Dieser Blog soll eine Zusammenstellung von spannenden, lustigen, kuriosen, unterhaltsamen, seltsamen und außergewöhnlichen Geschichten, Vorfällen, Ereignissen und Begebenheiten der vergangenen ConQuest of Mtyhodea werden. Da ich nur Geschichten aus der Sicht des Veranstalters berichten kann, bin ich auf eure Hilfe angewiesen!!! Wenn ihr also Co-Autoren werden möchtet, meldet euch einfach bei mir (hier oder gern auch per Mail an meks(at)conquest-team.de

Sollte jemand diesen Blog entdecken, der nicht weiß, was das ConQuest of Mythodea ist, der besucht am besten einfach unsere Homepage www.live-adventure.de

Alle anderen sind natürlich auch herzlich zum Besuch eingeladen

Wer ich bin?

Ich heiße Meks und bin Head der Stadt und seit dem ersten ConQuest 2004 mit dabei!

This post amplifies the last post #753 and completes the series.

As a man sees it, conquest rewards him with frequent and convenient access to sex with her. After marriage, even if conquest occurred earlier, wife rewards with plentiful sex, or else she short-circuits his frequent and convenient access. To explain:

• First, conquest itself is not his major reward. His personal glory comes with his investment paying off. Not what she does by refusing to yield over time and against all his efforts, but what he does to accept and adjust to her objections.
• The more and deeper each refusal that he respects, accepts, or tolerates, the more and deeper his investment of himself in her hopes and dreams. When he marries before conquest, he invests his ultimate Self, signified by giving up his independence.
• Second, assume conquest follows marriage. His wedding night reward jumpstarts his future of unlimited sex, as he anticipates it. He has frequent and convenient access, and it’s clearly ‘earned’ and deserved. He naturally keeps coming back for regular sex, but she has to reward him to keep his sexual thoughts in her bed. How?
• She never shows anything but pleasure, joy, and satisfaction with their sex life. He’s the sexual apple in her eye, and she never lets him forget it. Never sex itself but sex with him; without him sex is nothing. And her attitude should continue for life, which makes it more difficult for wife after their romantic love fades in a year or two.
• Those are his rewards after marriage. Her excuses and denials eat like acid rain on whatever joy and satisfaction she does infrequently show.

I know. I know. You just exploded. So let me finish:

• Masculine sexual techniques often offend or cause discomfort for sex partners. It’s a different issue, and if it dominates wife’s marital thoughts, his eye will start to wander or worse.
• She needs another and unoffending ‘game plan’. It calls for highly developed skills of indirectness best developed during courtship.
• For example: She can anticipate and figure out potential solutions to issues that may arise after his conquest. Is he long or short on intimacy, patience when she drags things out, or politeness when things don’t go his way?

I will be asked for details about an ‘unoffending game plan’, but I’d rather not tackle it. I’m a man and not into indirectness at the skill level required to retrain a man to a woman’s liking for intimacy and other female desires. By ducking out, or chickening out, I close this series.

This post continues with the splendor and dignity of merging mutual rewards into a successful marriage.

I can’t repeat this often enough: Sex does not bond men. However, investing himself bonds a man. Rewards earned keep him invested, because rewards encourage more of the same behavior. Excuses and denials discourage sexual episodes but not the male sex drive.

Pre-marital sex for a couple takes the crown off her marital majesty. It suggests others may have known her, implies she may be bribing him, and reduces reward-ability if they do marry. None may be fatal, but each weakens her holding power for a lifelong marriage.

For sex with her to be a reward, he has to invest himself. A small investment for sex with her may be somewhat rewarding, but does it make him want to live with her forever? A man’s devotion springs from actions, such as investing himself in something—hobby, woman, job? The greater his investment of himself, the greater is his reward.

Husbanding and fathering require rewards to keep a man loyal and dedicated. Rewards imply more to come, which keeps his attentions on the one providing rewards. Sex is not truly a reward unless conquest has been worked for, and subsequent events are encouraged and not reluctantly given.

In the end, the investment of his independence comes from withholding her ultimate asset until he makes the ultimate commitment of marrying her. It sounds so simple, but few relationship accommodations are more difficult.

The majesty, the splendor and dignity of sex? It rises with lifelong devotion and dedication to one another. It feeds off romantic intimacy, if the proper foundation was laid earlier.

Three factors breed manly devotion and marital longevity, and they build from the mutual exchange of assets, commitments, and rewards. The swapping works far more successfully, when she’s virgin or virtual virgin**:

They swap ultimate assets:

• Her ultimate asset is sex, and especially when unconquered by him. Their first sex together means he conquered and thus ‘owns’ her for sex, if he so desires. If they marry first, then he obviously desires it.  
• His ultimate asset is independence from other women and the ability to devote himself to helping fulfill her hopes and dreams.

