I'm still recovering from the heartbreaking impact of Kim Soo-hyun/Claudia Kim's Helen Cho.

It's been just over a week since I first saw Avengers: Age of Ultron. Oh, you haven't seen it yet? Then leave. Leave! And don't come back here before you've seen it! Or, you know, read on, if you don't mind spoilers. SPOILERS!

I'm going to say this first: I liked it, it was fun. It's true for nearly all of the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise, and it would probably still hold true for a few years more. Sure there were flaws, but I'm not going to write about them here. I don't want to ruin the movie for you, in case you didn't notice them. But, enjoyable as it was, there was one thing in particular that... bugged me.

If you've been watching the end credits of those movies, you might notice the words "[The guy(s) this movie was about] will return." Back then, when it first appeared in Iron Man (I think), it was exciting as heck. Robert Downey Jr. just pretty perfectly played Tony Stark/Iron Man, and they just made GUI awesome again, and we were (okay, I was) just asking for more of that, so the one-line teaser was, honestly, squeal-inducing. But nowadays, lines like that have quite the opposite effect.

Why? Because, while I'm certainly happy with the fact that comic book superheroes get to be in movies, it reminds me of the least enjoyable thing about mainstream American comics, which has been a pretty big barrier for me: they never friggin' end. No. Not even with the death of a major character. Especially not with the death of a major character. And then there are so many reboots and re-imaginings and everything is so confusing. So I was pretty bummed when I realised that, yes, I had been hooked into a movie franchise that might not have a definite end, or even middle.

Fortunately, a solution presented itself almost immediately. A solution which I just realised, one that has been around for quite a while, at least for avid comic book fans (which I'm not, to be honest, at least for the superhero comics), and one that is referred to quite often in the movie itself.

Gods.

Yes. I don't know about you, but I noticed loads of references to gods and religious stuff in AoU. The most obvious one was of course Thor, an actual god from the Norse pantheon. But there are others. Like the beginning of the end credits, which featured a marble sculpture depicting these heroes in battle, just like those classic statues. There was Laura's statement, referring to the enhanced Avengers as "gods." Earlier in the movie, there was the Quinjet's dashboard sticker, saying "Jarvis is my co-pilot," which I think is a reference to Jesus (and the religiousniks who have that kind of stickers). Speaking of Jarvis, there was that one line he said about his being "without form," that reminded me of Genesis. The main villain, Ultron, also had religious undertones: his main base was a church, he called Cap "God's righteous man," albeit mockingly, and he made references to Noah and St. Peter. And lastly, the most significant one for me, when my favorite character in the movie: Vision, said, "I am... I AM."

As I said, this is not new. In comics, there have been many instances where superheroes are called gods (my favorite is DC's Kingdom Come). And even when we talk about the official version of any form of entertainment franchise (say, Star Wars?), what word do we use? Is it not "canon?"

All of these reminded me that these characters are bigger than any one medium. They may have begun in a comic book page, but we can no longer call them comic book characters. So we call them what they are: heroes. But here's the thing: we want our heroes to be gods, and we want our gods to be heroic. That's just natural. Well, so be it. These characters, these heroes, having transcended their starting mediums, also transcend their beginnings, undergoing apotheosis, and are elevated as gods. Thor's just the oldest one in the Avengers. He might even have similar beginnings: a superhero whose stories people tell in order to inspire greatness. Maybe other gods started that way as well, only they had more time to solidify than the more recent gods who, with today's information technology, have shorter and shorter gestation period.

So, with that, I regained my peace of mind. I used to worry that putting Thor with mortals might constitute a religious insult, but I see now that it wasn't the case. They are all gods, new gods from the Avengers pantheon, if you want. Gods are not to be fought over (or for), gods are to be marveled at. Only time will tell which of them shall survive to be in the new pantheons, and I'm not going to worry which version is "true."

Because that's basically religious fundamentalism, right?

Screw Sartre

Hello! How's 2015 so far? Hope you're happy now.

If you want to know what I've been thinking about lately, it is this:

Hell.

