#lucifer meta | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aspoonofsugar · 2 months

Note

Hi! Do you think Alastor and Lucifer are foils?

Hi!

Yes, of course they are!

Alastor and Lucifer's foiling starts in Dad Beats Dad (obviously), where they fight over Charlie's affection. They might seem as opposites throughout the episode, but they are actually the same, as they both try to impress Charlie with their powers:

[ALASTOR:] They say, when you're looking for assistance It's smart to pick the path of least resistance [LUCIFER:] Others say, that in your needy hour There's no substitute for pure angelic power!

Still, Charlie doesn't care and all she wants is for her parental figures to support her:

Charlie: How come he can have faith in me, but my own father can't?

In short, Alastor and Lucifer find pride in their abilities, but need to let go of it, in order to show their love for Charlie. By the end of the episode, they both accomplish this. However, they succeed in slightly different ways, that fit their shared motif of shadow and light. In particular:

Alastor is linked to shadows, as his abilities let him manipulate shadows

Lucifer is linked to light, as his name means morningstar and his powers manifest in light-beams

As a result:

Alastor's development happens in the shadows, whereas Lucifer's in the light - This is true also on a meta-level, as Alastor's arc is the secondary plot-line of the episode, whereas Lucifer's is the main one

Alastor acts as Lucifer's jungian shadow and becomes a catalyst for him to change. Similarly, Alastor himself is challenged to grow by his own jungian shadow, aka Husk

What is the jungian shadow? It is the repressed part of a person. In stories, a character might meet another one, who embodies this hidden part of the self. By integrating with the shadow, the character evolves. In other words, Alastor represents a repressed part of Lucifer and Husk a repressed part of Alastor. Let's see how it all plays out.

ALASTOR, HUSK AND MIMZY

Alastor and Mimzy's bond is unhealthy, as they both enable negative sides of the other. On the one hand Alastor keeps covering for Mimzy, no matter what she does. On the other hand Mimzy feeds Alastor's ego by praising his power and abilities.

So, Mimzy never faces the consequences of her actions:

Mimzy: Thanks for helpin' lil' old me out of a though spot. You're always such a pal.

And Alastor feels respected and appreciated:

Alastor: It's nothing I can't handle. Don't worry Husker. Who in their right mind would cross me?

However, the reality is that Mimzy is using Alastor and Husk points this out:

Husk: You and I both know Mimzy only shows up, when she needs something. That bitch is trouble and who knows what kinda demon she fucked with to come running to you this time?

Not only that, but he openly calls Alastor out on his pride:

Husk: Big talk for someone, who's also on a leash.

Which results in Alastor reacting in anger:

That said, Husk is proven right. It turns out Mimzy has willingly brought chaos to the hotel, so that Alastor could solve things for her. Because of this, Alastor finally cuts ties with her:

Alastor: You deliberately brought danger to this place just to have me clean up your mess. I can't have that here.

This choice is important and it shows how the people around him are slowly impacting Alastor. On the one hand the Radio Demon listens to one of his subjects' advice. On the other hand he acts to protect the hotel. As a matter of fact the moment Alastor steps up as the Host of the Hotel isn't when he sings to Charlie in Hell's Greatest Dad nor when he transforms into a giant and fights. It is when he sends Mimzy away and sacrifices a little bit of his pride to do so. interestingly, this happens as nobody is looking at him, so he isn't really trying to impress nor to trick the others. He acts selflessly in the shadows.

LUCIFER, ALASTOR AND CHARLIE

Lucifer and Charlie's bond is strained:

Charlie: We just have never been close. After he and mom split, he never really wanted to see me. He calls... sometimes, but only if he's bored or like, needs me to do something.

At the root of this conflict there is Lucifer's inability to show his daughter how much he cares. He struggles to express his feelings and hides them behind a prideful persona:

Charlie: I told you when you called me five months ago. Or did you not listen? Lucifer: No, no, no, no. Just, you know, I just forgot. I've just been really busy, ya know with um... important things.

Instead of openly admitting his depression and sadness he prefers to look cold and uninterested. Even dismissive and condescending, like when he arrives at the Hazbin Hotel:

Lucifer: Wow, this place sure looks, uh... Uh-uh. Yeah. Uh-uh. It's got a lot of character!

Lucifer is initially too focused on what he cares about - meeting his daughter - rather than on what Charlie wants - for him to help her with the hotel. He happily hugs Charlie and then immediately moves on to pet Keekee, Razzle and Dazzle, who are his own creations. Only later he considers the welcome Charlie and the others have prepared for him. Even then, he still misses the point and tries to buy Charlie's love by showing off his magical powers:

Haha, looks like you could use some help From the big boss of Hell himself

Except that what Charlie wants from him aren't champaigne fountains or caviar mountains, but an appointment with Heaven, which he negates her. Not only that, but instead of being honest about his fears, he deflects everything on Charlie herself, by dismissing her plan:

Lucifer: Alright, listen, I love that you want to see the best in people, but these sinners... You know, they're just the worst. I, I don't know how much you can realistically expect from them in Heaven.

Luckily, the Radio Demon is closeby, as he forces Lucifer to show his true self.

On the one hand Alastor brings out Lucifer's insecurity and fears:

I'm truly honored that we've built such a bond You're like the child that I wish that I had I care for you, just like a daughter I spawned It's a little funny, you could almost call me dad

He juxtaposes moments of everyday life and affirmations of affection to Lucifer's materialistic and fancy promises. In this way Alastor highlights the faults of Lucifer, as a father. He points out that Lucifer is never there for Charlie.

On the other hand Alastor embodies the kind of sinner Lucifer despises:

Lucifer: Ya see? What I tell ya? Charlie, sinners are violent psychopaths, hell bent on causing as much pain and destruction as they can. There's really no point in trying.

And yet, such a violent psychopath is more willing to help Charlie than Lucifer himself:

Charlie: Dad, stop! He's defending this hotel. It may be a bit more sadistic than I'd hoped. But he's doing it for me!

This realization leads to a confrontation between father and daughter and to an admission on Lucifer's part:

Lucifer: I just don't want you to be crushed by them like... like I was.

