Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts

Tuesday 5 April 2022

The Clown at Midnight

Well, most kind... 
Parting is such sweet sorrow. 
Captain, have we not heard 
The Chimes at Midnight...?


General Chang
Makes a Fool 
of Captain Kirk 

The Clown at Midnight is Hamlet 
because The Mousetrap is exactly 
in The Middle of The Play.
It's a Play within The Play -
- a False Reality -
- a bad JOKE.

Hamlet is The Clown at Midnight 
because he should KNOW (He DOES know) 
that The Ghost/Hurt up on The Ramparts 
of Arkham/Elsinore is NOT His Father, 
because His Father is DEAD and at Peace --
So His Father would never tell him 
to commit Murder to avenge His Death, 
because His Father would NOT be in HELL 
(as The Ghost claims that it is, because King Hamlet was murdered), 
because he KNOWS that Evil Spirits take on the form, face and voice of Friends and Loved Ones to get The Living to Damn their own souls to Hell, and because he knows that he shouldn't accept what The Spirit tells him to do, just because he WANTS to believe that it is True. 

But he DOES, anyway, even though 
he KNOWS -
- by virtue of Reason -
-that it's a Lie.


Paul Scofield in Hamlet (1990) - Ghost Scene



Wednesday 30 March 2022

Monday 28 February 2022

Special Military Operation in Ukraine




Vladimir Putin announces Special Military Operation in Ukraine

In a televised address on Thursday, 24 February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he was launching a “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine to protect people who have been facing “humiliation and genocide” perpetrated by the Kiev regime:

"Citizens of Russia, friends,

"I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

"I will begin with what I said in my address on 21 February 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

"It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

"Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?

"The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world.

"As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

"What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.

"Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead, we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a different turn.

"There are many examples of this. First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.

"Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of international terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian catastrophe, into the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there for years. The tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands and even millions of people not only in Libya but in the whole region, has led to a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.

"A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined as aggression and intervention.

"But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course, the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white power, publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international community that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq. It later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true. We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.

"Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law.

"This array includes promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an inch. 

To reiterate: they have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they have played us. Sure, one often hears that politics is a dirty business. It could be, but it shouldn’t be as dirty as it is now, not to such an extent. This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

"Incidentally, US politicians, political scientists and journalists write and say that a veritable “empire of lies” has been created inside the United States in recent years. It is hard to disagree with this – it is really so. But one should not be modest about it: the United States is still a great country and a system-forming power. All its satellites not only humbly and obediently say yes to and parrot it at the slightest pretext but also imitate its behaviour and enthusiastically accept the rules it is offering them. Therefore, one can say with good reason and confidence that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

"As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember this and will never forget.

"Properly speaking, the attempts to use us in their own interests never ceased until quite recently: they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen. No one has ever succeeded in doing this, nor will they succeed now.

"Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests.

"Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.

"As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on 22 June 1941, without declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.

"Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy. They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this way. It is true that they have considerable financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities. We are aware of this and have an objective view of the economic threats we have been hearing, just as our ability to counter this brash and never-ending blackmail. Let me reiterate that we have no illusions in this regard and are extremely realistic in our assessments.

"As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.

"At the same time, technology, including in the defence sector, is changing rapidly. One day there is one leader, and tomorrow another, but a military presence in territories bordering on Russia, if we permit it to go ahead, will stay for decades to come or maybe forever, creating an ever mounting and totally unacceptable threat for Russia.

"Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us.

"Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.

"For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

"This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

"As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

"I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

"They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions.

"If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen.

"I have already said that Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality after the dissolution of the USSR. We have been treating all new post-Soviet states with respect and will continue to act this way. We respect and will respect their sovereignty, as proven by the assistance we provided to Kazakhstan when it faced tragic events and a challenge in terms of its statehood and integrity. However, Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.

"Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other choice.

"The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.
"In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on 22 February 2022, I made a decision to carry out a Special Military Operation.

"The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

"It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime. How can we respond to that?

"The outcomes of World War II and the sacrifices our people had to make to defeat Nazism are sacred. This does not contradict the high values of human rights and freedoms in the reality that emerged over the post-war decades. This does not mean that nations cannot enjoy the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

"Let me remind you that the people living in territories which are part of today’s Ukraine were not asked how they want to build their lives when the USSR was created or after World War II. Freedom guides our policy, the freedom to choose independently our future and the future of our children. We believe that all the peoples living in today’s Ukraine, anyone who want to do this, must be able to enjoy this right to make a free choice.

"In this context I would like to address the citizens of Ukraine. In 2014, Russia was obliged to protect the people of Crimea and Sevastopol from those who you yourself call “nats.” The people of Crimea and Sevastopol made their choice in favour of being with their historical homeland, Russia, and we supported their choice. As I said, we could not act otherwise.

"The current events have nothing to do with a desire to infringe on the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. They are connected with the defending Russia from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are trying to use it against our country and our people.
"I reiterate: we are acting to defend ourselves from the threats created for us and from a worse peril than what is happening now. I am asking you, however hard this may be, to understand this and to work together with us so as to turn this tragic page as soon as possible and to move forward together, without allowing anyone to interfere in our affairs and our relations but developing them independently, so as to create favourable conditions for overcoming all these problems and to strengthen us from within as a single whole, despite the existence of state borders. I believe in this, in our common future.

"I would also like to address the military personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

"Comrade officers,
"Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people.

"I urge you to refuse to carry out their criminal orders. I urge you to immediately lay down arms and go home. I will explain what this means: the military personnel of the Ukrainian army who do this will be able to freely leave the zone of hostilities and return to their families.

"I want to emphasise again that all responsibility for the possible bloodshed will lie fully and wholly with the ruling Ukrainian regime.

“Whoever would try to stop us and further create threats to our country, to our people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and lead you to such consequences that you have never faced in your history. We are ready for ANY outcome."