They swap ultimate commitments:

• Her ultimate commitment shows up with proof or conviction to him that he’s the only sex object in her eyes. Lengthy courtship without sex goes a long way to convince him, because he tries everything and fails. That other men have known her doesn’t dampen his drive to conquer, but it grossly dampens his sense of significance, if he’s to invest himself in her.
• His ultimate commitment comes with investing himself to help fulfill her hopes and dreams. She has to earn his commitment by showing devotion to him. What displays her devotion better than anything else? Saving her sexual self exclusively for him, whether as virgin or virtual virgin!

They reward each other:

• Her ultimate reward comes when husband needs and wants to stay with her permanently.
• His ultimate reward comes when he conquers her. He gains frequent and convenient sex with ‘his’ female that others have not and will not know. The reward continues in mini-doses with subsequent love making. (He doesn’t know about her greatest benefit: His conquest under her terms taught her how to sustain his investment in her and their future.)

The magic of making majestic rewards work continues tomorrow.

**See CONTENTS for listing of Virtual Virginity articles.

by Robert Kirkman (writer), Ryan Ottley (pencils), Cliff Rathburn (inks), FCO Plascencia (colors), and Rus Wooton (letters)

The Story: Dinosaurus attacks, Mark meets Eve’s parents, and several old foes of Invincible’s consolidate for their next big attack.

What’s Good: Well, you certainly can’t get on this issue for lack of plot progression.  This is a very brisk read literally jam-packed with action, humor, and happenings.  After last month’s dry affair, it’s also a breath of fresh air.

The issue’s generally strong because it hinges on the chemistry between Mark and Eve, which has been one of the bedrocks of the series for some time now.  Their affection, compatibility, and mutual understanding have always been well done, and this month is no different.  The two fit together as well as ever and their conversations are always a smooth, comfortable read.

Kirkman expands that dynamic outward this month, as Mark meets Eve’s parents.  What ensues is well-executed comedy that’ll definitely bring a smile to your face.  This comes largely thanks to Kirkman’s portrayal of Eve’s father.  The guy’s just the right combination of antiquated patriarchy and unnerving masculine perversion.  Kirkman essentially takes the “man’s home is his castle” complex to its most appalling heights, and it’s hard not to laugh, particularly when it comes to Ottley’s illustration of Mark’s reaction.

Of course, like any of Kirkman’s more dense issues, this book plants a number of very large seeds that impact the comic as a whole.  Mark hints at his more murderous Viltrumite side in a way that’ll have you wondering “what if” and the issue ends with a MASSIVE bombshell that’ll change the landscape of this series for the foreseeable future, if not forever.  Meanwhile, the plots with Conquest and those damned sequids also see substantial developments.

Ryan Ottley delivers the exact same quality we’ve come to expect out of Invincible.  That said, what takes this book over his average affair is the battle with Dinosaurus.  While Plascencia’s colors are clearly a boon, the giant red dino just looks absolutely awesome.  Having a fight with a giant dinosaur always rates high on the awesome scale, and Ottley makes the most of it.

What’s Not So Good: With so much stuff packed into 22 pages, the pacing of this issue was just all over the map.  The last portion of the issue was simply a string of unrelated major developments with absolutely no real attempt to segue between them.  It was more or less a series of completely isolated and detached two page scenes.

The mood of the book also suffers due to this hectic structuring.  With most of the issue being written in a light, comic tone, Kirkman’s failing to segue to his major developments makes the experience feel fairly jarring and off-putting.  For instance, the massive shocker at the end of the book is of a massively different tone from the pages before it, and it’s hard not to feel like you’ve been pitched a ball from left field.

Also, while I liked Oliver’s new costume this month, what the hell happened to him?  While it’s good to see Oliver finally grow older, I feel like we’ve experienced a sudden five-year leap between issues.  I’m sure Kirkman will use Oliver’s heritage as an out, but that doesn’t stop this from feeling lazy and off-putting.

Conclusion: The book’s pacing is a bit of a mess, but the strength of its characters and the sheer number of developments in its pages more than makes up for that.

Grade: B

-Alex Evans

In what follows, let’s exclude gals truly seeking one night stands, seducing men just to have sex, or providing it in exchange for political or business favors. Conquest is not the name of that game.

Unmarried sexual conquest is self-defeating for women. They don’t yield without expecting their lives to somehow be involved afterward with the man. They may yield out of love, but they have underlying motives. They may want to be a girlfriend, fiancée, or wife, but too easily they end up as booty aka lover aka mistress aka almost-dumped or actually dumped.