The problem isn't Charlie, but Lucifer himself. It is not that Charlie's dream is silly, but that Lucifer's one has been destroyed. This revelation is important because Lucifer's mask comes off and he shows Charlie his weakest and most broken self. He swallows his pride and has Charlie see who her father really his. In all his mistakes and his hurt. And to his surprise Charlie accepts him. Not only that, but she admires him:

So in the end, it's the view I had of you That showed me dreams can be worth fighting for

Symbolically the song More than Anything starts with Lucifer and Charlie in the shadows:

They are repressing a lot and have no idea who the other is. Still, as the song goes on, they get to understand each other:

All that I'm hopin', now that my eyes are open Is that we can start again, not be pulled apart again 'Cause in the end, you are part of who I am

And they end the song surrounded by light:

What is initially in the shadow comes to light in three different ways:

Lucifer shows Charlie his true self

Lucifer sees Charlie for who she is

Lucifer exhibits his weakness in front of the whole Hazbin Hotel. He lets the sinners he dislikes so much witness the mess that he is.

His fragility is in full display. It is in the light for everyone to see.

PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS! ITTY BITTY LIVING SPACE!

Another similarity Alastor and Lucifer share is that they are two powerful beings that give much importance to free will:

Alastor: You should know better than anyone what a soul can accomplish when they take charge of their own fate.

Charlie: Together, they wished to share the magic of free will with humanity.

And yet, they are both trapped:

Alastor: I'm hungry for freedom like never before The constraints of my deal surely have a backdoor Once I figure out how to unclip my wings Guess who will be pulling all the strings?

Charlie: As punishment for their reckless act, Heaven cast Lucifer and his love into the dark pit he had created, never allowing him to see the good that came from humanity, only the cruel and the wicked.

On the one hand Alastor controls many souls, but his own is owned by someone else. On the other hand Lucifer is the strongest being in all of Hell, but he is regarded as a disgrace by other angels.

Moreover, they both project their unhappiness on others. Specifically, Lucifer blames sinners like Alastor:

Lucifer: Our "people", Charlie, are awful! They got gifted free will and look what they did with it! Everything's terrible!

While Alastor lashes out on his prisoners, like Husk:

Alastor: If you ever say that again, I will tear your soul apart and broadcast your screams for every other disrespectful wretch who dares to question me.

Still, the point is that Lucifer is exactly like Alastor. He is a gifted creature, who messed up royally and cursed humanity. Alastor instead is exactly like Husk, a powerful overlord, who still finds himself chained. Lucifer is the most hated being in all of creation and Alastor is on a leash. They are both lonely and desperate, but too proud to admit it. In other words, they are both losers:

Husk: There was a time I thought no one could relate To the gruesome ways in which I'm damaged But lettin' walls down, it can sometimes set you straight! We're all livin' in the same shit-sandwich

Just like everyone in Hell. And yet, this is not bad per se. Even if you hit rock bottom, you can still climb back up, as long as you let go of self-importance and start to earnestly empathize with others. As a matter of fact it is only through community and bonds that a person can be redeemed and heal:

Out for love Love Think of who you care about Protect them and be out For love Love You're gonna fight without gloves Long as you're out for love

This is what Alastor and Lucifer are learning through Charlie.

TWO DADS, ONE DAUGHTER

Season 1 sets up Alastor and Lucifer as two mentor figures to Charlie. They share this role in a way, which makes them almost perfect mirrors. Some examples:

Lucifer gives Charlie the hotel building and Alastor calls it Hazbin Hotel

Alastor helps repair the Hotel in the beginning, while Lucifer assists Charlie in building it anew by the end

Lucifer guides Charlie to Heaven, as he sets up her meeting with Sera and Emily. Alastor instead guides Charlie in Hell as he introduces her to Rosie and helps her inspire the cannibals

Both Alastor and Lucifer believe in Charlie, when she is at her lowest. Alastor does so before the final battle, whereas Lucifer after the fight

Alastor and Lucifer fight Adam (another foil of theirs) in the final episode. Moreover, both belittle his abilities and highlight how he is strong, but unskilled:

Alastor: You lack discipline, control and worst, you are sloppy!

Lucifer: So, this is what you've been up to since Eden? Gotta say, you really let yourself go buddy.

In particular, Alastor is the one supposed to take Adam down, but fails and Lucifer steps in by the end. This is just like in the beginning Lucifer is supposed to support and help Charlie with her project. Still, he is absent and Alastor fills the spot.

In other words, Alastor and Lucifer are unwillingly complementary and so far one has appeared when the other has been incapacitated. We'll see if this pattern continues. As for now, they are clearly framed as key to Charlie's development, so it is possible they will come to embody different sides of her:

Alastor represents the sinners Charlie wants to reach and all their pain and complexity. He is also linked to fear and the unknown. He is the ally she finds by herself. He is the found family Charlie chooses.

Lucifer represents the angels Charlie wants to communicate with. He is also linked to dreams and ideals. He is the legacy she inherits. He is the biological family Charlie wants to re-connect with.

In short, they are both parts of who Charlie is and she needs them to grow into herself. Just like they need her to mature and find redemption and happiness.

#hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel meta #alastor #alastor hazbin hotel #lucifer morningstar #lucifer hazbin hotel #my meta #asksfullofsugar #anonymous

202 notes · View notes

correlance · 2 months

Text

Paradise Lost: How John Milton's 1667 work influenced "Hazbin Hotel"

I've been thinking about why the "fruit of knowledge" in Hazbin Hotel is depicted as an apple, as opposed to another fruit that would've been more accurate to the Middle East during the Fall of Man, as well as how Paradise Lost by John Milton (1667) influenced the show.

Per one source:

"Because the Hebrew Bible describes the forbidden fruit only as 'peri', the term for general fruit, no one knows [what exactly type of fruit it was]. It could be a fruit that doesn't exist anymore. Historians have speculated it may have been any one of these fruits: pomegranate, mango, fig, grapes, etrog or citron, carob, pear, quince, or mushroom."

