Let's be controversial: Religion (Part Two: Religious Choice)

Hello again friends (those of you who haven't been scared away by my heresy, anyway) Today I'm going to be discussing yet another of the things I disagree with about organised religion: the choice aspect. Yaaaay! But, for me to talk about this I'm going to need to disassemble religious thinking and such first. And I'm also going to further cover my ass for what I said last time. (Last time is here, if you missed it.)

I do not hate religious people. Some religious people are pretty cool, in the same way some people who legitimately like Twilight can be cool. I dislike the machine, the organisation behind the beliefs, in the same way I dislike the zealous scariness of the Twilight fan base. And I do question the lack of examination. I ask myself how it happened that a person can accept an idea without question, and will defend them despite lack of critical thought regarding it. Because here's the thing; nothing is exempt from critical thought. Not some book you like, not some belief you have.

Now to the main topic of discussion: Religious Choice. First, let's talk about how religion probably came to be.

So one day some guy goes "Hey guys, wouldn't it be awesome if when you died you went somewhere way nicer than this shitty, hot, sanitation lacking desert we live in right now?" The other guys all nod their heads and go "Yeah, that sounds pretty good." One guy pipes up, "I bet we'd have water and food whenever we wanted." "Yeah," goes another, "and we wouldn't have to worry about anything." "And all our dead friends would be there!" And... and... and... So these guys decide this all sounds pretty great and they figure, well we have no clue what happens when you die, it could be that. And this makes them happy. And because they all think this sounds awesome and they all came up with it, they form a like minded group. And everything is fine. If someone dies, they take solace in the fact that they'll be somewhre nice and safe and they'll be happy there. They have parties for their group once a week because they're friends and eventually other people decide they like the sound of this group and they join up.

But, oh no, one day one of the guys finds out that Mark (one of them was called Mark) slept with his wife and he's all "Bro, not cool, you can't be in our awesome afterlife club if you do that!" And Mark is like, "Really?" and the other dude (his name was probably Alan) goes, "Yup, you have to be nice to people (mostly me) cos there's this guy who rules the afterlife and he won't let you in if you're mean to me- I mean, um, mean to anyone." And Mark is all "Who the heck's this dude all of a sudden?" and Alan's like "Well, you wouldn't know him, he lives in the sky and he told me that we were right about all the afterlife stuff but he doesn't like you cos you slept with my wife and that's totally not cool with him. He said you have to follow rules if you want to get into the afterlife and rule number one is No sleeping with Alan's wife. That's what the guy said, man." So Mark is like, "Ok, dude, if you say so."

That's probably how it happened. Here's Patton Oswald's theory, it's pretty similar:

Basically, that's how religion started out. Every now and then someone would go "Wait a second, how come the sky dude only talks to you, Alan?" And Alan would yell at them for a bit about how he was special and that guy would get kicked out of the group for questioning the sky dude. After a while everyone just accepted that what Alan said was probably right, because after all, it rained that one time after John had said a mean thing about Alan. Then their children were brought up believing what their parents believed, and their children the same, and theirs the same. They were taught not question it because then they'd get kicked out of the group so they didn't. So everyone ends up believing things they only half believe, really. Repeat until the present day, with very minor deviations. 

People tend not to question things they're brought up with. This is present everywhere. I know people who still say they don't like cheese because they tried it when they were five and thought it was icky and haven't questioned it. It's the same reason we don't question the existence of Santa Claus: we want to believe the lie. And the media's everywhere, there are pictures of him all over the place, there are his representatives in public, ringing bells and talking to people who'd probably rather just go home, there are little shrines where you can go and and confess- I mean ask for stuff from the representatives. There wouldn't be this much effort into something that so many people know, be it deep down or in the forefront of their minds, doesn't exist, right? When I was eight years old, I decided to test the myth. I told no one what I wanted for Christmas. I wrote a note and sent it, without the knowledge of my parents. This would be the true test as to whether or not the fat man in the sky- oops, I mean North Pole (y'know, that place you'll probably never go) was in fact, real. But, as Christmas drew nearer and nearer, I began to worry. What if I was right? What if there was no Santa Claus to receive my letter and send that present I so dearly wanted? What if the telling smirk on my mother's face when I'd refused to inform her of my wish list wasn't a bluff? I wasn't ready to risk that much for the sake of truth. I wrote a second Santa letter and left it conspicuously on the kitchen counter where my parents would find it. I did get my present (for the life of me I can't remember what it was) and for the next two years I lived a lie. When I was ten my parents said to me, "Rachel, we know you already know this, but Santa's not real." And I nodded and said "Yeah, I know." "Don't tell your brothers and sisters." "Okay." 

Here's an article about believing in Santa. Substitute some words and ask questions. Please.

I'm really rather proud of past me for questioning and almost taking the ultimate (at the time) risk to discover the truth I wasn't sure I really wanted to know. And that's good. If people didn't question governments were would we be? Or if we didn't question ourselves? Why is it that people willingly accept a man in the sky who supposedly grants wishes late into their lives, when they've stopped believing in magic and monsters under the bed long ago. Part of it is to do with up-bringing, the Santa Claus complex of  "If adults say so, it must be true". But that should wear off, surely? 

When people find out I'm an atheist one of the two most common questions I get asked (next to "Why?". Yeah, question that) is some strain of "Don't you worry about being wrong?" or "Wouldn't you rather have some peace of mind?". Short answer, no. Because 8 year old me learned something from her Santa hunting adventure, that being "Peace of mind is not better when you know you're betraying the critical part of your mind." I was (and like to think I still am) an intelligent kid. And part of me hated having to shut down my reasoning centre for the sake of presents. Hell, that's why I kept up the religion facade for three years longer than I should've: I knew there was a bribe at the end of it. I grinned and bared it to the tune of about 500 bucks and, while feeling ever so slightly dirty, took joy in cheating the system that would bribe kids. 