You know about Hell, right? That place where damned souls go to get tortured after their worldly death? People have written a lot about it during the course of human civilization, I think. In detail. Mostly it involves specific punishments (or penances, if the deity's a more forgiving sort) for specific transgressions.

Now, I'm not here to discuss all the variations of Hell humans have told each other about. That would take far more time and effort than I'm prepared to expend. No, I simply think I have an idea that might possibly be an improvement to Hell's function, if it were implemented.

Here's my idea: take Hell, whichever you prefer, and bind it in limited spacetime. More specifically, give those damned souls a queue. Make the damned wait for the previous damned to finish their Hellish experience before they get to go in. Why? Because queues suck.

That way, instead of a wide space with many districts designated to accommodate the damned's various treatments, we could simply have one room, just large enough for the currently ongoing procedure, and a very, very long corridor for the damned to queue in. Simpler. Cheaper. Nastier.

Just imagine for a bit. I'll use Dante's Purgatorio (alright, technically not Hell, but people are still being punished, so what the Purgatory) for this example, but you're welcome to substitute any sort of damnation here. Say the person before you is guilty of the deadly sin of sloth. The penance for slothfulness on Mount Purgatory is to run around at top speed while chanting examples of sloth and of zeal. So, before you get to do whatever it is you have to do because of your sins, you have to wait for that guy to finish running around and shouting. And that is only if you're first on the waiting list.

Oh, I just thought of another improvement. What if, before you're doing whatever it is you have to do, there's a sentencing? But, in the courtroom, there's only one objective judge holding all the evidence? No juror, no prosecutor, no defense attorney. The judge will have to look at every piece of evidence and veeeeeerrrrrrrrryy carefully determine what you'll be sentenced with. Imagine the length of the trial. That would make the queue a lot worse. Which is better, since we're talking about Hell. Heck, if the minister(s) of Hell know what they're doing, the system's probably in place already.

Because, while it probably could be made cheaper from an operational standpoint, why the Hell should Hell be efficient for the damned?

Thanks for reading. Comments are welcome, of course. Oh, and thanks to Mr. Neil Gaiman and his short story, Other People, which inspired this.

Just some observations and speculations.

Yesterday (Sunday, October 19th, 2014 AD) I went to church.

That would by itself be strange enough already, but there's something more. The church was a Catholic one. A cathedral, in fact. (FYI, I was raised in a Protestant environment. Hence, the strangeness.)

In the past I have, at times, been asked by my non-Christian friends about the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant. As with most questions worth answering, I can't answer it satisfactorily in a sentence. Why? Because I myself am still not sure about all the differences, despite having experienced both settings in my life.

Here's the answer most obvious to me: upon beginning and ending a prayer, Catholics tend to cross themselves (that is, they sequentially, with their hand, touch their forehead, then chest (heart?), then shoulders, one at a time), while Protestants do not usually do so. A superficial difference, I know, but then again, if you look deep enough, all differences are superficial, in a way.

There is, however, another thing which has been on my mind since I was in elementary school: the significance of Mary, Jesus' mom. The Catholic Church seems to put her in a very high place. I was reminded yesterday that in the Catholic world, Baby Jesus, not yet walking and therefore held by Mary, is portrayed in statues and images nearly as often as Beardy Jesus. Not so in the Protestant setting, as far as I observe.

Same goes with the saints. The word 'saint' in everyday Protestantism is nearly meaningless. We just call them by their names. Peter, Paul, Mary, John, and so on. Just ordinary people. Good and great people maybe, sure, but still simply human, just like us. Different with the Catholics, where the saints seem to hold some sort of offices or roles (which I'm not really sure) in the heavenly hierarchy.

Hmm.

I guess, for me, the general feeling I get from these observations is that the Catholics are more earthy, while the Protestants are more God-oriented. This does not mean that Catholicism is more atheistic than Protestantism, no. I mean that Protestantism seems more democratic, while Catholicism more monarchical. That might seem to contradict the first sentence of this paragraph, but bear with me for a while longer.