Women bribe men to help pursue female hopes and dreams. The ‘unworkability’ should be obvious.

• Women appreciate what they are given, and they give in return to endorse the spirit. It works well with and between women.
• But men are different; they appreciate what they accomplish. Giving sex for the sake of giving, pleasing, or bribing a man poisons her motives to him.
• Self-defeat starts here: Once he’s conquered her ultimate resistance or greatest asset, she has too little else worth investing his total self in her. Sex with her now or prospects for more do not brighten his future. (A long ‘no-sex’ courtship can help reverse this effect.)
• Whether intended as gift to please or reward to capture, unmarried sex becomes an unsuccessful bribe. Although she may capture him, she loses so much holding power that their relationship takes on a temporary cast at best. 
• When bought off with sexual bribery, future sex falls empty on his psyche. He’s for frequent and convenient access to her for sex, but bribery exposes her to extortion by him. Her value to him lowered with conquest.

Bribery just doesn’t work. Once she yields, she has no ultimate asset to attract his ultimate asset, namely investment of his independence. His rewards that promise his future presence come only from his investment in her as described in tomorrow’s post.

Over the past five decades, American women gave up their dominant presence in the social and domestic atmosphere. They abandoned the majesty of sex that causes men to help fulfill one female’s hopes and dreams.   

• First: Women took their eyes off the Judeo-Christianized and feminine-centered lifetime marriage. This dimmed their own futures and released men from seeking family responsibility.
• Second: Women ignored two natural principles: Withholding sex keeps a man coming back long enough to learn how a particular woman can fill his life. Yielding to a man’s conquest releases him to move on to someone else.
• Third: Women believed and followed feminists and political activists as they attacked the character and worth of men. Under a blanket of female suspicion and imposed but not always accepted male guilt, they smothered the unconditional respect, regard, and appreciation for husbands, fathers, and the male gender generally.
• Fourth: The only men worthy of female admiration became those enamored of Feminism. Those who ignored masculine values and adopted or accepted female values as more relevant—for example, equal sharing of infant care and political correctness.
• Fifth: Unintended, unfortunate, and unknown, women converted sex from reward to bribe, from something to be earned to something given, from ultimate asset to functional tool.

Future posts cover the reward and bribery issues.

So tonight I had the opportunity to shoot OK GO at USC’s Conquest. It’s a pretty unique event, a huge rally of various events the weekend before the UCLA vs. USC game. In addition to have OK GO perform, there was a ferris wheel, the burning of a wooden bruin (the flame was well over 20 feet high at one point), performance from the marching band, and a stand up act from Jamie Kennedy.  Though the vast majority of the shots I got from tonight were in the press pit and were more typical photos, I decided to choose this one because it’s not everyday the vocalist goes out into the crowd to perform a song.

080. The Smiling Lieutenant (Ernst Lubitsch, 1931)
It’s kind of strange to see Miriam Hopkins, the actress who I think is the true Queen of Pre-Code film, playing such a sweet, timid character. No actress during the era enjoyed her sexuality more than Hopkins, but she’s able to play the inexperienced slightly prudish wife of Maurice Chevalier so well and so convincingly that it’s hard to believe it’s the same woman. Until the end, that is, when she becomes the sexual being that Hopkins was known for. It’s almost like watching the birth of the Pre-Code queen. The “Jazz Up Your Lingerie” number with Hopkins and Claudette Colbert is easily the high point of the movie. One wouldn’t think that these women would get along (since they’re rivals for the same man) but they have so much chemistry, almost more than either woman has with Chevalier. This is a Lubitsch movie, so it’s just as sophisticated as it is sexy, and it’s a joy to watch.

079. Conquest (Clarence Brown, 1937)
It’s refreshing when a movie that’s based on fact comes right out and says, before the movie even starts, that the story has been seriously embellished and that it’s a more romanticized version of the events that actually happened. Conquest, a movie about the love story between Napoleon and his mistress, the Polish Countess Marie Walewska, does this. It starts with the disclaimer. It’s nice to see a movie not hide that it’s not 100% fact. Because when the movie is good, that doesn’t really matter, and Conquest is good. It’s very good. It’s kind of amazing that this was made during the strict era of code enforcement considering the entire story is about a romantic relationship between the Countess, who has left her husband, and Napoleon, who eventually becomes married to someone else, even though they never marry. The love story really is beautifully told. It starts out with Marie mostly taking on the role of the Emperor’s mistress to help her country, but she comes to truly love this man. Conquest is also somewhat unique in that Garbo really doesn’t take on the dominant role in the relationship. Usually she’s playing the alpha to a weaker man, but this time that’s not so. It’s a heartbreaking love story that’ s brilliantly performed by the Garbo and Charles Boyer.

