"Release the Kraken"

I know this happened over the summer,† but guys – we need to talk. And you know why.

(*ahrm*, cause of Liam Neeson)

Not content with mere oceanic wizardry, Liam Neeson assumed the mantle of the All-Father this past summer. (i'm not mixing mythological world-views here, either – they made that Greek pantheon ridiculously Nordic – but we'll get to that).

I'm trying to figure the movie out. Yes, STILL trying to figure it out. Not in a qualitative way, so much as an ontologically. I have no idea what the movie was trying to do. I mean yes, in the most obvious way – it was trying to dig up the old, amazing Clash of the Titans, take it out for a spin, dust off those money-makers, let them shine a little bit; throw in some 300-stabbing, punch of the action with a little tres-d. A little weekend fun, shall we say. Not a crime.††

That's all very clear, all very whatever – summer action movie, nostalgia banking / generational tribute, etc etc. But what about all the other stuff? Let's start with the genies:


The Genies

(1) Where the hell did these guys come from??

(2) In the credits, they're not listed as genies; not the main one at least. He's credited as Suleiman. We will ignore how Suleiman was the opposite of a genie; instead let's consider that they're not going into nearly enough detail about this Greco-Genie war one of the Greek soldiers alludes to, and also that Suleiman blows himself up to destroy the Medusa.

If what they're doing with genies is not the most heavy-handed-but-opaque (impasto, digamos) reference to American engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't know what is. But what are they doing with it?? I have no idea. It's just there. It screams WAR, then it blows itself up, and then you're like, "Wait, did that guy just... blow himself up...?"

See, 'cause it's really confusing. I'm not entirely sure he blew himself up. Wasn't he being turned to stone? Maybe when you're a genie, getting turned to stone makes you blow up? Because you're made out of trees? From the desert? Where all the trees are? Wait, was he being turned to stone? Didn't they just refer to the fact that's he's genderless in the previous scene? Should he even be allowed in there, cause of the curse or whatever?

At least this allows us to return from "undecodable reference to war" to "bad writing," which is easier to cope with – Summer Action Movie. Now we can take that folder out of the cold case file and stamp it: SOLVED. Oh, but this brings us to:


The Pantheon

This is what I mean when I say they've Nordified the Greco-Roman pantheon: The movie is about Ragnarok, and Christianization.

(1) Ragnarok
What are they doing with Hades?? I don't think they even mention him in the first movie, and now he's the guy in charge of the Kraken? Liam Neeson turns around, all deific, ordering the release of the Kraken in the bossest possible way, and he's talking to this crumbly, Iago-Hades? Poseidon's getting totally robbed, I'm not down with that. And this wacko sibling rivalry? The worst Hades ever did was kidnap Persephone, as far as I'm aware. None of this paradigm-shifting chthonic uprising. What is that? They're mapping Loki onto Hades, with his unbinding and assault on Asgard-Olympus. It's ridiculous.

Let's also remember that Liam Neeson is a wizard, so really they're casting him as Odin. In this context a proper and perfectly logical decision.

Now; before I move on. I'm sure some people would prefer to go straight to the monotheistic interpretation – Armageddon, the battle of Heaven and Hell – but trust me, follow the Nordic thread a little bit:

(2) Christianization
Every time you read about Norse myth and folklore, you get people talking about Christianization. Questions of when the sagas were written, by whom, to what end, etc. – like with Beowulf. From my understanding, Christianity pokes the stuff in the tail the whole time, because most of the literature is post-Christian era, and then you get to hear all about Ragnarok, the death of the gods, and humanity's (presumably Christian) persistence.

Oddly enough, the recent Clash of the Titans paints a similar picture to the one above,‡ except instead of describing the triumph of Christianity over the Pagan North it's anarchically Atheist.

I mean, it's not that odd, that's my whole point. What's odd is that it does it. And again, as with WAR, what is it saying about RELIGION?

"RELIGIOOOON!" the movie shouts, imitating Mel Gibson in impassioned exclamation.

