Celtic Statuary for sale... but please leave your brain behind the front counter

Chas Clifton in a recent post made mention of an online web merchant called "Sacred Source", and posted some interesting ratios of god:goddess statuary which was featured by the site, further subdividing it into cultural or traditional focuses (Celtic, Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Etc.). Interestingly enough, but surprising no one who reads this blog, I was drawn to the breakdown of Celtic statuary. The ratio of goddess to god statues was almost 4:1. The goddess featured are Brigid, Danu, An Morrigan, Arianrhod, C(K)erridwen and also Medb, and the Sheela-Na-Gig. The gods featured are Lugh, C(K)errunos (and an odd three headed one which is supposed to represent Goibnu-Luchta-Credne, but with antlers?), a "wild wisdom god", and the "Green-man of Death/Rebirth".

Oh boy.

I'll start with what I like, there is an absolutely gorgeous statue/candle holder of Brigid, accompanied by a fancy triskelle and items associated with her areas of typical influence. There is also an interesting Lugh statue which I have seen some folks actually make use of on their shrines or altars. But that's it.

So the bad, and trying to pick somewhere to start is tricky, because there is just so much that is utterly wrong and utterly ignorant of even the basics of "Celtic" myth. Okay so there is an overly "sexified" statue of just about every one of the goddesses (except, perhaps, for Medb and of course the Sheela-Na-Gig). But "sexy" Brigid is a tad unsettling for my taste.

There is the issue of why some of these statues are included at all; certainly the Sheela-Na-Gig is debatable as a pre-Christian figure, let alone a deity. Mebd is included, and while there is good reason to associate her with a possible goddess of the same name, well the folks writing the descriptions just aren't that bright. So, yes, lets look at the "wild wisdom god" and "green-man of Death/Rebirth". So the later really galls me, because as a devotee of the actual Gaelic god of the dead, it pisses me off that some nuage/neopagan fantasy is being credited with the job. It is the Wiccan "Greenman" who is equated with Pan and Silenus, so what this has to do with anything even remotely "Celtic" is an absolute mystery. I find it odd that they left out deities which could easily fit the kind of "god roles" these twits promote, and would be known by people on "Celtic" paths; gods like An Dagda or Angus Og.

At first they got my dander up, but after reading the fifth or so, tragedy had become comedy. They betray such an abundant amount of ignorance about all things "Celtic", but especially the mythology, that one can't help but chuckle at them. My favourite by far is one for an now out of stock An Morrigan statue:

Morrigan is the Celtic Goddess of Destruction/Creation. This image depicts the Irish triple goddess: Ana, the fertility maiden; Badb ("brave"), the boiling mother cauldron, producer of life; and Macha, the death-crone symbolized by the carrion-devouring raven.

Oral tradition says the Celtic dying god Cu Chulainn was met by the beautiful chariot-mounted goddess with red eyes and cloak. She cursed him to death that his blood might fertilize the earth, then transformed herself into Badb Catha, the Raven of Battle who induces panic in warriors. Morrigan evolved into Morgana Le Fay, sorceress of Arthurian legend.

[Derived from an Epona plaque.]

First and foremost, why is Ana (did they mean Anu) included as an epithet for An Morrigan? Were the available goddess who were already associated too much of a stretch to put into a "fertility role"? Which then makes no sense whatsoever, because they associate the mother figure with fertility too; except that the mother figure is Babd. BABD, the skald-crow, is not the "death crone", cause that would actually make some kind of sense, mythologically. Nope, Macha, a mythological figure who is known for giving birth after running a race, while pregnant, is the bloody "death crone". But it gets worse.

CUCHULAIN IS A DYING GOD!?! I realise he dies, and he does so spectacularly, but equating him with being a "dying god" is almost as bad as having him be a god of peace. Apparently though, his awe-inspiring final moments are wholly ignored, and instead he is "cursed to death" as some sort of fertility ritual? This is just sheer laziness, the Ulster cycle is probably the most well known and easiest to find material in Irish myth, and they couldn't even do that right.

The other product descriptions are just as misinformed/ plain fantasy, and they reek of the worst sort of neopagan veneer; but then again those are just the kind of misinformed individuals who would frequent such a website. What blows me away, however, is that the product descriptions statues/images from other cultures, are actually well informed. Almost all of the descriptions for the "Norse" goods, are adequate (if again overly laden with fertility symbolism), and even good when compared to the "Celtic" stuff. Is this perhaps indicative of a more discerning customer base for Norse goods, or maybe a better read description writer? I'd probably say neither, but that Norse myths are a little more cut and dry, and available, than the Celtic. Also the northern folk do not seem to get lumped in with the MMC/fertility god motif anywhere near the extent that Celtic mythical figures do. I suppose that considering how influential the VVictorian view of the Celts were on both Wicca and Wicca derived neoPaganism, this isn`t surprising. Irritating, laughable, but not surprising.