078. The Rules of the Game (La regle du jeu) (Jean Renoir, 1939)
Robert Altman’s Gosford Park is one of my favorite films of the 2000s, and it probably wouldn’t exist were it not for Jean Renoir’s amazing examination of the upper class The Rules of the Game. There were a lot of American films in the 1930s about wealthy people, but the most critical Hollywood was of the upper class was usually just depiction them as screwy and kind of lovably out of their minds (see My Man Godfrey and Merrily We Live). But the French filmmaker’s work looks at the real faults of the upper class in the 1930s and just how they were quite different from the common man, not just in their income, but in their attitudes. The most impressive part of the film is how it’s not particularly intimate. The viewer is not treated as part of the experience. We’re merely observers of the action, kept at a distance that almost (almost) makes the film cold. We’re seeing the way these people would act if we weren’t around watching them, which gives the film a voyeuristic feeling.

077. Today We Live (Howard Hawks, 1933)
I really love World War I movies, and I think that there aren’t enough of them. Today We Live doesn’t follow the tradition war movie formula. It focuses  mostly on Joan Crawford’s character and how she deals with the war, with her brother and her best friend (and later husband) serving. We see a little bit of action, but it’s mostly about the effects that the war has on the people on the periphery. Sure, it has it’s faults, like the whole things in the 1930s where, as long as it was set in the 20th century, everyone wore the latest 1930s fashions. But in the end, that really has no effect on ho this story just works on an emotional level. Crawford’s character has a lot of big choices to make, and sometimes she makes the wrong ones, but that perfectly reflects the confusion that comes from being indirectly involved in a war. Franchot Tone plays her brother and Robert Young their best friend, and they both deliver incredibly supporting performances.

076. Fugitive Lovers (Richard Boleslawski, 1934)
Road Romances were a neat little subgenre of Romantic Comedy in the 1930s. The most notable is probably Frank Capra’s It Happened One Night, but perhaps the most overlooked is Richard Boleslawski’s Fugitive Lovers. It’s another pairing of the endlessly adorable and enchanting Robert Montgomery and Madge Evans. This time Montgomery is an escaped convict who grabs a ride on the bus that Madge Evans is traveling on, trying to get away from the mobster who’s infatuated with her, who follows her anyway. It’s a pretty simple movie, but it’s incredibly sweet and has a surprising amount of character development for such a short comedy. The relationship between Evans and Montgomery has a very natural feel to it. Montgomery is great as always, but I think it’s Evans who’s particularly impressive here. She’s playing a character who’s a little bit sharper and snippier than her usual characters, and there are moments where she’s flat out hilarious. Nat Pendleton is the main supporting player, as Evans’ mobster stalker. He’s always a joy to watch, and this time is no different. He also has one of the most surprising and satisfying character moments in the whole film.

By Katie Richardson

I would never think that I would actually respond to somebody who sent me a cock shot.

Or how a big cock in a photo can translate to average in real life. Lighting, or something.  Perhaps the angles.

Not only is the elephant in the room, he is quite insane. He’s put a lot of time and effort into destroying his currency and his entire economy along with it, he’s quite paranoid and is eyeing the rest of the world and gibbering…

“Not only does one country account for the overwhelming plurality of world military expenditures, but that nation also has troops and bases on all six habitable continents (as well as a 54-year military mission in Antarctica, Operation Deep Freeze) and eleven aircraft carrier strike groups and six navy fleets that roam the world’s oceans and seas at will. It is also expanding a global interceptor missile system on land, on sea, in the air and into space that will leave it invulnerable to retaliation.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/rozoff1.1.1.html

I’m referring of course to the Great Paradigm of “Truth, Justice, Free Speech, Capitalism etc”; America, the only nation in the world that exports ‘democracy’ at gunpoint.

At a dinner party I was once cried down (the strength of the indignation betokened the power of indoctrination and lifelong propaganda) for suggesting that the time may come — soon — when the rest of the world may need to unite against the American Empire.

I’d hate to see that, but with a rabid elephant trampling everything in the room it may be necessary to shoot the elephant.

Can a foaming at the mouth rabid jackal be reasoned with? No. The only answer to insane brute force is greater brute force (and here’s where it could get messy).

Anyway, the article referred to is worthy of a read — and yes, it did originate in the United States. Not all Americans are hellbent on conquest, thank God. But questions that keeps haunting me:

(a) Why do the Chinese keep funding the American military monster?

(b) Or are the Chinese simply ‘feeding a fool enough rope, and he will hang himself’?