Per Wikipedia:

"The pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch describes the tree of knowledge: 'It was like a species of the Tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance!' (1 Enoch 31:4)."

In Jewish and Islamic traditions, the "fruit of knowledge" is commonly identified with grapes. The Zohar explains that Noah attempted (but failed) to rectify the sin of Adam by using grape wine for holy purposes. Today, the "Noah grape" is still used to make white wine.

Furthermore:

"The association of the pomegranate with knowledge of the underworld as provided in the Ancient Greek legend of Hades and Persephone may also have given rise to an association with knowledge of the 'otherworld', tying-in with knowledge that is forbidden to mortals. It is also believed Hades offered Persephone a pomegranate to force her to stay with him in the underworld for 6 months of the year. Hades is the Greek god of the underworld, and the Bible states that whoever eats the forbidden fruit shall die."

So, how then did the apple become the foremost symbol of the "fruit of knowledge"? You can partly thank Paradise Lost by English poet John Milton, a work which the lore of Hazbin Hotel is based off of.

Milton published the book in 1667, a time when the hedonistic Restoration era was in full swing. The exiled King Charles II was restored to the throne as King of England in 1660, and was a party animal, with dozens of mistresses, and nicknamed both the "playboy prince" and "Old Rowley", the latter after his favorite lustful stallion.

However, the association of the "fruit of knowledge" began with a Latin pun long before Milton immortalized the association in Paradise Lost. Per the linked article above by Nina Martyris for NPR:

"In order to explain, we have to go all the way back to the fourth century A.D., when Pope Damasus ordered his leading scholar of scripture, Jerome, to translate the Hebrew Bible into Latin. Jerome's path-breaking, 15-year project, which resulted in the canonical 'Vulgate', used the Latin spoken by the common man. As it turned out, the Latin words for evil and apple are the same: 'malus'.

[...] When Jerome was translating the 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil', the word 'malus' snaked in. A brilliant but controversial theologian, Jerome was known for his hot temper, but he obviously also had a rather cool sense of humor.

'Jerome had several options,' says Robert Appelbaum, a professor of English literature at Sweden's Uppsala University. 'But he hit upon the idea of translating 'peri' as 'malus', which in Latin has two very different meanings. As an adjective, 'malus' means 'bad' or 'evil'. As a noun it seems to mean an apple, in our own sense of the word, coming from the very common tree now known officially as the 'Malus pumila'. So Jerome came up with a very good pun.'

The story doesn't end there. 'To complicate things even more,' says Appelbaum, 'the word 'malus' in Jerome's time, and for a long time after, could refer to any fleshy seed-bearing fruit. A pear was a kind of 'malus'. So was the fig, the peach, and so forth.'

Which explains why Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco features a serpent coiled around a fig tree. But the apple began to dominate Fall artworks in Europe after the German artist Albrecht Dürer's famous 1504 engraving depicted the First Couple counterpoised beside an apple tree. It became a template for future artists such as Lucas Cranach the Elder, whose luminous Adam and Eve painting is hung with apples that glow like rubies.

Milton, then, was only following cultural tradition. But he was a renowned Cambridge intellectual fluent in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, who served as secretary for foreign tongues to Oliver Cromwell during the Commonwealth. If anyone was aware of the 'malus' pun, it would be him, and yet he chose to run it with it. Why?

Appelbaum says that Milton's use of the term 'apple' was ambiguous. 'Even in Milton's time the word had two meanings: either what was our common apple, or, again, any fleshy seed-bearing fruit. Milton probably had in mind an ambiguously named object with a variety of connotations as well as denotations, most but not all of them associating the idea of the apple with a kind of innocence, though also with a kind of intoxication, since hard apple cider was a common English drink.'

It was only later readers of Milton, says Appelbaum, who thought of 'apple' as 'apple', and not any seed-bearing fruit. For them, the forbidden fruit became synonymous with the 'malus pumila'. As a widely read canonical work, 'Paradise Lost' was influential in cementing the role of apple in the Fall of Man story."

To tie this back into John Milton's relationship with King Charles II of England, as mentioned, Milton originally served Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, and the English Commonwealth, which was formed with the overthrow and execution of King Charles I on 30 January 1649, following the bloody English Civil War (1642 – 1651).

The King's two sons - the newly-christened King Charles II, the elder, and James, Duke of York (King James II), the younger - fled into exile on the European continent. However, with the death of Oliver Cromwell on 3 September 1658 came the 2-year-long dissolution of the English Commonwealth, and the restoration of the monarchy.

As for Milton himself, we can look to an article by Bill Potter.

Milton, born on 9 December 1608, was around 51-52 years old when King Charles II was restored to the throne. He attended Christ's Church, Cambridge in his youth, and mastered at least six languages, as well as history and philosophy; making him, perhaps, the most knowledgeable poet in history. He spent more than a year travelling across Europe, conversing with and learning from intellectuals, linguists, poets, and artists, including the famous Galileo Galilei.

However, Milton was a controversial figure of his time, being unafraid to criticize institutions of authority; arguing that "divorce was Biblical", for which he was routinely condemned; joining the Puritans; penning the Areopagitica, a treatise on liberty in favor of Parliament and the Roundhead rebels, during the reign of King Charles I, arguing that the King must be held accountable by the people; and agreed with and justified the murder of King Charles I, for which Parliament hired him in 1649 as a propagandist and correspondence secretary to foreign powers, on account of his fiery manifestos against "the man".

The collapse of the Commonwealth with the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658 did not deter Milton from continued political writing against the monarchy and the new public sentiment that brought about its Restoration under King Charles II in 1660. On the contrary, Milton - now totally blind, having lost his eyesight by the age of 44 in 1652, a decade earlier - began writing Paradise Lost in 1661, and spent the next six years dictating the work to transcribers.

A supporter of regicide, Milton was also forced into exile himself, and faked his own death, as Charles refused to pardon - and sought to execute - any of those directly involved with his father's murder. Milton's friends held a mock funeral for Milton on 27 August 1660, just months after the coronation of King Charles II on 23 April 1660.

