The Political (Ab-)Use of Religion

 

Well put - and that was even before Christianity won the game of becoming the very best and extremely useful tool for those in power. 

As we know it also works very well for those who are seeking power, like e.g. Donald Trump who all of a sudden is flaunting Christian beliefs he has never before exhibited any trust in. Smart? Yes, up to a point, but that trick only works in certain contexts and societies ....

I didn't know that about Thomas Paine, but I fully agree, especially in one aspect of the quote: Those who preach religious doctrines may not have chosen to do so in order to suppress others, but those doctrines - which they may or may not have believed in themselves - always have served that purpose. It's smart to team up with the ultimate authority which many see as the deity we in The West inherited from The Middle East: Yahwe. Up till now this planet has seen c. 4000-6000 "gods" (that we know of as there may be many more!!!), but somehow we, who are not desert people like the Jews, decided that the legend of the former war god, Yahwe, was the one we would adhere to. Former times worshipped other gods:

I find that extremely interesting historically and philosophically, but very, very Christian people hate to see this. For instance, many/most don't seem to understand that the so-called "Mother Goddess" was GOD and not only the consort of some male god.  

When politicians nowadays claim being "God's people" who "speak for God" I find that both preposterous, hypocritical and sacrilegious. To be a proclaimed Christian isn't the same as being the authorized mouthpiece of the god they say they are serving. I've always felt - and said - that Americans have a way of confusing their god with Santa and that goes for most of these so-called American, Christian politicians. 

 

Should Teachings About Paradise Be Changed?

Relatives of dead people often talk of their sorrow as something that their own death will remedy: They are looking forward to meeting the deceased in an afterlife in "Paradise"/"Eden". When I see interviews with these people I feel sorry for their loss, but also for their - in my opinion - false hope of being reunified with the lost ones. To believe something like that one must have a faith in eternal life that makes it plausible. The same people who believes this also are dreaming of a resurrection like the one they think Jesus had. All of it dreams and hopes of millions of people that keep them in place, so to speak: Flimsy hopes turn into the glue that keep the structures of society together and makes genuine social changes difficult or even impossible.

As to the Paradise that is supposed to give the souls of the dead a new habitat then it's nothing less than "the garden of God (or Eden)", and, what's more, it didn't start out as something up in the sky, but was "down to earth", so to speak: "The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Various suggestions have been made for its location: at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea; and in Armenia." (Wikipedia) I've never heard of anybody finding the geographical area of Paradise, but I'm sure many have been looking for it, both as an area on this planet and as a metaphysical picture of eternal bliss. However, when the war god, Yahwe, became the main - and solar - deity he and his godly garden were set in the sky. To me that signals a mind-over-matter fight of some kind which may have its roots in the ideological battle of female and male deities. The idea of the omnipotent "Sky Daddy" was born and has been with us ever since, just like the belief in a heavenly "garden of god". 

To hear bereaved relatives talk about their belief in future meetings with those they lost to Death is difficult when you are not a believer. You don't believe in the Biblical Paradise, the afterlife nor in the chance of these people ever coming to see their lost ones again. Actually this should be what was taught in school - or taught in another manner. The teachers should go from telling tales of never proven, and extremely unsubstantial Biblical myths to telling the truth about their historical changes through the ages of human life. Or they should never tell these tales of Biblical events and characters without adding the word "myth" - and that goes for ALL tales of a Biblical nature ....

 

Wikipedia

 

Body Bizarre

 

I take for granted that this man is very proud of his "adornments" which I find hideous. Maybe this is a "Each to one's own taste"-case as there aren't any fixed rules when it comes to looks? Well, I think there are natural, i.e. in-born expectations to the looks of humans and these expectations constitute our concept of "beauty".

The body of this young lady will be considered "perfect" in Western countries of 2023, but some will mourn her tatooes and see them as disfiguring. Well, I for one don't like tats which in my opinion all too often turn into something that look like patches of dirt. They may be political or maybe even religious statements and I suppose that they as such should be respected, but I shall never see them as adornments.