I leave those ones for the Americans themselves to figure out, I’m just a dumb bystander in the room, huddled against the wall and waiting for the trumpeting and screaming to die out.

KISMET

Military prowess ranks among the chief virtues of the fictional, and very likely the historical, Chinggis Khan — and so in The Blue Wolf as he undertakes successive campaigns in pursuit of wolf-like fierceness, Chinggis appropriates the military technology of newly-subject peoples without compunction, ignoring other aspects of alien culture.

Describing the invasion of the Naimans, The Blue Wolf provides a litany of the cultural achievements of these people beyond the Altai Mountains: musical instruments, temples with ornate altars for ritual ceremonies, a written language, and perhaps strangest of all, “homes that were fixed to the ground and did not move” (Yasushi 117).  Yet among all this, Chinggis Khan sees only one thing: “We shall pacify the Naimans,” he tells his men, “and make use of the new weaponry they possess as our own” (Yasushi 117).

In the novel, this dichotomy between military and cultural triumphs is concretized in the tension between Chinggis Khan and Yelu Chucai, a Khitan advisor to the khan.  “Military force can only hold down an opponent,” Chucai insists on multiple occasions, “To the extent that they do not yet have a high level of culture in their own land, Mongol officers cannot fully rule the state of Jin” (Yasushi 204).

Time bears out Chucai’s predictions — while militarily the “Oceanic” Khan reigns supreme, the cultural flow between the Mongols and subject peoples travels only in one direction.

What should be a triumphant return home to Mount Burqan after years of military campaigns becomes instead bittersweet for Chinggis, who experiences a wave of nostalgia for the old, lost, ways:

“I alone have the characteristics necessary to be greeted by women on the Mongolian plateau,” he says, only half-joking, as truly “he alone was wearing Mongolian clothing and shoes, and he alone knew what it meant to live according to Mongolian custom” (Yasushi 256).

An innovator in military technique and statecraft, the first conqueror to “succeed in holding both the Inner Asian steppe and the neighboring sedentary lands simultaneously” (Morgan 5), Chinggis Khan’s relentless drive to convince himself he is a true Mongol, according to Inoue Yasushi, ultimately results in the erosion of the very values he pursued: a wolf, but alone.

This in-depth treatment of motivations presented in Mongol and The Blue Wolf, possible in the realm of fiction, film directors, and novelists, presents more of a challenge for historians, who need evidence before they can play the psychologist — to understand an historical figure, scholar David Morgan writes, “we need some insight into his state of mind at the time; but he is not available for our analysis” (Morgan 69).

The mindset of as singular a man as Chinggis Khan may be the most attractive topic for an exploration of his life, but something as intangible as personal motive — whether love or obsession — leaves little evidence.

Restricted to a more carefully circumscribed narrative, Morgan postulates a political theory for the Mongols’ expansive conquest which, while perhaps drier than love or blood, stands on a firmer foundation:

Newly unified under Chinggis Khan in 1206 CE, the Mongol “military machine would soon dissolve into quarrelling factions again” (Morgan 63) if not used for some decisive, concrete purpose: war, only now against an outside enemy.

Even today, Chinggis Khan — while perhaps dividing academics — continues to serve, as he did historically, as a unifying force in Mongolia.  After the chaos and upheaval following the collapse of the Soviet Union, “Chinggis Khan returned not in a physical sense but as a symbol to unify the country and restore a sense of nationalism, grandeur, and even stability to an independent Mongolia” (May 146).

Perhaps this grants the khan one of his final wishes — In 1221 CE, contemporary Chinese histories report, an interesting event took place, what Inoue Yasushi describes as “the meeting between the famous Daoist master Changchun and the great mass murderer Chinggis” (Yasushi 275).

The records observe that Chinggis, realizing his age was progressing faster than his desired military conquests, inquired as to the existence of a medicine many ambitious men throughout history have unsuccessfully sought: an elixir of immortality.

But whatever his motivations — whether emotional, a desire for more time with his beloved Borte; or psychological, driven yet by mental turmoil over the circumstances of his birth; or strictly political, in an attempt to hold together the unified Mongol state by continuing to turn his pack of wolves against external enemies — the Mongol khan may have achieved his most elusive goal:

Recreated in film and fiction, pored over by historians, and shaped into a new national symbol for a modern Mongolian state, Chinggis Khan ranks among the historical figures whose legacy rightly gives them claim to the title “immortal.”  Both traditional khan and creative leader, if Inoue Yaushi’s and Sergei Bodrov’s portrayals touch close to life: having proven himself a wolf, Chinggis finds himself, for better or worse, apart from the pack.

