human to do it, but an individual’s capabilities for possible actions shouldn’t be generalised into a universal rule. The fact that one being is the only one capable of performing an action shows said action is possible. (To give an observable example, it’s not possible for a cow to do star jumps but that doesn’t make star jumps impossible.)

It doesn’t matter how much power something has because power allows for doing the possible; no amount of power can do what is not possible. If something is done, it is possible. An omnipotent entity cannot do the impossible because, by doing something, that something is possible.

Thus this interpretation of omnipotence is highly flawed: indeed, philosophers and theologians often apply limitations on what omnipotence can achieve. This flawed (and perhaps instinctual) understanding is due to incorrect and incomplete explanation by a priest of what is meant by their deity being all-powerful. A good educator doesn’t teach by simplifying a concept into falsity. 

Nationalist Contradictions: Healthcare and Immigration

Obviously this piece doesn’t cover the view of every nationalist. The Scottish Nationalist Party, for example, is both progressive in these issues whilst retaining foundational nationalist tendencies. But certainly in its more extreme forms, nationalism holds these contradictory opinions on healthcare and immigration.

Healthcare

Right-wing individuals are often against universal healthcare provided freely by the state. Yet it baffles me that nationalists on the Right of the political spectrum can be against paying for the healthcare of their fellow citizens.

            Being proud of your nation, being proud to belong to your country, surely implies that you are proud of a collective identity. How, then, is it possible that this very pride makes you fundamentally against anything that could help the collective identity and willing to let it suffer?

            This simply does not make sense. It’s not true love if you don’t do your best to eliminate unnecessary pain. People not having access to healthcare they need to survive? That is unnecessary pain.

            Also, just a side-note for the politicians of the USA: you have the largest economy in the world so you have no excuse for not providing free universal healthcare to your citizens. Humans are meant to be humane. Act like it.

Immigration

Whilst it’s common for nationalists to be anti-migration, this stance seems almost bizarre when following nationalist logic. If you are proud of and love your country, surely you’d want to share it with others? Especially if you thought the migrants’ countries were worse than your own.

I’m not calling for uncontrolled migration but equally it’s nothing to be worried about. Countries are designed to accommodate a growing population, whether that’s newborns or adult migrants. With migrants, you get someone who doesn’t need the state to support them in education yet pays taxes anyway (not to mention they’ll do jobs that the local populous usually refuse to even consider).

Responding to this saying that, “But we don’t want to support their children.” Come on, people. They’re children. Do you really want to be responsible for innocent children not getting the education and help they deserve as a human right? I’m sure this barbaric opinion is far from your mind.

If you love a particular film or book or restaurant, you’d take someone to see it/borrow it. If you’re feeling proud of a family member or friend, you share that joy with everyone. Naturally, you share these resources with those that haven’t experienced them (i.e. the less fortunate).

I applaud Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany for all she’s done for migrants. Being humane is the aim of the game: you can’t claim to be human yet dissolve humaneness from yourself.

Empiricism and Extraordinary (my thoughts)

Empiricism

This is the observational method where ‘wysiwyg’, ‘what you see is what you get’, is key, as in empirical evidence. Empiricism is often contrasted with Rationalism, whereby through logical deduction one arrives at knowledge. Both are about epistemology, as in what method lets one to achieve correct knowledge.

However, one objection everyone always throws in is ‘logic is a product of the brain’. The brain is the tool that logic is performed in; it’s a process, and as the brain is going through that process, the brain is experiencing the logic and therefore rationalised logic is empirical evidence. Thus, rationalism is a branch of empiricism, some could argue.

Though, one must consider the introductory paragraph to this section. Empiricism is mostly concerned with observation. Does the empirical evidence of logic happen through observation? No. Both are empirical, but differently so if following exclusive definitions. But if accepting the inclusive definition, then yes, they are related epistemological techniques.

