Because I was completely lost in the writing sauce these past few days (awesome feeling) and didn't have enough to show for it on Wednesday lmao.
Tagged by the wonderful @chiqita, thank you for keeping me in the loop <3
Today on the docket: I have finally decided to bite the bullet and compile all of my funky little ideas and concepts about Sovngarde into a single doc that I could easily share and reference. Five hours later, I had a two thousand word worldbuilding document that only covered the introduction and the first region, and then I realized I am in trouble.
With that in mind, today I will be sharing the preface to this document, dragging TES IV afterlive retcons through the dirt where they belong addressing the discrepancies between afterlife in TES as it is presented in older and newer lore, and setting the baseline for the cosmology and mechanics that will be further discussed in later parts of the document.
Fragment word count: 1261 words.
With that preamble out of the way...
Foreword: On Afterlife
Despite its lack of foundation in the overwhelming majority of oral and written Tamrielic traditions, the cultural dominance of the Cyrodiilic Empire and its militant cosmopolitanism has given rise to the cosmologically baseless, yet astonishingly well-entrenched theological paradigm best described as “aetheric defaultism”. The cornerstone of this framework lies in its notion of “heaven”, which postulates that all mortal souls, regardless of their spiritual dogma or cultural context antemortem, are fundamentally and inalienably ordained to reside in the myriad realms of Aetherius, the primordial spirit plane of light and magic believed to be the birthplace of all souls.
As befits the philosophy of a polycultural hegemon, these heavenly realms are at once infinitely diverse yet palatably generic, lacking any substantial description that might otherwise encroach on the dogma of local belief systems, instead opting to incorporate select elements of provincial traditions into the broader body of Imperial theosophy, re-contextualizing all but the most divergent of beliefs as merely permutations on the same core cosmological structure, wherein Aetherius is “heaven”, Oblivion is “hell”, and all but the most unfortunate and wayward souls that fall prey to daedric corruption through personal ignorance or fundamental flaw of character are destined for eternal and blissful existence at the exalted throne of the immortal Divines.
Although the current incarnation of this framework is most strongly associated with the now-extant Septim regime, which placed heavy emphasis on interpretatio pantamrielica as a tool of populist statecraft in order to foster a politically advantageous cultural climate in context of polyethnic relations on an unprecedented scale, academics trace its true origins - as is the case with many things Imperial - to the monomythic doctrine of the Alessian Order. As attested by a multitude of sources, the Alessian Rebellion owed much of its success to a timely religious schism between the aedra- and daedraphilic sects of the Ayleid Imperium, allowing the Nedic rebels to garner favor with the aedra-worshipping majority and harness that momentum to implement political and religious reform that would grant shared prominence and legal recognition to both human and elven populations, as well as their newly-syncretized doctrines.
At this time, the use of daedric cults as a mutual enemy made it theosophically inconvenient to acknowledge the extensive role of Oblivion in the cosmic order, while the mere suggestion that the overwhelming majority of mortal souls are doomed to reside within the same realm as the beloathed “daemon lords of misrule” - in spite of the central position occupied by Alessia’s Covenant with the Dragon God in contemporary doctrine - bordered on outright heresy. This led the newly-reformed temple to borrow extensively from pre-existing elvish traditions, which focused heavily on the role of Aetherius as the ancestral seat of all benevolent divinities and characterized the pursuit of the spirit realm as the existential goal of all ensouled beings displaced from it at the beginning of time. These teachings were further refined over the course of centuries, sanding down potential dissonances and eventually calcifying into the doctrine of “default heaven” that we are familiar with today, while discourse upon Oblivion and its manifold dimensions had been relegated to the realm of heretics, esotericists, and iconoclastic academia.
Naturally, outside of religious dogma, these assertions are partially correct at best, or intentionally misinformed at worst.
The astute among you may already notice the cracks: Wherefore, for example, does the Imperial paradigm not address the nigh-omnipresent belief in reincarnation found in the majority of Tamrielic traditions? Why is it, if the spirit realm is so easy to reach, that so many cultures speak of the mortal realm as a prison for all ensouled beings, and exalt those who escape beyond the stars as heroes and paragons of the highest order? Why, for what purpose, does this all-reaching doctrine decry Oblivion as a maligned and hellish domain, home to naught but demons and suffering, yet make no mention at all of their own revered Divines, whose planetary realms shine down upon Tamriel from their orbits in the night sky, as portrayed time and time again in the Empire’s own orreries?
