Tormund Giantsbane: the Purpose of the Fool

*Warning, a lot of crude language and mental images you don't need ahead*

Tormund Giantsbane is hilarious. He's so funny, it can be hard to see him as anything other than just the comic relief. He does play that role, especially in the rag-tag band that Jon Snow assembles to go north of The Wall in season 7 of Game of the Thrones. But Tormund is more than just the guy with the great jokes, and that stupid story about fucking a bear. Yes, he is that one character who constantly talks about penises that seems to be obligatory for HBO shows (at least since Spartacus, and Gannicus saying the word "cock" in every sentence).  Tormund has more colorful words for the male genitalia, but almost everything that comes out of his mouth has something to do with sex. Not just jokes either, even in his more serious moments he's more often than not talking about sex: either giving advice to Jon Snow, or moaning about how Brienne won't notice him. But he isn't just a nymphomaniac: he doesn't have the nihilistic worldview.  In fact, Tormund is the antidote to the depressing and cynical world he inhabits: and his seeming obsession with sex is part of that. He doesn't talk about sex the way that other men in Game of Thrones talk about sex. Even the "good" characters like Ned Stark talk about sex more often than not as a type of conquest: a way of asserting one's will over someone else.  Most of the female characters talk about sex this way too, and experience it this way.

The negative and positive sides of this are explored in the characters of Sansa Stark and Margaery Tyrell. Sansa is on the receiving end of sex as conquest, not once but twice: strongly shaping her view of sexuality and marriage. She becomes frigid because she has been hurt, closing herself off from others. This even extends to people who can't be sex partners, including her sister Arya. Margaery Tyrell is on the perpetrating end.  She uses sex as conquest to control Thommen Baratheon, getting him to idolize her by objectifying and coddling him. This is a problem ultimately, because when he is confronted with real responsibility he simply can't deal with it.

Even Danaerys was brought up thinking this way about sex, and all on her own discovered a different attitude towards sexuality. This is why the relationship with Daario Naharis is important to her character arc: he shows her the world of affirmative sexuality, completing her recovery from the trauma inflicted by her brother. 

Jon is similarly hung up about his sexuality, because he believes he is a bastard. He is too genuinely kind to want to bring a child into the world who is going to suffer the way he has suffered.  The only way he could express his sexuality was among the wildlings, where if Ygritte had a child by him then s/he would be treated the same as any other. At least, until his death and rebirth.  At this point, his old identity as Eddard Stark's supposed bastard son is stripped away. He is simply Jon: not a bastard, not a brother of the Night's Watch, but a man. A man who can be a King. As the only (at that time known) surviving male in the Stark family, he is named King in the North: a position he could not have held if he were a bastard or a brother of the Watch. But these old positions in society have ceased to have meaning: because Jon has awoken to a broken world. Now Jon can begin to think of sex in a new light: not as a way of exerting control over someone, but as yet another way of helping others. Tormund is there to show him how that is accomplished.

You see, the reason why Tormund makes jokes is because Tormund wants to make people laugh. I know, I know, that sounds extremely obvious but if you think about it that makes him something almost miraculous in the world of GoT.  Tormund, is a nice person.  He just wants to make people smile. He's untouched by the Machiavellian machinations of the other characters. He has a nose for bullshit, and doesn't touch it with a ten foot pole. He doesn't care about his own advancement: he just wants people to be safe and laughing. Of course, this does actually get him advanced: to lead a band of wildlings. The way in which Tormund's way of talking about sex is different from the other characters is highlighted by the way he becomes the leader of that wildling band. Rattleshirt, like most of the men in this world, thinks of sex as conquest. He insinuates that Tormund plays the submissive role in sex with Jon i.e. that Jon has conquered Tormund. But let us contrast this moment with another before we examine Tormund's reaction. Sandor Clegane much later on insinuates that Tormund would submit to him in sex. In that case, Tormund reacts by misdirecting the conversation: he shows no sign of being offended, if anything he almost sounds interested (like I said, mental images you don't need).  In the case of Rattleshirt however, Tormund goes ballistic and kills the guy. Why? because Rattleshirt is insinuating that Jon would enjoy dominating another man. This is an insult to Jon, a man so altruistic he's willing to die repeatedly for others. Tormund knows if he doesn't stand up for Jon, then no one will.

For all that Tormund talks about sex constantly, he doesn't actually do any.  That isn't the point though. While everyone else is talking about death: Tormund is talking about life. Everyone else is unhappy, cynical and depressed: but Tormund is focusing on living, on finding joy in life and bringing that to others. He understands that it is especially now, as the long cold and dark winter full of horrors begins, that people like him are needed most. People kissed by fire, with red hair and sunny spirits. There's an even deeper layer to it as well. Sex is honest, you have to get naked to do it. You can't lie about who or what you are, to someone you're having sex with. Tormund talks about sex to show he's being honest: and to get others to be honest with him. It's a way to cut through the bullshit to find out who someone really is. Tormund understands something crucial that many people in this world don't seem to: flattery isn't complimentary, it's denigrating. Lying to someone about how good they are, or what they are capable of is an insult to that person. It's telling them that you think they are stupid enough to swallow your lie. When people start to deify Jon, Tormund quietly cuts through that: with a dick joke of course. This isn't just because it's Tormund's signature style. It's because joking about his penis reminds everyone that he has one: i.e. that he is a man. In fact it reminds everyone that the best and most wonderful thing about Jon, is that he is a man: not some theoretical divine being who cannot be truly known.

Of course, Tormund understands why people deify Jon. This is a world where men, especially men with power, routinely sacrifice others for their own self-interest. Here is Jon, who has already sacrificed himself for others and is willing to do so again. This is outside their understanding and expectations. But what Tormund is saying, is that Jon can be understood. He has motivations for doing what he does, which any of them could understand and relate to. Understand, relate to, and copy. People love and revere Jon because of his passionate commitment to serving others. But Tormund knows they could go beyond simply obeying his commands, bending the knee, or treating him with reverence. They could try to be more like him. They could try to put aside their selfish concerns, and see the larger picture. See the dangers posed by the oncoming winter and how they could use their resources to help more people than just their immediate family. Tormund isn't just lightening a tense and awkward moment, or saving Jon from embarrassment, he's making a radical statement about human nature. That's one deep dick joke right there.

Kayley: Real Innocence versus Victorian Nonsense.

Firefly was a great show. It got Jossed, a term for shows cut short because they were written by Joss Whedon or because they had similar writing to Joss Whedon's style. Now, there are many Whedonisms which are the primary cause of shows being Jossed: and Firefly is by no means immune to these problems.  However, the one problem it can't be accused of is flat characters. 