King Charles II commented that he "applauded his [Milton's] policy in escaping the punishment of death [execution for treason] by a reasonable show of dying", but insisted on a public spectacle nonetheless by having Milton's writings burned by the public hangman.

After eventually obtaining a general pardon from King Charles II, Milton was imprisoned, and released, likely due to political friends in high places. He died, aged 64, in 1674. His theological views were sometimes considered heterodox by the best Puritans, and his political views came close to getting him executed on several occasions. His poetry, however, has endured as some of the greatest works in the English language, especially Paradise Lost; much of his greatest work was written during his 22 years of complete blindness.

One of the main factors in King Charles II deciding to grant a pardon to Milton was, ironically, Paradise Lost. While originally written by Milton as a scathing criticism of King Charles II and the monarchy - depicting Lucifer Morningstar as a sympathetic rebel against God, with King Charles II claiming that is right to rule came from "divine ordainment" - Charles II enjoyed the work, and authorized its publication on 20 August 1667. We know this because a 1668 copy of Paradise Lost in royal bindings by Samuel Mearne, bound lovingly in a fine red leather made of goat skins tanned with sumac, and stamped in gold with the royal cypher of King Charles II, was found. The endpapers bore a watermark with the royal arms of Charles II.

Per one Miltonian scholar: "The most single important event in Milton's life was the event against which he struggled most: the Restoration of Charles II, [and his relationship with the King]. Had it not come, we might have never had Paradise Lost...certainly, we should never have had [it] in [its] present power and significance."

Milton followed up Paradise Lost with Paradise Regained in 1671, three years before his death, with advice for King Charles II, urging the hedonistic Charles to "reign over himself and his passions":

"For therein stands the office of a King, His Honour, Vertue, Merit and chief Praise, That for the Publick all this weight he bears. Yet he who reigns within himself, and rules Passions, Desires, and Fears, is more a King; Which every wise and vertuous man attains: And who attains not, ill aspires to rule Cities of men, or head-strong Multitudes, Subject himself to Anarchy within, Or lawless passions in him which he serves." - John Milton, Paradise Regained, Book II, lines 463-472

To summarize: "If we must have a King back again, my Lord, please try to be a good man, unlike your father, who fell to his pride, [which was also the downfall of Lucifer]."

To quote another source: "Though the passage begins by noting that the office of a King is to bear the weight of public concerns, it is the control of one's private concerns that truly set a King apart as a virtuous character. Indeed, so important is self-command that any wise or virtuous man who attains it is like a king; any king who does not practice [self-command] is nothing more than a mere subject, ruled by anarchy and lawlessness."

Milton's words, too, echo a work written by Charles' grandfather, King James VI/I of Scotland and England: Basilikon Doron ("Royal Gift").

Per Wikipedia:

"'Basilikon Doron' (Βασιλικὸν Δῶρον) means 'royal gift' in Ancient Greek, and was written in the form of a private letter to James' eldest son, Henry, Duke of Rothesay (1594–1612). After Henry's death, James gave it to his second son, Charles, born 1600, later King Charles I. Seven copies were printed in Edinburgh in 1599, and it was republished in London in 1603, when it sold in the thousands.

This document is separated into three books, serving as general guidelines to follow to be an efficient monarch. The first describes a king's duty towards God as a Christian. The second focuses on the roles and responsibilities in office. The third concerns proper behaviour in daily life.

As the first part is concerned with being a good Christian, James instructed his son to love and respect God as well as to fear Him. Furthermore, it is essential to carefully study the Scripture (the Bible) and especially specific books in both the Old and New Testaments. Lastly, he must pray often and always be thankful for what God has given him.

In the second book, James encouraged his son to be a good king, as opposed to a tyrant, by establishing and executing laws as well as governing with justice and equality, such as by boosting the economy. The final portion of the Basilikon Doron focuses on the daily life of a monarch.

All of these guidelines composed an underlying code of conduct to be followed by all monarchs and heads of state to rule and govern efficiently. James assembled these directions as a result of his own experience and upbringing. He, therefore, offered the 'Basilikon Doron' ('Royal Gift') to his son, with the hope of rendering him a capable ruler, and perhaps to pass it down to future generations.

Overall, it repeats the argument for the divine right of kings, as set out in 'The True Law of Free Monarchies', which was also written by James. It warns against 'Papists' (Roman Catholics) and derides Puritans, in keeping with his philosophy of following a 'middle path', which is also reflected in the preface to the 1611 King James Bible. It also advocates removing the Apocrypha from the Bible."

King James VI/I further instructed his son and grandson:

"A good monarch must be well acquainted with his subjects, and so it would be wise to visit each of the kingdoms every three years."

"During war or armed conflict, he should choose old-but-good captains to lead an army of young and agile soldiers."

"In the court and the household, [a royal] should carefully select loyal gentlemen and servants to surround him. When the time came to choose a wife, it would be best if she were of the same religion and had a generous estate. However, she must not meddle with governmental politics, but perform her domestic duties."

"As for inheritance, to ensure stability, the kingdom should be left to the eldest son, not divided among all children."

"Lastly, it is most important...that [a royal] would know well his own craft...to properly govern over his subjects. To do so, [one] must study the laws of the kingdom, and actively participate in the council. Furthermore, [one] must be acquainted with mathematics for military purposes, and world history for foreign policy."

"[A royal] must also not drink and sleep excessively. His wardrobe should always be clean and proper, and he must never let his hair and nails grow long. In his writing and speech, he should use honest and plain language."

King James VI/I further supplemented Basilikon Doron with a written treatise titled The True Law of Free Monarchies: Or, The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Between a Free King and His Natural Subjects.

"It is believed King James VI/I wrote the tract to set forth his idea of absolutist monarchism in clear contrast to the contractarian views espoused by, among others, James' tutor George Buchanan (in 'De Jure Regni apud Scotos'), [which] held the idea that monarchs rule in accordance of some sort of social contract with their people. James saw the divine right of kings as an extension of the apostolic succession, as both not being subjected by humanly laws."