When writing a piece that contrasts rationalism and empiricism, rationalism will most often be the one with the strongest evidence. This is unsurprising: the mode used is argumentation which is founded in logic, which is where rationalism stems from, meaning that argumentation and rationalism go hand-in-hand. It would be bizarre is rationalism didn’t come on top. However, this doesn’t prove rationalism to be the best source of knowledge in every situation, but rather this demonstrates that rationalism is the best source of knowledge for logical argumentation.

Extraordinary

When I want extra cake, I want more of the cake I already have.

So when I first read ‘extraordinary’ when I was young, I thought it meant ‘more ordinary/plain/stereotypical/average’. That is, what was referred to as ‘extraordinary’ was, in fact, even more normal, even more non-special, than regular, ordinary things. When a teacher in primary school labelled my work ‘extraordinary’ I was insulted that she essentially said, “That’ll do, I suppose.”

Going home, a family member explained ‘extraordinary’ means ‘more than ordinary’. I was happy with this compliment and many years later, I used this example in my AS English Language (a linguistics course) and it worked wonders in explaining theories of child language acquisition that took account of the environment of the child.

Can a President Pardon Themselves?

No.

A president claiming they can pardon themselves isn’t really feasible. Sure, a president can pardon anyone but this cannot extend to their own persons.

Someone can only be pardoned once they’ve been convicted (otherwise there’s nothing to pardon).

Now, a president (who is both head of state and head of government) can’t be convicted of a crime whilst in office.

Thus the only way for a president to be convicted is for them to be removed from office first (usually by impeachment).

If a president has been removed from office, they no longer have the power to pardon anyone, let alone themselves.

NOTE: This clearly doesn't apply to crimes a president committed before they were in office.

Abortion: when people say “I’m not pro-life or pro-choice” and “Don’t use abortion as a contraceptive”

When people say “I’m not pro-life or pro-choice”

Citizens of the Republic of Ireland have approved changing their constitution to be pro-choice in a referendum.

            Pro-choice: women having the right to have an abortion if they choose to.

            Pro-life: opposing abortion and euthanasia.

This is great news for women, giving them control over their own bodies. In a world full of rules (as is only right), everyone should have full autonomy over their body. Abortions are, of course, sad and terrible, but bringing an unwanted child into the world isn’t sensible in the slightest.

Over the course of the referendum, I saw people saying they were neither pro-life nor pro-choice because, whilst they personally wouldn’t have an abortion, they respected other people’s right to do so.

            This is quite literally the definition of pro-choice: respecting the choice of individual women, even if it’s not the same choice you’d personally make.

So these individuals claiming they’re in a grey area because they’re not pro-life or pro-choice are in fact advocating that they are pro-choice.

When people say “Don’t use abortion as a contraceptive”

People say abortion shouldn’t be used as contraception. Yet in reality is abortion could never be used as contraceptive. It can’t be done.

            Contraception: a method used to prevent pregnancy.

            Abortion: removing a foetus during pregnancy.

If contraception is to prevent pregnancy from happening and abortion happens during pregnancy, abortion cannot be a contraceptive. Prevention can’t be used to end something because prevention means something doesn’t even start in the first place!

Unless, grasping for some justification, abortions are involved in time-travel. Just the silliness of this goes to show how ridiculous it is to claim abortion is a contraceptive.

Of course, the sentiment of “Don’t use abortion as a contraceptive” is clear: you shouldn’t just throw a life away. However, what’s being said is not what’s meant that can only cause problems in communication.

Sex and Gender are Different (as compared to Ethnicity and Citizenship)

Whilst the majority of British citizens are white, someone being another ethnicity does not make them any less a British citizen. The distinction between ethnicity and citizenship is simple: ethnicity is a physical aspect of someone’s identity whereas citizenship is a psychological aspect of someone’s identity. Sure, the two can correlate but it’s not an exclusive relationship.

The same comparison can be made of sex and gender.

Sex, like ethnicity, is a physical aspect of someone’s identity; gender, like citizenship, is a psychological aspect of someone’s identity.