I mentioned earlier that two of the statues are decent enough, but I think as much as I am enamored with the Brigid statue, I could not in good conscience actually buy something from such cretins.

Bad Omens

So just under two weeks ago [now well over a month] I had just finished cleaning my offering bowl when it slipped from my hands and broke upon the floor. This wouldn't have been terribly surprising, a dropped ceramic or glass dish is bound to shatter when it hits a ceramic floor; the thing is that my bowl is (was) made of wood. It wasn't even a clean break, it did not split along the grain of the wood; rather, a large chunk of it simply came away in one jagged piece. I had had this particular bowl for over three years, and here it was, useless. Suddenly a wave of foreboding swept over me, and the day which followed was, indeed, a terrible one. Nothing seemed to go right from that point on, and while I did prevail in whatever tasks were required, the effort was far greater than it should have been, and the results less than stellar.

This got me to thinking about the nature of omens, particularly of the negative variety. Now, before I go any further, perhaps a bit of a side note about the nature of omens, "believing in them", and psychosomaticism. While I tend to be rather skeptical of many forms of divination, I at least acknowledge that in the given world view I have adopted, "reading the signs" is well attested to in various sources, especially when it comes to methods like augury. With that said, I do tend to pay closer attention to specific instances of avian activity which seem rather odd or happenstance. Or, in the case above, when something I am doing in a ritual format results in something out of the ordinary (like dropping and ruining a vessel used for offerings). These sorts of things tend to make me step back and consider whether or not these are omens, or just random events. Though I suppose it bears mentioning that meaning is something one imparts onto an experience and so if a given event is understood to have a given significance, then it does so, at least on a personal level. I do believe that people can "psych" themselves out, unconsciously sabotaging themselves or reading too much into something and then seeing the results of the bad omen everywhere they look. There is, I believe, a line between self inflicted grief and external grief, the avoidance of which is not in a given individuals powers to have agency over.

I suppose that despite my ingrained skepticism, I have been making an effort to be more "open" to such experiences, and not just brushing them off as coincidence or happenstance. It would seem that I am not alone about being cautious and not jumping to conclusions, but also to be discerning and not merely dismissive, when it comes to interpreting such things.

As always, I do like going back to the sources, especially the tales, as they can provide some much needed perspective. Clearly omens and the reading of signs was considerably important, and for a very significant part of the litterature, the narrative will actuall revolve around some kind of prophecy, omen reading, or reaction to. This raises a good number of other questions and concerns, which are beyond the scope of this post anyway, but clearly the importance of correctly understanding the "signs" was something which was stressed.

So what to make of it all, there is the distinct possibility that my bowl just broke because it was dropped, and reading anymore into it is silly. The subsequent rotten day would have been so, regardless of wether or not I had dropped and broken my bowl in the first place. Of course, it would then merit pointing out that the later events were not actually caused by the breaking of the bowl, only that it foreshadowed what was to come. This, I think, is an important distinction to make because omens are not, necessarily, prophecy and "reading the signs" is not, necessarily, divining the future. The latter implies a chain of events or single event which will ultimaely lead to something. The former foreshadows that something may occur, and based on understanding what the omen means, wether it bodes ill or good. I suppose in either case there is a certain lack of agency, which can be disquieting, but then again sometimes, and despite your best efforts, things do not always go as you want them to.

But it helps to have a little warning.

-Gorm.

PS: Since we are on the subject of coincidence, I had actually written a good chunk of this post almost a month ago, but then got fussy about where to go with it. Then Seren goes and publishes a related, but slightly different post only a day or so ago which provided some perspective, and got me thinking about this whole business again.

Is that weird, or what?

The subtext of "funny" prayer in school demotivationals/editorial cartoons

Two images, one a little older and one more recent, have been making the rounds in the never ending "prayer in schools" debate (primarily in the context of the US, but there are some here in Canada who would make the same sort of arguments). The first is a "demotivational", which started making the rounds a few years ago:

 

Oddly enough, the image is for a Halloween costume

The second is a little more recent, based on the comments of one of the current nominees for the Republican party:

This is funny, right?

So each of these is supposed to be humourous because they involve juxtaposition or the "left turn", both are elements of comedy. Neither image is what a "normal" person would picture as being representative of what they imagine reinstating school led prayer, would look like. Further, it illustrates the tacit special privilege that is present in the debate, that the kind of prayer would be that of those seeking to reintroduce it; Evangelical Christians. Thus, additional humour is to be found at the idea of poetic justice towards those who seek so strongly to reinstate school mandated prayer. I think both of these visual commentaries are effective in invoking such thoughts, but at the same time I understand the subtext which is present in both of these (and similar visual commentaries) which results in ridiculing the outlier.

