NeverCameAgain

“Side effects may include: stuttering, stammering, blushing, kissing, hugging, hissing, going too fast, wall slamming, drunken confessions, crying to Hozier, being the little spoon, banter, involuntary snake transformations, and marriage.

Please call your doctor if snake transformation lasts longer than 24 hours

Here’s some good news for your day: snow leopards have been sighted again in the Khorkh mountains in Mongolia for the first time in nearly 30 years!  The area surveyed is a small, highly biodiverse sanctuary on the border of China. Snow leopard sightings used to be common, but since the 1990s, there hadn’t been any confirmed reports of their presence. 

A new study by the Snow Leopard Trust, however, was the first time there’s been rangers and camera traps in Khorkh. According to the Snow Leopard trust, “we don’t have an unlimited number of cameras or trained field staff, so we have to select our study sites carefully. This is the first time we’ve been able to venture east into Small Gobi A Protected Area – thanks to the help of local rangers, whom we had trained in camera trapping techniques before the survey. The fact that we’ve been able to confirm the snow leopard’s presence here this quickly is encouraging.” 

What’s even better is that the camera trap caught photos of multiple individuals, including a mother with young cubs. 

Snow leopards are not super svelte like other big cats. They’re stockier with kind of wide bodies, for the purpose of heat conservation. You can see in this photo that they don’t have the “definition” of warmer-climate cats like tigers. 

Add to that the fact that they’ve got the longest and thickest fur of any big cat species, and that they need to put on extra weight to survive the winter… and you get a pretty chunky-looking felid. You can see in the photo below that they can look fairly close to spherical when they’re resting or curled up on themselves. 

We’re all fairly used to seeing photos of snow leopards that are either taken in the warmer part of the year, or ones from zoos. Summer coats make cats look less fluffy, and in captive settings, snow leopards don’t need to put on extra weight to prepare for a lean season. But you can see even from photos of snow leopards in human care that they’re still super fluffy animals. Here’s some babies from the LA Zoo - even in a warm climate, they’re still puffy and could easily look rotund if caught at a bad angle. 

Above is Bataar from Cape May County Zoo on the left, and Raj from Binder Park Zoo on the right. Both at great weights but fairly spherical when at rest. (Photo Credits: J. Berg and Zookeeper Bryan.)

The lovely lady below this text is Misha, from the Sacramento Zoo. You can see how even just sitting, a reproductive-age female snow leopard can look quite round. Directly below her is a group of snow leopards from Assiniboine Park in Manitoba (who I unfortunately don’t have names for) showing how common that aesthetic is for the species. (Photo Credits: M. Owyang and F. Donnelly)

Snow leopard cubs are super fluff when they’re little. The very fresh baby on the right was born at the Welsh Mountain Zoo in the UK, and was probably around two or theee months old when the photo was taken. The older cub on the right is Misha’s son, Coconut, when he was about nine months old. (Photo Credits: M. Rimmer and M. Owyang)

Even though snow leopards are super fluffy, it doesn’t mean their actual body under the coat is chunky. While they’re built a little more stocky than other big cats, they’re still very long when fully stretched out. Here’s Misha and Coconut again to demonstrate: on the left, Misha stands while Coconut sits on a rock; on the right, Misha is standing fully stretched out with her paws on a tree. (Photo Credits: M. Owyang)

And because no photoset of snow leopards would be complete without it, here’s some gratuitous tail from Princess at Tanganyika Wildlife Park. (Photo Credit: K. Randolph)

a young elephant kneeling down in front of their car in a playful way and throwing zebra bones at the researchers, trying to get them to play with him

an 8-month-old elephant trying and failing to pick up some grass with her trunk (the author: “it reminds me of someone learning to use chopsticks”) and whose mother then pulled a sheaf of grass and ate it while making sure her daughter was watching the demonstration

baby elephants suck their trunk for comfort (as we all know!!) but also like to swing and whirl it around as they try to figure out what it can do and how to use it, and sometimes accidentally step on their trunk and trip over it

“often, babies reach with their trunks into the mouths of family members, taking a bit of what they’re eating”

all the female elephants in a family rushing over to help when someone’s baby trips and falls, while making comforting vocalisations

an enormous adult male elephant walking up to a family group and making an exaggerated display of nonchalance, with his trunk casually draped over his tusk, to show the other elephants that he’s not scary

researchers messing with an elephant family by collecting a bit of urine when the elephant walking at the back of the group stopped to pee, then driving some distance to leave the urine ahead of them. “When they encountered fresh urine from an elephant they knew was behind them, they seemed truly baffled, as though thinking, “Wait a minute—how’d she pass us? She’s back behind us!”