It says nothing. Actually, scratch that‡‡ – it at least says more than it does about WAR. What it does say, incessantly, through its bratty Perseus and his whiny "I hate the [G]ods! blah blah," is that he renounces his faith and will live on without it, how about them apples. And then Liam Neeson, in a highly unwizardly act, does not lock him in his secret laboratory to swim around with the weird flesh-devouring tadpoles, but instead gives him a flying black hot-rod and an immortal girlfriend,

Even though he's just renounced this funky pseudo-Christian Greco-Nordic pantheon in favor of Atheism, thus condemning your crazy Christian parallel universe faith to the same fate as its polytheistic forbears!

...
"I think that's a really good point."


Why thank you total stranger, I agree with me, too.




†That said, it does take a long time for news waves to reach the ocean deep, where I live. It's not like outer space – there's all these molecules up in here causing interference.

††Not like what we do to these poor Scandinavian movies. (1a, 1b), (2a, 2b). I'm not even criticizing the caliber of the American versions, (not at the moment), it's just that there's a rankling quality to something so unnecessary. Two years? Five years? After thirty years – then – I'd say a remake is permissible. That is, in principle; I'd still say it's rarely legitimately warranted.

‡Yes, in all its confused, unfounded, 8th-grade essay glory. In just that way. But also in what it's saying.

‡‡A~nd done.

But what about the Shells??

Shell-brassieres stay on with the aid of a sea-snail derived adhesive – same principle behind knee-sock glue.

That was the originary question of this project. Now I've answered it; very simple.

Many other questions surrounding shell-brassieres, though:

1. What is the point?

It is clear shell-brassieres have no straps, so they're not being used to provide support. The mermaid's aqueous environment allows her body to be sufficiently buoyant as to preclude such a need.

I guess we discussed this before, and the conclusion was that despotic sea kings are manic about public decency. Or indecency, as it were.

2. uh...

There aren't really many other questions, are there? Just #1. oh, yes? You there, in the back, what's your question?

3. Where do they get the shells?

There is a complicated shell economy. Pearls are valuable, but it's clear that mother-of-pearl is the basic mermaid currency. Many shells are used as straight cash, like gold ingots. These are shells that, for whatever reason, make suboptimal brassieres – giant clams, tiny clams, razor clams, all too excessively some-thing. It's straight-up tawdry to wear oyster shells; that's like walking around in a dress made of ... well, not dollar bills, so much as printing presses, or strong-boxes. In any case, oysters are out. Conchs have obvious deficiencies as pseudo-support-wear; and are, besides, already in high demand among undersea musicians.

While mermaids can sift out their own shells, there are many who make a living off the selection and sale of the choicest pieces. The profession requires great effort, as it concerns not so much the defining of taste and fashion in undersea society as the ability to match perfectly shell to shlady. Excuse me, lady. The evolution of the bivalve was a godsend to the industry, as shell-bra peddlers were able to both eat a tasty snack and produce two perfectly matched specimens to complement the right-left symmetry of their clientele. I know, because that's the order it happened in. I read about it on Wikipedia.

Mermaids with radial symmetry would be horrifying, don't you think?

Anatomy and Physiology

It's time to return to the question that gave rise to this project:

How do mermaids do drugs?

Mermaids are pretty laid back, it's clear that they're not into speed or anything; but the question isn't what drugs they do, it's how they do them. Regardless of your moral-ethical stance on drugs (it's ethical for mermaids, you'll see), it's a fact of mermaid society – they don't really have any responsibilities other than to harass sailors (it turns out that's actually their job, like Sirens and Harpies), so mermaids have a lot of free time.

Mermaids can't always go up to bask on rocks and smoke marijuana, because mermaid kings are always issuing jealous and frustrated edicts prohibiting mermaid presence on basking rocks. While generally ignored, there are still plenty of mermaids that don't want to provoke the wrath of the deprived merking. Even if they're not harassing sailors, which is all merkings really want to do, they might get a trident in the eye.

So right, so mermaids need drug alternatives. We can deduce without scientific study that they have a different metabolism than we do. To start, if they live above and below water then clearly their cardiovascular system is amphibious and they don't process oxygen the way we do (take also into account deep-sea mermaids, who exist in oxygen poor environments and must be even more dissimilar to us). Mermaids also need to regulate salinity in their system very differently, since they live in salt water. This makes me wonder how they get their iodine, since they never salt anything. But I digress – we see references in the anatomical writings of Ibn al-Nafis and Mansur ibn Ilyas:

Adaptations both cardiovascular and pertaining to the homeostatic regulation of salinity in the mermaid body indicate that the merorganism behaves differently from that of Homo sapiens with regards to chemical substances.