Kayley is the ship's engineer, and cute as a button. Props to the casting by the way, for choosing an actress who could look absolutely adorable in a 1940s style Rosie-the-riveter suit. She's also one of the two comic-relief characters: the other one being the ship's wisecracking pilot Wash.  Kayley knows a lot about engines, and a lot about adult stuff. It's evident she grew up around men who fixed stuff and talked about intimate details of their personal lives as they did so. She also has a persistently optimistic outlook on life. So, in what way is she naive? She does not know social conventions or for that matter have any interest in them. She does not care about taboos such as the taboo against discussing sexuality. However, she is never mean. Kayley genuinely cares about people, and understands what it means to respect others. Her frankness can make them uncomfortable, but she is never unkind. She does not understand the reason for taboos, and doesn't like the concept: but she is fundamentally unaware of how completely good-natured she herself is. She believes everyone else is just like her. The rest of the crew think that an angel has come to live with them. In this sense, she is naive: failing to grasp that other people don't think the way you do is in a sense childlike.

However, this is not an example of the "Born Sexy Yesterday" trope because Kayley is not the hero's love interest, and she is actually aware of what sex is (and is also definitely aware that some people find her attractive). What she doesn't understand is society. Her lack of knowledge about society is also mostly purposeful: she views society as ridiculous, and so refuses to respect it's rules. This is demonstrated by the fact that she can, and does, parody different segments of their society. She understands the ways that people act: even if not why they act that way. For Captain Mal in particular, her optimism and unironic blunt kindness is genuinely transformative.

But Joss Whedon does not fall into the trap of assuming that Kayley can only transform Mal if they are in a sexual relationship. It's in fact much more of a father-daughter relationship: with Mal taking the place of the father that Kayley lost when she was young, and Kayley taking the place of the child Mal always wanted but never had. She is the character who is capable of breaking through Mal's nihilism: showing him that his life is meaningful, and that he is a good man. Mal is a mercenary, not by choice but because of his circumstances. He has PTSD and survivor's guilt as well.  His experience is clearly meant to mirror that of a Vietnam or Korean war veteran: A man who knows he did terrible things, wonders why he survived, finds his current employment distasteful, and is disgusted by the ingratitude of those around him.

Of course, this is hardly a new experience (although very often it is treated that way). The same motivations drove Vespasian to a coup against the Emperor Claudius, only to devastatingly discover that there was no way to stop the Roman war machine-Roman society was too dependent on it. Mal has read his history, and doesn't bother with the political coup. He also doesn't run away from his emotional problems by becoming addicted to something. He simply buries them. He pretends like everything is okay, but he's letting his self-loathing and his fear of loss determine his actions.  He is like my Uncle, one of the many many so-called "successful" veterans who came back from Korea unable to tell anyone how broken they were and are. The only way Mal is able to make sense of a society that rejects his efforts on it's behalf is to essentially believe that he is in hell: and if he is in hell, that must mean he is a fundamentally evil person. He is unable to see that he is a good man who has been treated unfairly because he believes all the good men died in the war. It is only through Kayley that Mal can come to see the world for what it actually is, how unfairly he has been treated, and that he has the ability to reject that unfair society completely. But this is only because Mal respects Kayley enough to believe that her fundamentally hopeful attitude towards the world isn't born out of ignorance. It comes from observations about the world that he is blind to.

This transformation in Mal, sets up the events of the movie Serenity where Mal accepts actual fugitives of the government onto his ship even though one of them could potentially kill him and his crew in their sleep. The Tam siblings are not simply marginalized people: in fact they grew up privileged. They are wanted fugitives and criminals, and Mal is eventually willing to not simply transport them but accept them as crewmembers. Mal and his crew have hitherto kept themselves on the gray side of the law: but now Mal is willing to risk a complete break with the society that has oppressed and rejected him and his little family.

Kayley is innocent, or in French "naïve", in the original sense of that word: of not understanding, and therefore not being persuaded by, evil. This is what it means when Christ is described as Innocens, unknowing. He does not feel hatred, bitterness, pride, anger or any desire to hurt those who have hurt him: in short, he has no evil impulses. When he is in the wilderness and being tested by Satan, he demonstrates that he cannot be corrupted and persuaded to choose evil. To be clear here: the Satan of the Bible is not a being of evil, but God's servant. Jesus in fact goes to the wilderness for the express purpose of being tested by Satan: essentially to test the connection between spiritual being and mortal human, to be sure that the plan really will work. The normal word for "to know" in Latin is "scire", which means literally "to see": another word is "sapire" which is similar to English "to figure out".  "Nocere" in Latin means a deeper form of knowing, more like our word "to feel", or the colloquial meaning of "to dig".  It's an emotional form of knowing rather than an intellectual one: a gut feeling about what is or isn't right. If you are innocent in the Christian sense, you don't "dig" evil. It has nothing to do with the Victorian notion of innocence as a lack of sexuality: a notion that we still have in our society today.

Despite Bridge to Terabithia, and the repeated testimony of child psychologists: we refuse to accept that children have sexuality, and understand what it is. They have no interest in grownup sex, but that does not mean they cannot understand the emotions that exist between people who are in romantic and sexual relationships. This leads us to fail our children, by failing to teach them about healthy romantic relationships and healthy sexuality. So, they learn from the media: which tells them all kinds of wrong and harmful things about relationships and sexuality, their own or other people's. Even when parents tell their children where babies come from, they frequently neglect to mention other important aspects of adult relationships. Children understand the concept of romantic love: they conduct romances with each other, or between toys. This is natural and normal. 

That is not to say children aren't innocent: they are. They are innocent in this older sense: of not understanding, and therefore not being persuaded by, evil. If they hurt each other, it is out of ignorance rather than malice. They do not yet understand that others think differently from them, and therefore cannot feel actual hatred. They have no reason to be self-conscious, prideful or bitter because they do not yet know that others judge them. They feel frustration and disappointment, but not anger because they are not yet aware that there are people who would want to hurt them. If they get hurt, they believe it is either a natural consequence of their own actions, or an accident. So they are quick to forgive and move on, but also liable to blame themselves for the psychological problems of adults. Children do not understand abuse, they do not understand that it is possible for someone to gain satisfaction from exploiting and hurting them. That is what innocence really means. It doesn't mean their eyes need to be covered every time a woman's naked breast happens to appear.

Katniss Everdeen-the Harm Caused by "Positive" Objectification.

Katniss Everdeen is hardly the typical hero of a romance story, or a dystopian story. She's too flawed for the former, and too naive for the latter. The heroes of dystopian stories are usually clear-eyed hard-boiled survivors: not unlike the detectives of noir films. Katniss starts the story fundamentally unaware of just how horrific the regime she lives under really is. District 12 of Panem as Katniss knows it, is something of a haven. It's low population makes it less threatening, and the fact that no tribute from 12 has won the hunger games in several decades also contributes to the Capitol's lax attitude. There is a strong community that has formed around the black market, since the police are lazy and corrupt. People are poor, but they are generally happy. After the death of her father, Katniss has taken on his role in the family: hunting illegally and selling her catch at the black market, since she's still considered too young to work in the coal mines which are the official industry of District 12. She keeps her head down, and stays safe in relative anonymity. 