Sunday 13 February 2022

Mary




True Things are in Highlighted in Green.

Lies, fibs, spurious Bad-Faith or illegitimate claims, statements or assertions are here-given, presented in RED.




FRANKENSTEIN:

OR,

THE MODERN PROMETHEUS.

BY MARY W. SHELLEY.

AUTHOR OF THE LAST MAN, PERKIN WARBECK, &c. &c.

[Transcriber's Note: This text was produced from a photo-reprint of the 1831 edition.]

REVISED, CORRECTED,
AND ILLUSTRATED WITH A NEW INTRODUCTION,
BY THE AUTHOR.

LONDON:
HENRY COLBURN AND RICHARD BENTLEY,
NEW BURLINGTON STREET:
BELL AND BRADFUTE, EDINBURGH;
AND CUMMING, DUBLIN.
1831.


INTRODUCTION.

The Publishers of the Standard Novels, in selecting "Frankenstein" for one of their series, expressed a wish that I should furnish them with some account of the origin of the story. I am the more willing to comply, because I shall thus give a general answer to the question, so very frequently asked me — "How I, when a young girl, came to think of, and to dilate upon, so very hideous an idea?" It is true that I am very averse to bringing myself forward in print; but as my account will only appear as an appendage to a former production, and as it will be confined to such topics as have connection with my authorship alone, I can scarcely accuse myself of a personal intrusion.

It is not singular that, as the daughter of two persons of distinguished literary celebrity, I should very early in life have thought of writing. As a child I scribbled; and my favourite pastime, during the hours given me for recreation, was to "write stories." Still I had a dearer pleasure than this, which was the formation of castles in the air—the indulging in waking dreams—the following up trains of thought, which had for their subject the formation of a succession of imaginary incidents. My dreams were at once more fantastic and agreeable than my writings. In the latter I was a close imitator—rather doing as others had done, than putting down the suggestions of my own mind. What I wrote was intended at least for one other eye—my childhood's companion and friend; but my dreams were all my own; I accounted for them to nobody; they were my refuge when annoyed—my dearest pleasure when free.

I lived principally in the country as a girl, and passed a considerable time in Scotland. I made occasional visits to the more picturesque parts; but my habitual residence was on the blank and dreary northern shores of the Tay, near Dundee. Blank and dreary on retrospection I call them; they were not so to me then. They were the eyry of freedom, and the pleasant region where unheeded I could commune with the creatures of my fancy. I wrote then—but in a most common-place style. It was beneath the trees of the grounds belonging to our house, or on the bleak sides of the woodless mountains near, that my true compositions, the airy flights of my imagination, were born and fostered. I did not make myself the heroine of my tales. Life appeared to me too common-place an affair as regarded myself. I could not figure to myself that romantic woes or wonderful events would ever be my lot; but I was not confined to my own identity, and I could people the hours with creations far more interesting to me at that age, than my own sensations.

After this my life became busier, and reality stood in place of fiction. My husband, however, was from the first, very anxious that I should prove myself worthy of my parentage, and enrol myself on the page of fame. He was for ever inciting me to obtain literary reputation, which even on my own part I cared for then, though since I have become infinitely indifferent to it. At this time he desired that I should write, not so much with the idea that I could produce any thing worthy of notice, but that he might himself judge how far I possessed the promise of better things hereafter. Still I did nothing. Travelling, and the cares of a family, occupied my time; and study, in the way of reading, or improving my ideas in communication with his far more cultivated mind, was all of literary employment that engaged my attention.

In the summer of 1816, we visited Switzerland, and became the neighbours of Lord Byron. At first we spent our pleasant hours on the lake, or wandering on its shores; and Lord Byron, who was writing the third canto of Childe Harold, was the only one among us who put his thoughts upon paper. These, as he brought them successively to us, clothed in all the light and harmony of poetry, seemed to stamp as divine the glories of heaven and earth, whose influences we partook with him.

But it proved a wet, ungenial summer, and incessant rain often confined us for days to the house. Some volumes of ghost stories, translated from the German into French, fell into our hands. There was the History of the Inconstant Lover, who, when he thought to clasp the bride to whom he had pledged his vows, found himself in the arms of the pale ghost of her whom he had deserted. There was the tale of the sinful founder of his race, whose miserable doom it was to bestow the kiss of death on all the younger sons of his fated house, just when they reached the age of promise. His gigantic, shadowy form, clothed like the ghost in Hamlet, in complete armour, but with the beaver up, was seen at midnight, by the moon's fitful beams, to advance slowly along the gloomy avenue. The shape was lost beneath the shadow of the castle walls; but soon a gate swung back, a step was heard, the door of the chamber opened, and he advanced to the couch of the blooming youths, cradled in healthy sleep. Eternal sorrow sat upon his face as he bent down and kissed the forehead of the boys, who from that hour withered like flowers snapt upon the stalk. I have not seen these stories since then; but their incidents are as fresh in my mind as if I had read them yesterday.

"We will each write a ghost story," said Lord Byron; and his proposition was acceded to. There were four of us. The noble author began a tale, a fragment of which he printed at the end of his poem of Mazeppa. Shelley, more apt to embody ideas and sentiments in the radiance of brilliant imagery, and in the music of the most melodious verse that adorns our language, than to invent the machinery of a story, commenced one founded on the experiences of his early life. Poor Polidori had some terrible idea about a skull-headed lady, who was so punished for peeping through a key-hole—what to see I forget—something very shocking and wrong of course; but when she was reduced to a worse condition than the renowned Tom of Coventry, he did not know what to do with her, and was obliged to despatch her to the tomb of the Capulets, the only place for which she was fitted. The illustrious poets also, annoyed by the platitude of prose, speedily relinquished their uncongenial task.