To further answer the peace of mind question, I think it's a little backwards. Yes, I know that many people have relied on their faith when they were in dark places and they are thankful for that. But honestly? I see it as a crutch. If there were some way of proving the non-existence or existence of a god and it turned out there wasn't a god and you'd gotten through a though patch with the help of... positive thinking and your own strength of character, surely this would be encouraging, not discouraging. I see faith (and that's quite a different thing to religion) as Dumbo's magic feather: it might give you the confidence to start off but when you realise it was just you the whole time, that's hella empowering, thrice as empowering as knowing you need to rely on a fickle deity for your successes and achievments. 

Please keep your arms and legs inside the elephant's hat at all times...
what the hell were they smoking over at Disney?

Similarly, I don't put much stock in the "what if you die and go to hell for being an atheist?" thing. I find it a little silly. I'm not insulting you, hypothetical believer, I just think it's silly that the idea that you keep living when you're dead (in any way other than in memory) is so accepted in such as advanced a society as ours. When one dies, the body shuts down completely. "You" cease to be. And, because all we've ever known and all we can know is being, we cannot possibly imagine not being. We learn from experience, therefore we cannot fathom the unexperienceable. Can't do it. So we don't. We invent a soul and say that that is the us that we are so familiar with and that goes somewhere when we die. Personally, I'm not worried about what happens when I die, because I'll be dead. I worry about consequences I'll have to deal with when I'm alive, that worry keeps me busy enough, thanks. 

Now, what was I taking about? Oh, yeah, choice! Basically, my major problem with organised religion is two fold: 1. It encourages people not to think, which is never good. and 2. It ceases to be a choice. I should probably address this one.

When I was younger, my  parents sent me to the local Catholic school. There we were not taught about any religions except for Catholicism. We weren't given other options, so we didn't question what we had. And, of course, at home my Catholic parents didn't talk about other religions, either because they didn't want to interfere with the brainwashing process or (slightly more likely) they didn't know much about other religions. I used to wonder what the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism were. All I knew was what our fairly biased sounding history book told us about the Catholic oppression after the Irish plantations of the 16th Century. They were them and we were us and we didn't question that. Every no and then I'd kinda wish I believed in reincarnation. Phrasing it like that, it's really quite clear where the flaw laid. Reincarnation seemed like fun. I wanted a chance to be a bug or a puppy when I died instead of going to a stupid boring cloud place. And it kinda made sense, because organic matter decomposes and becomes food for plants,which are food for animals, which are food for other animals. The circle of life. It made sense. I used to think, "Just my luck, I got stuck with the boring religion with the boring afterlife and the boring gods. Goddammit, I want a six armed elephant god, or a hammer-wielding thunder god- something cool!"

Stuck with. This is what religion is nowadays, people. And it is far from the way it should be, if you're into that sort of thing. Because what is faith, if you buy into it? It's insurance. Soul insurance. And tell me, when you buy house insurance or car insurance, you don't just stick with the first company and policy you see or the one your parents have, do you? That's silly, you have different insurance needs to your parents. What if you only like half the aspects of their policy? That's just bad planning. I suppose you could just stay with it, take the good with the bad. But wouldn't you rather shop around before you buy? This is important, after all. What if you crashed your soul and you realised that your soul insurance wasn't comprehensive enough for your needs? What if your soul was desperately in need of meatballs but your insurance company didn't provide them. How foolish you were not to shop around, not to take a second look at that Flying Spaghetti Monster pamphlet that came through your door. Oh, what a fool were you for not shopping around! 

Or so I suppose it would go, if you were into that sort of thing.

I'll wrap this section up here, friends. All I ask of you is this:

Believe what you want, but not without first rationalising to yourself why it is you believe that. Question what you have been taught not to question, because if it were not flawed why would it have any fear of scrutiny? Question not your faith, but what you place your faith in.

This has been your devil's advocate, asking you why the tree of knowledge is so bad, and why the machine doesn't want you to eat from it.

Embrace the Madess

Some thoughts on Taylor Swift (and feminism, sorta)

Hey guys! So in my song explanation of "This won't end well" I mentioned that I was a Taylor Swift fan for a while. Not so much anymore but I know enough. So I though I'd chat to you today about some of her songs that I reeeeally fucking hate message-wise but kinda like lyric and melody-wise.

Because let's face it, we all have songs like that. Most of mine just happen to be Taylor Swift songs.

"Hi" indeed

Firstly, I'd like to address her thing at the VMAs. She basically said "I have a VMA now so the dude I wrote "Trouble" song about can suck it" *camera cuts to Harry Styles*. It was sort of infantile but honestly, tell me you haven't had some kind of revenge fantasy where you do exactly the same thing? 

I'd like to thank my parents, for inspiring me to end world hunger and win this Nobel Peace Prize, and the academy for giving my movie about it all of the Oscars... Aaaand I'd like to thank Jimmy O'Reilly who used to take my chocolate biscuits in third class. Let's see your award, Jimmy? Bet you feel real bad now?!"

We have all been there. Most of us just don't get that kind of opportunity. Or have that kind of bad judgement. So yeah, decision making is not necessarily Taylor's strong point. Does it reflect in her songs? Um, yeah. A little.

Which brings us to the first song I'd like to talk about. It's called "Speak Now". Give it a listen (there's no official video to my knowledge, so it's just a lyric vid):

 

You can probably already tell where I'm going to take issue with this song. However, I'm going to briefly sidetrack and tell you how I view Taylor Swift's song-writing persona. I do not see her as the "could and probably does pass for a model" Taylor Swift we see today. No. In my mind's eye when listening to her music (at least back in the day) I see this kid:

This is 13 year old Taylor Swift. I shit you not.

It's less intimidating and makes the songs seem much less hypocritical.