Or, at least, she thinks she's anonymous. But here's the part where her naiveté comes in. Naiveté doesn't mean a lack of factual knowledge: it means a lack of knowledge about the impact you have on people. It means not believing that people notice your actions, and not needing them to. It means in other words, not needing external validation. Katniss knows what she does for other people, and what other people have done for her. She doesn't need someone to tell her that she provides food for her sister and mother and saved their lives after her father died. She knows what her skills are, and what they aren't. She does not need the Hunger Games to know she is a good hunter.  She even talks with her best friend Gale about running away from the District and living in the woods. Katniss is however blind to the impact she has on her community. Her hunting allows other people, like Greasy Sae, to have a livelihood. She isn't just keeping her own family fed, she's keeping other people's families fed too. The meat she brings in, is likely the only meat they ever get. The berries she picks are crucial for their nutrition, as much as they are for her sister Primrose. This is even true for the relatively wealthy: like the Mellarks and the mayor's family. Evidently, fruits and vegetables are luxury products in this dystopian society. She isn't just raising her own family's standard of living: she's raising everyone's. Thus, when Katniss volunteers to be in the Hunger Games to take her sister's place: the whole community is affected. This is why they give the District 12 salute to her as she leaves (which by the way is similar to the real world Girl Scout salute, nice touch Suzanne Collins).  But just because Katniss hasn't noticed the way in which she lifts up those around her, doesn't mean this is lost on everyone else. After all: Katniss is only 16. That level of self-awareness would be odd in someone that age. Haymitch and Peeta Mellark have noticed.

Haymitch is secretly a member of a rebellion against the government of Panem, along with the forgotten District 13.  It is never explicitly stated that Haymitch informs the other conspirators about Katniss: but he's the only one who could have. Haymitch is the previous winning tribute from District 12, with a mysterious past that has caused a drinking problem. He's a (sort of) high-functioning alcoholic, who uses the fact that no one takes him very seriously in order to work for rebellion.  But the rebellion has been dormant until Katniss volunteers for the Hunger Games. The plan is to use the Hunger Games against the Capitol: because they are the only way to communicate with all districts all at once.  Katniss, the rebels have decided, will make a perfect symbol. The mayor's daughter Madge hands Katniss a Mockingjay pin, seemingly as an innocent gift. But it was evidently chosen for the symbolism of the Mockingjay: the product of the Capitol's experimental jabber jays mating with mockingbirds in the wild. The jabber jays played a big party in the previous time that the Districts of Panem rebelled, giving information on the rebels to the Capitol. Mockingjays are an accident that the Capitol never meant to have happen: the result of nature taking it's course in a world that abhors all things natural. It is a good symbol for Katniss, because this is what she represents too: nature intruding upon a world that abhors nature.

So, what's the problem here? Well, the problem is that the rebels didn't tell Katniss they were recruiting her for the rebellion. They also didn't tell her that they were going to use her as a prop. They made her into the Mockingjay, little more than a symbol of rebellion against the Capitol. This is of course something that happens to many real-life revolutionaries. It happened to Lenin in Russia, his body is still preserved like some sort of scientific specimen with a bizarre regimen of chemicals: for use by the state as a prop in it's ceremonies. Even though Russia has become something which Lenin would have despised. It happened to Ché Guevara too. His, admittedly attractive, visage was incongruously taken up as a symbol of resistance to the US government. Oddly enough, mostly by anarchists: which is weird since Ché's job as Fidel Castro's right hand man was as executioner. Also, he hated anarchists. He was pretty much the definition of Lawful Neutral. In Anthropology, this phenomenon is called "positive objectification".  The name sounds nice: but it's not really. "Positive" in this case just means that the objectified person is treated as precious and important. Think of the way a museum would treat a painting. Sure, Katniss gets to break the rules and people take care to be nice to her. She is cared for, looked after etc: but not out of any genuine concern for her welfare. Rather she is coddled because she is the Mockingjay, the precious symbol of the rebellion that can't be lost.

Katniss does not like this. Most people don't.  People can be taught to like it by society, but it is not something that people naturally like. It is not a proper way to treat human beings. This is the treatment that most women in the western world have been subjected to since the Victorian Era. It should be noted that this is only one type of misogyny and the Victorian Era in the western world was not the only time or place where it was prevalent. Other societies have other types of misogyny, and other time periods had other pernicious ideas about women. Positive objectification is why men were pressured to open doors, pull back chairs and the like for women in the past: as if the women were creatures too delicate to do such work. 1950s advertising also contains a lot of positive objectification. This is different from a man opening doors or pulling back chairs for his girlfriend out of genuine respect.  It's not about what he's doing, but about why he's doing it. Positive objectification can even take the form of false worship: think of the racist or anti-semitic clergyman. This person claims that they worship a divine being: but actually they are objectifying the divine. They are using the authority that comes from being a clergyman to advance their own secular agenda: an agenda with it's roots in personal or class-based problems rather than any scripture or church doctrine. The name of the divine being, as well as scriptures and church doctrines are objects: tools to be used for a purpose. A true believer doesn't advance an agenda that benefits them personally. In fact they may even work against the interests of their race, class or other identity group. They take a receptive stance: changing their behavior based on what they learn from the scripture rather than trying to make the scripture fit their beliefs. Of course, it isn't just religious people who do this: plenty of scientists have done it as well.

For example, Margaret Mead. In her book on the society of a particular pacific island, she concluded that it was a sexually liberal society where young boys and girls often had intimate relationships before marriage. Except...wait a minute: where are the bastard children? where are the rushed marriages? do they have some form of birth control unknown to the west? no, of course not. The girls flirted with the boys as a way of annoying their guardians: their fathers and brothers. Just like prep school girls at a dance, they act more daringly because they know that if the boys show too much interest their guardians will flip out. What did Mead do? she objectified the people she was writing about in order to advance an agenda she had held long before she went to these islands or even became an anthropologist. She wanted western society to loosen the hell up, so she wrote about a society that was looser even though no such society actually existed. The thing is: the society being detailed in an ethnography is supposed to be the Subject. That is, they are supposed to be treated with genuine respect. The ethnographer is supposed to be like a ghost-writer: it is the people being studied who should be making all the important decisions about the book, including what goes into it.

This brings me to why objectification is bad: it isn't just a question of respect or even of morality. People who objectify other people do so because they have some kind of agenda. Agendas do not have to be conscious: for example Barack Obama's water stunt in Flint, Michigan. Was he consciously intending to insult the people of this city? probably not. But he was probably annoyed about having to come there, and really wanted the bad press to stop at any cost. Even the cost of insulting people who were already being victimized by a racist state system, and doing nothing to put a stop to that system. Again, he likely didn't do this on purpose. This is not a case of objectification, at least so far as anyone knows. But it is an example of someone advancing an agenda despite not realizing he had one to advance.