Sure, being cisgender (where one’s sex and gender are labelled the same) is most common but there’s no reason why this is the only option. Grass is a common plant but that doesn’t make it the only plant; the sky is mostly blue but this doesn’t make it the sky’s only colour. Whilst the world is getting better at recognising this separation, some people are lagging behind.

Part of the problem is that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are used to describe both sex and gender.

If we had separate words, the distinction would be easier to make. Arguments occur because ‘male/female’ are used to describe gender by one person and sex by another.

In essence, they’re arguing over separate things. Yet this isn’t an excuse: it’s the individual’s prerogative to decide how they identify, not that of anyone else. If someone chooses to identify by their gender identity, let them.

If it isn’t hurting anyone then it’s not a problem. It’s as simple as that.

Some complain, saying this sex-gender differentiation means ‘men can’t be men’. Not so. The whole point is that no-one’s identity is denied.

It’s encouraging men to be men, women to be women and anyone to be who they are. It’s the individual’s prerogative to have free will over their mind and body. Be what you want. If a strong part of your identity is your male physique then go for it. This isn’t to stop you but to encourage you, to encourage everyone.

No-one has to declare their identity to the world. It can be hard, scary and dangerous. So if you know someone who has done so, don’t make their life difficult. There’s no need for that.

Eona: The Last Dragoneye (Alison Goodman)

A.K.A. ‘The Necklace of the Gods’

Having revealed her true self as a female Dragoneye to a female energy dragon, Eona discovers from the red folio that her ancestor Kinra was also a Dragoneye. Meanwhile, Sethon, who’s claimed the throne when his brother died, is looking for Kygo who has the Imperial Pearl stitched in his throat: without the Imperial Pearl, Sethon cannot be the rightful Emperor.

*****SPOILERS*****

So much is expected from Eona’s power and basic efficiency despite having no training. This lack of instruction is why Lady Delia is decoding the women’s script in Kinra’s red folio (she guided Eona through court life in the first book and she is a two-spirit, being of female gender and male biosex).

Eona spends a lot of time wondering whether she should use her power to help Prince Kygo reclaim his throne from his uncle Sethon. Kygo wants her too so she as his loyal subject and romantic partner wants to yet using her powers for war is strictly prohibited by the Covenant of Service to which she feels bound. This conflict to both her commitments was played really well throughout this novel.

At the start, Ryko is seriously wounded so Delia begs Eona to heal him. Eona wonders who is she to play with life and death like a god, yet at the end of the last book she healed Rat Dragoneye Ido. Why heal the cause of all the issues yet not a friend? Why only worry about acting as a god for a friend? This was a very peculiar reaction from Eona that didn’t fit in her character.

According to Delia, Eona betrayed Ryko’s trust. I don’t see how. Sure, Eona lied about being a moonshadow, but this was only to stay alive. Literally it was life-or-death to prevent others discovering she was female. Ryko had been Eona’s friend and I know not being told the truth by a friend is painful, but pure survival seems like a forgivable reason to me. But then Eona says Delia is right! Bizarre. Eona’s being female had nothing to do with Ryko’s injuries: they would have tried to stop Sethon taking the throne even if Eona had been male so Ryko would have been injured anyway.

At one point, they are travelling and Eona is dressed in mourning robes whilst Ryko (Delia’s moonshdow guard) is hidden in the carriage. They stop at an inn and Eona discovers Sethon’s soldiers could look in the carriage. To prevent this she makes a scene, thus saving Ryko. This made her companions angry because they told her to stay in her room and called her selfish for doing what she wanted. This was frustrating to read because she saved them all from execution and they recognised this! In this distraction, some soldiers treated Eona as if she is a  whore but lieutenant Haddo tells them, “Look with your eyes, not your prick,” in reference to Eona’s mourning robes. That line made me chuckle.

After going back to the palace to get Ido in order for Eona to receive some training, she and Vida dress as peonies (concubines) whilst Ryko and Delia dress as guards.