I busied myself to think of a story,—a story to rival those which had excited us to this task. One which would speak to the mysterious fears of our nature, and awaken thrilling horror—one to make the reader dread to look round, to curdle the blood, and quicken the beatings of the heart. If I did not accomplish these things, my ghost story would be unworthy of its name. I thought and pondered—vainly. I felt that blank incapability of invention which is the greatest misery of authorship, when dull Nothing replies to our anxious invocations. Have you thought of a story? I was asked each morning, and each morning I was forced to reply with a mortifying negative.

Every thing must have a beginning, to speak in Sanchean phrase; and that beginning must be linked to something that went before. The Hindoos give the world an elephant to support it, but they make the elephant stand upon a tortoise. Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void, but out of chaos; the materials must, in the first place, be afforded: it can give form to dark, shapeless substances, but cannot bring into being the substance itself. In all matters of discovery and invention, even of those that appertain to the imagination, we are continually reminded of the story of Columbus and his egg. Invention consists in the capacity of seizing on the capabilities of a subject, and in the power of moulding and fashioning ideas suggested to it.

Many and long were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley, to which I was a devout but nearly silent listener. During one of these, various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among others the nature of the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered and communicated. They talked of the experiments of Dr. Darwin, (I speak not of what the Doctor really did, or said that he did, but, as more to my purpose, of what was then spoken of as having been done by him,) who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion. Not thus, after all, would life be given. Perhaps a corpse would be re-animated; galvanism had given token of such things: perhaps the component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together, and endued with vital warmth.

Night waned upon this talk, and even the witching hour had gone by, before we retired to rest. When I placed my head on my pillow, I did not sleep, nor could I be said to think. My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie. I saw—with shut eyes, but acute mental vision,—I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. His success would terrify the artist; he would rush away from his odious handywork, horror-stricken. He would hope that, left to itself, the slight spark of life which he had communicated would fade; that this thing, which had received such imperfect animation, would subside into dead matter; and he might sleep in the belief that the silence of the grave would quench for ever the transient existence of the hideous corpse which he had looked upon as the cradle of life. He sleeps; but he is awakened; he opens his eyes; behold the horrid thing stands at his bedside, opening his curtains, and looking on him with yellow, watery, but speculative eyes.

I opened mine in terror. The idea so possessed my mind, that a thrill of fear ran through me, and I wished to exchange the ghastly image of my fancy for the realities around. I see them still; the very room, the dark parquet, the closed shutters, with the moonlight struggling through, and the sense I had that the glassy lake and white high Alps were beyond. I could not so easily get rid of my hideous phantom; still it haunted me. I must try to think of something else. I recurred to my ghost story,—my tiresome unlucky ghost story! O! if I could only contrive one which would frighten my reader as I myself had been frightened that night!

Swift as light and as cheering was the idea that broke in upon me. "I have found it! What terrified me will terrify others; and I need only describe the spectre which had haunted my midnight pillow." On the morrow I announced that I had thought of a story. I began that day with the words, It was on a dreary night of November, making only a transcript of the grim terrors of my waking dream.

At first I thought but of a few pages—of a short tale; but Shelley urged me to develope the idea at greater length. I certainly did not owe the suggestion of one incident, nor scarcely of one train of feeling, to my husband, and yet but for his incitement, it would never have taken the form in which it was presented to the world. From this declaration I must except the preface. As far as I can recollect, it was entirely written by him.

And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper. I have an affection for it, for it was the offspring of happy days, when death and grief were but words, which found no true echo in my heart. Its several pages speak of many a walk, many a drive, and many a conversation, when I was not alone; and my companion was one who, in this world, I shall never see more. But this is for myself; my readers have nothing to do with these associations.

I will add but one word as to the alterations I have made. They are principally those of style. I have changed no portion of the story, nor introduced any new ideas or circumstances. I have mended the language where it was so bald as to interfere with the interest of the narrative; and these changes occur almost exclusively in the beginning of the first volume. Throughout they are entirely confined to such parts as are mere adjuncts to the story, leaving the core and substance of it untouched.

M. W. S.

London, October 15, 1831.







The act of writing this novella distracted Mary Shelley from her grief after the deaths of her one-year-old daughter Clara at Venice in September 1818 and her three-year-old son William in June 1819 in Rome.3 These losses plunged Mary Shelley into a depression that distanced her emotionally and sexually from Percy Shelley and left her, as he put it, “on the hearth of pale despair”.

Narrating from her deathbed, Mathilda, a young woman barely in her twenties, writes her story as a way of explaining her actions to her friend, Woodville. Her narration follows her lonely upbringing and climaxes at a point when her unnamed father confesses his incestuous love for her. This is then followed by his suicide by drowning and her ultimate demise; her relationship with the gifted young poet, Woodville, fails to reverse Matilda’s emotional withdrawal or prevent her lonely death.
The novella begins with readers becoming aware that this story is being narrated in the first person, by Mathilda, and that this narration is meant for a specific audience in answer to a question asked prior to the novella’s beginning: “You have often asked me the cause of my solitary life; my tears; and above all of my impenetrable and unkind silence.” Readers quickly learn that Mathilda is on her deathbed and this is the only reason she is exposing what seems to be a dark secret.

Mathilda’s narrative first explores the relationship between her mother and father, and how they knew each other growing up. Mathilda’s mother, Diana, and her father were childhood friends; Mathilda’s father found solace in Diana after the death of his own mother and the two married not long after. Mathilda, as narrator, notes that Diana changed Mathilda’s father making him more tender and less fickle. However, Mathilda was born a little more than a year after their marriage and Diana died a few days after her birth, causing her father to sink into a deep depression. His sister, Mathilda’s aunt, came to England to stay with them and help care for Mathilda, but Mathilda’s father, unable to even look at his daughter, left about a month after his wife’s death and Mathilda was raised by her aunt.