Not that that's out of the way, "Speak Now" is about a freaking home-wrecker! What the fuck, Taylor! What the actual fuck! I am going to, as I am wont to, being the little English class nerd that I am, compare this song to some of Taylor's earlier work (I would call her Swift but I generally associate that name with Johnathan Swift, quite a different artist altogether). I wish to compare this song to "You Belong with Me", fairly well known song from her second album "Fearless". In that song she is the friend (and is also smitten with) a boy who is going out with someone who seems to be the type of girl I described in my explanation of "This won't end well". This girl is framed as a bit of a bitch. And the whole song is Taylor complaining about how she understands this guy better than his current girlfriend and how they belong together and stuff. The question as to why the boy is not in fact dating Taylor is interesting and perhaps an indication of an exaggeration in Taylor's mind about either how unhappy this guy's relationship makes him and/or how compatible they are. I draw your attention once again to thirteen year old Taylor Swift. It could be that guys can be shallow (everyone can, relax people) or that she's not confident enough to tell him that she's interested and so sits in her room writing love songs he'll probably never hear. That's relateable and kind of endearing! What teenage girl hasn't done that?....guys?.....why'd it suddenly get so quiet?

Contrast that with "Speak Now", where she gate-crashes a wedding and stands up and essentially convinces the guy to leave his would be wife and run away with her AND HE FUCKING DOES. Just a wee sidenote on the subject of marriage (oh, I have feels. A topic for another day, dear readers). As I understand it, one's wedding day is a scary day. You are making the decision to spend the rest of your life legally connected to someone. That's freakin' terrifying! Hell, I myself have trouble committing to either steak and chicken in a restaurant, deciding on one person for the rest of your life? Dayum, that is a big decision. And Taylor Swift shows up all, "Hey, why don't you run away with me?". This dude, ever faceless it seems (a common theme in Taylor's songs. I'll get to that kettle of fish later) is clearly a little stressed out and rational thought goes out the window with a simple, "Sure, why not?" potentially fucking up his chance at a perfectly functional and happy marriage. He's not thinking about consequences, he's just scared out of his mind and he sees a short term, get out of jail free solution. We all do stupid shit without thinking, especially in such a vulnerable state. Taylor on the other hand...

There's honestly a degree of malice about the song's protagonist (presumably Taylor) in the fact that she is old enough to know exactly what her actions mean. Marriage (even in small country towns) is generally something you don't think about until at least 22 years old, and that's early. You'd want to be certain you know this person well enough, you do love them, that you have similar goals when it comes to family, all that fun stuff. It's hardy comparable to dating someone who might not be right for you. Taylor, who it can be assumed is around the same age as the couple, must know the implications of this snap decision and regardless of how self centered the persona is, realise that she is, in a sense, taking advantage of her male interest.

Damn, I sure hope Taylor Swift doesn't show up and convince me to leave the
love of my life. It was bad enough the first time...

There's also the matter of "If this guy would genuinely rather be with you, why isn't he?" Where's Taylor been while he's getting hitched? Weddings don't exactly happen overnight. Was it a case of "They've loved each other for years but never voiced their feelings and now he's getting married"? That's still a little flimsy and not alluded to in the song. Plus, generally the guy has a fair bit of power in the whole proposal dealio, as it's usually expected of the guy to pop the question, not the girl. So, if this guy was harbouring feelings for this other woman he wouldn't necessarily feel the pressure that many women do at the thought of never being asked to marry someone because it's usually the dude asking (not to mention relative lack of biological clock). In the world we live in, would such a situation occur? And, if that's the case, that there is some kind of "end of the romantic comedy church crashing confession scene" would it kill Taylor to allude to that in the song? Geez, all we get is "you wish it was me". I maintain the belief that the speaker is the one in the wrong here. The song expresses that she wasn't invited to the wedding. Could there be a reason for this perhaps?

Now to the second song I have a problem with. If I'm boring you, feel free to go get a snack and/or a butt pillow right about now. Don't close that tab, there's a whole lot more. Here's the part where I properly get into my rant stride. Oh yes, that last bit was warm-up, this is the marathon. There will be talk of feminism, objectification and women hating women. You have been forewarned.

This song is called "Better that Revenge" and, once again, you're probably gonna see early on where I'm going to take issue:

This song, as I should probably mention, is annoyingly catchy and clever wordplay-wise at times which makes my writer brain and thinking bout stuff brain conflicted with each other. On one hand, the song is more interesting than a lot of her other stuff. It's faster, got a good beat and it's got that awesome guitar bit in the background; musically I really like it. It's the lyrics and their meaning that get to me. Again, as I've said, I'm conflicted on this. Part of me revels in this side you don't often see where Taylor Swift is being mocking, gibing, almost cruel. That part of me (the part of me that made the decision to write "This won't end well" out of spite) is like, "Yeah, you tell that bitch!" and wants to know the girl's name so it can guess what Taylor rhymes it with. And I honestly do enjoy a lot of the wording and the rhyme but think about it for two seconds and you can't help but ask yourself one glaringly obvious question:

"What the hell is the guy doing while all this is going on?"

This is where the parenthesised portion of the title is going to start coming. Recently the internet has been awash with feminism. Feminist blogs, discussions on twitter, all the debates. And, because the internet is my home, I have been marinating is so many feminist sentiments for at least the entire summer. For the two people unfamiliar with the concept, feminism is:

Yeah, that. I'm probably going to dedicate a whole article to this topic but for the most part (being female myself) I support equality. Who wouldn't want their gender to be treated like a valid part of society? I don't know if I personally identify as such but it's an important issue, and one that I shall discuss another day.

However, it is a slightly different beef I take with this song. There are some people out there who use the label of "feminist" as an excuse to support their own double standards. I disagree with this sentiment. There are lots of "strong independent women" in the public sphere guilty of this; Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and now, it seems, Taylor Swift. It's not a good thing.