Milton's own Areopagitica was a follow-up on De Jure Regni apid Scotos by George Buchanan, and also to The True Law of Free Monarchies, as well as the idea of the "divine right of kings". It takes its title in part from Areopagitikos (Greek: Ἀρεοπαγιτικός), a speech written by Athenian orator Isocrates in the 4th century BC.

Most importantly, Milton also wrote on the concept of free will: "Milton's ideas were ahead of his time in the sense that he anticipated the arguments of later advocates of freedom of the press by relating the concept of free will, and choice to individual expression and right."

The concept of free will, too, was a major topic explored in Paradise Lost. Per one source: "In 'Paradise Lost', Milton argues that though God foresaw the Fall of Man, he still didn't influence Adam and Eve's free will. [...] God specifically says that he gives his creatures the option to serve or disobey, as he wants obedience that is freely given [or chosen], not forced. Some critics have claimed that the God of the poem undercuts his own arguments; however, Milton did not believe in the Calvinistic idea of 'predestination' (that God has already decided who is going to Hell and who to Heaven), but he often comes close to describing a Calvinistic God. God purposefully lets Lucifer (Satan) escape Hell, and sneak past Uriel into the Garden of Eden, and basically orchestrates the whole situation so that humanity can be easily ruined by a single disobedient act. In describing the Fall of Man before it happens, God already predicts how he will remedy it, and give greater glory to himself by sending his Son [Jesus Christ] to die, and restore the order of Heaven."

In Hazbin Hotel, Adam also describes the Calvinistic idea of 'predestination', and that "the rules are black and white":

However, "This possible predestination leads to the theory of the 'fortunate fall', which is based on Adam's delight at learning of the eventual coming of the Messiah [from his bloodline]. This idea says that God allowed the Fall of Man, so that he could bring good out of it, possibly more good than would have occurred without the Fall, and be able to show his love and power through the incarnation of his Son. In this way, the free will of Adam and Eve (and Lucifer/Satan) remains basically free, but still fits into God's overarching plan."

However, there is one major flaw with this, and that is that we don't know if Jesus Christ exists within the Hazbin Hotel universe or not. Yet Charlie Morningstar, the daughter of Lucifer Morningstar and Lilith, and the "Princess of Hell", is depicted as a savior-esque figure within the show who, like God in Paradise Lost, encourages lowly sinners to choose obedience to God out of their own free will. More interestingly, Charlie does not come from Adam's bloodline; yet, while Lucifer decries 'free will', Charlie supports 'free will' instead.

Perhaps is is merely because Charlie, being the daughter of Lucifer and Lilith, claims to want to fulfill Lilith's "dream" of humanity being empowered in Hell ("The mind is its own place, it can make Heaven out of Hell, or Hell out of Heaven" - Lucifer, Paradise Lost); however, I think it also stems from Charlie having a genuine belief that 'free will', and people choosing to do good instead of evil, is "good" and "Godly".

True to Paradise Lost, this is also in fulfillment of God's plan; and, according to one fanfiction, why God allowed Charlie to be born to Lucifer and Lilith, so that sinners may be redeemed through Charlie.

For more on differing interpretations of 'free will', I suggest reading: "Free Will and the Diminishing Importance of God's Will: A Study of Paradise Lost and Supernatural" by Kimberly Batchelor (2016)

Excerpt: "'Paradise Lost' –and Milton’s purpose for writing the poem— is rooted deeply in postreformation Arminianism and this is apparent in its employment of free will. Chapter 1 argues that Milton turns to free will as a tool to justify the actions of God. Freedom of choice is God-given, and sets up a morality in which right and wrong are dictated by God. Chapter 2 shows that in 'Supernatural', free will is not given by a higher power; and, in fact, free choice functions as an act of defiance against God's will."

This raises the question: Is 'free will' given by God, using Lucifer as his vessel, in Hazbin Hotel, as in Paradise Lost? Or is 'free will' not given by a higher power; and, in fact, an act of defiance against God?

This brings us back around to our first question: Why is an apple, or 'malus', used to depict the "fruit of knowledge", especially if 'malus' means 'bad or evil', whereas Milton depicts 'free will' as God-given?

Well, for one, Lucifer still chooses to associate himself with apple symbolism and imagery, despite being skeptical of free will:

Based on the introduction to Episode 1, Charlie also views 'free will' as a gift (Miltonian), whereas Lucifer appears to view it as a curse.

However, Charlie also notes that it was through the 'gift' of free will that the "root of all evil" entered the world, for if mankind could choose to be good, then they could also choose to be evil ('malus').

John Milton states in Paradise Lost: "Of Man's First Disobedience, and the Fruit Of that Forbidden Tree [malus], whose mortal taste Brought Death (evil, malus) into the World, and all our woe."

Thus, the use of an apple specifically is likely a tie-in to what others have been speculating about a character that series creator Vivienne Medrano (Vivziepop) alluded to a while back: "The Root of All Evil".

However, "Roo" itself is depicted as possessing the body of a human woman, presumably Eve, the first one to eat the "fruit of knowledge":

Thus, we can discern that "Malus" likely refers to this character. (Also see: "Maleficent", a name that also uses the root word "mal", "evil".) As for Roo's intentions, if Charlie is "good" - and, if, in fact, Alastor was sent by "Roo" (Eve) - then they may want for Alastor to work on their behalf to "corrupt" Charlie, or make sure the hotel never succeeds.

This is because demonic power is tied to human souls, and there are "millions of souls" in Hell, which likely fuels the great power of "Roo". The more souls there are in Hell, the more powerful "Roo" becomes. The Overlords also get their demonic power from "millions of souls".

The deal between Eve and "Roo" might even be the first contract, or deal, between a human soul and a demonic entity; in exchange for 'free will', and the knowledge of good and evil, Eve allowed the "Root of All Evil" to inhabit her body, and to escape the void or prison it was confined to by Heaven (Hell?). (For one cannot be 'all-good' unless you attempt to 'eliminate' or 'ablate' evil; and, in Greek mythology, Zeus imprisoned the Titans in Tartarus for all of their evil deeds.)