The tatooes and needles of the persons above were chosen by the users, but what about those weird body deformities that were not chosen, but which in many ways come to represent the personality of the individual? A human, born as e.g. a midget, is something more than an uncommonly small person, but still that's what he/she is seen as: A midget is a midget. But what if one looks at a well-known midget like e.g. Henri Toulouse Lautrec? What describes the best the best? Is he first and foremost an artist or a midget to most people? Or put it in another way: Is he more of a midget than of an artist?

Small he was, but as an artist he was large and no one can deny it although they may not like his harsh paintings of "The Merry Life" of Paris, the prostitutes, alcoholics, etc..

He didn't live by his disabilities, but some did, like e.g. the twin girls that were born by the unmarried and poor, English woman, Kate Skinner in 1908. Maybe she never intended to keep them even if they had been perfect as she, being unmarried, might have known that she couldn't take the financial responsibility of their upkeep. Well, actually she ended up earning money by selling the twins to a woman who exhibited them as what they were considered at that time: Monsters or Freaks. These children were innocent victims of the early 1900-ideas about valid human looks. Being conjoined they were not accepted as anything but "bizarre" or "inhuman".

The woman who bought them was Mary Hilton whom they were to call "auntie" and they are known by her surname of Hilton: Daisy and Violet Hilton. As such they were taken on tours, just exhibiting their "weirdness" or performing in some way. It's a sad fact that they referred to this "auntie" and her daughter as their Owners. Something like that didn't interest the audience because the only thing they saw was their looks. However, in their life time they went from "sideshow performers" and "vaudevillians" to "film actresses" as they came to appear in some movies, "Freaks" and "Chained for Life". Something which just were another way of keeping them in their assigned rôle of side show freaks.

Both of them married, but whereas the marriage of Violet lasted for 10 years, the one of Daisy lasted 10 days.

Defined by their looks ever since their birth they never really left the "freak"-life that was assigned to them by those who paid to look at them. To me that's the real freakishness of the matter ....

  

https://www.healthline.com/health/pycnodysostosis

 

https://wellcomecollection.org/works/sctkmtb4 

 

Wikipedia

 

 

The Shady Publishers of Today

When I started publishing, i.e. in my native tongue of Danish, I took for granted that the publishers that I approached - or who approached me -  were what one might call "reputable". To me that meant that they were of a standard that made publishing with them a kind of "stamp of approval" which guaranteed that my book was worthwhile for buyers and readers: It was QUALITY and should be recognized as such as it presumably had been through a validation process by what was considered expert editors. On top of that the publishers were supposed to make an effort to make the book sell by PR via ads in newspapers, magazines, etc..

A book was always physical, hardcover or not, and it was sold at good, reputable bookstores, it had reviews, etc., etc.. There might have been "scammers" even then and some publishers were anything but reputable, but that wasn't a grave problem as one simply kept away from these "bad eggs" of the business. 

Now, the process of publishing and the obligations of the publishers have changed in so many ways that it's hard to keep track of what's going on. First of all, an agent has become a necessity because most of those so-called reputable publishers will not accept a script from the author without one. I suppose this trust in agents is a remnant of the old validation system by the editors of the individual publishers, but how trustworthy is this agent-based recommendation? Contrary to the old system with presumably non-biased editors who were engaged by the publishing houses each of these agents works for themselves and their clients. I take for granted that big publishing houses still have editors who may - or may not - have an eye for what's good enough to be published by them, but if that's the case why then not skip the agents and negotiate directly with the writers?   

Our days' market of books have moved in several directions and I must say I have a nostalgic longing for the old hard cover books, but at the same time I acknowledge that they seem to be vanishing as they have lost out to the electronics of today. However, this has given writers new possibilities of publishing that I too have enjoyed. As far as I can see the only problem with self-publishing e-books, as I've done on several occasions, is the lack of a "stamp of recognition" by agents, editors, etc.: The public may not take the author's words for it that these books are worthwhile.

OK, now the situation is changing rapidly and it's difficult to find one's way in the publishing swamp of today, but right now I feel that we as writers should not go exclusively after the by now more or less out-dated agent-publisher-system. Presumably it offered safe publishing, guaranteeing one's royalties, PR, etc., and when it worked it was nice for the author, but is it realistic to expect now? Also, much of what kept this system going was a kind of snobbery that I, not being a snob, find unpleasant as well as illusory. Actually, writers chasing the high-class, so-called reputable publishers have exposed them as the genuine "vanity press" of the market ....