Mathilda tells Woodville that her upbringing, while cold on the part of her aunt, was never neglectful; she learned to occupy her time with books and jaunts around her aunt’s estate in Loch Lomond, Scotland. On Mathilda’s sixteenth birthday her aunt received a letter from Mathilda’s father expressing his desire to see his daughter. Mathilda describes their first three months in each other’s company as being blissful, but this ended first when Mathilda’s aunt dies and then, after the two return to London, upon Mathilda’s father’s expression of his love for her.

Leading up to the moment of revelation, Mathilda was courted by suitors which, she noticed, drew dark moods from her father. This darkness ensued causing Mathilda to plot a way of bringing back the father she once knew. She asked him to accompany her on a walk through the woods that surrounded them and, on this walk, she expressed her concerns and her wishes to restore their relationship. Her father accused her of being “presumptuous and very rash.”

However, this did not stop her and he eventually confessed his incestuous desire regarding her. Mathilda’s father fainted and she retreated back to their home. Her father left her a note the next morning explaining that he would leave her and she understood that his actual intent was to commit suicide. Mathilda followed him, but was too late to stop him from drowning himself.

For some time after his death, Mathilda returned to society as she became sick in her attempts to stop her father. She realized, though, that she could not remain in this society and she faked her own death to ensure that no one would come looking for her. Mathilda re-established herself in a solitary house in the heath. She has a maid who came to care for the house every few days, but other than that she had no human interaction until Woodville also established residence in the heath about two years after she chose to reside there.

Woodville was mourning the loss of his betrothed, Elinor, and a poet. He and Mathilda struck a friendship; Woodville often asked Mathilda why she never smiled but she would not go into much detail regarding this. One day, Mathilda suggested to Woodville that they end their mutual sorrows together and commit suicide. Woodville talked Mathilda out of this decision, but soon after had to leave the heath to care for his ailing mother. Mathilda contemplates her future after his departure, and while walking through the heath, gets lost and ends up sleeping outside for a night. It rains while she sleeps outside and, after she makes her way back to her home, she becomes extremely sick.

It is in this state that Mathilda decides to write out her story to Woodville as a way of explaining to him her darker countenance, even though she recognizes that she does not have much longer to live.

Criticism
Commentators have often read the text as autobiographical, with the three central characters standing for Mary Shelley, William Godwin (her father), and Percy Shelley (her husband). There is no firm evidence, however, that the storyline itself is autobiographical.8 Analysis of Mathilda’s first draft, titled “The Fields of Fancy”, reveals that Mary Shelley took as her starting point Mary Wollstonecraft’s unfinished “The Cave of Fancy”, in which a small girl’s mother dies in a shipwreck. Like Mary Shelley herself, Mathilda idealises her lost mother.

According to editor Janet Todd, the absence of the mother from the last pages of the novella suggests that Mathilda’s death renders her one with her mother, enabling a union with the dead father.

Critic Pamela Clemit resists a purely autobiographical reading and argues that Mathilda is an artfully crafted novella, deploying confessional and unreliable narrations in the style of her father, as well as the device of the pursuit used by Godwin in his Caleb Williams and by Mary Shelley in Frankenstein.

The novella’s 1959 editor, Elizabeth Nitchie, noted its faults of “verbosity, loose plotting, somewhat stereotyped and extravagant characterization” but praised a “feeling for character and situation and phrasing that is often vigorous and precise”.

The story may be seen as a metaphor for what happens when a woman, ignorant of all consequences, follows her own heart while dependent on her male benefactor.

Mathilda has also been seen as an example of redefining female Gothic narratives. An important characteristic of this redefined genre often includes female narrators having more control over the story than was common at the time. According to Kathleen A. Miller, “Although Shelley’s novella appears to relate a conventional female gothic narrative of a young woman victimized by her father’s incestuous desire, it leaves open the possibility that, in fact, it is Mathilda, rather than her father, who wields control over the novel’s gothic script.”15 This potentially allows for Mathilda to be viewed as a positive role model in nineteenth-century literature as she overcomes paternal authority and refuses to conform to commonly accepted practices regarding female characters in literature of the time. This redefinition occurs in various ways: Mathilda’s refusal to name her father, her voice being the primary source of information provided to readers, and a lack of the novella ending in marriage which was the typical motif for female gothic literature.

Mary Shelley sent the finished Mathilda to her father in England, to submit for publication. However, though Godwin admired aspects of the novella, he found the incest theme “disgusting and detestable” and failed to return the manuscript despite his daughter’s repeated requests.

In the light of Percy Shelley’s later death by drowning, Mary Shelley came to regard the novella as ominous; she wrote of herself and Jane Williams “driving (like Mathilda) towards the sea to learn if we were to be for ever doomed to misery”.

The novella was published for the first time in 1959, edited by Elizabeth Nitchie from dispersed papers.

It has become possibly Mary Shelley’s best-known work after Frankenstein.

Footnotes
Clemit, “Legacies of Godwin and Wollstonecraft”, 37. Mary Shelley spelled the novella’s title “Matilda” and the heroine’s name “Mathilda”. The book has been published under each title.
Todd, Introduction to Matilda, xxii; Bennett, An Introduction, 47. During this period, Percy Shelley dramatised an incestuous tale of his own, The Cenci.
When I wrote Matilda, miserable as I was, the inspiration was sufficient to quell my wretchedness temporarily.” Journal entry, 27 October 1822, quoted in Bennett, An Introduction, 53; see also, The Journals of Mary Shelley, 442.
“Thou art fled, gone down the dreary road,” he wrote, “that leads to Sorrow’s most obscure abode”. From “To Mary Shelley”, published in Mary Shelley’s edition of Percy Shelley’s poetical works, 1839. Quoted in Todd, Introduction to Matilda, xvi; see also Mellor, Mary Shelley, 142.
Bennett, Betty T. (1990). The Mary Shelley Reader. Oxford University Press. p. 176.
Bennett, Betty T (1990). The Mary Shelley Reader. Oxford University Press. p. 199.
The novella’s 1959 editor, Elizabeth Nitchie, for example, states: “The three main characters are clearly Mary herself, Godwin, and Shelley, and their relations can easily be reassorted to correspond with reality”. Introduction to Mathilda; see also, Mellor, Mary Shelley, 143.