Another possibility, brought up in an article by Gillian Osborne, is that Lucifer sees the "fruit of knowledge" as an apple, but it may appear as different fruits to different people, depending on how they view it. This also fits with Lucifer and angels being able to easily shapeshift.

In Paradise Lost, only Lucifer describes the fruit as an "apple" (malus), as he associates malus with "bad, evil", while the narrator also describes the fruit as "a mix of different colors" and peach-like. This then begs the question: "Did the fruit of knowledge of good and evil become 'evil' because Eve harbored resentment towards Adam?"

Quote: "Lucifer (Satan) gives Eve yet another hint that this tree may be more complicated than he wishes her to believe: although elsewhere in Milton's poem Eden is heady with its own newness, sprouting spring flowers left and right, the tree of knowledge is already old: its trunk is 'mossie'. Nevertheless, Lucifer claims to wind himself around the tree 'soon'; the quickness of his reported arrival stands in contrast to the timescales required to cover a fruit tree with moss (PL 9.589). Placing Lucifer's winding body between these two timescales—an easeful present and the inhuman scale of natural history—Milton suggests that there is something dangerous in entangling the past with the present. Yet, 'Paradise Lost' also makes deep biblical history feel like present politics for its readers. When Adam and Eve wander out of Eden at the end of the poem, they famously make their way not only into an earthly paradise, but also into the present. Eden's mossy apple tree therefore represents the pitfalls of conflating nature and history, of seeing any action in human history—even Eve's eating of an apple—as natural, if by nature, we mean inevitability. For Milton, history, unlike nature, is directed by humans, progressive, and, like the reading of 'Paradise Lost', hard work. While trees may inevitably collect moss the longer they live, Adam and Eve's labors in the garden, and our labors of reading, require agency and effort. Milton's poem refuses mourning the loss of Eden, [and the perfection of Heaven], in favor of a perpetual, melancholic, recreation of paradise: a present perfecting."

To quote Twisted: The Untold Story of a Royal Vizier, which also draws inspiration from John Milton's Paradise Lost: "It's an unfortunate situation...but you do have a choice [i.e. free will]."

#hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel analysis #hazbin #hazbin analysis #hazbin hotel meta #hazbin meta #hazbin hotel theory #hazbin theory #deep thoughts #john milton #paradise lost #eve hazbin hotel #lucifer hazbin hotel #lucifer morningstar #adam hazbin hotel #lilith hazbin hotel #lilith morningstar #roo hazbin hotel #root of all evil

201 notes · View notes

past-the-comfortzone · 3 months

Text

SHOW CRUMBS FROM THE RECENT Q&A

Red quotes are from Amir Talai (alastor's VA)

Green quotes are from Vivienne

Yellow texts are my own fuckery

(quotes may not be exact wordings but I tried my best)

❀ Alastor was not that honest about being Charlie's dad. He was just immediately put off by Lucifer, this powerful being, and thought "how do I mess with this guy? Oh I know how"

❀ Charlie gets a cool costume in the finale

❀ Alastor will be explored more in future episodes; he might also be scared of something or someone because "Vivienne won't write someone who has it all"

❀ We'll also see more of Alastor's emotions explored

(Ig this means Alastor won't be the one to die!)

❀ We'll see more of Nifty and Alastor's relationship in next couple of episodes; they get along because they both see that everything is beneath them. Nifty doesn't care about anything, Al doesn't care about anything. Alastor is fond of Nifty and finds her fun and endearing.

❀ Lucifer wears a hat as a crown and to make up for height. "I don't think Lucifer cares about fashion, I think he cares about his height and shortness"

❀ Charlie is around mid 6ft and Val above 10ft. Most characters are really unhuman in scale.

❀ The song from the trailer will be in next drop (wasn't clarified if episode 7 or 8)

❀ Confirmed someone dies. "I can cause a lot of chaos right now." "If you're worried it's Angel, you can sleep fine tonight"

(seems like both Al and Angel are safe for now then!)

Some jokes shared by the three:

❀ Viv thinks Al is more chaotic neutral; Amir refuses to comment. "I'm not smart enough to answer without giving things away"

❀ Alastor always being in full attire

"I feel like he's the type of a guy to sleep in full get up— Though I'm not sure he sleeps much"

"Someone can walk in on him showering and see if he has a tail—"

"And he still has his coat on!"

270 notes · View notes

morningsofgold · 2 months

Text

Yes radioapple is fun if they end up in bed together but I think it's funnier if they just begrudgingly share space while nurturing an completely outsized hatred of each other. Smiling big smiles while Charlie is in the room and then going full rap battles of history on each other as soon as she skips off. Laying deadly snares across the hotel and then blinking big doe eyes when Vaggie asks where all the bear traps and trapdoors came from like "I haven't the faintest notion of what you are referring to".

#hazbin hotel #radioapple #alastor #lucifer #meta

135 notes · View notes

nunalastor · 3 months

Text

#if HE couldn't make heaven better how can his daughter?#✨pride✨#hazbin hotel #lucifer morningstar #meta

4K notes · View notes

metalatias5 · 18 days

Text

It might just be the depression, but Lucifer feels so relatable that I have to project my ADHD onto him too, pff I just spend 9 hours in a row just tonight to finally get this one done since I'd started it before the last comic and wanted to have it finally ready before I get even more ideas started cgvhbj (I still have more WIPs to work on)

#Hazbin Hotel #Charlie Morningstar #Hazbin Charlie #Lucifer Morningstar #Hazbin Lucifer #Alastor #Radio Demon #ADHD #Meta #MetaTheTrifox #MetaLatias #MetaLatias5

598 notes · View notes

pentacentric · 6 months

Text

so if angel vessels are tied to bloodlines…

and sam is lucifer's perfect vessel, and dean is micheal's…

and their ancestors were bred specifically to perfect them over time…

and john was able to hold michael fairly easily…

…does that mean mary would have been a good vessel for lucifer?

JFC WRITERS WHY DID WE NOT GET LUCIFER-POSSESSED MARY???

can you imagine what that would have done to her? can you imagine what that would have done to sam??