There must be a way to take advantage of some of those publishers who set out to scam or even abuse us by not fulfilling the obligations they use to lure us in with. To read about some of them one would think they were angels sent to protect and lead writers to fame and fortunes beyond belief and, sorry to say so, they are not. No, they keep one hanging with fees, the necessary PR, keeping tracks of royalties, etc., etc.. Also they have a way of robbing one of one's copy right, but, as far as I know, it's possible to regain it by changing the ISBN No. Besides I'm sure that traffic goes with the reputable ones as well. 

Scammers are scammers, gloating in their frauds, but still, one may get them to publish one's books and there should be a way based on the law to make them keep their promises. We need law makers who will set up rules that mow out the worst sharks among them. Everybody may publish, but it's obvious that what used to be free, is changing into something one might call more or less disguised "fees-based". In any case, to hook up with any of these well-known shady publishers is dangerous business, but these days the borders between them and the reputable ones have become quite blurred. 

Right now, as I'm preparing the publishing of some new books I've made a very tentative approach to one of the shady ones, simply to sound it out. I may go through with it, but only if I keep my copyright ....

 

https://boobytrapec.blogspot.com/2023/10/publishing-modern-way.html 

 

Publishing The Modern Way

I'm not into making drawings or paintings myself, but still, I did make this quite nice picture which may end up as an illustration for one of the children books I'm working on at the moment. How is that possible when I haven't even attended art school? Well, with the new tool Al many things that weren't possible now are becoming everyday events. Atthe moment I'm not able to explain what Al is, but still I use it for pictures. Being a writer who enjoys the process of writing I may  also try my hand at Al-writing and publishing, but that's not my first priority: I write, thus I'm a WRITER, should I use Al for writing I would feel that I lost my right to identify as a writer. However, I'm not blind to the fact that modern times also mean modern measures, and Al seems to have come to stay with us, writers or not.

Writing may be a job like other jobs or it may be something more personal. To me it definitely is personal, although I feel more for some of my writings than for others. In that respect one might say that I'm like a mother with favorite children.

When I approached AuthorHouse and ended up publishing four books with them I had no idea of their somewhat shady reputation as a "vanity publishing firm". Would the knowledge of this have stopped me from choosing them as my publisher? No, I wanted to steer the wheel so to speak as these four books weren't in my native tongue, Danish, but in English, and I didn't have the connections In England as I had in Denmark. Did I get to steer the wheel? Both yes and NO.

The books themselves were all right as to looks, but not in an outstanding manner. That didn't worry me as I was more interested in the fact that I had had them published than in their looks. However, there was one thing I resented, i.e. that some people stressed the point that AuthorHouse was called a "Vanity publishing house" because the authors who published with them were supposed to publish out of vanity paying for their services. The old kind of publishers, which I knew from Denmark and the books I had published there, paid me, not the other way around. That, in itself, was seen as a sort of hallmark of quality, classifying the individual books as good and worth while for the reader, not "mere pulp fiction".

To publish something like this - which I did - exhibits just as much "vanity" as publishing something with a so-called "vanity publisher" like e.g. "AuthorHouse". I may prefer the order of a main stream publisher, but that's all the difference of these publishers is to me.

Published with LULU 

It has been said that the difference of publishing with "Vanity Publishers" or start self-publishing as I did with LULU and SAXO is that one keeps one's rights to the works: The copyright. I'm not sure that goes for all self-publishing companies, but one do keep the control of the book in other ways. However, that also means that one has to do all the PR work oneself which isn't as easy as one might wish for. However, when I shall publish my next book - and that's what I'm planning to do some months from now - I shall think carefully of the choices I see now: Self-publishing with e.g. KDP, LULU or SAXO? Or should I venture into the swamp of the so-called "Vanity publishing" once more? 

