#gnomology

I made a post about how I believe gnomes aren't gnostic beings a little while back and I like to think I summed up my thoughts in a fairly clear and succinct manner. But for every thought a person might have, there's a meme that can sum it up better and faster. I found this just recently:

Upon occasion on the internet, I see people searching for good, healthym non-toxic male role models. Such searches often yield a variety of different figures, real and fictional. However, I have yet to see the objects of my own field of study mentioned in such discussions, and so I wish to put them forward: I believe gnomes to be good examples of healthy masculinity.

When elaborating upon this, I will be using the terms 'masculine' and 'masculinity' rather than 'man' or 'male'. The reasoning is obvious, not all gnomes are male or men. Rather, I believe it is traditional gnomeic cultural markers which can provide the fine example of a healthy form of masculinity for any human who wishes to pursue such an ideal.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, my theory regarding gnomes is that, for them, existence and culture are one and the same. If an earth spirit did not wish to embody the cultural archetype of the gnome to some degree, it would not take the form of a gnome. Thus, for a gnome to exist physically is for it to partake in gnomish culture.

With this in mind, let us consider the archetypal gnome.

[Above: John Bauer, Swedish Folk Tales Illustrations]

I believe the cornerstone and foundation of 'gnomishness' to be respect. Respect for nature, respect for others, respect for themselves. Existence as a gnome is to respect corporeality and all other physical things. Respect for existence itself. The boundaries between forms, their shapes and limits, what can and cannot be done by one shape to another shape. To get more specific, I see gnomish respect as a matter of autonomy. Gnomes are often depicted as individualists, they live on their own terms. Yes, the gnomes' shared culture means that their lives will often superficially look similar but this does not mean that they aren't still living on their own individual terms. A gnome respects itself and it's wants and needs. It also equally respects others. It's all about respect, above and beneath all other things. This is the most admirable of the gnomes' traits.

Other traits strongly associated with gnomes are resourcefulness and tenacity. Gnomes are often defined by their labour, by their work. Gnomes are inherently tied to the earth, usually to guard and maintain it. They were often depicted as deep folk bearing the tools and garb of miners in times of old. Nowadays they are more typically depicted as gardeners, though this is no less a tie to the earth nor a lesser occupation for them. They were consistently spoken of as great craftsmen and have evolved in more recent pop culture as being depicted as brilliant tinkerers, inventers and scientists. A departure from their roots, perhaps, but still a depiction which unifies their culture under a profession. In truth, it does not matter what work a gnome will find for itself - it will find work, as a gnome finds beauty in its labours, for it's toil is self-directed and a product of passion. Gnomes are often taken to crafts and the arts as well as conventional forms of labour. To a gnome, taking the time to compose a song or paint a picture is no less important. It is all part of constructing their lives. This is a gnomeic cultural trait. Gnomes choose to exist because existing is interesting and fun and a challenge compared to being an incorporeal spirit of the earth. Gnomes are small creatures in a big world and they work hard to make a place for themselves in it because they love the world and they love themselves. They work hard, they play hard.

This ties in well to another notable trait of gnomekind. Strength. Gnomes are strong and hardy. This is hardly surprising considering what they are and what they contend with. To a gnome, a fox or dog or common house cat are vast and powerful kaiju to be feared in a way a human would fear encountering a T-Rex. But admiring the trait of strength is less about strength itself and more about the reason behind the pursuit of strength. This is the greater and more noble pursuit of fulfilment. Gnomes do not coast through life without examining themselves, what they want and what they stand for. This takes strength, not just of form but of character. So, to build a life, one must build strength, explore who they are, their drives, their thoughts and their feelings. It is a hard thing to do, I admire those who are able to communicate with themselves so eloquently.

[Above: Jakub Rozalski, Forbidden Fruit]

When these traits are considered and viewed together, the view of gnomes becomes one of rugged cowboys, frontier homesteaders, romantic poets and proletarian labourers all rolled into one, rather than simply as rosy-cheeked lawn ornaments. With this said, gnomes are rosy-cheeked, good natured and whimsical! Gnomes are individualists, yes, but they are gregarious and form strong bonds of community and friendship! Just as no man is an island, neither is a gnome. To be a gnome is to love life, another unifying trait which underlines all of the others.