A monarchy is complex. It is not a state of affairs spontaneously generated. It is a product of civilization. A lot of people seem to view it as a simple top-down arrangement of power from one person to many. Top-down? Maybe. One to many? Sure. Simple? NO. In a monarchy, there is not only the king and the peasants, there are advisors, guards, knights, ministers, even fools and minstrels. A monarchy depends on the specialization of work. The people in a monarchy realize - and perhaps accept - that they have limited power individually, and they have to delegate - meaning trust - some work to other, more able people.

So, when I say that Catholicism is both earthy and monarchical, I do not mean that Catholics don't believe in a heavenly Father. It's just that the Catholics seem to have retained the rich cultural and traditional mindset of humbleness that feels quite pagan in nature. I like to imagine that it is this mindset that gave rise to the mythical gods and spirits in stories. Still monotheistic, but the Supreme God is just that, supreme, and lesser humans sometimes need greater intermediaries such as saints to commune with Him. Hence the emphasized role of Mary, as an example of the ultimate human surrender to God.

A democracy, on the other hand, is based on the belief that authority should be held by the populace, the masses; that the people should be allowed to decide their own goal and pursue it. Because it came later in history (at least in a formalized appearance), this might seem advanced, but the core ideas are very simple: I want, I am allowed to want, and I am allowed to do and/or have. The formalization process only consists of applying the simple principles already present in every brained animal (at least, as far as we know) to the plural setting, creating (almost as an afterthought) the clause, "as long as I do not impose on others." The rest are just logical consequences.

Thus the Protestants, being in nature more democratic, and for the first time in history empowered enough to exercise their belief (maybe because of the scientific advances that led to, among other things, the printing press and the industrial revolution), boldly did away with the complex bureaucracy of the Catholics and viewed themselves as able to righteously stand before God with no need for middlemen. Which is why the focus in their church is on Jesus, and Jesus alone, making the other characters, including Mary, simply secondary.

Well, maybe. Speculations, you know.

- Inspired by The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong and Miracles by C.S. Lewis-

Great Imperfection

Right. I promised myself yesterday (2013-02-20) that I'm writing a new post today.

Stupid self, turning something fun into an obligation, a debt, making it far less enjoyable.

I'm kidding, of course. I still enjoy writing. And today, rather than pick a topic that is provocative, controversial, and/or exciting, I'd rather stick to that which I have had the pleasure of knowing since my childhood.

Heracles.

Most of you would be more familiar with the name 'Hercules', which is the name of the Roman version of the guy. Now, contrary to form, I will put off writing what I think of him until later and instead write what I think I know of him. You don't have to read all of this, of course, like before, I've put some asterisks to mark the start and the end of the narration.

*******

Heracles was born to Alcmene, a queen (or was it a noblewoman?), after Zeus (king of the gods) impregnated her. It wasn't just any old divine conception either. Zeus had done this before, he knew how it's done. He had made sweet love as a golden light/liquid to Danae (which spawned Perseus), as a bull to Europa, and as a swan to Leda. Actually that happened later, and spawned Helen of Sparta and her siblings. So this time was no exception. He impersonated Amphytrion, Alcmene's husband, while the guy was away, and came unto Alcmene in a night that lasted as long as three regular nights.

Heracles was originally named Alcides, but after Hera (wife of Zeus, angry at his husband's infidelity) sent a pair of snakes to kill the boy (which failed), they changed his name to 'Glory of Hera' in an attempt to appease the goddess. Let's see how that worked out.

So young Heracles, having strangled a couple of snakes as a baby, continued to live with his extraordinary strength. As a young man, that strength got him into trouble. One example was when he got mad at his lyre instructor, Linus, and threw a lyre at him, at which point Linus promptly dropped dead. Too bad nothing like this has happened in my classes. Imagine if somebody threw a guitar at a sucky professor. Hmm.

Let's carry on. Afterwards, he went to Thebes. He met a girl, named Megara, and married her. How nice. Didn't last long. Hera made him mad (as in 'insane') and in his madness he slew her and their children. Turns out not even renaming can soothe the wrath of a goddess betrayed. Of course, murder was murder, and it was still a crime, even in ancient times. So he went before Eurystheus, king of Tiryns, according to the directions of the Oracle at Delphi (secretly influenced by Hera).