mothers instructing their babies to switch to the other side of their body and walk in their shade when the day is very hot

an elephant child trying to climb all over a bigger male teenager who was lying down for a nap, receiving a kick in response, and running back to its mother in alarm—then the teenager followed and lay down flat beside them as if to apologise and invite the child to climb onto him again

elephant children throwing tantrums when they are being weaned and their mother blocks them from nursing (“He got so upset, pushing her, poking her and tusking her, […] it was like, ‘Ooh, I hate you!”)

researchers followed a family that included a baby who was born disabled, with twisted forelegs that he couldn’t straighten. The entire elephant family (from the adults to the baby’s 8-year-old sister) nurtured him, patiently helping him up every time he fell over, “slowing their pace to his disabilities, continually turning to watch his progress, waiting as he caught up from behind” until (after a few days) the little one managed to straighten his legs and learn to walk normally

a researcher once saw an elephant pluck up some grass and place it in the mouth of another elephant whose trunk was badly injured. Also adults are sometimes seen carrying sick baby elephants on their tusks

a researcher saw a baby elephant who was wary of going into the water, wrap her trunk around her mother’s tusk as her mother patiently entered the river with her, like a child nervously grabbing her mother’s arm

Posted 27.09.2020… 27.09.2017 - WHAT A DAY! :)

I am writing this post as I’m absolutely baffled by the issues people seem to have with the portrayal of the character of Lucifer in the Sandman series. For some reason people find it problematic that the fallen angel is played by Gwendoline Christie, a powerful and androgynous-looking woman, but there is seemingly no problem with Lucifer being played by a black-haired man in the nightclub business (Tom Ellis in the Netflix series ‘Lucifer’). Don’t get me wrong, Tom Ellis is entertaining and wonderful to watch, but that particular version of Lucifer is neither canon when it comes to the comics nor does it have anything to do with the actual angel Lucifer.

Angels are genderless beings and they have always been portrayed as androgynous in the history of art. Multiple literary sources, including grimoires (books with supposed instructions on how to summon these beings and many others), state that angelic beings as well as demons are able to change their appearance. Many of those forms they might take aren’t even humanoid and they can choose not to show any physical form at all. They aren’t corporeal beings, the fact that they do take on any resemblance of a physical form is just so humans can understand them better. That’s why we’ve been painting them as human-like ever since the early times of human civilization. What we make to be similar to us is what makes it comprehensible. Portraying beings from other dimensions/realms as human-like but with androgynous features is a way to show they don’t belong in the physical dimension, as gender is likely a non-existent concept in other realms of existence. Androgyny of mythical beings, therefore, emphasizes the fact they are different than physical beings such as humans.

Therefore, when portraying an angelic being in art, or in any type of media, making them androgynous is making way for their essence to come through. In a way, the same applies to the way elves are portrayed as ethereal and androgynous since they don’t have to be corporeal beings at all, at least when it comes to folklore. I know this opinion might not be understandable to others or it might sound controversial, but I believe that not portraying an angelic being as androgynous and not showing any signs of their divine origin (these include mannerisms that emphasize their etheriality for example, a cadence in their voice that is different etc.) is a huge missed opportunity that might rob these interesting mythical beings of what they are. Not making angels feel like angels beats the point of having an angel character (in a movie, series or video game for example) in the first place.

This is why Gwendoline Christie is the right choice. At a height of 6′ 3″ (1.91 m), captivatingly pale. androgynous with a powerful specific sort of grace and presence - a perfect ‘vessel’ for the Morning Star. What’s more, she understands the importance, complexity, grandeur and the mythical dimension of the figure of Lucifer, as well as the whole 'spirituality’ of the Sandman universe which is rather evident from her approach to this role and the interviews she has given so far. I might go so far to say that, even though the Sandman series isn’t even out yet (though there is some footage available already), the casting of Gwendoline as Lucifer feels right just as the casting of Lee Pace as Thranduil in the Hobbit felt right and I consider the character of Thranduil to be the best portrayal of a humanoid mythical being on TV. Lee felt like an elven king, moved like an elven king, spoke like an elven king and radiated an energy of the dimension the elven king might have come from (I’m talking about the folkloric 'Otherworld’ where elves supposedly live). I feel the same might apply to Gwendoline and Lucifer.

As an occultist, art historian, anthropologist and someone who is rather fond of the figure of Lucifer, I am looking forward to seeing how Gwendoline interprets him. Finally, we might get something completely different from a frequently portrayed 'demonic’ side/version of this important mythical character. We might just see the Light Bringer who has not forgotten his divine origin.