Sethon notices the bruising on Eona’s face and asks who said that one must crush a flower for its true perfume. One of Sethon’s retainers replies a poet and Sethon replies by saying people had to follow the truth of poets. This is somewhat ironic considering that Sethon was always described as warlike compared to his poetic brother (the dead Emperor) and his nephew (Prince Kygo). If Sethon wants to follow the truth of the poets then he should maybe follow the truth of Kygo, i.e. that Kygo is the rightful Emperor.

            Vida dislikes Eona because Vida’s fiancé died due to Eona’ healing of Ryko (using dragon energy to heal someone without training meant Eona lacked control of excess energy). Yet when Delia punches a eunuch out cold, Eona and Vida bond. The nastiness in their relationship evaporates and they proceed to work effectively together.

Once Ido is free, he constantly tells Eona he knew she wants her dragon power. On page 245, Eona says Ido is correct and that wanting power was ‘like a constant ache within’ her spirit. Oh, really? Then why are we only hearing about for the first time over halfway into the story? There had literally been nothing to suggest Eona desperately wanted the power beforehand which is especially bad considering that this series is written in first-person.

Eona pinpoints terrible winds were to hit them in five days times. Even though Ido had been training her, he hadn’t trained Eona for this; when Eona asks how she could know this, Ido says this is what Dragoneyes do. For me, this just feels like lazy writing. Sufficient information has not been provided. If the process cut from the story then Eona’s precise sensing should have been cut from the story altogether.

The theme of control (and basic enslavement) is prominent in this book. Royal blood can enslave Dragoneyes and their power if used on the black portfolio. After healing Ryko, Eona realised she could move him to her will and against his own, causing him pain in the process.

Ryko hates this and is understandably quite bitter with Eona, unrelenting with his dislike. For a while he even dislikes Delia for her part in encouraging Eona to do this (though their love fixes this chasm). This is why Eona refused to heal Kygo. Disliking Ido and having healed him, Eona bends him to her will but this also compels Ryko, fuelling his hatred towards Eona. Ryko hated Ido even more, telling Eona to control the Rat Dragoneye, making Ido suffer even though Ryko would suffer, too. Ryko equals severe bitterness, basically.

Neither Eona nor Ido want to be enslaved by royal blood but Kygo wants to do this. Everyone would feel safer if Ido was under enslavement and it would prevent any Dragoneye in the future doing harm to the country (because everything is Ido’s fault). Naturally Eona doesn’t want her free will to be taken away because: she didn’t heal Kygo so she couldn’t control him and Eona wants the same from him; control would make their relationship bitter and she doesn’t want to lose love; and she knows how much pain Ryko goes through when he’s being controlled.

One has to wonder: if Eona did heal Kygo (and thus had control over him) and then Kygo used his royal blood to enslave dragon power, whose will would prevail? Eona’s because hers happened first or Kygo’s because Eona’s control-after-healing is from dragon power which Kygo had full control over?

Near the end, Eona finally gives Kygo the black folio so that Kygo can use his imperial blood to control Dragoneye power. Eona claims that this is her giving Kygo her trust. This was satisfying: whilst I’m against the female being made subservient to the male, trust was a continuing issue for both Eona and Kygo during their relationship. Eona’s offer was a sweet solution.

The party went to the Eastern Islands in the hope of rallying support against Sethon (who conquered the islands and made their inhabitants suffer). Eona thinks the trip will help her connect with her dragon (who is guardian over the eastern compass point). Delia is excited to go home and greet her father.

On the way, Eona meets her own mother which proves to be an awkward affair (as is to be expected after their years of separation). Her mother tells Eona of Kinra’s riddle, sent down to her descendants about the parentage of her daughter: she had two fathers but one bloodline, so ‘two into one is doubled’. With revelations from the red folio, Eona knows the two fathers to be Emperor Dao and Rat Dragoneye Somo. Eona gets excited: if she was Dao’s descendent, her imperial blood would allow her to marry Kygo. (The book says ‘royal blood’ but royalty refers to the families of kings/queens, not of emperors.) Then the answer to the riddle was: ‘The one she loved’. Eona knew Kinra loved Somo, meaning Eona couldn’t marry Kygo. (Kinra faked a relationship with Dao in order to get near the Imperial Pearl.)