Most misogynist individuals fall into this category as well: advancing an agenda that supports men at the expense of women without thinking that that's what they are doing. Most people who objectify women do not think that is what they are doing. Just as, in the Hunger Games, President Coin does not think of herself as objectifying Katniss and is confused by her anger. This is quite a clever move on the part of the author: President Coin is female, and so is Katniss. There's no question about what is going on, because gender is not a factor in the relationship. It's also not a romantic relationship: so there's no question about how wrong the treatment is. For some reason, people often excuse this behavior in the context of romance when they would otherwise condemn it. President Coin is not wrong, the rebellion does need a symbol: but a live Mockingjay taught a rebellious song would have done the job. There have been many revolutions that had no single leader, no person to rally around. But they all had something to rally around: and a song is a very common rallying point. A live mascot is more interesting than a static object, but it need not be a person. Think of how the World Wildlife Fund has rallied people behind the giant panda. 

If you are waiting for a singular leader of today's resistance to emerge, you will likely wait in vain. But that does not make the movement weak: in fact it makes it strong. If the South African apartheid government had killed Nelson Mandela: the movement he led would have fallen apart. Of course, if he killed himself it would have galvanized the movement: so, since they were unwilling to execute him, they had to keep him alive. A movement which has a singular figurehead like this, is fundamentally weak because the leader's fate will affect the movement. A decentralized movement on the other hand, is strong because the fate of a single member has no effect whatsoever on the whole. There are of course natural leaders and followers: but the deaths of these leaders will not have the consequence of stopping or weakening the movement. Movements need symbols, but it is in no way necessary to objectify a person in order to get one. 

Another Nazi Found, But It Will never Be Enough

Massive TW for holocaust stuff.

As you probably know, another former KZ guard was finally deported to Germany earlier this week.


 I'm glad to see the sscumbag being sent to where people might at least pretend to care about what he's done. Of course, the best justice would to be to build a #FascismProofWorld, which takes some more doing!

Today, I'm thinking about the music of holocaust survivor Ernst Busch, a Gay Communist from Kiel who was caught in 43, and was tortured and blinded by the Nazis, and by the grace of the Red Army, survived to sing again.

This is one of his, called "As long as the murderers live in the world". it's a song promising vengeance on surviving Nazis, sung in character as the ghosts of the dead. I don't think it's a particularly strong piece, largely because of the almost gleeful, melodramatic tone he's using. The thing is, I KNOW he could do sad songs better- listen to Suliko, Martyred in a Dungeon, Peat Bog Soldiers, or Wait for Me and you'll hear it too.

I was kind of baffled why this virtuoso didn't bring his a-game to this piece, arguably one of the most important of his post-war career. And that's when it hits me- this man who went through so much, expressed so much felt by so many, who fought his entire life for a better world, who stared down his country's bombs and sang for the people. this voice of us all, had to turn a switch and sing this as if it were a joke. He could express pain and rage just fine, but he couldn't here. Maybe, as Lin Manuel-Miranda wrote, this was a time when the words didnt reach, or they did and he had to put up some walls. He could express the suffering of billions, he could make his Prussian officer's voice low and wracked, and go from the gleam of a sabre to a slow outpouring of dark wine. I have always felt that he sings for me and for so many others, whether about lost love or about surviving fashy or marching to certain death in the struggle. And sometimes about winning in the cause of the workers and oppressed peoples, too.

What does it say that these words were too much for him to open up? How terrible must have his experiences been to blunt him like this?

I think we already know.

Anyway here's the song, I don't know who wrote it. The translation is mine, going for meaning, not rhyme or meter. Do listen to it- "not one of Ernst Busch's best" is still a long way from a bad song.

"Some night when the flames slither
And the conveyor belt stirs my ashes
I rise as maddened smoke from Dachau's chimneys
Down I fly and through the hall I dash
I want to avenge myself, come up behind
on those who think i'm nought but ash
How can I lie in peace in the earth,
So long as the murderers live in this world?
For hell is already full of sinners
Yet it's empty of certain architects
so my song chases down each devil
and brings them to face their crimes
Following them through the crowded masses
to punish swiftly by the light of our hatred
How can you appear so peaceful, o blue sky
As long as the murderers still live in this world?
Arise, oh murdered children of years past
the hangman's goons who slew you stand right there
Throttle them in their fine robes
in the name of all children yet to come!
And those who still survive, haunted by their nightmares
in Warsaw, minsk, Paris, on the Rhein and on the Danish Belt
As long as the murderers live in this world


In jenen Nächten da die Flammen lohten,
und Ofenzug durch meine Asche fuhr,
stieg ich als Rauch empor aus Dachaus Schloten
und sank herab lebendig auf die Flur.
Ich wollt mich rächen meinem Tod entstiegen
an manchem der mich noch für Asche hält
wie kann ich ruhig in der Erde liegen:
Solang die Mörder leben auf der Welt,
Solang die Mörder lebena uf der Welt.
Die Hölle ist schon vollgepfercht mit Sündern
doch fehlt dort manche zünftige Figur.
Da ruft mein Lied die Opfer jener Schinder
und bringt sie den Verbrechern auf die Spur.
Geht fahnden durch Gedränge und Gewimmel,
geht ahnden rasch vom heißen Haß erhellt.
Wie kannst du ruhig leuchten blauer Himmel
Solang die Mörder leben auf der Welt,
Solang die Mörder leben auf der Welt.
Steht auf ihr Kinder die ihr schon vor Jahern,
von Henkersknechten totgemartert seid.
Ergreift die Mörder richtet in Talaren,
im Namen alller Kinder künftger Zeit.
Und ihr die ihr noch lebt aus diesen Tagen,
in Warschau, Minsk, Paris, am Rhein, am Belt:
Erinnerung soll aus dem Schlaf euch jagen:
Solang die Mörder leben auf der Welt,
Solang die Mörder leben auf der Welt.

#ErnstBusch #NaziHunting #RotFront #NoPasaran


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6IYRYNQ0lY

The Fool and the Rose. Shakespeare's "As You Like It" as Political Propaganda, Economic Treatise and Cultural Phenomenon

As You Like It, by William Shakespeare. It's one of those plays where many words are said, but not very much actually happens. He has three of these: the others being Love's Labours Lost and Much Ado About Nothing.  What could I possibly have to say about this play? A good chunk of the dialogue is barely intelligible, being as it is said by the lovably pompous court jester Touchstone. But within the play's premise itself is embedded something interesting. This play is actually about female leaders, maturity, legitimacy, and tyranny. It is also yes, a play whose main characters are a butch bisexual and a femme lesbian but that is not why it's a feminist work. It is a feminist work because of how it updates a classic story to be about a female ruler: and indeed supports a specific female ruler.  It is about a girl becoming a duchess, a child becoming a leader. It is a rewriting of one of the oldest stories ever created by humans which is still around today: Jason and the Argonauts. First written down by Hesiod in the 8th Century BCE, it is likely much older than that. Much older. Very likely, this story is about that same mysterious civilization that predated the rise of Mycenae: that was, and yet was not, Greek. Perhaps it originated in Mycenaean times: or just perhaps, the half-burnt male figure found at a temple on Crete represents Jason. We cannot say for sure. What we can say: is what this story is about. It is about what it means to be a good ruler, and how to make a child into a good ruler.