This is part 3 of 3 of a slightly re-tooled version of an paper I wrote for an Asian Civ course in Fall 2009.  Feel free to use or abuse it—just cite your sources, and my sources, which are these:

Lane, George. Daily Life in The Mongol Empire. The Greenwood Press “Daily Life Through History” Series. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2006.

May, Timothy Michael. Culture and Customs of Mongolia. Culture and Customs of Asia. Hanchao Lu. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2009.

Mongol, DVD. Directed by Segei Bodrov: Picturehouse and Sony Pictures, 2007.

Morgan, David. The Mongols. The People of Europe Series. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1986.

Onon, Urgunge. The Secret History of the Mongols. Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeCurzon Press, 2001.

Yasushi, Inoue. The Blue Wolf: A Novel of the Life of Chinggis Khan. Joshua Fogel. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Ghengis (or Chinggis) Khan’s father-in-law was particularly insightful:

“This boy has fire in his eyes and light in his face,” he said (Onon 57) — or so states The Secret History of the Mongols in an early characterization of Temujin, the kid who would become Chinggis Khan.

The work’s date and author remain unknown; its phonetic transliteration from the original script into Chinese may have distorted some meaning; and the very content of its early legends and myths throw doubt on its accuracy as an historical document — nevertheless, The Secret History of the Mongols still remains one of the most substantial sources of indigenous history from the period of the Mongol Empire.  And though contemporary chronicles and accounts, modern historical analyses, and fictional reconstructions of the life of the great, if brutal, warrior often present conflicting narratives, all agree on the significant point best put by the anonymous author of the Secret History: the boy was driven.

This question of motive — what incredible mission or ambition propelled the young Chinggis Khan to unify and establish the greatest land empire in world history? —  forms the foundation of two recent depictions of the boy Temujin and the man Chinggis: Sergei Bodrov’s film Mongol and Inoue Yasushi’s novel The Blue Wolf.  Though the director and author take liberties with historical evidence in drawing their portraits, both works still reflect the personal and political tensions inherent in the clash of cultures the Mongol conquests catalyzed.

Life on the Central Eurasian steppe during the time of Chinggis Khan was dominated by a pattern of pastoral nomadism, defined as a “planned migration so as not to exhaust the pasture,” (May 33) a pattern necessary in an environment of little rain and a culture lacking the technology to cut and store feed for livestock.  Mongol life was thus dominated by constant movement, herding, and — most importantly — horses.

Holding an “honored status” (May 34) among the steppe tribes, the quantity and condition of a family’s horses could mean either prestige or ruin, something both Yasushi and Bodrov suggest in their works.

In the novel, a young man named Bo’orchu selflessly agrees to accompany the teenage Temujin in tracking down the horse thieves who had plundered his already-impoverished family’s yurt — Bo’orchu’s willingness to risk his own life for a stranger’s benefit not only guaranteed that he would become one of Chinggis’s closest companions, but also indicates the level of value the Mongols placed on horses: theft is worth losing one’s life over.  Mongol further emphasizes the important horsemanship by equating it with the fundamental Mongol identity: a young Jamugha laughs incredulously at Temujin’s confession that, with his family abandoned and suffering dire economic straits, he doesn’t have a horse — “But a Mongol has to be on a horse,” Jamugha insists (Mongol).

In this way, the film suggests Mongol identity as being inextricably tied up with the traditional nomadic lifestyle, a theme strongly reinforced in Yisugei’s death scene: though suspecting foul play, Temujin’s father accepts the offering of a drink from members of an enemy tribe.  “If I, the khan, start breaking the customs,” he says before drinking the poison, “the world will turn upside-down” (Mongol).

As Bo’orchu risks his life to preserve traditional values, Yisugei gives his for the sake of upholding custom.  Mongol, however, frames Chinggis as a rebel throughout.

Given the opportunity to avoid a battle by leaving the families of his warriors behind, Chinggis, though hopelessly outnumbered, refuses to abandon innocent women and helpless children — encouraged by his wife to “do as all Mongols do,” Chinggis nevertheless rejects traditional practice:

“Not me,” he replies (Mongol).

Unlike his predecessor, the new khan is shown to be willing to turn the world upside-down — at least for the sake of Borte, whose abiding love motivates Chinggis throughout the movie.  One scene even suggests that their connection is strong enough to transcend the farthest distances: Chinggis, enslaved by the Tanguts, entrusts a small carved bird to a Buddhist monk, hoping he will find Borte and give it to her as a sign that, though imprisoned and far away, her husband yet remembers her — though the monk dies on the journey, Borte sees his location in a dream and so finds Chinggis’s symbolic message.