- Heidi (@theatrum-tenebrarum)

…See also C. S. Lewis’s discussion of the portrayal of angels (good and evil) in the introduction to The Screwtape Letters:

They are given wings… to suggest the swiftness of unimpeded intellectual energy. They are given human form because man is the only rational being we know. Creatures higher in the natural order than ourselves, or animating bodies of a sort we cannot experience, must be represented symbolically if they are to be represented at all.

Meaning that, as regards angels, any representation or attribution of human-style gender is pretty much meaningless except as a convenient shorthand.

(Haven’t we had this discussion about some other angels recently…?) :)

…I’ve been watching the complaining from the Usual Suspects going on since the trailer dropped, and the vast majority of it seems to express two major themes: (a) “Lucifer’s not exactly the way he was in the comics”, and (b) “Don’t try to distract me with this androgyny bullshit, Lucifer ought to be a boy but instead he’s a guurrrrrrrl and that’s just wrong,” or (b1) “…Lucifer’s a guurrrrrrrl and wrong, and also too butch.”

Re (a), I wholeheartedly take Neil’s side on this issue. It’s his character: it’s his right to do what he likes with it in a second creative pass over the same material. In his place, I’d assert that he’s absolutely correct to say (though more kindly than I would) “Tough!” and move on, having the right—along with other creatives, and echoing the old Hebrew National commercial—to emphasize that he’s in service to a Higher Authority.

As for (b) and (b1), I find it hard to believe that Lewis wouldn’t come down pretty hard on Neil’s side as well. It’s interesting to note that C. S. gets quite cranky a little later on in the Screwtape intro when talking about how the representation of [good] angels in the arts has had the power sucked out of it. “The angels of Fra Angelico,” he says, “in their face and gesture carry with them the peace and authority of Heaven…” But nowadays, instead, mostly we’re stuck with angels Lewis describes as descendants of “the soft, slim, girlish and consolatory angels of nineteenth-century art…shapes that avoid being voluptuous…only by their total insipidity. In scripture,” Lewis goes on to say,  “the visitation of an angel is always alarming; it has to begin by saying ‘Fear not’. The Victorian angel looks as if it was going to say ‘There, there.’“

I’ll tell you this: If there’s one thing you’re not going to think Gwendoline Christie’s Lucifer is ever going to say to you, let alone “There there”, it’s “Fear not”… because frankly, that ship has sailed. I got the chills the moment Lucifer started to move and speak. …And I for one prefer it that way. So don’t bother attempting to argue the point with me. When you eventually get to the top of the local hill, you’ll find my corpse there already.

…Can’t wait for next weekend.

(Or no, excuse me: it’ll be week after next before I can get to grips with The Sandman, as @crossingscon has dibs on me until Sunday’s over.) :)

Aziraphale: It's not as bad as you make it out to be, surely.

Crowley: Come to the dark side, angel. We have all your favorite composers.

Aziraphale: You'd like that, wouldn't you? Earn yourself a gold star on your end of year report. But I won't do it. Not in a million years. You can't tempt me that easily, you old snake.

Crowley: We also have cake.

Aziraphale: ...

Aziraphale: Chocolate or vanilla?

Crowley: Red velvet.

This moment made softer by: God's vengeful wrath.

I've always thought that one of the things that draws out the soft side of Crowley is seeing the pure terror lying underneath when Aziraphale WANTS to reject Heaven but is afraid of what will happen.

He knows, he knows exactly what's at stake. He knows Heaven, even if maybe he doesn't know exactly what it's become (assuming it changed after the rebellion). He knows Hell.

I would imagine that's part of the anger that he kept in check at the bandstand. Of course it's hurtful to hear all that, but deep down inside he knows how overwhelming of a prospect it is to let it all go -- and especially to let God go. I don't think he regrets not being in Heaven anymore, but it clearly still hurts him that he was damned to Hell.

What I like the most is that he follows the verbal acknowledgement of the truth Aziraphale already knows by saying, "Neither of us do."

In other words, "I know it's hard, but you know I'm here with you -- you're not alone."

It's another moment like the 1940 scene with the books, if you subscribe to the theory that it's not when Aziraphale realized he was in love with Crowley, but the moment he truly internalized that Crowley loved him back. At the bandstand, Crowley was trying to convey that THEIR side is the only one that matters because Heaven and Hell don't care about them like they care about each other. But, Aziraphale wasn't ready to hear it yet, or let go of the hope that Heaven did actually care about him in some way. Now, he has no choice.

From the DVD commentary, episode 1:

Douglas: I love this little moment here when David comes out of the car and does this little miracle.

Neil: And you added that miracle in.

Douglas: Yeah. It was in the book, but yeah, we put it back in.

Neil: I thought it was gonna be expensive and complicated, and you said, ‘No, we’re just gonna have a man in the car and he’s gonna turn them off.’