Rosalind, the main character of As You Like It, is the daughter of a Duke. She will one day have a position of leadership. However, she cannot simply become a leader overnight. She must be taught how to lead. In order to learn how to lead, Rosalind needs to enter the forest. The forest in Shakespeare is never simply a place. The forest always has a magical property: it removes illusions. Everyone in the forest has no choice but to be who they really are. Rosalind believes that she is disguised, but in a very real sense she is not. How can we tell? well, in the court Rosalind was afraid to speak to Orlando (because she is attracted to him). She didn't know what to say or do. This tells us that Rosalind is putting on a show of being a "good girl".  She doesn't know how to act in this situation because it wasn't one she has been taught to be in. Likewise, Orlando is tongue-tied. Again, because he is putting on an act: in his case of an athlete and manly man. But in the forest, Rosalind can speak to Orlando the way she would speak to anyone else: and Orlando can declare his affection for her to anyone who will listen (including the trees).  In the forest, the duke cannot distinguish himself with fancy clothes and a big palace. He sleeps and eats with his followers, works and hunts with them too. In the forest, it is his quality which makes him a duke, his nobility that makes him a nobleman. He deescalates conflict, shares generously, models good conduct for his followers, practices solidarity with those who are physically or mentally left behind, and seeks to build relationships with everyone. He is wise enough to see desperation behind violence, fear behind a false show of anger. He knows that men do not simply hold other men at knife-point because it is fun. He is a duke in the forest, because that is his true self. He is a man who leads other men: a dux in the truest sense of the word.

But, so often we think of our identities as being innate: something we are born with. This is only half true. While we are born with certain traits and desires, our perspective shifts as we enter new states of being. This can be a new stage of life, a new socio-economic class, a new emotional state, or just a new place. Taking medication for anxiety or depression can entirely cure the problem because the medication changes your brain chemistry such that your perspective shifts. The pressures you face are the same, the challenges you need to get through are the same, your life is just as bad as it was before: but your perspective on it has changed. Shakespeare's forest has a similar effect for his characters. Oliver, Orlando's elder brother, enters the forest. He goes there to find and kill his brother, whom he is paranoid about. He believes strongly that his brother is plotting against him, to take his share of their father's land and wealth. But when he enters the forest his perspective shifts: because the economics of the forest are different from the economics of the court. The court enforces the economics of scarcity: hoarding resources and always seeking to obtain more resources is what everyone is expected to do. Oliver believes Orlando has bad intentions because he is in an environment where having bad intentions is expected. The forest however enforces the economics of abundance: hoarding resources doesn't get you anywhere. Only by pulling together and sharing resources with a group can you survive in the forest, because it's resources are harder to get.  

A deer is capable of killing you with a single kick, hunting it alone would be foolish. You can't manage a farm or a flock of sheep alone, these tasks require more skills than one person could possibly ever have. In this environment, Oliver can see that his beliefs about Orlando were patently false. Orlando never asked for anything except what was promised to him by their father, and protested his treatment only because it was oppressive. Rather than killing Orlando, Oliver makes up with him. Everyone always has enough, no more and no less, in the forest because they share their skills and resources to make the most of their situation. They waste nothing, no one has extra but no one is lacking.

If you really hate spoilers, stop reading now. But it isn't really a spoiler, because all Shakespeare's comedies end the same way: everyone gets married. As You Like It is no different: all the major characters pair off.  But this brings me to something that can make a modern audience uncomfortable: the way that the character of Phoebe is seemingly forced to settle for second-best. However, I would suggest there is something else going on here: Phoebe has unrealistic expectations and is looking for the wrong things in a relationship. Like most women, she has been taught to expect a particular type of man by literature.  "Ganymede", Rosalind's alter ego, more closely fits that type than Silvius does. When Rosalind reveals that she is female, Phoebe realizes that what she was looking for in a man doesn't exist: but that the man who will truly make her happy is right in front of her. Silvius does in fact love her, he makes this clear by helping her to court Ganymede. He puts her wishes above his own desires, and that is what true love is. He may not be wealthy, he may not be handsome: but he will do whatever it takes to make her happy. Like many women, Phoebe has been taught that high status will make her happy. The obviously high status Ganymede, therefore attracts her attention.

It is Rosalind's task to bring the people from the court and the people from the forest together. 

However, the play does not end with her receiving a title at court. It ends with a marriage in the forest. There is no return journey here, because Rosalind cannot return. The person Rosalind is, cannot exist in the court. Nor can she, in the court, be married to Orlando. Oliver cannot return to the court either: he has changed his thinking and his behavior and is now incapable of functioning at court. Having realized how his abusive behavior harmed both himself and his brother he cannot go back to it. Even Touchstone cannot return, although he seems utterly oblivious to the evils of the court. Even he has changed, because he has come to appreciate the ways in which the forest society is honest. The Exiled Duke has no plans to return, after all the type of society he has created in the forest is still impossible in the court. The tyrant cannot simply be overthrown: the people must move from the tyrant's court into the forest. Of course: the court and the forest are states of mind, not really geographical places. In today's parlance, we might say the people need to get woke. The community in the forest will take in anyone who comes: but they cannot venture beyond the forest. The tyrannical system will remain until there aren't enough people left to prop it up.

Now, it is important to realize one thing: Rosalind's name was not chosen by accident. Nor is it an accident that this one of only two non-history plays that Shakespeare wrote, which is set in England. It is also set in a specific forest, not just the general forest of A Midsummer Night's Dream: the Forest of Arden. That is not simply a euphemism, this is a very real place near Shakespeare's childhood home in Stratford-upon-Avon. Indeed, Shakespeare's mother was Mary Arden, a descendant of the family who once owned the local manor house and the forest. But the name Rosalind refers to a person who would have been in Shakespeare's original audience: Queen Elizabeth I. The German name Rosalind means "gentle rose": Queen Elizabeth Tudor's insignia was, of course, a five-petaled rose. This is a play about the Queen. Except this monarch is only called a "Queen" in retrospect. She signed her letters Elisabetta Rex, Elizabeth the King. Until Queen Victoria: the role of the Queen was entirely separate to that of the King in English society. This goes back to the Anglo-Saxon (pre-Norman) idea of a Cyning and Cyninga: two equally important rulers with distinct roles. Elizabeth Tudor was not a Queen by the description of her own people: she was a female King. Shakespeare is walking on eggshells here, putting a blatant representation of the reigning monarch into his comedy of morals. But that is the reason that Rosalind's masculine attire and demeanor are portrayed so lovingly. Elizabeth is a woman doing a man's job, so she must look and act the part. He's making a statement about what gender means. To Shakespeare: a person's social role is not defined by their gender, their gender is defined by their social role. Perhaps a response to others who felt that 

Elizabeth would be too weak to handle power because of her femininity.