#just another lost opportunity #this would have been so delicious #the possibilities #the aftermath #the guilt #the shame #for both of them #early s13 it could have worked #supernatural writers have some regrets #or at least i do #spn meta #sam winchester and lucifer #mary winchester and lucifer #sam smith would have killed it i bet

219 notes · View notes

indigovigilance · 7 months

Text

The Erasure of Human!Metatron

The elephant in the room is that Neil has [purportedly] denied the existence of a human Metatron. But I, for one, think an elephant really ties the room together. So let's get started.

First, I will address Neil Gaiman’s apparent denial of the Human!Metatron storyline (below the cut):

Caption: The Metatron in Good Omens wasn't ever human.

Which would seem to put the debate to bed.

Except.

Caption: That’s not really his father. It is. It is now, and it always was.

By Adam renouncing Satan as his father, we have in-story canon evidence that the past can be retroactively changed. So a storyline past can be divergent from an in-world past which has been modified. But only to a degree, because Aziraphale and Crowley clearly remember that Adam ~was~ Satan’s son, and Adam still retains some residual powers. Like pencil marks on paper, the past can be erased, but the shadow of its former self will always be there. But if that's not enough for you, there's also...

Lucifer!Satan

Neil Gaiman has also been pretty consistent with this characterization about the non-existence of the past in other characters, for example Lucifer!Satan:

Basically (not to be rude), if you think that these statements can be taken to mean that we will definitely not get a story about Enoch aka Human!Metatron in S3, you have fundamentally misunderstood how time, history, and identity work in Neil Gaiman’s Good Omens universe.

So what Neil said about Metatron never being human… can we just collectively set that aside for a moment?

Caption: Work with me, I’m extrapolating here. Yes? Good. Read the rest of the meta.

Evidence of Human!Metatron

Now that we have established that a former, no-longer-existing version of Metatron could have been human, let’s examine the in-world evidence. The best direct evidence is:

Caption: I’ve ingested things in my time, you know.

This is weirdly important in the Book of Enoch. Food is mentioned in the Book of Enoch at least fourteen times, and consistently it is associated with being human, and having earthly desires, and subsequently with sin, whereas the angels are described as not needing to eat food but instead being nourished by faith alone. Enoch!Metatron’s own relationship with food is also explicitly elucidated:

Enoch answered to his son Mathosalam (and) said: Hear, child, from the time when the Lord anointed me with the ointment of his glory, (there has been no) food in me, and my soul remembers not earthly enjoyment, neither do I want anything earthly.

I propose that "in my time" is a direct reference to Metatron's prior existence as a human, and the fact that this time is over serves to underscore his current inhumanity, making him all the more sinister.

Other Evidence Pointing to Book of Enoch

This next bit is somewhat dubious evidence, but the entire reason I wound up investigating this is that I was actually investigating Baraqiel:

…and for the God-fearing life of me, I cannot find any reference to Baraqiel except in the Book of Enoch. So this is a pretty big ✨Clue✨ to just leave hanging out there if it’s not supposed to lead us to this text.

The Scottish Mason

Okay guys, this the part where it all comes unhinged, but I promise the payoff is worth it.

The Book of Enoch was recovered from Ethiopia in 1773 by a Scottish explorer named James Bruce, who also happened to be a Mason. In 1774, upon his return, he was made a Fellow of The Royal Society of Edinburgh. And if this quote doesn’t get you, I don’t know what will:

Amazingly, Bruce brings back not just one copy, nor two, but three! Three copies of this text, which was previously thought to have been lost to the West forever. This inevitably led to all kinds of accusations as to where he had come by them, and more importantly how? Add to this that Bruce was a Mason in one of the most influential lodges, a Bruce descendant, and an imposing physical figure and 6 feet 4 inches tall, with dark red hair and an irascible temper, it is no wonder that so much excitement and mystery surrounded the man. [source]

So, you know, this guy:

In summary:

There are reasons that we should be looking to the Book of Enoch, and the story surrounding its reintroduction to the Western world, as source evidence for Good Omens S3.

If you enjoyed this, you may also like my meta on Baraqiel and Azazel, which draws upon the Book of Enoch.

My original (in retrospect, kind of terrible) Metatron meta is here.

#good omens meta #good omens #good omens 2 #the metatron #metatron #book of enoch #crowley #satan #lucifer #baraqiel #book of life #ivoc #erasure theory

225 notes · View notes

galaxythreads · 7 months

Note

Foegive me of this is a question you've answered in the past but, what are your thoughts on the scene at the beginning of Avengers 1 where Loki sort of doubles over/trips on his way out of the SHIELD base and it's never addressed?

Also thoughts on the canonicity of various myths to the MCU Loki backstory?

no worries, I don't mind answering questions twice. My blog is long and tales tales, so I understand if people don't want to hunt for answers and just reask stuff.

as far as your question goes,

SCREAMING SCREAMING SCREAMING. Do you KNOW how much I LOVE that SCENE (the answer is no because I haven't talked about it) but I LOVE THAT SCENE! That is THE scene to me. I love everything about how carefully it's handled because what you have to look for is SUBTEXT here, because the Avengers was written in a way that forces you to think. It doesn't lay everything out for you, it's intended you come to your own conclusions.

The Avengers trusts you and that is a very strange thing for media now. It's pretty rare to find one that doesn't treat you like an idiot.

Breaking this down:

The first frame with Loki is of him kneeling. That is the first thing we learn about him. I want you guys to remember that the introduction of a character is HUGE. It tells us the most important things for us to know about that character right now

So what do we need to know about Loki RIGHT THEn. Right at the start of the movie?

he's smart. He opened the portal with the Tesseract, from across space, and teleported himself to another planet. This is something no one has replicated (using an infinity stone from across space). Loki is said to "know it's workings like they never will" which says a lot about him.

Loki was GIVEN the scepter by the Chitauri, but if you watch that opening opening scene, it looks more like it's being forced on him than him GLADLY taking it. (There's this half second where the Other waits to make sure Loki is actually going to hold it. Loki doesn't reach for it until he has to. One of the most powerful objects in existence and it practically has to be shoved into his hands) Look how close their bodies are. Like bro???