Because, believe it or not, pushing the belief that women are better than men as a gender or that they should be treated as such, is not feminism. It's sexism. I don't really want to use the term "misandry" because it's so often used by MRAs being whiney but in a sense that's what this it. It is hating on an entire gender for being just that and that ain't right. I know you may be yelling at our computer "No, Rachel, you are only young! You have yet to experience the injustices of the world at the hands of those male things!" I know. And maybe I'll look back on what I'm saying now and hate it, or maybe I'll agree with it as much as I do now.

This is what I know: People are people. And people should be treated with respect regardless of race or gender or sexuality. Treating people like property is not very respectful. So, Taylor Swift, referring to this guy you up until recently cared about (I think, we don't really hear much about him) as a "[toy] on the playground" makes me ever so slightly angry. Not so much at the song, but at the attitude it supports and perpetuates. The idea that men are so easy to manipulate that they can't possibly be held responsible for their actions should they be "stolen" by another woman. The idea that men are things to fight over and that they have no say in the matter. The portrayal of the bitch in the song.. eh, I'm fine with that because I know there are women out there like that. But honestly, if this guy can be "taken" from you, maybe he wasn't quite so loyal in the first place. I don't take sides in this song because I can't; there is literally no context to go on. All we get is "happy one minute, bitch comes along, not I'ma get revenge on yo ass". And this is present in the first song I mentioned too. 

We need to stop this, guys. It is the plot of too many shitty romantic comedies and crappy romance novels. It's insulting to everyone involved to even suggest that another person could be stolen. Someone has to have made a decision somewhere in there. Maybe it was you, deciding to see something totally innocent as someone being "stolen" when you broke up with them and still weren't completely sure if that was a good idea. Maybe the guy's just a douche who'll screw you over when some hot piece of ass walks by. Maybe, as in the context of "Mean Girls" the guy was not in fact aware of your feelings and so could not factor them into his decision making. We can't possibly know, because Taylor's song is so vapid and shallow and grrrr.     

Anyway, I think it's a bad message the song is putting forth. That's it really, I just had a lot of feelings to vent. 

C'mon, you knew this was coming

Embrace the Madness

Just a little updatey thing

Hey guys. This is going to be a relatively short installation to this blog (shorter by approximately 2,000 words, damn my rants are lengthy) with a wee welcome to my newer viewers (as my daily view count for the last two days has been at least four times that of the norm, possibly to be attributed to my review of Awoken.) I welcome all Elinsen fans and, on a completely separate note (I have no idea why I would mention it) all fellow fans of team NChick and their exploits. Great minds think alike but fools seldom differ,as the saying goes. You can decide whether or not I'm insulting you. Yay, interactivity!

I'd  also like to make some excuses for myself in advance (though I'm not sure as of yet if they're necessary). This September I began my final year of secondary/high school (I'm seventeen, get with the times). In Ireland we do not have a continual assessment system and so at the end of this year I'll be taking a big ol' exam that will effectively decide what college I can go to, what job I can get (ha, jobs. Do they still exist?) and ultimately decide my future. Considering I'm taking eight higher lever subjects (that's two above the minimum requirement and one above the average) I have a fair bit on my plate for the upcoming nine months. I'm going to try and keep a regular enough schedule blogwise but chances are it will fluctuate. Expect maybe one a week, though this will vary depending on how productive I'm being. And how much I feel like ranting. I have
many things to rant on, don't worry there. Or, y'know, talk about. But mostly ranting.

Now for a little incentive. Over the coming weeks you can expect some entries on (by no means in this order or in fact at all, I'm inconsistent):

1. Taylor Swift
2. More opinions on religion (purely because I have many, many feels on this topic)
3. A Harry Potter themed rant (It's a secret)
4. Maybe a review or two of movies and or plays that are by no means recent
5. Feminism (because the internet is all feminist now, I must voice my thoughts!)

So, um, yeah. Expect some kind of activity from here. I have this thing I do quite frequently (for good or for ill) I like to call "productive procrastination. Basically, when I get bored of the thing I'm meant to be doing, I go off and do something completely different but still sorta productive (like writing a short play. No, really). Therefore this is what I did for most of last year.

I need to catch up just a little. I do very much hope you'll come back here every now and then to read my whatchimocallits and whojimoflips (that sounds like an innuendo. Why does that sound like an innuendo?). You are appreciated here. I'm not like your kids/parents/husband/wife/imaginary friends. I really do understand your pain  .

Embrace the Madness

Awoken book review: "YA schlock or thought provoking psychological study?"

Hello readers. So recently twitter (have I mentioned I tweet? Looks like I'm mentioning it again!) has been awash (soon to be contextualised pun intended) with talk and reviews of the newest addition to the overflowing sea (another pun, I swear I'll explain) of young adult paranormal romance novels (I kind of hate that this is considered a subgenre, that it's gotten to that stage. I should stop parenthesising, it's screwing with the flow. Yes, that's another pun, you'll get it in a second.)

The cover is actually pretty damn cool, if not a little clichéd.
An outdated cliché even for YA at this point.
As a teenage girl, I know these things.

This book is called "Awoken" and is written by debut novelist Serra Elinsen. The concept is, as dubbed by twitter (I'm not kidding about this) "Twilight with Cthulhu". I needed to check this out. So I bought it on kindle a couple days ago and despite being somewhat behind on my schoolwork, burned through it in the next two or three days. It is hilarious. The idea alone grants immediate, tear inducing laughter but the way it's written is just pure gold. In fact, there's a line in it which describes the love interest's voice as "Like a thousand cellos made of gold." I read a review on the amazon page describing is as "the room of young adult literature" (the room being a film that's accumulated a cult following for being so terrible that it's hilarious. It's also incredibly, incredibly quotable). It's gotten fairly mixed reviews all round, some claiming that it's innocent enough, others laughing at the silliness, some are offended while others let out a resounding "meh" (or the occasional "Why does everyone seem to care so much?").