Eona demonstrates her powers to the islanders by healing Chart, a disfigured individual that resided in Hueris Brannon’s home (he was one in the household that liked Eona). When Chart was healed, Eona realised that he was Brannon’s son. After making Chart a free man by releasing him from servitude in the first book, Eona considered this another gift. But then Ryko told Chart about the compulsions and Chart became upset because he’s no longer free.

There were other reasons why Eona’s ‘gift’ to Chart didn’t go down well. He complains that Eona used him as an example to the islanders, making him a freak to Eona when she’d never treated him as a freak before. He then says Eona didn’t look at him until later. All reasonable responses yet Eona got unreasonably defensive. She says that she can use her powers as she sees fit and unapologetically. Rita (Chart’s mother and Eona’s bodyslave whilst at the imperial court) slams this by saying Ido would have said the same thing.

The mythos and the lore of the energy dragons is explored in detail during this book. This was exciting. In the first book, it was presumed that people had struck a bargain with the energy dragons in order for them to share power. Also in the first book, Ido seeks to create the String of Pearls to gain supreme power, for which he needed the black portfolio.

            At one point, Eona flees within her energy dragon and finds Kinra is present. She reveals that there was no such bargain. Instead, the first Dragoneyes stole the Egg of Renewal (the Imperial Pearl sewed into Kygo’s throat) and held it hostage as ransom for the dragons’ power. Kinra may have betrayed Emperor Dao but she was trying to help the energy dragons.

            Eona also finds out that only the Mirror Dragoneye (i.e. her) can direct the String of Pearls. So she gives the Imperial Pearl/Egg of Renewal to the dragons. All twelve lay their pearls in an interconnected circle. This allows the Hua (essential qi/energy) of the dragons to be released from the black folio, allowing them to die and their replacement to hatch from their pearls. (Hence why the Imperial Pearl is also an egg.)

            Lord Ido tried to absorb the energy that the black folio released, determined to gain supreme power and thus become a god, but this kills him. This felt like justice. Such a long way coming!

Whilst the ideas were fun, clever and interesting, the novel felt more like info dumps wrapped in poor narrative rather than a smartly constructed story. I looked forward so much to receive the sequel to ‘Eon: Rise of the Dragoneye’ but I found ‘Eona: the Last Dragoneye’ largely dissatisfying.

Reviews: The Dragoneyes (Alison Goodman)

Eon: Rise of the Dragoneye

https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2018/03/eon-rise-of-dragoneye-by-alison-goodman.html

Eon: Rise of the Dragoneye (Alison Goodman)

A.K.A ‘The Two Pearls of Wisdom’

Eleven Dragoneyes use their connection with the energy dragons to prevent, obstruct and redirect natural disasters. Each animal in the Chinese Zodiac is represented by a dragon, although the Dragon Dragon, the so called ‘Mirror Dragon’, has been missing for generations. After twelve years of being Dragoneye, the human stands down, their apprentice becomes Ascendant Dragoneye and then their energy dragon chooses a new apprentice from twelve candidates aged twelve.

*****SPOILERS*****

Eona, a candidate for Rat apprentice, is a sixteen years-old girl with a limp. Yet there’s a problem: only boys can be Dragoneyes.

But then the Mirror Dragon chooses Eona, making her Co-Ascendant Dragoneye with the Rat Dragoneye Lord Ido. This displeases Ido because he loses the perks of being Ascendant: he now shares both the extra energy power of ascendancy and the leadership of the Dragoneye Council.

If her deception is discovered, Eona and her ex-owner Heuris Brannon will be executed. The disguise is composed of several layers: she wears a breast band; her given name is the male form ‘Eon’; she takes a potion to stop her moonblood (period); and she is labelled as moonshadow, this world’s equivalent of a eunuch. Not only does Eona hide feminine aspects but any that remain can be explained away as the consequences of being cut.