This is part 1 of 3 of a slightly re-tooled version of an paper I wrote for an Asian Civ course in Fall 2009.  Feel free to use or abuse it—just cite your sources, and my sources, which are these:

Lane, George. Daily Life in The Mongol Empire. The Greenwood Press “Daily Life Through History” Series. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2006.

May, Timothy Michael. Culture and Customs of Mongolia. Culture and Customs of Asia. Hanchao Lu. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2009.

Mongol, DVD. Directed by Segei Bodrov: Picturehouse and Sony Pictures, 2007.

Morgan, David. The Mongols. The People of Europe Series. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1986.

Onon, Urgunge. The Secret History of the Mongols. Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeCurzon Press, 2001.

Yasushi, Inoue. The Blue Wolf: A Novel of the Life of Chinggis Khan. Joshua Fogel. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Please welcome S.J. Frost here today, who shares a really funny story and gives us an insight into her writing and life. This interview is wicked!

Emmy: Welcome, S.J. Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us today.

Aaaaand here we go! Are you a plotter or someone who can just sit down and the words come?

S.J.: I’m a quasi-plotter, if that makes sense. Usually a character comes to me first with a little bit of a story. I’ll ponder for a few days, see if I can get him to talk to me, and once I start to feel him getting stronger, I sit down to write and the words usually flow on their own. But that usually leaves me with a problem. Letting the story unravel on its own, most times I don’t know where I’m going, or what I’ll end up with!

Emmy: Same here, and that’s the fun of it—the surprises along the way.

There are times when no matter how hard we try, we can’t write. Are you able to push through any blocks you encounter, or do you take time away from your manuscript and return with a fresher outlook?

S.J.: I can usually push through blocks. When I hit a tricky spot, I do walk away and I find listening to music helps me get my mind settled and the creative energy balanced again. After I finish a manuscript, I usually step back from it for about a week or so, and see if the characters have more to say. They always do. The worst part is kicking off a story when I think it’s finished, then wishing I would’ve waited because something pops into my head that I’d like to change. If only there were no such things as deadlines. But I guess if there weren’t, I’d never get anything published because I’d do nothing but obsessively work on it! Yes, I’m a little mental. I’m okay with that.

Crazy cat ladies, we two!

Emmy: I’m mental too, so welcome to the club.

Would you mind telling us about your latest release?

S.J.: Absolutely!  My latest release is my debut novel, Conquest, from MLR Press. The story is focused around Jesse Alexander, the young lead singer of his rock band, Conquest. His music is the center of his world, until he meets superstar vocalist, Evan Arden. The two enter into a passionate relationship, but Jesse’s success threatens their relationship and he must decide between his career and Evan.

Since Conquest is my first novel, it’s very special to me. I love music, always have, so to write a book around rock stars and the music business was an absolute blast for me.

Emmy: Cool! What can we expect to see in the future from you? Care to share what you’re currently working on?

S.J.: For the immediate future, expect more rocker boys! Jesse and Evan will be coming back for an encore in Conquest’s sequel, No Fear. But I like to change things up a lot, so following Conquest’s sequel, I may start work on a vampire novel that’s on the back burner. I also just had a short story published, “Kintaro”, in the anthology Bedknobs and Beanstalks from Ravenous Romance, which is a collection of m/m erotic fairy tales. “Kintaro” is based on the Japanese folktale, and I had so much fun writing the historical aspects, I’ve been considering a m/m historical novel set in Japan down the road.

Emmy: Oooh! How groovy is that? Write on, woman!

Which authors do you read when you have spare time?

S.J.: You know, I usually just grab stories that sound appealing rather than paying attention to who the author is. There is one author, though, whose work I always grab, even though I’m behind on her series right now, and that’s Laura Joh Rowland. She writes wonderful mysteries set in the Tokugawa era of Japan.

Emmy: Do you like movies? If so, got any faves?

S.J.: I love movies!  But I haven’t had time to watch hardly any in months. I’m way behind on new releases. My sentimental favourite is The Black Stallion. My other favourite is Amadeus. I really, really like the Lord of the Rings movies, and fantasy movies in general. I’m a huge Star Wars fan, too! 

Emmy: Groan! Not Star Wars! My smallest and hubby love them…

Now for the more laid back questions! What would be your ideal menu at a dinner party—let’s say three courses—and where would you go to eat it? Any destination in the world. Oh, and what would you wear? (I’ve just handed you a credit card with unlimited funds so you can buy your clothes and shoes for the evening…what is your dream store/designer?)