I've read the warnings of the diligent and very, very knowledgeable Victoria Strauss on her "Writer Beware"-blog, and it was made clear to me that "Vanity presses" and the like are dangerous dancing partners. Many/Most (???) of them only focus on their chances of bleeding the author and forget all obligations toward him or her. In my opinion that doesn't mean that we should give up on them here and now. Knowing what they do and how they are there must be a way to keep the steering wheel and co-operate with them for those who find all other ways to publish overwhelming. What is needed is a sort of acceptable "Deal with the Devil". Had it been easier to find good agents and reputable mainstream publishers I would never have thought of "making deals with the Devil", but the situation being what it is I'm rethinking our possibilities as writers.

https://www.amazon.com/Writes-stories-written-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/B0CDNF87FV 

 

https://www.aibookgenerator.net/ 

 

https://cybernaira.com/ai-that-writes-stories/ 

 

https://openai.com/product

https://neuroflash.com/blog/ai-book-writer/

https://www.alwroteabook.com/home/

https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-launches-boom-ai-written-e-books-amazon-2023-02-21/

 

Wikipedia

 

Was Cecilia Payne too clever to be remembered??????????????

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (1900-1979) was born into a very gifted English family of science, law and music. She herself became an astronomer and astrophysicist who ought to have been famous in her own time for her ground-breaking doctoral thesis in 1925. However, her ideas about stars consisting of helium and hydrogen were not in favor at the time and even when it was proved that she was right, somehow she and her name were forgotten. 

Her work on the nature of variable stars was foundational to the astrophysics of today. After studies at Cambridge she was met with a SILLY problem: Cambridge did not grant degrees to women until 1948. When hearing or reading about something like that one can't help thinking about one very common question in feminism: Why are there not as many female scientists, authors, musicians, etc., etc. as male ones? Well, well, think of someone like Cecilia Payne and answer that question yourself ....

All through her years of studies she had to fight hard for the grants that came natural to her male fellow students. It's interesting how her life story sort of illustrates the modern feminist accusations of misogyny and discrimination in society and in the world of e.g. science ....

https://araniea.com/a-98-year-old-kentucky-woman-with.../

 

https://physicsworld.com/a/cecilia-payne-gaposchkin-the-woman-who-found-hydrogen-in-the-stars/ 

 

Wikipedia

The Royal Bride Who Was A Child

 

Richard II of England was considered a handsome man, although some found his face a tad too "feminine". Others, like e.g. William Shakespeare, couldn't care less as all they saw was a man with some exalted ideas about the rights of a king which made him turn into a tyrant who had to be disposed of. According to historical documents he really loved his first wife, Anne of Bohemia, although they didn't have an heir which are seen as the cement of any royal lines. Historical reports say that he grieved deeply when Anne died, but two years later he married a French princess, the daughter of King Charles VI, Isabella of Valois. This marriage was more or less based on political reasons and it was never consummated which was due to one fact: She was only 6 years old when she married the 29 year old widower, Richard II.

It has been said that he treated her more like a daughter than a wife which of course makes the marriage less offensive to modern, Western people. Most non-Muslims take offense at the marriage of the Prophet Muhammad and the 6 years old Aisha and the consummating when she was c. 8-10 years old, but as can be seen in the case of e.g. Richard II and Isabella there also were VERY young brides in the world of the Christians.

Queen Isabella was considered very pretty indeed

As the legend has it the marriage was/may never have been consummated which saved the young woman from the fate of the Tudor matriarch, Margaret Beaufort. When she was one year old she was married off to John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk. Later on she herself did not recognize this marriage which was dissolved some time later. Then she was married off to Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, still at a very young age, and C. 12 years old she had a son, Henry (born in 1457), who became the first Tudor king as Henry VII. 

Henry VII

Before the birth of her son she became a widow, but in her later marriage she had no children. It has been suggested that the reason for this is that she suffered some irreparable damages to her uterus by giving birth as such a tender age. However, as the mother of the king she obtained and kept a genuine power position at the court, even dominating the queen of her son, Elizabeth of York,the mother of Henry VII.

As we know the life of women and even royal ladies were dangerous because of childbirth. Both Elizabeth and Margaret survived, but what about the widow of Richard II, Isabella of Valois? Well, she married her 11 years old cousin, Charles, Duke of Orleans, in 1406 when she herself was 16. A couple of years later she died in childbirth ....

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-II-king-of-England/Tyranny-and-fall 

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Lady-Margaret-Beaufort/ 

Wikipedia