There are mermaid texts, furthermore, outlining these differences, as seen here in a 15th century work translated by ibn Ilyas. It is evident from the picture that mermaids fail to understand the inner workings of the human body, as they've chosen to depict it full of seaweed.

Now, I'm not going to venture a guess as to whether mermaid bodies are full of seaweed or not (not unlikely though; I mean, if they're made of foam, why not?), but the evidence seems to indicate, irrefutably, that mermaids get high by provoking poisonous fish to sting them.

Much in the same way that human beings sometimes enjoy exposing themselves to the capsaicin in hot peppers, mermaids have grown fond of fish poisons. Stonefish, Blowfish, Lionfish, all are examples of popular intoxicant fishes. Because mermaid bodies metabolize other stuff differently, fish poisons don't kill them the way they kill us.*

Really it's just practice – if they're confined to the watery deep by merking decree, mermaids have to provoke something other than sailors. It's in their nature, they can't help it. So they're not drug addicts or anything; the behavior leading to drug use in mermaids is habitual, not the use of drugs itself.

Mer ministers, viziers, and PETA types object to fish harassment, and this is promoted by ruthless merkings that seek naught but the frustration of their people, that they suffer as their king. Wiser, more forgiving merkings keep fish-harassing restrictions to a minimum, because if mermaids can't harass anything they write petitions to the king and that's annoying. All merkings generally promote the harassment of mermaids by fish-headed mermaids.


* Wikipedia: The large amount needed to kill an adult human and the low concentration of capsaicin in chilies make the risk of accidental poisoning by chili consumption negligible.

same article: Tarantula venom activates the same pathway of pain as is activated by capsaicin.

Connundrum II

Okay – I can actually answer both those questions.

1) What do mermaids eat?

Mermaids eat pretty much anything. Shellfish, fish fish, shark fish, porpoises – you name it. They have algae farms and oyster beds, so they must cultivate all sorts of other things. Once they're done eating everything, they probably toss the remains down deep sea trenches. Unless, of course, they grind it up into plaster to build palaces.

Deep sea mermaids living at the bottom of the open ocean probably eat whale carcasses that sink to the sea bed. Either that or mermaid trash that gets thrown down because they don't need it for plaster. Deep sea mermaids have separate cult rituals based on these two much-appreciated sources of food.

DONE. now:

2) What happens to mermaids when they die?

One good place to start is sea foam. We can consider classical sources here – Venus is famously depicted rising from the ocean in a clam shell, but artistic embellishment aside, the miss is said to have arisen from sea foam. Clearly sea foam is of some importance. (at this particular moment we can choose to ignore that idea that sea foam may be a convenient euphemism for obscuring some Olympian sexual misadventure). Since mermaids don't have reproductive organs, it's also likely that they come from sea foam, right? So why not turn into sea foam when they die?

That's what some mermaids think, at least; there's a big emphasis on Classics in high school there. There are, however, pointed arguments among mer university communities, sometimes mounting to trident duels – those few mermaids that do take their studies seriously are willing to fight to the death over them. Mer biologists and thermodynamititians tend to fall on the side of natural processes – sea foam cannot be accounted for simply by the effervescent bodily decay of mermaids.

The majority of mermaids, on the other hand (being disinclined to rigor on account of their love of play), are After-Foamers, also known as Foam Dissolutionists. Foam Dissolutionists believe firmly in the espumification of the merbody after death.

This is a good moment to bring up that mermaids don't have burials. Instead they drop the bodies of the dead down deep sea ravines in the course of an elaborate ceremony meant to commemorate the playfulness and mirth of the deceased individual. Merkings preside over these ceremonies with a dour air, as is their wont, since they're never allowed to have fun anyway. Furthermore, they like to keep the ceremonies going for as long as possible, since it's a great opportunity to exist undisturbed by sailors (there aren't that many sailors by deep sea ravines). Some merkings do this to purposefully make other mermaids suffer the deprivation of sailors, but others are genuinely glad for the opportunity of company. Plus it's not too bad, since mer funerals aren't sad; they're just boring, because there aren't any sailors to harass, or even funny-looking fish, since those ravines are kind of out of the way.