S.J.: I would definitely take my happy self to Japan. The only problem is, I don’t eat anything that comes out of the water, so no sushi for me. I’d go to Kyoto and have a simple, traditional style meal. Perhaps start out with a little tofu and vegetables. Next, I’d move into a succulent Kobe steak with white rice, and wrap everything up with dessert of various fruits. I’m a laid back kind of girl, not much for dresses and skirts, but don’t you think that means your credit card would get off easy. Dolce & Gabbana make some awesome pants!

DIGGIN' THOSE PANTS!

Emmy: I’m a pants girl too, so maybe we could rack up my credit card together. Ooooh! D&G pants, here we come! RAH!

Ahem. Told you I was mental. Now, back into interviewer mode…

If you could own a dangerous animal (except it wouldn’t bite you or do any ghastly messes on your carpets), what would it be? I’d rather like a tiger.

S.J.: Oh, I’m with you on a tiger. I’d love to have any big cat, really. I’m a huge animal lover and I adore cats. I’ve always wanted to snuggle up to a panther, or tiger, or lion. They just look so cute and soft!

Emmy: I know! Imagine rubbing faces with a lion knowing he wouldn’t bite your bloody head off!

What would you ensure happened if you owned a magic wand?

S.J.: I would ensure that all people are given the respect and equality that should be so naturally given, and yet, sadly is not. I know, a bit serious for the laid back questions, but with an opportunity like that, I’d have to use it for the greater good.

Emmy: Good for you. What is the most outrageous thing you have ever done? Or, if you’ve never been outrageous, what insane thing would you like to do?

S.J.: I once outran the law on horseback! Okay, it was a park ranger, but it’s still the law! It was several years ago when my hubby and I were still boarding our horses before we brought them home. We headed out for a trail ride, but to get to the horse trail, we could either ride along the road, which was strewn with garbage and broken beer bottles, or we could ride up a park maintenance trail. Not wanting to risk our horses stepping on glass, we opted for the maintenance trail, even though horses aren’t allowed on them.

Go on, Billy! Ride that horse on that maintenance trail!

Well, a ranger drove by and saw us through the trees, so he swings his cruiser around, flies to the head of the trail and drives down it. He jumps out, yelling that horses on the maintenance trail creates erosion and numerous other detrimental things to the environment, all while his cruiser, its tires having ripped gouges in the trail, sits behind him pouring out exhaust fumes. I swear I saw a chipmunk coughing. [Emmy interruption: AHHAHAHAHA!] He stomped to his car to get his citation book with the intent of giving us a ticket, only to return and confess he’d forgotten his book that day so he was going to let us off with a warning. Needless to say, we were laughing the whole time during our ride.

A week later, the park still hadn’t cleaned up the garbage along the road, so once again, being the rebels we were, we ventured down the maintenance trail. The ranger must have been watching it, and we see his cruiser ripping down the road aiming for the trail head again. This time, we don’t wait. We veer our horses off the trail, directly into the woods, and take off at a gallop, jumping logs, weaving around trees, heading in the direction of the horse trail. We burst out of the woods upon it, got our horses settled (they thought it was a good time and wanted to keep running), and went merrily on our way all nice and legal like. It was very Billy the Kid.

Emmy: Sounds like it was a great laugh and thrill, except horses scare me silly, so I’d have just had to run away from him, getting all out of breath with my bum wobbling.

If you were an actress, who would be your fave leading male?

S.J.: Without doubt, it’d be Gackt. Okay, he’s more of a singer than an actor, but he’s dabbled quite a bit in acting, especially lately, so that’s close enough for me. He’s an amazingly gifted musician, and I’d love to talk to him about his

Hmmm, he's not my cup of darjeeling, m'dear, but I love his hair! I want it! Come on, Gackt, GIMME THAT HAIR!

music.

Emmy: I’ll confess I’ve never heard of him, so I’ll put a piccy up of him here and let you know my thoughts about him in the caption beneath.

Do you like hairy chests or smooth? I know…I’m a nosey mare!

S.J.: I’m all about smooth chests. Well, little hair doesn’t bother me. Actually, what does the chest look like? If it’s all nice and muscled, I really don’t care!

Emmy: The chest is as you wish, m’dear!

This interview has been an absolute blast, and I’m so glad you took the time out to be with us today. Good luck on that vampire book, and let me know when you’re done!

Blurb: As the vocally gifted lead singer of his band, Conquest, Jesse Alexander refuses to let anything hold him back from achieving his dream of becoming one of the greatest performers to ever hit a stage.  Evan Arden was thought of as a musical genius when at the height of his career, he vanished from the spotlight.  Together, their relationship is just as intense as their music careers, but with the pressures of success and fame pushing down on them, Jesse must decide what’s more important to him, his life of music, or his life with Evan.

BUY NOW!