The best illustration of the spectrum on which people have responded to this, um, masterpiece...?

Personally, I was with the "so bad it's freakin' hysterical" crowd... until I got to about chapter nine. Chapter nine was a turning point of sorts for me. In chapter nine (and this is one of the spoilers in this review, so you might want to be wary. I'll try to keep them infrequent but some references do need to be made) Riley (the beautiful boy who is really Cthulu, that's not a spoiler if you have a brain) kidnaps Andi (our protagonist) and takes her to his underground (possibly underwater) cave home thing, R'lyeh, where she begins to see things and also does a total U-turn on her previous hatred of him. After this he takes her to New York for fairly arbitrary plot reasons before bringing her home three days after she first went missing from a beach party (don't ask). It is at this point that "Awoken" seems to diverge distinctly from such predecessors as Twilight and the like, and here is why: Andi suffers actual consequences for her three day absence. Her family and friends are all extremely worried about her, and show as much with genuine concern. I've read a fair few of the Twilight clones (and Twilight itself) and in none of them do the protagonist's everyday associates react so... believably to such disappearance (because impromptu jaunts to far off cities seem common in these books). It seemed a little too accurate.

Honestly, that was the light bulb moment for me. That was when I got it. Hold on to your seats, people, I'm about to go all English class nerd on your asses, because...this book... it's about Stockholm syndrome and the effects of such psychological abuse on the vulnerable mind of a teenage girl. This book is a study, an examination of the mind of someone who's suffering from Stockholm syndrome, seen through the eyes of that very person. And once this thought entered my mind and  was allowed to marinate for a while I was unable to not see it from then on. Because once you see it, it cannot be unseen. It's there like an itch in the back of your mind every time Andi mentally whines about how unworthy of Riley she is or how insignificant she is, how it wouldn't be unusual for him to leave her because he is so much more than she is. This theory of mine kept coming back, confirming itself far too many times for it to be passed off as pure coincidence.

It's what I do. But I think I have a point.

Allow me to elaborate a little for those of you unfamiliar with the term "Stockholm Syndrome". Stockholm syndrome is the phenomenon where a kidnapped person develops sympathy or even feelings as strong as love or devotion towards their captor, despite the captor threatening them, beating them, abusing them sexually and/or torturing them psychologically in the past or even still.

If you've read the book, you'll probably be hearing some little bells ringing right about now. Andi originally feels threatened by Riley and is in fact threatened to a point that could be considered assault when she confronts him on his apparent connection to the deteriorated mental state of one of their classmates. He stalks her, invades her privacy and generally makes her feel uncomfortable for the majority of the first nine chapters. In chapter nine, as I've previously mentioned, he saves her from some would-be rapists (because all girls on their own for three seconds are instant rapist prey) by driving them insane. She then passes out and he kidnaps her. It's only now that we begin to see Andi's change of heart with regards to Riley and she begins to think of him as someone to be desired and looked up to while still acknowledging that he is dangerous. This is quite clearly an indicator that she has fallen subject to the symptoms of Stockholm syndrome. In the Cthulhu cave (which is what it shall forever be known as and you can't stop me) Riley shows Andi some sights that she cannot comprehend (as she has probably been given some kind of hallucinogenic drugs), while she is still tied to a chair. Riley also has a totally-not-a-creepy-stalker hand carved statuette of Andi herself. She finds this in no way off-putting.

Now, I'd like to digress quickly to discuss the way in which this metaphor is carried out and how it made itself clear to me. Firstly, the used of the monster Cthulhu, while originally seeming like a reason to adapt Lovecraft's original writing and for shock value, becomes much more obvious once you consider the connotations; Cthulhu is representative of madness and chaos. This is an unmissable reference to the mental disorder which the protagonist develops over the course of the book, once you looks at it in the right way. Then there's the over the top style of writing and sincerity with which the book carries itself. This is all indicative of the the point that's being made, the over the top, borderline ridiculous nature is to signal to the reader that all is not as it seems. It's really very clever, a study of the disturbed and unstable psyche of a character who is is incredibly mentally confused.

The fact that all the events are viewed through the lense of the first person allow us as readers to experience this disorder firsthand. The way that the protagonist truly does not comprehend why it is that everyone is so worried for her, her desperation when she feels that Riley has left her (this occurs a few times over the course of the narrative), the inner conflict between her devotion and attachment to Riley and her feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness.

There isn't much reason for the inclusion of this
aside from that fact it's cute.
Lookada little Cthulu! Daaaw!

Then we have Riley, the captor. He always speaks in a formal, anachronistic manner, perhaps the protagonist's subconscious attempt to reveal that he is, in reality, a man much older than she is. That would explain why she always describes him as this idyllic Godlike figure- it could be a coping mechanism for her young mind to cope with being sexually violated by one so much older.

While we're going into double meanings, this book can also be seen on parallel with books such as "50 Shades of Grey" (which, for the record, I have only read vicariously through livetweets, the wikipedia summary and the "50shadesofwhy" tumblr page, which I highly recommend) where the male lead is also forceful to the point of abusive. Particularly in the New York scenes where Riley is insisting she eat and where he buys her gifts she isn't comfortable accepting, which feel lifted almost exactly from 50SoG, perhaps making a comment on the similar abusive threads. However, where 50SoG plays its awful contrived (and boring) premise fairly straight, Awoken is so over the top that it reeks of social commentary to be analysed. In fact, the inclusion of the "Plaza Hotel" (which I'm pretty sure no longer exists) where the pair stay while on their visit might suggest that the entire outing may have been a figment of Andi's drug addled mind. That, or it's just really badly written with very little research done or thought put into how actual people behave or interact. I find it rather difficult to imagine that so many similarities could be visible without a huge amount of research and carefully placed metaphor and symbolism on the part of the author.