Thursday 27 January 2022

Well... Would You Like Me to Give You a JOKE?


 SCULLY : (smiling)
It's an Alternate Reality -- 
'Fox' doesn't exist in coffee shops. 

MULDER :
No. It's A False Reality, Scully. 
Just like everything we've seen so far. 





Did Paul ever talk to you about having himself kidnapped?

You've got to remember who The Gettys ARE — Every time someone stays in the bathroom for too long,
someone makes A Joke
about being held for ransom.

Paul might have 
cracked A Joke
once or twice among friends...

There's That Word, again —

What word?

A "Joke."
You said you thought it was A Joke when it first happened.

Now you sound like that Policeman.
Whose side are you on, Mr. Chace?

I'm on My Own Side. Always.

And if this is A Joke, 
I'd like to make sure that 
I'm IN on it.







His Visions were Apocalyptic : 
A Pandemic was spreading across America. Hospitals were overwhelmed. People were panicking. A vaccine was needed. One that had to be created with a combination of human and alien DNA. And Jackson himself was the key. It ends with a UFO, hovering over the 14th Street Bridge. 
That's what he saw. 

 
So you think a shared vision means that it's more likely to come true? 
What if I didn't get a glimpse of The Future? 
What if I was just a receptacle for His Message to Me? Just like my dream to come here. 

Starbucks Barista :
( to Mulder, proffering a coffee. )
Hey, Bob.

SCULLY : (smiling)
It's an Alternate Reality -- 
'Fox' doesn't exist in coffee shops. 

MULDER :
No. It's A False Reality, Scully. 
Just like everything we've seen so far. 
I've been going over the forensics of the case. 

The Police Think, 
Jackson killed His Parents, then himself

But the spatter pattern tells me different. 

It Tells Me, 
There were Two Shooters. 
Her Body was moved after she was shot 
to make it Look Like There was One Shooter.


The Ritual of Chüd was A Battle of Wills 
and was The Only Way to defeat IT.

Contents
1 It (Novel)
2 It (1990)
3 It Chapter 2 (2019)
4 Later
5 Appearances
6 References
It (Novel)

Bill Denbrough first found the information about the Ritual when he found Night's Truth in Derry Public Library, where he also found It was a Glamour known to many cultures under many different names. The Ritual itself is from Himalayan belief, who recognized It as a sort of taelus

In the Himilayan tradition, a holyman and the taelus overlapped tongues, bit in to each other, and told riddles until one laughed despite the pain. If the taelus laughs first, it gets sent away for a hundred years, while if the man laughs first the taelus gets to eat the mans soul.[1]

THAT'S WHY HE'S A CLOWN.

As children, Bill is the only one to engage with It, being thrust toward the Macroverse, heading to the Deadlights, but his physical body remains put. He speeds by the Turtle, who only offers advice that "–you must help yourself, son," and "you've got to thrust your fists against the posts and still insist you see the ghosts[...] once you get into cosmological shit like this, you got to throw away the instruction manual."[2] Bill engages with it telepathically, biting his teeth into Its' tongue, saying "He Thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he see the ghosts" in his fathers voice repeatedly. Overall, the fight is one of the Losers optimism, imagination, unity, and belief over Its malice and anger. The Losers come out victorious, but ignore the Turtle's advice to make sure they finish the deal, and It escapes, which the Losers suspect but are not sure of.
As adults, Bill is the first to engage It again. However, without his childlike imagination, he is weaker in the battle. It taunts him, saying that the Turtle died some time ago. Bill 'misses' Its tongue, and Beverly calls out that something is wrong, It is laughing. Richie quickly realizes something is wrong and screams out in his Irish cop voice, catching Its tongue and being thrown into the universal sprawl with Bill. He saves Bill from the Deadlights, threatens It with his Voices, but they still struggle against it. As before, their bodies remain still in the real world, but Eddie hears Richie calling for help, and rather than enter with them, he uses his aspirator as before to seriously hurt It in the physical world, losing his arm in the process and dying of blood loss. In this time It is able to escape further into her lair, dropping eggs along the way that Ben stays to crush, as Beverly remains with Eddie's body. Reluctantly Richie leaves Eddie and Bill leaves Audra to go further after It needing to ensure It dies this time. Finding It, they hit It with their collective belief and love and childhood nostalgia along with the power of the Other[3]. Richie is knocked out, Bill crushes Its heart between his hands, and carries Richie, who he believes may be dead, back to the other Losers.

It (1990)
Bill Denbrough first battled It with the Ritual of Chüd with advice that was given to him by Maturin. The ritual was a psychic battle in which the two forces dueled with their wits. The children believed that the metal silver had supernatural abilities, as seen in numerous monster movies. Because the children believed it, the silver became real and was a chief weapon that was used in the ritual as children. Because Beverly was good with a slingshot, the Losers' Club injured It the first time when Beverly shot a chunk of silver into Its skull. The Losers thought that they killed It, but weren't sure, so they made a pact to return to Derry should It ever return. It was finally destroyed in the second Ritual of Chüd by the adult Bill, Richie Tozier, Beverly Marsh, Eddie Kaspbrak (he was killed by It) and Ben Hanscom.