Elizabeth Tudor rewarded Shakespeare for his daring implicit support of her unconventional behavior. He became her favorite playwright, shoving out his college-educated colleagues Ben Johnson and Christopher Marlowe. Eventually she chose him to lead and write for her personal troupe. In the end, William Shakespeare, the son of a glover from sleepy Stratford-upon-Avon became a gentleman. Although never exactly rich, he was able to keep his family comfortably: and more importantly, he had a coat of arms.  Much ink has been spilled about the meteoric rise of William Shakespeare. Indeed he is the subject of one of the oldest conspiracy theories still in existence: with many people claiming that Shakespeare is not the author of the plays we attribute to him. But a more critical examination turns up a more likely truth: that Shakespeare succeeded not on wit alone, but also on the strength of ideology. The ideas he espoused were in some ways old-fashioned, hearkening back to a medieval era that was barely remembered and already romanticized. But in other ways his ideas were far ahead of his time, particularly his attitude towards women as reflected by the stories he tells about women. These attitudes however, far from getting him in trouble: helped him succeed in a country where a ruler was setting out to change notions of female leadership. 

Together, the indomitable Virgin Queen and the mischievous playwright redefined the idea of female leadership, and indeed the idea of what it meant to be a woman. Shakespeare wrote in the 1600s, only a half-century after Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for the sin of dressing like a man. Granted, in her case, this was simply an excuse (the real "crime" was supporting the French King): but it is still telling that it was considered a valid excuse. In that context, Shakespeare's characterization of Rosalind which seems so tame to a modern audience is incredibly radical. It is of course a blow softened by the fact that a boy is playing Rosalind: and so you have the hilarity of man playing a woman pretending to be a man. Still, we have a cross-dressing woman as the hero of our story. Indeed she isn't just a cross-dressing woman, she's a sexually (or at least romantically) deviant woman. It doesn't get less subtle than "close beyond the natural bond of sisters" for circumlocutions: it's a stretch to even call that a euphemism.  Rosalind's actions towards Orlando are not precisely what one would call loving, but may indicate genuine desire. However, it is certain that Celia shows no sign of desire or love towards Oliver (beyond simply not disliking him). Thus, what I said at the beginning: our heroines are a butch bisexual and a femme lesbian, in today's terminology. It seems more than a little probable that Orlando and Oliver are basically beards for Rosalind and Celia.

Long before the novelists of the 19th century popularized stories of quasi-romantic friendships between preteen girls: Shakespeare gave us the words to speak about such relationships, to speak about women behaving in unfeminine ways, and to speak about women taking the lead whether in a romantic or political relationship. After all, the two overlap more than people usually admit (a "marriage of convenience" usually denotes a political alliance not an actual marriage for example). Indeed, while this kind of relationship was common in English literature in the 19th century: it was generally not found in the same period in works produced in other languages. The notable exception of course being Russian works, understandable given Russia's almost totally distinct history vis a vis western Europe.  It would take until the 1920s for German and French writers to start talking about such relationships in books and plays. It was largely Shakespeare who allowed that to happen by creating literature that simply could not be ignored and could not really be censored either. While the relationship can of course be downplayed by cutting certain lines: it is not possible to truly remove the homoerotic content. As You Like It was too popular and had too much merit to be shunted aside even to please the morality police. Besides, they were too busy laughing their silk stockings off.

Tirion Fordring-Writing Neutral Characters

World of Warcraft is a game defined by factions with different philosophies, and various reasons for existing. It is a world in constant turmoil, with different people all struggling to get what they want or need. There are the two player factions, the Horde and the Alliance. There are others too. There was one character who was almost universally revered by all living things. He wasn't some kind of superhero, or all-powerful overlord. He was a simple old man. Tirion Fordring.

Well, perhaps not so simple. Tirion was a man, committed first and foremost to principles. His principles were hardly unusual, they were the standard teachings of the Church of the Light (a fictional religion followed by the humans in Warcraft).  He was a paladin, a warrior of the church, so this makes sense. But the Church was a part of human society, and human society was firmly connected to the Alliance. It was the humans after all who had first been threatened by the invading orcs.  Indeed it was in the wars against the orcs that the first human paladins came to be. But in the aftermath of the two wars against the orcs, a decision was made that did not sit well with some in the church. The defeated orcs were put into internment camps, which later devolved into outright slavery. The humans were increasingly brutal and savage to their captives. Tirion was one of those who was dissatisfied. When he saw an orc named Eitrigg who was about to be executed for participating in a rebellion, he intervened and saved the orc's life: risking his own. Lord Uther, the leader of the paladin order, ostracized him and conducted a ritual to try to cut him off from the Light. The Alliance leaders also considered his actions criminal. Tirion fled his manor, Mardenholde, and barely escaped with his life. He hid in the mountains south of Quel'thalas, perhaps with the help of the elves or the trolls, for many years.

Even though this area was dangerous, he braved it: so he could be near his son Thaelan. As he watched Thaelan however, he began to realize something was wrong with the Scarlet Crusade: an Alliance organization founded amid the third war (the events of Warcraft III) of which Thaelan was a high-ranking member. In particular he began to notice that there was something disturbing about the relationship between Thaelan and his superior in the organization: High Inquisitor Isilien. Isilien seemed to increasingly control Thaelan, and was forcing him to commit acts that were increasingly brutal. Eventually he learned that the Argent Dawn had hired a team of adventurers (the players of World of Warcraft), to help them deal with the Scourge forces that remained in what was now called the Plaguelands. He left clues to where he was hiding, hoping one of them would find him. It was time to confront Isilien and find out what was really going on in the Scarlet Crusade. One of the adventurers found him, and agreed to go with him to confront High Inquisitor Isilien.  They confronted the Inquisitor and Thaelan at a tower near Mardenholde. In the ensuing argument, Thaelan started to rebel against Isilien. Rather than see Thaelan be turned against him, Isilien pushed him from the tower killing him.  Tirion went into a rage and killed Isilien. In his rage, he reconnected to the Light despite Lord Uther's ritual.

The Scarlet Crusade had enemies: and taking out the High Inquisitor was a blow to them. Darion Mograine, leader of the Argent Dawn, was one enemy of the Scarlet Crusade.  He had once been a high-ranking member of the organization himself: in fact at the very highest rank. His father, Alexandros Mograine, was the founder. But Darion, because he was so close to the top, had seen what was wrong much more easily. He had seen it take hold of his own brother and lead him to betraying their father. It was evil, insidious, and not from the world of Azeroth: it was the Legion. The Legion which had created the Scourge: the enemy that the Scarlet Crusade had been created to fight. Now Tirion and Darion were kindred spirits: having both lost loved ones to the evil that was eating the Crusade. Somehow Darion found Lord Uther's armor, and now he gave it to Tirion as a way to show that all was forgiven. Darion was subsequently killed.