It is with these questions in mind that this treatise moves forward with a different paradigm: the “Aurbic Spokes” model of afterlife. Under this view, the planetary realms of Oblivion are treated not as isolated pockets of space, but as true multidimensional structures acting as holdfasts for divine presence in the Aurbis, through which deities of all measures and dispositions enforce their conceptual authority and anchor their own connections to the spirit realm, upon which they draw for the raw energy and matter required for continued exertion of godhood. In this framework, the afterlife realms all act as “spokes” within the overarching Aurbic Wheel, existing at once within the material reality of the mortal Aurbis and the intangible spirit world of Aetherius, and offering planar refuge to all souls that manage to make their way out of the mortal realm, exposing them to the full breadth of cosmic violence that they have been hitherto guarded against.
However, regrettable as it may be, such protections are neither perfect nor without cost. As it is implied by the name, all mortal souls that find their rest in Oblivion are observed to succumb to spiritual bleed, which some scholars term “cosmic amnesia”. For some, this process may take weeks or months, for others it may be millennia, insofar as such terms hold any meaning outside of the strictures of adamantine linearity imposed upon the mortal realm; in the end, the inevitable result is the complete cessation of the spirit’s individual existence as their animus surrenders its hold on the transient memories accumulated during its mortal lifespan, ultimately dispersing into yet more aetherial residue to be harnessed by the divine lord under whose protectorate they reside.
The nature of this patronage, then, lies solely with the whim of the presiding lord. The more malevolent deities are known to treat the souls in their care as less than expendable, torturing them for their own amusement or exploiting them for slave labor within their realms, with some accounts of the more cynically-inclined souls even earning the favor of their demonic overlords and rising in station to occupy ranks normally reserved for daedric servants. Other, more benevolent deities might instead present their afterlives as reward for loyal service, offering a content and indefinite existence to their followers as they enjoy the boons of their divine sphere at its purest. Finally, some deities may go as far as to allow their mortal charges to benefit from the god’s own maintained connection to Aetherius, granting them what is essentially a limited view into the spirit realm under their patronage, thereby lending some credence to the erroneous claims made by ghosts and contacted spirits of the departed that they are “in Aetherius”. In truth, such a perspective ultimately amounts to little more than a window-view into the sea from a submarine vessel of their patron, a comforting lie to mask their spirit’s inability to traverse the vast oceans of immortal polarity on its own - a feat only achieved by a small fraction of exceptional individuals throughout mortal history, whose extraordinary accomplishments in life have earned them mythic prominence and immortalized them as heroes, saints, and even gods and demons of their respective cultures.
With all of the above in mind, this treatise aims to explore one of the most prominent and well-researched afterlife realms, operating in equal measure on secular studies and preserved oral tradition of the source culture, rather than the filtered reinterpretations of Imperial theologians that have grown to usurp these traditions in common parlance.
Tagging @kookaburra1701, @trickstarbrave, @skyrim-forever, @dirty-bosmer, @gilgamish, @theropoda, @viss-and-pinegar, @crynwr-drwg, @sulphuricgrin, @paraparadigm, @cookbookbutch, and @ego-osbourne (who has already seen some of this on discord c:<)
my friend's puppy has baffling levels of attitude for someone who's only been around for a handful of months. he understands concepts like deceit and civil disobedience and other things i didn't fully grasp until well into my 20s. this guy doesn't even know the seasons loop yet. he's probably like okay spring. what's next. some other new bullshit i bet
Fuck jake tapper, and fuck the trump crime family. Maga oligarchs buying up all the media so they can control the narrative, but truth is still truth no matter what.
um so quick question you do know that the world isn’t divided into People Blindly Accepting Of Gender Roles and Smart Trans Ppl. the world isn’t divided into People In Romantic Relationships and Single Aros. the world isn’t divided into People Who Socialize Easily and Oppressed Autistics. the world isn’t divided into Enlightened Queer People and Stupid Misogynists. like you are aware of this ? i hope you are aware of this
no but the “”ai”” boom is crazy bc they made the entire internet so shitty that the only reason to use it is because it’s where all the people are and now they’re getting rid of the people. like i’m straight up logging off and going to the library there’s nothing on here anymore
‘here’s how to tell if an image is ai’ ‘signs the person you’re talking to is a bot’ ‘how to tell if a song is ai generated’ ah but consider this: i am shutting my laptop and walking outside
I saw a bsky post last year where someone said their grandma couldn't tell what was real on the internet anymore so she stopped using it and I really, genuinely think the techbros currently ruining everything have never even considered that possibility. their projections and pie charts and market share research and whatever simply do not take into account a scenario where people lose interest in being online. like yeah we're pretty much all gonna keep using the internet to book travel and look up words and order pizza, but in terms of how we spend our leisure time? I'm still extremely online, but in the last few years I've been learning candlemaking and carpentry and sewing, and I was already spending a lot of time cooking and reading books and skating at the rink and hiking, and an afternoon spent on any of those things always leaves me feeling better about myself than an afternoon spent doomscrolling. I think my daily life is going to keep reflecting that more and more as the slop encroaches, and it sounds like I'm far from the only one feeling that way. silver lining the everything, I suppose.