Errors jumped up at me whilst reading this novel.

            One line reads ‘Someone was coming. A lot of someones.’ This incorrect use of the plural of ‘someone’ for humour was cleverly done. Another line not so clever was 'What if there's more dragon power.' What if a question mark was used for a question?

            The styles used for the imperial family were all over the place. The Emperor was referred to as ‘Gracious Highness’. The problem here is that ‘Highness’ is a term for princes and princesses, not monarchs (whether royal or imperial). Then Prince Kygo was referred to as ‘His Majesty’ which is problematic because ‘Majesty’ is a term used for the sovereign ruler of a country; indeed, this story usually refers to the Emperor as ‘His Imperial Majesty’ (‘imperial’ is merely to distinguish his from a royal sovereign, i.e. a king). These words were spoken by long-time officials of the court so they wouldn’t have made this mistake: it was a writing error. There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason to make these acceptable.

            In Goodman’s work, she refers to ‘Imperial guard’ and ‘Imperial herald’. Imperial isn’t required to have a majuscule, so when it does it forms part of a proper noun. All words in proper nouns require a majuscule so the ‘guard’ and the ‘herald’ should be ‘Guard’ and ‘Herald’ respectively.

            The next grammatical quirk arises from the fact the ‘the Imperial [H]erald’ refers to eight men. My first reaction was to label this incorrect because the plural is ‘heralds’. My second reaction was that these eight were of the same height, voice and clothing, so the singular could perhaps be used to signify and reaffirm this solidarity. My concluding reaction was that of uncertainty: for the use of the singular for eight individuals to be valid, the narrative should have done more to state that they were one.

            Finally, ‘all right’. No, there’s a word for that and it’s ‘alright’. There is a strict precedent for a common phrase beginning with ‘all’ to be made one word whilst dropping an ‘l’, as demonstrated with the words ‘already’, ‘altogether’ and ‘also’. One doesn’t see ‘all ready’, ‘all together’ or ‘all so’ in print so this obsession with not abbreviating ‘all right’ into ‘alright’ is illogical and absurd. When ‘also’ and ‘all right’ appear in the same text, there is a lack of internal consistency which cannot be ignored.

The set-up is fantastic. It’s rich in detail and the concepts of qi/chi (Chinese universal energy, the breath of life etc. etc.) and chakras (an Indian concept adopted in China via Buddhism) are immensely important for the story. Eona is immediately ensnared in the intrigue, deception and secrecy of the imperial court. Eona often notes the difference between the expectations of male behaviour and that of females, counting herself lucky to be free of the restriction society places on women.

            It’s refreshing to have a disabled protagonist. Eona has to deal with discrimination, abuse and isolation because of her damaged, painful hip. Passers-by often make the evil eye in her direction, a sign intended to protect its user from bad luck and evil. Having a disability is exactly the same in real life.

            At one point, Eona threatens to bite Ido and he tells her to do it. If this had been a sexy scene, I would have giggled. However, [content warning for the remainder of this sentence] this scene was of a far more sinister nature (and thankfully unsuccessful) which turned the reaction onto its head.

            The plot is coherent and constructed well, and being fully enjoyable for this. Eona is drawn in the camp of the Emperor and Prince Kygo; the opposite camp is of Lord Ido and High Lord Sethon, the Emperor’s brother. The opposite camp assassinates Heuris Brannon and Eona subsequently reveals that she’s a girl to a few individuals. High Lord Sethon, war hero and general, wants the throne and Ido is willing to break the Covenant by using dragon energy for warfare to get there. This is what Eona, Kygo and the rest fight against.

            Refreshingly for a novel, they fail.

Reviews: The Dragoneyes (Alison Goodman)

Eona: The Last Dragoneye (Alison Goodman)

https://frostgriffin.blogspot.com/2018/04/eona-last-dragoneye-by-alison-goodman.html