The ceremonies are long, and consist mostly of merkings trying to make sure mermaids don't sneak off to harass sailors. No one really knows what happens to the body beyond its descent, because they're all preoccupied with sailors in their own particular way. And no one reflects on the ceremony or its implications afterwards (except the biologists and thermodynamititians, who everyone ignores anyway).

Frankly, the most likely accounting of the disappearance of mer bodies after death is their being eaten by deep sea mermaids.

Geography Class

Mermaids live in great big mermaid cities, generally – there's safety in numbers in the dangerous deep. Everything is more dangerous in the water, see:

Sea Snakes – much more dangerous than regular snakes. They're extra venemous, travel in herds, and, if we are to define overland movement as two-dimensional in its forward-and-backwardness, then sea snakes move in not just two dimensions, but THREE (thanks to underwater movement's additional upward-and-downwardness).

The scientific name of the Polar Bear, largest and most fearsome of all bears, refers not to his latitude (such might be Ursus septentrionalis), but rather to his aquatic predilections (thus, Ursus maritimus).

Sharks! Clearly more dangerous in the water.

I require no further evidence besides these three cases, especially as that of sharks applies to most all aquatic life (amphibians perhaps being the insidious exception).

So mermaids live in underwater megalopolises; under the leadership of despotic Merkings, of course. But let's not forget they are generally benevolent despots, since mermaids are at heart playful by nature. Merkings are actually pretty surly, though, since they want to lead sailors astray or whatever but it's really they're job to tell other mermaids not to do that sort of thing, since they're kings and that's what kings do. But then I guess other Merkings act on their whims, which is also what kings do, so maybe they're pro-astraying.

Personally, I don't know, because I didn't have the fortune of being born into a noble family, (a noble mer-family, no less), and so I don't know any kings of any variety.

But I've known a lot of exchange students, and in the currents of the deep sea, lo there are many exchange students. They must mostly be mammals, since we're clearly the most superior creatures on the planet – our ilk is that of many of the world's charismatic megafauna. Being an exchange student can warp your charismatic megafauna powers in one of two ways –

you'll either be loved, or hated. Probably both at once. It's just the way things are. You will polarize your friends, and not stopping there, your very mind. This is the eye-opening experience of the exchange student.

Mermaids have to deal with a lot of exchange students. Because of their dense level of undersea urbanization (dense even by a human standard, mind you; we're not holding it against the pretty-near total non-urbanization of the sea floor), they've got the best schools. Merkings don't necessarily put a high priority on education, since they're mostly consumed (either in denial or embrace) with the confusion of sailors; but they do make a point of putting together a pretty good Board of Undersea Ed for all interested parties. And in cities where the Merkings are particularly frustrated by their responsibilities, they obviously make sure EVERYBODY goes to school, rather than harassing sailors.

Everyone wants to harass sailors, Tommy Tunahead, it's not just you. Now sit back down, and tell me where the Mariana Trench is.

In the end, though, I'll bet the ones that have it hardest at Merschool are the octopuses. They're so smart, but so weird-looking. And they can't help but show their feelings, they're totally unable to dissimulate what's going on because the chromatophores in their skin betray emotion. They're the biggest nerds of the ocean; they're that kid you see at lunch and say, "He's either going to be your boss, or your executioner."

Watch out for octopuses; and be nice to them.

How do those Shells Stay on, Anyway?

I can only properly imagine being a merman, inasmuch as one can properly imagine such a thing. Now, the question I have, as a merman and a hu-man, is,

How do those shells stay on?

This isn't just my question (human or mer). It's the question of all thirteen-to-eighteen-year-old merkids. I bet, just as a guy wonders about how the hell he's going to get that bra off Suzy Wearsabranow, merdudes wonder about shells. Or do they? Maybe it's really easy to take the shells off? Maybe they adhere only loosely to mermaid boobs by some property of deep sea physics?

That's unlikely, because mermaids come up for air, and their shells stay on; unless they're slutty mermaids, or sexually liberated mermaids (not the same thing), and they leave their shells at home. Or maybe they just forget their shells at home.

Or maybe our awareness of mermaids has been puritanically censored by the great Prudish Merkings, (Mermaids have kings, right? Or queens, whatever – they adhere to undersea despotism, that's the point), and instead of fig leaves they saw fit to affix sea shells, since figs don't grow underwater.

Merchicks clearly know the answers, and they're just not telling.