“Musk talks about Mars as a lifeboat for humanity, which is among the very stupidest things that someone could say,” says Adam Becker, an astrophysicist and author of the book More Everything Forever, which outlines the messianic, sci-fi fantasies of the tech oligarchs. “There are so many reasons why it’s such a bad idea, and this is not about, ‘Oh, we’ll never have the technology to live on Mars.’ That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that Earth is always going to be a better option no matter what happens to Earth. Like, we could get hit with an asteroid the size of the one that killed off the dinosaurs, and Earth would still be more habitable. We could explode every single nuclear weapon, and Earth would still be more habitable. We could have the worst-case scenario for climate change, and Earth would still be more habitable. Any cursory examination of any of the facts about Mars makes it very clear.”
What You’ve Suspected Is True: Billionaires Are Not Like Us
I really like sci-fi stories where people have to go off and terraform a planet, or figure out how to rebuild civilization after some disaster, or ideally both. "The last ark-ship leaving Earth right before it becomes uninhabitable" sort of deal. But lately I've been coming around to this same idea, that it will always be more practical to try to save Earth than to try to start over elsewhere.
I was reading one story where the apocalypse was impossibly-rising oceans. Like, water is appearing from *waves hand* the Earth's crust or something, and literally all dry surface land on Earth is going to become underwater in X years. Part of the story was about a giant research project to invent FTL to send a few hundred humans to a nearby star which might have a habitable planet. You know what they were hoping to find? A planet with liquid water. Their plan was to descend from their starship and restart civilization using just the tools they brought with them, on a world with no life and no breathable air and the wrong gravity and the wrong temperate and the wrong sunlight and the wrong day-night cycle, just because it had liquid water. You know where else has liquid water? The flooded Earth you just abandoned. Instead of researching starship technology, you could have spent that time loading up all the same civilization-restarter tools into boats.
And this is really true of any futuristic apocalypse scenario. If you can terraform Mars to have a thick oxygen atmosphere, why not just do that to Earth? Even if you smash an ice comet into Earth and destroy basically everything, Earth will still be more habitable than Mars! It'll still have roughly the right atmospheric pressure, and magnetic field, and heat balance, and it'll still have whatever life the comet didn't kill... Same with a starshade to cool Venus. Same with excavating asteroids into city-stations. Same with abandoning Sol System entirely and heading to another star. If an ark-ship arrived in a new star system and found Earth-but-choked-by-climate-change, the crew would be ecstatic. They would never have thought to get that lucky. So why bother with the trip? Just stay and fix the damn Earth.
@teatitty and I were discussing the objectively funniest vehicle for him to get hit by and in my opinion it's one of those hop-on hop-off red tourist buses with the really aggressive salespeople who accost you in midtown. like just plow into him with one of those while australian tourists snap photos. he's sturdy, he'll be fine.
"Now, "monsieur," what was that about... dessert?" (Amazing Spider-Man #298)
There was that whole debacle about whether Batman goes down, but we don't have to ask that question with Spider-Man. We know he does. He's enthusiastically said it on page. It's really funny because there are characters where you can go their entire history without knowing that much about their sex lives, and then there's Peter Parker.
The Venus butterfly mentioned here, which like, credit to Michelinie for getting this one into the pages, honestly, is an oral sex technique. Michelinie was probably inspired by an episode of LA Law that mentioned (though never described) this technique. The writer of that episode claims she made it up, but the Venus butterfly later appeared in the 1988 book The One Hour Orgasm, and had been mentioned previously in the 1969 book The Sensuous Woman. So, like. Good for Mary Jane.
"If you weren't so good in the sack you'd be completely useless." (ASM #606)
Wondering why Marvel is so obssesed with making Peter a teengaer/child to be protected while they have never give Johnny an opportunitiy to show his origin story as a teenager/ child being raised by his old sister
Yeah, I think there's a couple of reasons why, for both -- and not that I agree with these reasons so much as that I get why it happens, and it's not because Marvel hates me specifically. This time.