In his absence, Tirion was the obvious choice to lead the Argent Dawn. In the mean time, the elves of Quel'thalas had joined the Horde: having been insulted and abandoned in their time of need by the Alliance. Many elves had been members of the Argent Dawn before this decision, and Tirion decided to let them stay. But more than that, members of the Scourge were starting to free themselves from the Lich King's control: and they had banded together as the Forsaken, and also joined the Horde because the Alliance wanted to kill them all. Some of these were priests, and they learned how to wield the Light despite their undead state. These were people that Tirion and the others had known in life: who were committed to fighting the Scourge now more than ever thanks to their treatment at the Lich King's hands. Tirion made the controversial choice to let them into the Argent Dawn. The Argent Dawn was no longer an Alliance organization. Furthermore, even the most distrustful among them could see the point in working with the Horde as well as the Alliance to take down the Lich King.  After all, the Horde had reason to hate the Lich King as well. Tirion signed a pact with the leaders of the Horde recognizing the Forsaken's right to the land. He promised he would not aid Alliance forces that were attempting to claim the area. This made sense, the Forsaken were citizens of the former Lordaeron just like Tirion was. It was in his interest to recognize their right to the land so that they would recognize his right to Mardenholde. Which they did. With that however, Tirion had made the Argent Dawn officially a neutral player on the political stage. Darion Mograine had hired mercenaries regardless of race: but Tirion would accept full members from both factions. He later renamed the group to the "Argent Crusade".

Thus the stage was set for Tirion to take a peculiar place in the Warcraft story: a place set above the faction conflict, and blurring the line between character and force of nature. You see, Darion was killed, but death in Warcraft is not always the end of a person's story.  Under the control of the Lich King, Darion Mograine assaulted the last stronghold of the Argent Dawn: Light's Hope Chapel. However, having become a paladin after the end of the Third War: Darion lacked essential knowledge of this place. It was here that the Paladins of the Silver Hand had once been invested, before an ancient artifact. It was this artifact, called the Altar of Ancient Kings, which had so far kept the Scourge at bay. Now, the Death Knights of the Ebon Blade, tried to assault it. They failed. The weapon that Darion wielded, the Ashbringer, responded to the power inside the Altar. It turned on him, and without it he could not fight well. He halted the assault, and knelt before Tirion. An image of the Lich King appeared, to cast a very real spell that might have ended it all. However, the Lich King was distracted and in that moment of distraction: Darion was free to act completely on his own. He seized his chance and threw the Ashbringer to Tirion. Tirion channeled the power of the Altar through his body and into the blade: purifying it and making it a weapon of the Light. This was a feat which had been thought impossible, the Altar was not designed to be used by humans or even elves. It had been designed for the Titanforged, the creatures created from stone and metal by the Titans.  But in a crucial way, Tirion had become like them: his motives were pure, and his will was iron. Tirion had no wish to destroy Darion, they were friends and kindred spirits. Darion had valuable skills and knowledge, passed down to him by his father. It was hardly his fault he'd been pressed into the service of the Scourge. The powers of the death knights were valuable too, Tirion had fought against them in the First and Second wars. So, when Darion declared his intention to destroy the Lich King, Tirion accepted him as a partner.

The assault on the Lich King took place soon after. Here Tirion played a crucial role: breaking Frostmourne with the purified Ashbringer. And so, it was done. The Lich King was defeated, and the Scourge destroyed. But there was no turning back for Tirion. He could not simply return to the Alliance, as if nothing had happened. Now he stood between two factions on the brink of war, between two leaders whose hearts boiled with hatred for each other.

And in this position, Tirion could exert a unique power on both the Alliance and the Horde. He represented a constant reminder of what the two factions shared: even after the defeat of their common enemy. Not enough of an influence to stop the two factions from going to war, or even to stop atrocities from being committed in that war. But enough of an influence so that the factions could make peace when the need arose.  So that, for the first time in Azeroth's history, a war criminal could be tried in court rather than simply hunted down and slaughtered. So that the cycle of reprisal and aggression could be ended, even if it was doomed to begin anew immediately. Tirion didn't have to do anything in particular to make this happen, except continue to be present and run the Argent Crusade. This was not the first neutral faction: indeed there were many in the world. But none of them were lead by someone so revered by the leaders of both factions. Tirion exerted this influence because of his dedication to his own principles above loyalty to any faction or nation: changing the world not by using force or strong language, but simply by refusing to change his behavior to fit popular notions of propriety. We typically think of neutral characters as being weak-willed or uninterested, perhaps mercenary types. But Tirion represents a different kind of neutral character, a kind of character who can have a profound influence on the plot of a story: a character who is principled and engaged with the world in a meaningful way, but marching to the beat of a different drummer.

Turalyon & Alleria: Growing Apart Together

It started as so many romances do, with a war. Alleria Windrunner, Ranger General of Quel'thalas answered the call from the Kingdom's human allies to provide troops to fight the Horde. Turalyon was the youngest member of the brand new Order of the Silver Hand. In the First War, the Alliance  had been badly beaten by the Horde: the city of Stormwind had been burned, and the survivors fled north to Lordaeron. The government in exile of Stormwind, was technically headed by seven year old Varian Wrynn. In reality though, it was the knight Anduin Lothar who had shouldered the burden of leadership and he was determined to get revenge. So, he started another war.

This is how Turalyon met Lothar, and Lothar took an interest in the young paladin. Turalyon reminded him of himself when he was younger and less experienced: so Lothar figured that with a little experience he could make a good successor. Lothar had no sons, or at least none that he knew of. The first war with the Horde had distracted him from finding a wife, not that he was the sort of man who would have ever settled down with a single woman. In that way, Turalyon was different. The other way that Turalyon was different was his commitment to the Church of the Light's doctrine. One of the doctrines of the church, was that the Light shone on all creatures. Turalyon reasoned, that ought to include orcs. They might be political opponents, but why should the Light take sides in a war between mere mortals? His doubts made him unable to use the Light well, at least in an offensive manner. Unlike many of the other soldiers, Turalyon couldn't bring himself to hate the orcs although he would acknowledge they were distasteful and strange.

Alleria was the first to learn to hate the orcs. Partway through the war, they snuck around the Alliance army and struck a deal with the age-old enemy of the elves, the Amani trolls. They killed her father and brother, and many other elves. They broke one of the Runestones which kept Quel'thalas safe. Although this event caused King Anasterian to give Alleria more troops, it was hardly enough to make up for the harm they had caused. She slaughtered hundreds of orcs and trolls by herself, and pushed the rest into traps laid by her sister Sylvanas and the Rangers. When she could find no more enemies, she finally allowed herself to grieve. In her misery she wandered without thought, and her body took her to Turalyon's tent. He cared for her, and shared in her pain. That was when she truly started to notice him: his calm demeanor, his caring heart, and his good looks.