So, here we have some good, key gnomish cultural traits. Not all of them, but prominent examples.

Before I conclude, I will address a potential elephant in the room. All of these traits are not exclusive to masculinity, men or maleness. Anyone can embody and uphold ideals such as respect, tenacity, strength, and so on. I have no desire to try and enforce any gender roles nor to try and dictate how anyone should live their lives, please do not take this post to indicate as such.

I do not believe that these traits are inherently masculine on their own. Rather, when I think of masculinity and try to reason what it even is, I believe it is more about sets of traits, taken together, which can help to define it, rather than the individual qualities themselves. The whole being greater than the sum of the parts, one might say. I think the specific traits of gnomish culture mentioned form a picture of what healthy masculinity can look like when combined. Not the only kind of masculinity, by any stretch, but a form of it!

I do hope this makes good sense and seems well reasoned. I am a gnomologist and not a sociologist. Gender studies are not quite my forte! But gnomes have always struck me as good role models and I do think that they can be viewed specifically through the lens of masculinity quite aptly also. I think if we chose to live life as gnomes do - full of respect, wonder and joy - then it may be the key to a heartier, healthier, happier life. So, if you or any in your life are wondering how best to be a modern man, consider gnomes as a fine example.

When encountering something which is new, unknown and shows every sign of sapient intelligence, it's entirely reasonable that a person's response would be shock, horror even.

And I won't say that gnomes are more scared of you than you are of them, because they're not. To gnomes, humans do not represent the unknown, they are, in fact, a very known quantity.

I won't tell people not to be scared of gnomes but I will always say to be respectful. As I have said many times, the foundational ideology of most gnomeic culture is respect.

We don't yet know this to be true, but it could be.

I've mentioned the idea that gnomes and goblins are essentially the same thing a couple of times and I wanted to expand on that in a longer post so it can be referred back to.

The overall concept essentially boils down to three key ideas. Firstly, the idea that gnomes are antignostic incarnations of earth- spirits by choice. Secondly, the idea that the term "gnome" is more about culture than species. Thirdly, Ted Holiday's concept of the 'Goblin Universe'.

[Above: Troll in autumnal mushroom forest, 1929, O. Herrfurth]

In regards to the first point, I've already mentioned my theory that gnomes are anti-gnostic Earth spirits who choose to take incarnate physical form because they consider our mode of reality to be a paradise. The point which ties this to my gnome/goblin hypothesis is that they are formless spirits in origin. They stem from a source, which you could call Fairyland, Avalon, Mother Earth, Sylvanus (or whatever vital planetary genius loci you personally prescribe to), which other fairy folk and creatures of similar nature originate from also. This includes goblins. They are born of the same essence. In essence, they are the same.

This leads into the second point wherein (bearing in mind the idea that gnomes and goblins come from the same essence) we must consider the idea of gnomishness. If the creatures of Fairyland are simply instances of formless living-will born from the same source, why are they different? Form is not the differentiating factor. Form to spirits is a fluid thing, based upon thinking, upon lifestyle. Their form follows culture and it is in culture we find the difference. The rustic living of gnomes is far removed from the court intrigue of Oberon and Titania. Gnomish culture is different from fairy culture. This is why gnomes look gnomish and fairies look fae. Their form is simply filling a groove carved out by the very concept of gnomishness itself. The study of gnomes is a matter not of biology but of sociology. The reason I choose to focus upon gnomes' similarity to goblins specifically is because, in my opinion, they are culturally very similar, which I will speak of at the end of this post.

In regards to the third point, I mention the Goblin Universe often and I want to explain what I mean when I refer to it. A paranormal researcher named Ted Holiday wanted to create a theory to explain all paranormal phenomena, which he dubbed the Goblin Universe. It essentially makes a point similar to my first point here but more broadly, stating that all pan-paranormal instances are examples of the same thing. That there is no difference between the mysterious fairy-lights in the woods which stole people away to fairy-land centuries ago and mysterious alien abductions and UAPs of modern times. What occurs is an encounter with a non-physical phenomena wherein a human being is peeking into the Goblin Universe and giving shape to what they see. The shape is dictated by surroundings, by culture, by society, by the collective unconscious but it is the human psychic response which guides the shape. Hence why gnomes look gnomish, it's because of preconceived notions. The Goblin Universe, I feel, ties my idea that gnomes and goblins are of the same essence with the idea that 'gnome' refers to culture rather than species since it is cultural markers which define the gnome's form.