I think with Peter at least Marvel is, to some extent, always chasing that initial high of success. It doesn't matter that Peter only spent an initial 28 issues in high school and that Spider-Man has largely seen success as an independent, adult hero -- and that part of that fame comes from his very successful and popular romantic relationship with Mary Jane. What matters is that Peter initially became wildly popular as a teen hero, as a high school kid, and so I think Marvel continually traps themselves in that cycle where they need to revisit those high school years again and again.
And there's problems with that, because most of the popular Spider-Man characters weren't in that high school cast. So they reinvent MJ and Harry and Gwen and force them into boxes they were never meant to fulfill. You know, MJ has to become the literal girl next door, or a high school best friend. And I think it also ignores what made Peter so wildly popular as a teen hero -- that independence. Peter did everything on his own. That made him appealing to readers. He didn't need to be apprenticed to an adult, or follow in someone's footsteps as a sidekick. Spider-Man was always standing on his own two feet, without any help from anyone. That's how he broke that teen hero mold.
And I think you see that to a certain extent in how audiences are excited for the new MCU movie, because people want to see Peter stand totally on his own. I have no interest in the MCU, but I think it's interesting to see people commenting on that just from the perspective of seeing how fandom reacts to things. People want that independence from Peter. They want to see him as a solo hero.
Johnny, by comparison, is not a solo hero, and at least in 616 continuity really can't function as one on a permanent basis. He can have solo adventures, sure, but part of Johnny's character has always been a social animal. He's a heroic person on his own, but he's a spacefaring superhero adventurer because that's what his family does. Left alone, Johnny tends to spiral. But that's kind of beside the point. The point is, why, when Johnny's origin is just as rooted in his youth as Peter's, do adaptations consistently erase the age gap between him and the other three? Why do they always either age him up or age the others down?
(I'm not really clear on how old he's supposed to be in First Steps at the time of the accident, but it didn't look like 16.)
So I think in adapting the Fantastic Four, the original origin story always seems to present a problem. I think because, first, it requires the Fantastic Four to steal that spaceship. This is not a government-sanctioned flight. They stole that thing. Second because it requires Reed to be wrong.
Fantastic Four introduces us to the smartest man in the world and then it tells us that in his hubris, his first act is this terrible mistake that changes his family forever. Now what he does after that -- I think that really does show that Reed is a genius. But that's not the narrative movies want to go with, generally. They would rather skip the theft, save for Fant4stic, a movie that has a whole host of other problems. And even in Fant4stic, Reed and Sue and Ben are aged down closer to Johnny, and absolved of some of the responsibility of their actions because of that.
Basically, I think no one wants to try to explain why three smart, competent adults went "this is fine" and brought a 16-year-old on their dangerous space flight theft mission. There's other issues here. I think that nobody wants to make Johnny 16 for reasons besides that, like Fantastic Four (2005) and its decision to play up the skirt chaser reputation, or not wanting the team to look unequal. I think there is worry about the teen sidekick aspect always -- I mean, look at Batman adaptations. Peter, being a solo hero, I think largely escapes this, although it does make me kind of side eye some of the earlier MCU Spider-Man choices more, particularly in how they utilized Iron Man.
I think the closest we get to teen Johnny in a live action is the unreleased Roger Corman Fantastic Four film. You do see him there as a child while Reed and Ben are boarding at Johnny and Sue's aunt's house. (And there is a very cute scene in the beginning, if you've never seen it, where college Ben is playing video games with itty-bitty baby Johnny, and where Reed later picks him up.) The downside there is that they were leaning into Byrne's origin story, which aged Sue down considerably.
But I also feel like this is generally a problem where Marvel doesn't want to really dig into Sue and Johnny's backstory, and it's just kind of a shame. I think there's a lot to get into there that outlines who they both are as heroes, where Sue is used to shouldering immense amounts of responsibility, and feeling unseen, and Johnny is used to pretending like everything is okay, because he and his sister need to stay together. I would love a limited comics series about it, honestly, but I don't think Marvel would be interested in it.
Personally, I'm a big fan of "you selfish sonova -- bus!" (ASM #205)
And in TASM, Peter's go-to curse word is definitely "motherfucker." He cuts himself off from it once ("Mother -- Hubbard.") and you can see him mouth it in another instance.