Not long after, Lothar and Turalyon were fighting side-by-side. Lothar faced off against none other than the Warchief, the leader, of the Horde: the one they called Blackhand. He was big and strong and a good fighter, and he overwhelmed Lothar. He struck Lothar down and broke his massive sword as if it were a twig. Turalyon had just finished healing a comrade, and turned to see his friend dead. It was at that moment that he realized: it wasn't necessary to hate the enemy, it was enough to love his comrades. The Light came to the aid of the paladins because they loved the Alliance, not because they hated the Horde. He flew into a rage, and the Light came to him as it never had before. Wings like an eagle's made of golden light appeared on his back and turned his brown eyes golden, and with Lothar's broken blade he struck down Blackhand. The Horde lines collapsed, and the Alliance army routed them. Those who surrendered, they put in internment camps. Those who did not surrender remained hunted. The whole of the Alliance army saw Turalyon's fury, including Alleria. Alleria looked on it with joy. Turalyon formed the Sons of Lothar, a group dedicated to exacting revenge for Lothar's death. Alleria volunteered, so did Kurdran Wildhammer, Lord Danath Trollbane, and Khadgar the wizard. They made preparations to go through the Dark Portal to the world of the orcs.

Meanwhile, Alleria finally confessed her feelings to Turalyon. She had realized on that night when she went to him for comfort, that he was utterly awestruck by her. This was not surprising of course. Like all elves she was beautiful, graceful, and had the wisdom of a long life. But when he replied she learned that it was not simply those qualities which had attracted his attention. She had shown up to support the Alliance, even when the rest of her people were reluctant. That showed commitment and generosity that were unusual for her kind. He valued those qualities far more than an elf would have. It was not long before they no longer had words to express their desire for each other. Not long before Turalyon gave himself to her, and she carried a half-elven child in her womb. It was also not long before they needed to leave to go through the Dark Portal. They waited until the child was born, knowing that the homeland of the orcs was no place for a child. They named her son Arator, and left him in the care of Alleria's sister Vereesa. Then they went through the portal and were greeted with a world on the brink of death. The only thing to do was jump through one of the other portals and hope it didn't lead to a Legion prison planet. Alleria and Turalyon watched as Draenor exploded on the other side of the portal. But the Draenor they were standing on remained. They had found an alternate timeline.

Alleria and Turalyon received a visit from X'era, the Prime Naaru. She told them of her plan to destroy the Burning Legion and they agreed to help her. Turalyon even agreed to become Lightforged through a holy ritual. This would grant him even greater power, power he would need in order to command the older and abler Draenei (fantasy race of blue goat people, no nobody knows what Blizzard were smoking). That was why X'era had chosen him, he had the ability to command well.  Alleria did not agree to become Lightforged, preferring to rely on her bow and her own skills. This was fine, her skills never failed her. She was perfectly able to support Turalyon and the Army of the Light as they became known. She certainly had no trouble taking down the demons that made up the Burning Legion. From their own perspective, Turalyon and Alleria fought the Legion for a thousand years (time-travel shenanigans happened). Turalyon's transformation into a Lightforged made him as immortal as his wife, able to be killed with weapons but not by old age. They began to stop counting the years.

Then Alleria had some encounters with the void, an enemy of the Light or so it was claimed. X'era got mad at her, imposing penalties on her as she began to experiment with the void. Alleria did not understand why, and X'era's explanations made no sense. Turalyon didn't quite know why either, but he trusted X'era's judgement more than Alleria did. Things came to a head when Alleria used void powers under the instruction of an ethereal.  X'era locked her in the ship's prison. Turalyon however, did not get mad at her and begged X'era for her release. His practical command instincts kicked in, and prevented him from being as blind as X'era. He saw the use of these powers, the ways in which they covered the weaknesses of the Light. He supported Alleria in her quest to learn more about the void, even as he cautioned her to be careful of her sanity. Eventually Alleria learned how to anchor herself so that the void could not take over her mind: her love for her son Arator allowed her to see what visions were real and which were fake. Even though he could no longer touch her without agonizing pain, Turalyon still loved her. She did grow in her void powers, eventually absorbing the power of a dying Naaru which had gone dark in it's torment. Yet even as she heard the whispers of the void, her heart remained true to her shining husband and beloved son. She saw Arator again, when the heroes of Azeroth finally came to defeat the Legion once and for all. He challenged her decision to leave him, but was willing to reconnect with her. He had grown into a great paladin, with the help of the Highlord of the Silver Hand (the paladin player). Together, Turalyon and Alleria led the charge to defeat the Legion: and Alleria started to fight to keep the void in check as well.

Together, they rejoined the Alliance: as the leaders of two different racial factions. Turalyon leads his fellow Lightforged, even though they are mostly draenei while he is a human. He has largely left behind the man he was during the Second War, and identifies himself more strongly with these people now: besides which they need his leadership, he's the only leader they have ever known. Alleria leads a group of Thalassian elves dissatisfied with the current leadership and their peoples' superstitions about the void. Alleria's reputation allows them to be brought into the Alliance, which otherwise would not have accepted them as members because of their connection to a Horde society. The idea of this power couple ever divorcing is ludicrous: it's not even clear that divorce is possible under the laws of the Alliance. Yet they have grown apart. They have taken their own paths towards different destinies: becoming father and mother to different nations, and embracing what seem to be opposing cosmic forces.

This is not something I ever remember seeing in a story before. Indeed it is an idea that our society still finds very hard to accept: the idea that a woman and a man can have totally distinct passions and still be happily married. The idea that you can sacrifice your own comfort or pleasure, to allow someone you love to pursue their passion when you don't share that passion. Turalyon is content with the Light, and his relationship to it. Yet he sacrifices the pleasure of physical intimacy, no small thing, for her advancement. He does not share her interest in the void, but he loves her. What does that mean? it means he wants her to succeed: regardless of her chosen path. It means he puts her happiness over his own, regardless of what she defines as happiness. That is what love is.

Indeed the lore and mechanics of the game question the very dichotomy our culture likes to set up in these cases. We ask the woman in a marriage to sacrifice for her man: to move to better accommodate his job, to cut her hours to provide childcare while he spends the time advancing himself, to see to the household's food even when he's the one who drives by the store on the way home. Yet, society in no way advances a woman who does this. Quite aside from feminists getting angry at her (which is a whole different topic), this woman doesn't really receive the honor she should get from her husband or society at large. If a man does the same thing, society is even harsher: ostracizing and bullying him endlessly. But for Turalyon, his sacrifice is actively empowering. His will to sacrifice for those he loves, whether Alleria, the Alliance, his son, or the Lightforged, is what enables him to use the Light in the first place. X'era's disagreement notwithstanding, for Turalyon supporting Alleria is as much a part of his chosen path as fighting the Legion. Love leads people to be willing to sacrifice for each other. There is nothing wrong with that. One might even say, that's the point. People who are willing to make sacrifices out of love should be advanced by society. Otherwise we have a society that teaches people not to love.