As a penance for his crime, Heracles was set to tasks that are difficult, dangerous, or simply impossible at first sight. Doesn't matter. He did them anyway. These are the famous Labours of Heracles. Just the essentials.

1. He killed the Nemean Lion, a lion which had impenetrable skin. How did he do this? Why, he wrestled the lion, of course. And choked him to death.
2. He killed the Hydra of Lerna, a serpent/dragon that had nine regenerative and duplicating heads, by burning the severed stumps of the neck and burying the one immortal head under a rock.
3. He captured a golden hind that was sacred to Artemis by chasing it non-stop for a year.
4. He captured a boar from Erymanthus.
5. He cleaned a stable capable of housing a few hundred animals, in one day, by redirecting the flow of two rivers.
6. He killed the bronze-beaked Stymphalian birds.
7. He captured the mad bull from Crete.
8. He stole the flesh-eating mares of Diomedes.
9. He retrieved the girdle of Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons. Diplomatically, I must add. At least at first.
10. He stole the cattle of Geryon, a giant with three bodies (from the waist up). Well, I said stole, more like took with force, since he fought and killed Geryon.
11. He stole the apples of the Hesperides. This he did by, among other things, holding up the sky (Ouranos) for a while, during which Atlas (the usual sky-bearer) retrieved the apples from the forbidden garden.
12. He captured Cerberus, the three-headed (and possibly snake-tailed) dog which guarded the entrance to the realm of Hades.

Althought it was mostly pest control, Heracles did all of it with glorious success. And so, he was free. His crimes were forgiven. He did many other things, though, not just the twelve labours. He served on the Argo with the supergroup Argonauts under Jason. He freed Prometheus (the humanist Titan who stole fire from the theist Zeus) by killing the eagle who ate his heart (or liver) everyday and breaking the unbreakable chains that bound him. He even squeezed Thanatos (Death) in a bear hug in order to bring back one of his recently deceased friends. He killed many people and beasts. I can't remember them all. Let's skip to the end.

So when he was older, Heracles was married to a girl named Deianira. They had children. They were happy. One day Heracles and Deianira came upon a swift river. Heracles could have swum across, sure, but Deianira? No way. Then came along Nessus, a centaur. He suggested Deianira rode on his back while Heracles swam across. They accepted his offer. But centaurs were, to say the least, crafty, and Nessus was no exception. So of course he tried to run off with (which is probably a euphemism for 'tried to rape') Deianira. He seemed to forget that this was Heracles that he was stealing a woman from. Heracles shot him with an arrow. Remember the Hydra? Well, it had poisonous blood. And after it died, Heracles dipped his arrows in said poisonous blood. So Nessus, having been shot with some Hydrachloric Acid, started to die. But he managed to speak a few words to Deianira. He said that if she should ever have reason to doubt her husband's fidelity, she should give Heracles a shirt soaked in his - Nessus's - blood. It would restore his love in her, he said. It seems that Deianira was such a gullible lass, because she simply thought "Oh, okay," and proceeded to collect Nessus's blood. Then Nessus died, and the couple went on their way.

But it came to pass that Heracles, in his old age, took a concubine named Iole. Deianira tolerated this, at first. But Iole was younger and prettier, so fear got the better of her. She remembered Nessus's dying words, and (somewhat desperately) did as Nessus advised. She gave Heracles a shirt (or was it a robe? Some manner of clothing, in any case) soaked in the centaur's Hydra-poisoned blood.

The effect was immediate. The poison burned Heracles's skin. He tried to take it off, but it clung to him like a... like a wet, sticky, blood-soaked shirt normally would, only more firmly and painfully. Deianira, seeing what she had done, killed herself in regret. But that didn't stop Heracles's pain, of course. In the end, he set up a pyre and lay down on it, asking for someone to set him on fire and end his pain with death. No one dared, except an archer named Philoctetes. He agreed to set Heracles aflame. For this, Heracles rewarded him with his (still poison-tipped) arrows.