I could speak more on how, historically, there was far less delineation between gnomes, goblins and other small folk of the forests and how the differences in modern times are exacerbated by media properties like World of Warcraft, D&D and so on, but that's another post, really.

What's more important is that whilst all this speaks about how gnomes and goblins are similar if not the same, I can also speak about the primary difference. I believe I have mentioned it before. I've referred to one of the key points in gnomish thinking being the high value placed upon respect. For nature, for others, for themselves and so on.

I believe this is where the key difference lies. What is a goblin but a gnome who has abandoned respect?

They have that same industriousness, the same individual streak, the same capacity for mass co-operation. But where a gnome thinks in shades of compassion, a goblin thinks in self-indulgence. Goblin is essentially a gnome sub-culture.

There are other options to consider, of course. A grim explanation of the difference between the two is that goblins are not a specific culture but rather a vocation some gnomes take. Specifically, a military vocation. It has been suggested that goblins are simply the forms gnomes take when performing aggressive asymmetrical warfare against humanity. Commandos, spies, guerillas. This is, in my view, plausible, but unpleasant to think about.

I often enjoy going gnome-spotting for the periphery benefits more than for the primary goal. This is to say, I go gnome-spotting with the full understanding I will be unlikely to see a gnome. They're tiny and masters of disguise to boot, after all.

But that's fine. If I went my whole life never having seen a gnome that would be fine. Gnomology is not wholly about observation (that is, observation in a physical, flesh and blood sense).

I often talk about the physicality of gnomes, of them choosing to take form. And I do think this can mean in a literal sense, of course, but I do find that to be a narrow view, especially when thinking about a people who are ephemeral.

They take form, yes, but does that have to mean a form you can reach out and touch? Not necessarily. A form is just a shape. A gnome is real and has a shape in the same way that a square is real and has a shape. A square is a square becuase it has 4 equal sides. A gnome is a gnome because it embodies gnomish qualities. Can you encounter this gnome-form physically? Yes, but it's unlikely and it's also unnecessary. Not being able to come into contact with gnomes doesn't make them less real, same as how a square can exist conceptually without having a physical reality.

So, why go gnome-spotting if the chances of seeing a gnome are low (though never impossible)? This brings me back to the periphery benefits to gnome-spotting I mentioned at the outset.

Gnomes are spirits of the earth. This manifests in many forms but most often they are depicted as caretakers and tenders to the earth, as workers. Miners in times of old and in more recent years, as gardeners. This is all less about what gnomes look like and more about what they do.

And what gnomes do is thrive.

They are professionals. They are skilled labourers and talented hobbyists. When gnomes work the earth, they do so with vision and vigour. Where gnomes dwell, nature thrives. They are, in a sense, a manifestation of nature emphatically self-actualising. The earth generating it's own caretakers in an act of anthropo-geographical self-love.

And so when I go gnome-spotting, those periphery benefits I speak of are taking in the natural splendour of the world around me. I know, I know, this is something I can do without any gnome-orientated context. I was drawn to nature before gnome-studies, after all. But I find that the gnomological context helps me to observe nature in a way that goes beyond the justified enjoyment of it's beauty.

At least personally, it helps me appreciate the grand scope of it all, the interlocking interdependencies between all the many plants and rocks and animals and fungi spread across the landscape. It helps me marvel at the great green ordered chaos that the natural world has built itself into over the last few hundred million years. It encourages me to observe and think about how the land might look if I was even smaller than a human already is in comparison to it all.

To me, these observations are also a valid observation upon gnomish culture, at least from a broader and more ephemeral perspective. To view gnome culture through the literalist perspective that they are simply little fellows who live under mushrooms (a delightful picture, I grant you) is, to my mind, a narrow view. Yes, they are these little fellows, but they are also a great deal more besides.