The juxtaposition of both images is supposed to be in stark contrast to what one would normally associate prayer in schools to look like, namely:

This could be a scene from "Pleasantville".

The issue I have comes with the inherent "otherness" that is invoked to show how ridiculous (or dangerous even) the idea of school mandated prayer is supposed to be in so diverse a society. By what basis is a teacher, a school principal or school board supposed to decide what form the prayer is supposed to take? How could one possibly accommodate the myriad religions out there? Well one of those "clever" editorial cartoons posits:

Couldn't add even one "Celtic" deity, eh?

 Again, it invokes the sheer complexity, and thus functional absurdity, of school mandated prayer. Except that this and the above commentaries are funny precisely because they denigrate other forms of prayer, or that they recognize that there are folks who do not belong to the overt object of fun, Christianity. In essence it is using a number of significant aspects of non-mainstream religions, or theistic perspectives to ridicule the idea of prayer in schools. Of course, it then tacitly ridicules these outlying forms of religious expression. Dancing in a circle as a form of worship? Positing polytheism as a functional religious perspective? Utter absurdity! And there in lies the tacit fear mongering, invoking the "other". Look Christians who want state mandated prayer (but who are usually adamant about the state staying out of everything else), you want to put prayer back in schools. This is fine, but then your kid could be offering a prayer to Odin, as not every child is a Christian and therefore other religious perspectives (regardless of their merit) will be reflected. The best way to hammer this point home? Drag out the freaks and weirdo's to scare the panicky members of the RR into seeing the unintentional consequences of their desires. So it becomes a binary issue: either allow all forms of prayer in schools, or let none and maintain the default secular nature of the school system.

Of course, these commentaries also operate on the basis that the sort of folks who want prayer reinstated, who are overtly campaigning for the privilege to be given exclusively to Christians (and as always, to a lesser extent members of the Jewish religion; but not, of course, Muslims), are then going to allow pluralism. It is precisely pluralism that they are railing against, so they would never accept this as a legitimate reason not to pursue state mandated prayer, because only the Christians will be given the special privilege to do so. As such, the intedned object of ridicule, the religious right, are actually outside of the picture; they know what they mean, what kind of prayer they want, and what deity they're praying to. Which leaves us with the problematic depiction of the outlier, and the bitter irony that those who try to pass themselves of as "progressives", do so in a way which betrays their own prejudice.

What strikes me as the most baffling of all is the use of such imagery, by the very outlying religious minorities which they tacitly ridicule. So many seem to think that the "joke" is on the RR, but fail to see that they too, or more specifically their non-mainstream religious practices/perspectives, are the real objects of ridicule and derision.

-Gorm.

Happy Holidays

Merry... Celtmas?

I suppose it just gets to be that time of year, and once again the Pagan blogosphere is rife with opinions, essays and critiques of all things Christmas. Star Foster has written a wonderful rebuttal to the Christmas time triumphalism espoused by another contributor on Patheos. Helio Pires, of the Golden Trail blog, responds to the same article with, you know, those pesky "facts". As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time inside Catholic Churches, I must admit that I do get a little pleasure (albeit, perhaps a bit perverse), that around this time of year boughs of evergreens, or advent wreaths, are featured prominently, usually in very close proximity to the altar...

Seren, on the other-hand, has made a post about the significance of Christmas in her past, present and (hopefully) future. I had posted some similar thoughts (if perhaps a tad more saccharine, last year) about the significance of Christmas within my own family. Of course, my post did not feature a thought provoking examination of the (often times problematic) nature of ancestor worship.

I highly recommend having a gander at all three blogs; I think, however, that I'm going to stay out of the "War on Solstice" this year. After all I did my part for the "War on Halloween". I'll let other people who actually care about the religious significance of the day, fight the good fight; I shall be cheering from the sidelines.

Lately I find myself to have less and less of that innocuous "Christmas spirit"; which in earlier years was in abundance. It may have been the years spent working in retail; terrible, horrible, soul destroying retail. It may be that for the first time in my life I will not actually be seeing my family on the 25th. Perhaps the teenaged "jadedness" which has lain dormant for the past decade or so has finally decided to end its hibernation and in its ravenous hunger, devoured my defenseless nostalgic sentiments. It could also be that, as significant the day is for me as a holiday to celebrate family, more significant days, actual holy days, have become more important. I find myself less and less excited about Christmas, but when it comes to days like Lá Fhéile Bríde or Oíche Shamhna, my youthful exuberance seems to be in ready supply. I suppose it is possible that I've undergone some sort of "Christmas spirit transference"; and so now the days I get really excited for are ones which actually have religious significance. I admit, now I've gotten myself all curious to see if anyone else has had similar experiences.