Thus, the great hero died. But that's not the end. Apparently Zeus was happy with Heracles's work of heroing around, so he rewarded him with immortality and godhood. He rose to Olympus, and somehow made peace with Hera. He even married Hera's daughter, Hebe. And they lived happily ever after.

*******

There. That was the story of Heracles, as I could remember it. I cheated a little, though. I consulted Wikipedia (of course) and Godchecker. Whatever. Sue me. I had many other sources, of course. My first exposure to Heracles was the Kevin Sorbo TV series, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, which was a masterpiece. Every Sunday School in my early childhood was spent in passionate anticipation of the series which was broadcast at 10. The second had been the (heavily Americanized) Disney animated feature, titled Hercules, which understandably took a lot of liberties and was very clean, as it was aimed at children. I also read from the Disney encyclopedia (I forgot the exact title, but I remembered it was from book 10: Myths and Legends) and various other books on Greek mythology. My single favorite rendition of the tale is the one by Menelaos and Yannis Stephanides. It had beautiful pictures and did not dress up the ugly parts too much. If you want to know about Heracles, I heartily recommend that book. It's large and thick. And pretty. And lots of the drawings feature nearly nude people.

In any case, Heracles is probably my favorite character in all narratives. More than Sherlock, Gandalf, or even Aslan. Sorry. But that's true. It's really hard to admit it. But there it is. Again, sorry.

But of course Heracles was not unique. As with a lot of characters, there are archetypes and stereotypes and similarities. I'll try comparing him with two characters from the Christian Bible.

The first one is Samson. You can read about him in Judges 13-16. Perhaps because of the similarities to Heracles, he is my favorite character in the Old Testament. Here goes:

• Both were strongmen. You know, the 'Tank' in modern RPG games.
• Both used blunt weapons. Herc used a club, while Sam used an ass's jawbone.
• Both killed a lion. Again. THEY EACH KILLED A LION. Awesome.
• Both were hairy. Well, Samson was definitely hairy, but I had less data of Heracles being hairy too. Mostly pictures. But that's the way I always picture him, so to hell with it.
• Both got screwed by a woman. In Samson's case, it was Delilah tattling to the Philistines, in Herc's, it was Deianira (see above).
• Both died by their own acts, whether directly or otherwise. Samson destroyed a Philistine building, killing himself (and a few thousand Philistines) in the process, while Heracles set his own funeral pyre (so to speak, see above). It could also be pointed out that it was Heracles who made Nessus's blood poisonous.

The other one is my favorite character from the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth. Sources: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

• Both were conceived by divine means, and their foster fathers brought them up willingly.
• Both were loved by their divine fathers. Apparently.
• Both were considered threats to the established ruling class. In Heracles's story, Eurystheus feared that Heracles would try to claim the throne, and in Jesus's case, the Sanhedrin feared a revolution by the proletariat, led by the popular Jesus.
• The most striking similarity between them, for me, is the apotheosis that both of them experience. Both went to their respective abode of the gods (or God) and was deified.

Granted, the similarities between Jesus and Heracles (at least the ones that I remembered) was not that many, but I have always speculated how Heracles might have been some sort of messiah for the Greeks. Sure, Heracles lived in the Heroic Age, and heroes were not in short supply. Besides Heracles, we've got Perseus, Theseus, Bellerophon, Jason, Oedipus, Atalanta. And those were the ones before the Trojan War, where we have Achilles, Odysseus, Hector, Paris, Ajax, Agamemnon, Menelaus, and many more.

But the one thing that, for me, sets apart Heracles from the others, is that his story ends happily. Nearly all the others in Greek mythology, if they don't simply die, end in tragedy. Achilles got shot in the heel. Jason died old and lonely. Oedipus was the king of tragedy. Even the Trojan War ended in a Pyrrhic victory. But not Heracles. He was made a god. Although he faced many ordeals and difficulties, I did not sense sadness in Heracles's stories.

His was a happy life, with a happy end.

And that, my friends, is why I love Heracles.







Too bad nowadays his name is used so disrespectfully by people such as this:

Fuck you, man. Seriously, fuck you.