It Chapter 2 (2019)
Here Mike Hanlon discovers the Ritual of Chüd himself by visiting with local Native American tribes as an adult. The Ritual involves burning tokens special to all those in the Ritual to expose Its true form as the Deadlights and trapping them in a vessel Mike stole from the tribe. Unlike the novel, the ritual is unsuccessful, as the Native Americans that attempted to use it to trap It failed and were brutally slaughtered. Mike withholds this truth from his friends, believing that the tribe was unsuccessful because they had not truly faced their fears and felt that his own group stood a far better chance at survival and victory. The Losers' performing of the Ritual exposes the Deadlights, but fails to actually contain It and are forced to back off. Taking the form of a half-spider/half-Pennywise hybrid, It separates the Losers to go through personal trials, overcoming each together giving them strength. However, this exposes Richie to the Deadlights causing Eddie to attack It with a spear, dealing a serious blow. It retaliates, killing him over Richie, but not before Eddie is able to tell the Losers they have to make It small to kill it. The Losers succeed in doing this, convincing each other that Pennywise is small by insulting It, until all the remaining Losers crush Its heart together, finally killing the ancient evil.
Later
Jamie Conklin is introduced to the Ritual of Chüd by former neighbor Professor Martin Burkett, whom Jamie confides in about his continued "haunting" by the revenant of deceased bomber Kenneth "Thumper" Therriault[4]. Jamie, confused and frightened by the fact that months pass and Therriault's specter refuses to "pass over," and indeed appears to be getting stronger instead of fading, explains his predicament to Professor Burkett, who speculatively posits that perhaps Therriault's soul has been infested by a demon since his death. Burkett, though lightly skeptical of Jamie's experience, suggests that there might not be a way to get rid of the unnamed entity residing in Therriault, but that Jamie can instead conquer it.
Though Burkett is a professor of English and European Literature, he claims to know much of the mystic arts through his consumption of supernatural literature, and espouses on the Tibetan tribal ritualistic tradition to Jamie. A present-day Jamie, narratively reflecting on the incident some ten years in his past, has since researched the ritual for an anthropology paper in college, and fact-checks Burkett. Burkett claims the Ritual was practiced by a series of Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhists, who used it as a meditative aid "to achieve a sense of perfect nothingness and the resulting state of serenity and spiritual clarity," which Jamie confirms, and that it was also used in combating demons, both mental and supernatural ("a gray area," according to Jamie). Burkett suggests the Ritual for this reason - theoretically it will be of use to Jamie whether or not Therriault's entity actually exists. Burkett then claims (later refuted by Jamie) that Chüd was commonly used against yetis, who are said to haunt their observers to their deaths, unless they engage and best the beast in a Ritual.
Despite Jamie's obvious disgust, Burkett explains the binding of tongues and subsequent battle of wills, which he surmises happens telepathically in order to not disrupt the physical link, explaining that the first to withdraw loses all power over the winner. Jamie has qualms about engaging Therriault in the Ritual, unsure if he will be given an opportunity to get close enough without luring the spirit and potentially harming himself, which he expresses facetiously, but Burkett explains the tongue-biting aspect is meant to be symbolic, comparing it to the Christian Eucharistic tradition. He also compares the ritual to other ceremonial wartime greetings, such as the Māori haka, Japanese kamikaze mizu no sakazuki, an ancient Egyptian tradition of exchanging forehead strikes between members of warring houses before the formal battle, and Japanese sumo Chirichozu. Burkett says all these traditions have the same meaning, which is a combative meeting of enemies with an expectation that a winner will be declared.
Jamie surmises later that perhaps the Ritual was already in motion, and that every confrontation with Therriault had been an engagement of wills, but he follows Burkett's advice and engages Therriault in a Chüd soon after[5]. During the ritual (in which Jamie simply grabs the entity full-bodied and refuses to let go), he experiences the entity's singular deadlight, implying that he was fighting a Glamour. Jamie describes the experience as a trembling of the world like a plucked guitar string, perceptible at low levels even to passers-by who unknowingly came near the spirit, but which increases to near-unbearable levels with proximity and duration. The Glamour attempts to bargain with Jamie throughout, but Jamie is familiar with the entity's ability (distinct from that of a "normal" spirit) to make untrue claims when unprompted- though it abides by the spirit rule of being unable to lie when directly questioned. For this reason Jamie persists until the Glamour agrees not only to cease haunting him, but instead to be haunted by Jamie- that is, to remain at his beck and call. Jamie also compels the Glamour to admit to being afraid of Jamie before releasing it. The Ritual occurred outside of linear time (as remaining by the elevator doors remaining open), and caused a localized power surge and minor explosions upon its completion. Though Jamie felt invigorated afterwards, these manifestations of the Glamour on the physical world make him believe that it drew power from him, as well, and was no longer bound to the purely incorporeal nature of Therriault's spirit.
Appearances
It
It (film)
Later
References
 Part 4, Chapter 13, section 3, PG 683
 Chapter22, section 2, PG 1071
 Chapter 23, section 2
 Chapter 37, PG 145
 Chapter 43, PG 156

Monday 6 December 2021

WE Just Have to Figure-out A Way to MOBILISE It



There are 
Three Physical Gateway
and The Three are One.

This is The Place 
from which 
The Masters came. 

Here, A Great Empire 
once stood, 
Ruling All Known Space.







“I remind myself of A Navajo Story — 
Twin War Gods 
come to Their Father, 
seeking Magic and Weapons 
to eliminate 
The Monsters of The World.

My Hope is the same for You
and that We might reconcile 
the differences between Us.

Your Loving Father.





Ghostbusters 2 (1989) - No Dent, A Symbol


RAY
(half-heartedly)
Pull 'em.

EGON
Full neutronas.

RAY
Let's cook!

They open fire on The Shell but it becomes apparent 
they are shooting in vain.

RAY
Save 'em.

The crowds boo and hiss at them.

PERSON
C'mon!

PERSON
Aw, c'mon Ghostbusters!

EGON
That slime mold is PULSING with Evil. 
It would take a TREMENDOUS amount of Positive Energy to Crack That Shell 
and I seriously DOUBT 
there's enough Goodwill left 
in This Town to DO it.