Overall, the plot isn't important, it's simply a vessel for the ideas and messages hidden beneath layer after layer of absurdism and overused vocabulary. This book is an intriguing and thought provoking study of the mind of an abuse victim and also a social study on the romanticism of abuse in today's literature. I must say, I'm curious as to the background of this writer. Someone who could come up with such an intricate concept and such a subtle message that so many have passed it over as just another piece of shit YA novel must have some kind of background in psychology or sociology... excuse me readers, I think I'm going to research this woman a little further, so as to comprehend the mind behind this ingenious work.

............

Oh.

............

Well this is....

My most humble apologies, readers, but it seems I've far, far overestimated this book. Having done a little more research into the life of Serra Elinsen I can quite definitively confirm that none of the aforementioned theories have any founding. Put in the nicest possibly way, this woman is an idiot. I'd daresay that the blog you have just read took more mental exertion than Mrs. Elinsen has the capacity for. I'm so sorry readers, this is really rather embarrassing.

Damn you, Serra Elinsen.
I had such high hopes for you.

You see, Mrs. Elinsen is, from what I can gather, a small minded mother of five from some small town in the middle of the US. She belongs to a minuscule faction of the Christian faith and appears to be rather religious and involved in this church. Quite frankly, it would take someone, no, a team of people infinitely more intelligent than this woman to have written this book for any of the deeper meanings I have extrapolated to have any significance. I take it all back, readers. This book is hilariously bad, but it is bad and nothing more.

Embrace the Madness (or in this case, embrace Cthulhu?)

Let's be controversial: Religion (Part One: Picking and Choosing)

Hello friends! So, I was sitting in my room thinking and I thought to myself, "You know what you haven't done in a while? Rant about religion on the internet!" So I'm gonna do that today. Turn back, ye of flimsy faith, your views are quite possibly about to be challenged.

First, an introduction (even though I've kind of already introduced things). This is my second installation of "Let's be controversial", a segment (I guess) where I talk about topics I perceive as controversial. I'm not saying my opinions are necessarily controversial, it's more of a warning to people who are easily offended or really closed minded to take a step back. Especially when it come to this topic, as dear to my little heretic heart it is. 

This was originally going to be a talk about sexuality, cos I was talking to myself yesterday (or, "brainstorming" which I suppose makes me sound slightly less mentally unstable) and I came up with an analogy I can use and wrote a few jokes. But then this morning I had a debate with a friend while walking to school and the floodgate of religi-rant was reopened. Religi-rant sounds like a chain restaurant. Whyis this not a thing. I should invent this. 

But first (again)...

I was raised in the Catholic religion. My parents, while not really hardcore devoutly religious, were more so than most. I was sent to a Catholic school, brought to church EVERY Sunday (not kidding), made my first holy communion (yes, make the indoctrinated eight year-olds commit to your religion, they know exactly what they're agreeing to) and my confirmation (because twelve year-olds understand that if you get that oil on your forehead it's forevsies, no takesies backsies). I made like €700 between the two sacraments. 

Bribery is a good thing if it's for god, kiddies! Remember that.

Age thirteen, I had an epiphany (which had really begun to take place about two years prior but I wanted the second set of bribes before I got out) and ceased my belief in Joshua Ben Joseph Ha'Bethlehem and all associated parties. That would be your "Jesus" for those of you unfamiliar with the fact that THAT'S NOT HIS FREAKING NAME. 

Before my enlightenment, I'll admit, there were bits that I bought into because they were of interest to me. The whole bit in John with emphasis on words and the universe beginning with words (basically, all of it) my writer's brain was like "I know words! I can relate to this!". I liked the parables because, again, I like stories (even if I disagreed with some of the messages. Prodigal son and Vineyard workers, I'm looking at you). I liked the concept of an afterlife, I guess, though I secretly harboured wishes that I'd belonged to a religion that believed in reincarnation. Or multiple deities for that matter. Hinduism, Buddhism Ancient religions; that's some interesting shit. Mostly I was meh about it. I think I saw it as something I didn't have much choice in. It was when I realised that that was my thinking, that I noticed something was wrong.

Plus, I began to look at things critically. Critical thought is the slayer of gods, my friends.

Anyway, I'm not going to bore you with a whole lot more of this stuff about my personal faith, or lack thereof. Long and short of it: I do not believe in god(s). What I am going to talk about is people who do. Types of people and specifics. And attitudes in general on the machine of organised religion. Before you run screaming (any zealots who've made it this far) I'm not going to attack the idea that there is a god. I don't believe there is but I've gotten over my childish days of yelling "You are wrong!" at anyone who will hear it. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. The moon landing nuts and the existence of Mormonism have taught me that much.

Lets just stick with whatever we think at any given time unless we change our minds, ok? Then we can kick ourselves when we die and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there all "The fuq, bro? I sent you alphabetti spaghetti messages and everything! *sigh* Off to noodle hell with you then."

If only our parents had had us indoctrinated into the
right religion!

To focus myself, because god knows I ramble (irony intended) I'm going to talk about three points. It's like an English essay but fun! Right?....right?! I'm gonna address the easily offended, the idea of religious choice and the "pick and choose-ers"

1. Pick and Choose-ers

I think I'll talk about this one first because the rage is freshest in my mind. Remember that debate I mentioned waaaay back at the start? This is what that was about (in essence). If you are familiar with religion, as most of the world is, and if you are familiar with kinda religious people, as I'm pretty sure everyone is, given their unpronounced nature, you have likely come across this kind of person before. They're usually lucky enough to have parents who are tolerant and didn't shove religion down their throats. They've belonged to a church youth group or some fun club that just happens to be associated with religious values or directly church run. 

To these people, religion is totally harmless. They pick and choose the sections of the belief they belong to that they like and deny everything else exists. I disagree with this. Strongly. 

Most of my beef in this instance is not with the person themselves. Or maybe it is, I'm not sure. I really dislike that refusal to acknowledge that when you're part of something and identify as such you need to look at the full picture. That naivety really gets on my nerves, especially considering that these are usually intelligent people.