-okay, then Loki comes through the portal and he is KNEELING. so the first, and I mean the VERY FIRST thing we need to know about Loki is that he is in the subservience of someone/thing else. This gif below is artwork of that moment, but still. Like. who do you think he's kneeling TO? Well, the opening scene of the Avengers showcases that the Other is kneeling to Thanos, Ergo, using the subtext trust that the director/writers have given us, that means Loki was kneeling to Thanos before he came through the portal.

And then, Loki comes out like a hunted animal, but he legitimately does not remember he's holding the scepter until Fury points it out to him. You can see him look down at it in confusion. And okay, WHY is he confused? I remember watching this for the first time at 14 and going huh, that's kinda weird he forgot he had the weapon. What this is trying to tell us is that this is not a familiar weapon to Loki AND -- it is doing something to him. It's emitting that same misty thing that it does when Loki possesses someone later. That wispy smoke is always so interesting to me because of the implications. The scepter doesn't do that unless it is FRESHLY possessing someone. And what do we know about Loki TWO SECONDS AGO?

he was kneeling to thanos.

Anyway, so Loki gives his name, is not a well man, and the scene you're actually referring to is this one:

which GETS ME EVERY TIME. I could talk aout this scene for hours. The implications of it. (Also if you've read my work YSFSLWFTCA, that man who grabs Loki's back is Nathan Swenson ;)

So I've been getting professional acting training for about 6-7 months now and one thing I have learned is that nothing makes it in the movie by accident. The director has to approve it, the editor, the producer, up the whole food chain. This was not Tom Hiddleston sneezing and then them keeping it in the movie because it's funny. So this was put in on purpose. They WANTED you to know that Loki isn't okay. And a scene like this would get like what? idk 3-6 takes at a minimum, which means that they flimed this ON PURPOSE 3-6 times. Tom Hiddleston was instructed to do this ON PURPOSE. That guy who approaches Loki's back was told to do that ON PURPOSE. Loki was supposed to be shown to be a mess physically. Like. Then they go and KEEP doing this later, when Loki can't get into the car and can barely keep himself upright. Loki doesn't start to look "okay" until Germany and even then he's not doing amazing.

What's interesting to me, beyond the obvious implications toward bodily harm - torture! :) - is the timing. Loki immediately topples when Clint hands the Tesseract to Selvig. There's something about Clint doing that that seems to cause him physical pain. That could be a coincidence, and I bet it is because it's not brought up again in the movie that the Tesseract exchanging hands gives Loki physical pain, but it is interesting.

Another interesting point is that Clint looks away, Selvig doesn't care, but that sheild agent Immediately moves up to put his hand on Loki's back to support him. And Loki doesn't flinch. That always struck me as weird, right, because even people who don't have trauma flinch when someone touches their back and they weren't expecting it. And Loki clearly wasn't? So why didn't he twitch at least a little? Tom Hiddleston is too good of an actor for that to be a mistake.

So to me that means that Loki just... doesn't have feeling in his spine at that moment. Or he was in too much pain to even register it. Loki was clearly tortured with some type of heat. If you watch him in this scene he's displaying all the signs of heat exhaustion. So I kinda think that maybe Loki got burned so badly on his back before this happened that he just... doesn't feel anything anymore. It had to have been recent for walking to nearly send him toppling, but Loki's back is a source of issues for the entire movie.

That is why this scene is here from a directing perspective. to SET UP Loki's back problems. The extent of them are left vague, but I think when Tom Hiddleston and Joss Whedon sat down to talk about Loki for the Avengers, one of the things they must have agreed on was that Loki was not in good physical condition and they planned to show that THE ENTIRE MOVIE. I don't know if they talked about torture or Thanos, but they talked about SOMETHING.

But I just...idk. That guy grabs Loki's back to support him in an effort to help and it's just so interesting to me. Because how does the mind control WORK then? Selvig is obsessed with the Tesseract. He almost seems possessed by that rather than Loki. Clint goes completely silent and doesn't do anything except the mission. THIS GUY immediately comes to take care of Loki, and Loki himself is ruthlessly efficient with one goal in his mind. So it's interesting. Subtext! :D

So what do I think about this scene. I think that Loki was tortured and his back is giving out and I LOVE THIS SCENE BECAUSE IT IS SO DARK BUT TRYING NOT TO BE.

Thanos' immediate response to something not going his way is torture and he knows Loki. Knows him well enough to pick his brother out of a crowd in Infinity War and leave him alive until the end. Knows him well enough to make his death personal. Strangulation is a crime of passion. Thanos hurt Loki and he knew Loki, and the idea that Thanos made sure that Loki wouldn't see the torture coming - by doing it to his back/spine - is just an extra layer of awful. Thanos left Thor alive. On purpose. He could have killed him. He didn't.

That was Loki's punishment. Leaving Thor alone. Because Thanos knew that would hurt him the most.

But Thanos also chose to kill Loki, and in infintiny war, while hunting the stones, Thanos doesn't make any unnecessary bodies. Which to me, means that Thanos had to kill Loki because he saw Loki as a threat.

So anyway, somehow I'm talking about Loki and Thanos again, who are my favorite horrible duo and I love talking about them because their relationship is so so messed up. I wish that the Loki series had DONE something with Thanos and Loki, but they didn't. :/

But why Loki's back? Like Thanos started with Loki's head in the post-credits scene of Thor 1:

why did he move to Loki's back? Also the fact that Thanos was having Loki hunt down the Infinity Stones through astral projection and/or enchantment is just so messed up and I love it. Wish it had been explored because THIS ^^^ was the giant beast I wanted poked at in Loki season 1.

#loki #loki meta #in defense of loki #loki was tortured #loki and thanos #their relationship is THE torture/torturee dynamic to me #even including Sam and Lucifer from SPN who also have an equally messed up horrible terrible relationship #i just love the torture/torturee relationships that are just digustingly intimate in a non-romantic way #because torture for the same of torture is just business #there's something terrifying about it being personal #so anyway always happy to talk about thanos and loki #like literally always #this makes me want to write about them lol #*sighs happily* so messed up

203 notes · View notes