Ray plants his face on Ecto-1A's hood in frustration 
then stands back up.

RAY
You know, 
I just Can't Believe Things have gotten 
So BAD in This City 
that there's 
No Way BACK

I mean, sure, it's Dirty, it's Crowded, it's Polluted, it's Noisy 
and there's People all around 
who'd just as soon step on your face 
as look at you. 

But Come on! 

There's gotta be a FEW Sparks of Sweet Humanity 
left in This Burned-out 'burg 
and WE just have to figure out 
A Way to MOBILISE it.

EGON
He's Right

We need Something that 
EVERYONE 
in This Town 
can GET Behind --

We Need... A Symbol.

They all started looking downwards.

RAY
Something that appeals to 
The Best in Each and 
Every One of Us.

Egon squats down.

EGON
Something GOOD.

WINSTON
Something DECENT.


VENKMAN
Something PURE.

The camera POV shifts down to Ecto-1a's license plate. 

It features An Image of 
The Statue of Liberty.

Don’t Look for it, Taylor — 
You may not Like 
What You Find….

Evening. Liberty Island. The Ghostbusters stare at The Statue.

VENKMAN
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

RAY
Wonder what?

VENKMAN
Whether she's naked under that toga. 
She's French -- You know that.






VENKMAN
Oh darn it. Oh, darn it.

Vigo raises Oscar in His Arms. 
Oscar cries.

VIGO
NOW We Become ONE --

"Auld Lang Syne" can be heard from The Skylight. 
Vigo recoils in Pain.

RAY
Where's that singing coming from?

WINSTON
It's The People OUTSIDE.

The crowds of people outside the Manhattan Museum of Art celebrate New Years TOGETHER.
Louis passes through The Crowd and makes His Way to The Front. 
The Statue of Liberty is on her back on The Street.

LOUIS
Sorry folks! Excuse me. 
Ghostbusters. Wow

I'm Here with You Guys.

Louis readies his particle thrower.

EGON : 
He's Weakening! 
The singing is neutralizing The Slime!

RAY
I can move!

Peter hobbles forward.

DANA
Oscar!

Vigo is forcibly propelled back into The Painting. 
Peter catches Oscar just in time.

DANA
Oh, sweetie.

EGON
He's back in The Painting!

VENKMAN
All right, go find a shady spot.

Ray turns towards The Painting and locks eyes with Vigo.

VENKMAN:
Vigi, Vigi, Vigi. 
You have been a BAD monkey!

Ray suddenly walks up to The Painting and stares at it.

EGON
Ray? We'd like to Shoot The Monster, 
Could you move, please?

VENKMAN
Ray?

WINSTON
Ray?

PETER, EGON, WINSTON: 
Ray?!!!

Ray turns around to reveal he is possessed by Vigo 
and transmogrified to resemble his True Ghost Form.

VIGO
No! I, Ray, am Vigo, shall rule the earth! 
Be gone, you pitiful half-men!

VENKMAN
Now!

Peter and Egon fire at The Painting. 
Winston slimes Ray.

At the same time -- in front of an ELECTRIFIED Crowd of THOUSANDS -- Louis fires on The Slime Shell.

Ray drops to the ground as Vigo is ejected out of His Body and back into The Painting as The Giant Floating Head. 
They continue to fire on him. 
Vigo is drenched in the positively charged psychomagnotheric ectoplasm.

VIGO
No!

Vigo is sent spiraling further into The Painting until there 
is an explosion and a bright white light is projected. 

The Slime Shell disintegrates 
and shoots up into the sky. 
The people cheer. Several congratulate Louis.

LOUIS
I did it! I did it!

MAN
That was great! I loved it!

LOUIS
I'm a Ghostbuster!

Bill Denbrough first found the information about the Ritual when he found Night's Truth in Derry Public Library, where he also found It was a Glamour known to many cultures under many different names. The Ritual itself is from Himalayan belief, who recognized It as a sort of taelus. In the Himilayan tradition, a holyman and the taelus overlapped tongues, bit in to each other, and told riddles until one laughed despite the pain. If the taelus laughs first, it gets sent away for a hundred years, while if the man laughs first the taelus gets to eat the mans soul.


As children, Bill is the only one to engage with It, being thrust toward the Macroverse, heading to the Deadlights, but his physical body remains put. He speeds by the Turtle, who only offers advice that "–you must help yourself, son," and "you've got to thrust your fists against the posts and still insist you see the ghosts[...] once you get into cosmological shit like this, you got to throw away the instruction manual."

Bill engages with it telepathically, biting his teeth into Its' tongue, saying "He Thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he see the ghosts" in his fathers voice repeatedly. Overall, the fight is one of the Losers optimism, imagination, unity, and belief over Its malice and anger. The Losers come out victorious, but ignore The Turtle's advice to make sure they finish The Deal, and It escapes, which the Losers suspect but are not sure of.

As adults, Bill is the first to engage It again. However, without his childlike imagination, he is weaker in the battle. It taunts him, saying that the Turtle died some time ago. 

Bill 'misses' Its tongue, and Beverly calls out that something is wrong, It is laughing. Richie quickly realizes something is wrong and screams out in his Irish cop voice, catching Its tongue and being thrown into the universal sprawl with Bill. He saves Bill from the Deadlights, threatens It with His Voices, but they still struggle against it. As before, their bodies remain still in the real world, but Eddie hears Richie calling for help, and rather than enter with them, he uses his aspirator as before to seriously hurt It in the physical world, losing his arm in the process and dying of blood loss. In this time It is able to escape further into her lair, dropping eggs along the way that Ben stays to crush, as Beverly remains with Eddie's body. 

Reluctantly Richie leaves Eddie and Bill leaves Audra to go further after It needing to ensure It dies this time. 