Nazi Germany was awful but, daaayum, gotta love them beetles

Allow me to take this to an exaggerated level for comparison. Where do all exaggerated comparisons on the internet go? Thaaaaat's right! Hitler. (It's a thing) All roads lead to Hitler analogies, as the old saying goes (I think). So, back in the day (the 1930's) when Nazis were still considered a legitimate political system and not the incarnation of evil as they are today, there were a lot of people who supported them and the wonders they were doing for Germany's economy. So, imagine you are a German citizen, perhaps newly employed by Volkswagen or any of the other booming industries of the time (when the rest of the world was floundering in debt, might I add). You consider yourself a supporter of the Nazi party. But you aren't anti-semetic or in any way against Jews or Gypsies or the like. So you decide to ignore those aspects of the Nazi party and focus only on the parts you like; the employment and the sense of community and patriotism. Because the issue isn't there is you don't acknowledge it, right?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Now, of course, organised religion has never been responsible for genocide or indoctrination or prejudice on the basis of very little like the Nazis were. They don't have influence disproportionate to their goal, and hundreds of followers who would do whatever they said without question like the Nazis did in their day. Religions don't have one leader who is pretty much revered as a messenger from god.

Cookie analogies are the best analogies.
All who disagree shall be burned at the stake 

Sarcasm aside, it worries me how many people can openly say they're religious or that they are proudly "Church of whatever" and the turn around and say "Oh yeah, well, I don't believe that part". The whole hell thing is a popular one. People who say they're invested (and, as I've said, I'm not challenging that) in a belief system yet ignore half of that same belief system's incentive because it's "scary" or "icky". I'm perfectly cool with spirituality, if you want to believe in a god and a heaven and all that, go right ahead. But when you put a label on it, it becomes a defined thing. When you open a box of assorted cookies, all the cookies that were on the outside of the box are going to be in there, even the ones with raisins, even the oaty "what-the-hell-is-this-I-wanted-sugar-and-this-tastes-like-pre-chewed-cardboard" ones. If you don't want those ones, buy a different box. Or buy individual cookies and eat them by themselves. Just don't try and pass your individually bought cookies off as belonging to the box with the gross ones. It doesn't work like that.

Another popular discarded belief tidbit is the sacred text. I have the same issue with this but i'm going to use a different analogy because I like this one. There are people who basically disown their bible or whatever because, again, there are bits they don't like or don't agree with. It. Does. Not. Work. Like. That. Saying that you don't believe in the Garden of Eden thing (for example's sake) because, let's face it, it is a little stupid, is like being a Superman fan but denying that Superman came from Krypton. Or saying that Alfred is Bruce Wayne's dad. The book your religion revolves around is the canon. Wanna change stuff? Write fanfic, create your own religion, break away from the whole or just plain lose the label. You can still go to church, if that's your thing and you personally don't believe in hell or the second coming or whatever. But don't go round saying that your religion as a whole doesn't believe that thing. It it's in the canon, you are the deviation, not your specific church, not your specific branch. I found myself defending Catholicism over this, folks, just... no.

Read your canon, people. I'm not religious and really wasn't even when I was, and even I made an effort to read the bible allocated to my thing. I stopped when it got to the new testament cos it's more fun when people are killing each other. I didn't think it was particularly well written. Number one bestselling book in the world? Eh, give me Harry Potter any day.

One final note before I finish part one (this is getting a wee bit long. Expect more, I have feels). This friend of mine (the one who sparked this rant and subsequently is responsible for the resurfacing of this monster of hate) made the point that in the gospels and readings and psalms read at her church, the passages about hell and the apocalypse and most of the gorier scenes in the old testament (ahem, rape, ahem ahem) are not mentioned or even referenced. This gave her reason to believe that her church (which will forever be know as the Church of Whatever, because I'm super respectful) did not believe in these bits. I hear this ALL THE TIME. I put forward some argument that "yadda yadda in the bible... and that's why organised religion is not squeaky clean and nice" (ahem, rape, ahem ahem) and the counter argument is that they've never heard that in church.

Guys. Guys just... let me sit you down and we'll have a little talk about politics.

The major churches of the world are so big and have been around for so long for one reason. Not a promise of getting into heaven, not the peace and love stuff, not even christian rock. No, these churches have survived because of their political strategies. Why is it that no one follows the Norse religion anymore? Or worships Ra or Aphrodite or Samhain (that's the Irish god of the harvest. It's pronounced "Sa-win". The tv show "Supernatural" featured this god. They got the name wrong. It was annoying). Case and point, they didn't have good politics. Their followers didn't have a big enough army or didn't win this certain war and so the religion died out. Then, later, it became less about "we own you and your land now, convert or die" and more about persuasion (though there are still missions around which are effectively the former just substitute the ownership with "healthcare and education". Not saying it's bad work, just ulterior motive much?)

Who said anything about hell?
Um... look free booze in church!

Persuasion had a lot more to do with, "Hey, y'know the way your life is really shitty now? Join our religion and get a super-awesome chocolate coated sparkly afterlife, completely free (except for tithes and collections and the eternal loyalty of you and your children)!" Then there were the abuses in the church and the reformation and very little changed overall expect the decline in witch and heretic burning (which is a plus for me!). Basically, the successful churches have always had a lot of power and to maintain that power they need to know what people want. What do people want? They want good things. They want to hear about how everything they're already doing is just fine. Murder is bad? I'm not currently murdering anyone, therefore I'm good! Yay, I get a gold star in my heaven book. They don't want to hear about how if they lie they're gonna burn for all eternity. So the church skirts right on around that problem and tells people what the want to hear. Yeah, there's still a bit of the "I'll put the fear 'o' god in ya" but it's sparse nowadays because people don't listen to their basest instincts anymore. The fact that the bibles and what-have-yous haven't changed since legitimately putting the fear of god in people was a thing (and the fact that people can actually read now) is a slight cause for concern because all that discouragement is right there. What do the church do? Ignore it! Don't talk about hell in church, tell the same story about a farmer and his sons over and over again. People like it because they don't have to think too hard. Long story short, just because they never mention it in church doesn't mean it's not there. Religion (particularly Catholicism) loves to ignore them room elephants. Once again, read your canon. Find out exactly what beliefs you have inherited. Which is where I leave you, friends. Next time I'll have a little chat about the choice element attached to religion, or, as I like to phrase it, "Choice? What choice?"