One of the main things people who criticise my gnomological theories try to claim is that they're human-centric. It's been claimed that I'm trying to say that gnomes were created by humans inadvertantly, as if we manifested a mass hallucination. This is a misrepresentation of my ideas, plain and simple.

Gnomes have clearly been shaped by human beings to an extent, as evidenced by their appearance. I believe this is true, but nowhere have I said that humans created gnomes or that they need us in order to exist.

Let's think back to the time of the dinosaurs.

A time before anything resembling a human walked the Earth. Did gnomes exist in this time? Of course they did. All of the things a gnome is are things it was capable of being during the millions of years the dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Caretaker, observer of nature, keeper of the dark and wild places, and so on.

Now of course, Gnomes would look very different back then, just as our own human ancestors were different to us. We weren't there to shape their appearance into it's modern, recogniseable form.

Gnomes look as they do in the current era for a number of reasons ranging from the socio-historic to the psychic. The predominant reason is because humans are the dominant species on the planet and we have expectations of what a gnome is. We, as a collective, passively radiate an idea of what a gnome looks like, informed by folklore and culture.

When a gnome is incorporeal and wishes to take form, it takes the gnome-form, the genomomorph. It doesn't know what the gnome-form looks like before it does this. When it's incorporeal, it doesn't think in terms shapes and colours, it has no concept of physicality. It's just a sapient thought-form, it thinks in abstracts and emotions. But it can grasp onto the concept of gnomishness and ends up filling the psychic mold regarding gnome-form. In this era that means small people with prodigious beards in pointy red hats.

What would it mean in the time of the dinosaurs? I admit I'm no paleontologist, so I cannot say whether dinosaurs had a strong cultural concept of what a gnome was. Let's assume that they didn't. So let us think more simply and go back to the cornerstones of gnomishness.

In the time of the dinosaurs, a gnome would not be known as a gnome. But it would still be an earth-spirit driven by curiosity, respect, and ingeniousness whose goal is to caretake and cultivate. This is what would inform gnome-form in a time before the word 'gnome' even existed.

So what shape would this gnome-form take? It's probably very flexible. Like in our time, it would still choose to be small in form so as to not overlook the smaller parts of the world and would be dextrous in order to make good use of it's ingenuity. Unlike in our time, there is no single, worldwide dominant species who can generate a psychic field to influence non-corporeal beings' shapes.

However, it is the time of the dinosaurs so it is likely that if dinosaurs could form a collective psychic field (not being a paleontologist, I again could not say if they can do this), gnomes would've simply ended up taking a broadly sauroid form, so long as it was small and dextrous.

As to their behaviour, what would they do in this time? What does the concept of gnomishness look like in the time of the dinosaurs?

There are no mines for them to operate or gardens to cultivate, but they are still able to study and observe the wildness of the world and see all that happens out in the darkest of places across the land. They would still find respite beneath a mushroom on a rainy day or roam a tall, overgrown forest or behold the majesty of a mountain on a misty morning. Their inherent gnomishness would still be obvious if we were to behold a dinosaur-era gnome.

I have a theory that gnomes believe it is not their place to rule the world or govern it's direction. They are more than capable of overtaking humans technologically. However, that's simply not a part of gnomishness. They explore and maintain and observe. I think that's down to a matter of respect, the cornerstone of gnomeic thought, once again. Thus, in the time of the dinosaurs, they would not push beyond what the current stewars of the Earth, the terrible lizards, were capable of doing.

For the purposes of searching for posts, the following tags are in use on The Bright Green blog:

• #the bright green - Used for the core content of the blog, which are more scholarly gnomological observations and theories. Usually longer posts and less frequent.

• #gnomes / #gnome posting / #gnomeposting / #gnomology - Used for content relating to gnomes which is usually more shortform and casual. Usually reblogs.

• #gnome-adjacent - Used for content which I feel relates to gnomes thematically or aesthetically but does not necessarily directly feature gnomes. Usually paired with the tag #anthropomorphic animal.