Finding It, they hit It with their collective belief and love and childhood nostalgia along with the power of The Other[3]. Richie is knocked out, Bill crushes Its heart between his hands, and carries Richie, who he believes may be dead, back to the other Losers.


It (1990)


Bill Denbrough first battled It with the Ritual of Chüd with advice that was given to him by Maturin. The ritual was a psychic battle in which the two forces dueled with their wits. The children believed that the metal silver had supernatural abilities, as seen in numerous monster movies. Because the children believed it, the silver became real and was a chief weapon that was used in the ritual as children. Because Beverly was good with a slingshot, the Losers' Club injured It the first time when Beverly shot a chunk of silver into Its skull. The Losers thought that they killed It, but weren't sure, so they made a pact to return to Derry should It ever return. 

It was finally destroyed in the second Ritual of Chüd by the adult Bill, Richie Tozier, Beverly Marsh, Eddie Kaspbrak (he was killed by It) and Ben Hanscom.


It Chapter 2 (2019)

Here Mike Hanlon discovers the Ritual of Chüd himself by visiting with local Native American tribes as an adult. The Ritual involves burning tokens special to all those in the Ritual to expose Its true form as the Deadlights and trapping them in a vessel Mike stole from the tribe. Unlike the novel, the ritual is unsuccessful, as the Native Americans that attempted to use it to trap It failed and were brutally slaughtered

Mike withholds this truth from his friends, believing that the tribe was unsuccessful because they had not truly faced their fears and felt that his own group stood a far better chance at Survival and Victory. The Losers' performing of the Ritual exposes the Deadlights, but fails to actually contain It and are forced to back off. 

Taking the form of a half-spider/half-Pennywise hybrid, It separates the Losers to go through personal trials, overcoming each together giving them strength. 

However, this exposes Richie to the Deadlights causing Eddie to attack It with a spear, dealing a serious blow. It retaliates, killing him over Richie, but not before Eddie is able to tell the Losers they have to make It small to kill it. The Losers succeed in doing this, convincing each other that Pennywise is small by insulting It, until all the remaining Losers crush Its heart together, finally killing the ancient evil.


Later



Jamie Conklin is introduced to the Ritual of Chüd by former neighbor Professor Martin Burkett, whom Jamie confides in about his continued "haunting" by the revenant of deceased bomber Kenneth "Thumper" Therriault[4]. Jamie, confused and frightened by the fact that months pass and Therriault's specter refuses to "pass over," and indeed appears to be getting stronger instead of fading, explains his predicament to Professor Burkett, who speculatively posits that perhaps Therriault's soul has been infested by a demon since his death. Burkett, though lightly skeptical of Jamie's experience, suggests that there might not be a way to get rid of the unnamed entity residing in Therriault, but that Jamie can instead conquer it.

Though Burkett is a professor of English and European Literature, he claims to know much of the mystic arts through his consumption of supernatural literature, and espouses on the Tibetan tribal ritualistic tradition to Jamie. A present-day Jamie, narratively reflecting on the incident some ten years in his past, has since researched the ritual for an anthropology paper in college, and fact-checks Burkett. Burkett claims the Ritual was practiced by a series of Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhists, who used it as a meditative aid "to achieve a sense of perfect nothingness and the resulting state of serenity and spiritual clarity," which Jamie confirms, and that it was also used in combating demons, both mental and supernatural ("a gray area," according to Jamie). Burkett suggests the Ritual for this reason - theoretically it will be of use to Jamie whether or not Therriault's entity actually exists. Burkett then claims (later refuted by Jamie) that Chüd was commonly used against yetis, who are said to haunt their observers to their deaths, unless they engage and best the beast in a Ritual.
Despite Jamie's obvious disgust, Burkett explains the binding of tongues and subsequent battle of wills, which he surmises happens telepathically in order to not disrupt the physical link, explaining that the first to withdraw loses all power over the winner. Jamie has qualms about engaging Therriault in the Ritual, unsure if he will be given an opportunity to get close enough without luring the spirit and potentially harming himself, which he expresses facetiously, but Burkett explains the tongue-biting aspect is meant to be symbolic, comparing it to the Christian Eucharistic tradition. He also compares the ritual to other ceremonial wartime greetings, such as the Māori haka, Japanese kamikaze mizu no sakazuki, an ancient Egyptian tradition of exchanging forehead strikes between members of warring houses before the formal battle, and Japanese sumo Chirichozu. Burkett says all these traditions have the same meaning, which is a combative meeting of enemies with an expectation that a winner will be declared.
Jamie surmises later that perhaps the Ritual was already in motion, and that every confrontation with Therriault had been an engagement of wills, but he follows Burkett's advice and engages Therriault in a Chüd soon after[5]. During the ritual (in which Jamie simply grabs the entity full-bodied and refuses to let go), he experiences the entity's singular deadlight, implying that he was fighting a Glamour. Jamie describes the experience as a trembling of the world like a plucked guitar string, perceptible at low levels even to passers-by who unknowingly came near the spirit, but which increases to near-unbearable levels with proximity and duration. The Glamour attempts to bargain with Jamie throughout, but Jamie is familiar with the entity's ability (distinct from that of a "normal" spirit) to make untrue claims when unprompted- though it abides by the spirit rule of being unable to lie when directly questioned. For this reason Jamie persists until the Glamour agrees not only to cease haunting him, but instead to be haunted by Jamie- that is, to remain at his beck and call. Jamie also compels the Glamour to admit to being afraid of Jamie before releasing it. The Ritual occurred outside of linear time (as remaining by the elevator doors remaining open), and caused a localized power surge and minor explosions upon its completion. Though Jamie felt invigorated afterwards, these manifestations of the Glamour on the physical world make him believe that it drew power from him, as well, and was no longer bound to the purely incorporeal nature of Therriault's spirit