Embrace the Madness

2,000 Pageviews

Guys, I have already reached my second thousand. 2,055 to be exact. It's been less than two months. Can I say "achievement"?

This was pretty much my reaction in a nutshell

Honestly, I have nothing to say, I'll probably post something else today (or at least before the end of the week) to make up for my lack of interesting-ness in this particular entry. I just want to thank all my readers, especially those of you who've decided to come back regularly to check up on my stuff. You are awesome. Yes, you. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

I'm gonna keep doing what I do here (though if my views continue to increase this sort of celebration will become less frequent. Expect another gif party at 5,000). If you like it, I am happy to entertain. If you have friends who might like what I talk about (ha, that's almost saying there's a pattern. I am chaos incarnate, bitche) share, like, follow, do whatever you do. I appreciate you, reader, and I thank you. No, your ass doesn't look fat in those jeans. That thing that really gets on your nerves? It sucks. I understand your pain, anonymous blog reader, and I hope that my minor input into your brain-thinks is an enjoyable one.

Yes, the Tenth Doctor is joining the party. It's a thing now.

Last time I listed all the nationalities and stuff of readers. I don't know if I can really do that again because I can't just be like "Well, let's check my overall stats." Is this what popularity feels like? Ha, nope. But seriously, guys, I love you all. Don't leave me. DON'T LEEEEAVE MEEEE!

Fun Fact : My hair kinda does this when I dance now.
I got a haircut a while ago. It's short.

Teehee. We have cookies here. Brain cookies (though, I swear, when the internet started asking me about deleting cookies, I was like "I get cookies?!!!" Sometimes the internet is disappointing.)

Supernatural is awesome. I couldn't find one of these with Sam.
Sam is too broody, it seems.

What else can I say here? Well, there's Batfleck. What about that Batfleck, huh? Isn't it silly/a great casting cho- haha, no I can't even pretend to be neutral. The idea is hilarious until proven a good idea.

I like how this is half Mr. Burns, half kid happiness.

So, um, yeah. I thank you muchly. I hope you will continue to visit my little corner of profound internet silliness. Here are some more gifs. Because it's my blog and I like them. Just try and sttttop mmme!

Embrace the Madness.

I put this at the end because I didn't want to seem racist.
Tarantino references aren't racist, right?
Cos I'm totally not racist.

I do this. Like, a lot. For legit, bro.

Fun Fact #2: Jasmine is probably my favourite Disney princess.
(Mulan isn't a princess) Why, you ask?
She's out of the palace three fucking minutes before she steals something.
Truly an animated woman after my own heart.

Phineas and Ferb is one of the best shows of all time.
I love me them fourth wall jokes.

Doodles from Days Past or "What boredom can do"

Hello internet friends! So a couple days ago I began my final year of secondary school. That's sixth year for Irish people, senior year for the Murricans (I think). Anyway, in preparation for this year, at the end of which I'll be taking this big ol test which will help decide my future, I tidied my desk. And on it I found a LOT of doodles and drawings from last year. Mostly from a trip I went on to represent Ireland in the Model European Parliament. I had fun looking back on them and thinking how little I've grown up in the year between so I though I might share them with you lovely people. Here goes:

Ok, this seems as good a place to start as any. Small sidenote, most of these were drawn at the General Assembly on the final day of the conference. I wasn't getting recognised and to stop myself from falling asleep I was doodling to my little heart's content. My sanity was perhaps more questionable than usual. I made a little paper hat and presented it to my friend Sarah sitting next to me and she promptly place it on my highlighter. Then I drew this. Again, sanity was teetering at this point.

I think the picture speaks for itself. I kinda sparsed on the trail of destruction...

This chair is pimp. Don't try and deny it.

This was meant to be a biscuit. We'd just had lunch. It was a goooood biscuit.

I mentioned I may have been over tired at this point, right?

Um, yeah.

This is like a legit conspiracy, guys. The European Union logo thing looks reeeeally like a pokeball. Therefore they have pokemon and are keeping them from us. Or it's a coincidence, but how likely is that?

Pikachu eating an apple. I think I got hungry again. I like the shading on this one.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what this was supposed to be. I think I drew a pig's head and just rolled with random animal parts from there. I think it turned out pretty cool.

One of my friends also on the trip, Lee, has these crazy disproportionately long legs. He told us that when he was six he was offered a place at a ballet school because of them but he turned it down. I drew this.

Lol cats are still a thing, right?

Um, it's a king. And a dude.

I did this one in committee. I could barely keep my eyes open.

This took a very, very long time. I like fractals, they're cool. And I made a piranha a duck and a turtle from the triangles.

I drew the European Union symbol first. Then I turned it into an EU deathstar. And wrote the Imperial March in "dun"s at the top of the page. I am just that cool.

This also took a long, long time. I've gone through phases of drawing these all down my right hand and arm. I'll probably try and find a picture of that to post at some point.

It's a zombie and a piranha plant. I think I was trying to be fancy with my shading. It sorta worked...? Also, I added "mallows" to the word "Marsh" printed at the top of the page. It had to be done, y'know?

So yeah, that is what happens when I get bored. I omitted some of the less relevant ones, or the ones than flat out don't make sense. Though I suppose that suggests that any of these make sense...

Embrace the madness.