An now, insipid Paganizations of beloved Christmas carols:

 "Gods Rest Ye Merry Pagan Folk"

"Dancin'In A Wiccan Wonderland"

"Sun God Rise"

-Gorm

Anatomy of a "Gospel Tract"

I will admit it, one of my hobbies is collecting religious propaganda. Whether it be Christian, Muslim, New-Age, etc. I find them to be both troubling and hilarious, and whats more they provide a very useful window into the worldview of those who publish and distribute them. I'm not even talking about something as infamous as the "Chick Tract", nope the disturbing/hilarious dichotomy is just as present in your everyday tract left on a bus seat or on a pay phone.

I'm going to be using one I recently found entitled, "IS JESUS CHRIST YOUR SAVIOUR?", published by the Fellowship Tract League out of Lebanon, Ohio; it was distributed by the Pentacost International Worship Centre, a local Pentacostal congregation. The front is red, with an image of a cross set before a cave with a rock that has been moved from the entrance. It also features a quote from John 1:12, "But as many as recieved him, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believeth on his name." So lets begin with an examination of the front. Typically the tracts are tricolour, black white and red. The red is either an accent or features prominently on the cover. Since the most common means of distributing the tracts is leaving them where people can pick them up, it makes sense that an eye grabbing colour like red would be used. The title of the tract, again speaking in broad terms, is either a question or some kind of "offer". In this case, the question is fairly obvious. From the title, it is relatively easy to discern the message within; in this case the emphasis will be on the necessity of Jesus as a saviour figure. The image, as described above, is not as important in this instance, but will resonate with anyone who has even a little knowledge about Christian myth. Likewise, the scripture quoted relates to the question, and introduces the idea of just how "great" an offer is being made. This same theme, that of an "offer" is a recurring theme, usually around the winter holidays tracts adorned with red gift boxes tend to appear.

The inside of the tract is significantly less flashy than the cover, as the curious reader will have already been drawn in. To guide the reader, there are headings which are all in caps and a bold text. In this case there are four headings (three inside: "THE ONE SAVIOUR", "THE ONE SINNER", "THE ONE SOLUTION", and one on the back, "THE ONE SIN"). Each provides a topic which will be addressed in the subsequent paragraphs, but generally there is a common theme even in these titles. In this case, if it is not already clear, the concept of a singular "way" is being emphasized, highlighting the bifurcated worldview inherent in Pentecostal Christianity.

The first title, "The One Saviour", begins by asking a question: "My friend, are you saved?". Again, a common, "folksy" method of written communication is utilized through the inclusion of some imagined witness speaking to the reader. The first paragraph explains that this imagined, but seasoned Christian, knows that most people do not know what "salvation" means in a "Biblical context". The second paragraph explains what is necessary to be "saved": a belief in the Christian god as the only god, that said deity has agency to effect change in the readers life, and that the Bible is this deity's one and only means of communicating his desire for humanity. Then a scriptural excerpt is used to "prove" the above assertion, in this case Acts 4:12. The third paragraph explains that "salvation" is not an intellectual activity, but one from the "heart". It reinforces this idea by asking if the reader loves their spouse with their "head or their heart". The final paragraph is an interesting one, in which the witness throws out some famous "thinkers": Plato, Aristotle and Einstein, and shows how they "came up short", and that the only real source of knowledge is the Bible. Again, the anti-intellectual tone of this tract is in keeping with the literalist Pentecostal worldview.

The second title, "The One Saviour", explains what a "sin" is to the reader. The first paragraph again opens with our folksy witness asking the reader a question,"Have you ever sinned?". Seeing a pattern emerging? The question-answer provided on the readers behalf format is the standard one for Christian religious tracts. The first paragraph explains that "sin" is universal, and posits the "original sin" as infecting the rest of humanity. The second paragraph explains what it means to be "saved", and explains the necessity of being "saved" from "damnation". It then turns back to the witness asking a number of questions, and implying that anyone would "give up", but wait, you're not doomed yet!

The third title, "The One Solution", is what this whole tract has been building towards. It explains why the figure of the Christian messiah, Jesus, is so special, and explains how he was/is able to absolve the reader of their "sins". The symbolism used is that of blood and purity, and the dichotomy between the "first sinner", the progenitor of humanity in Abrahamaic myth, Adam, and that of the figure of Jesus, is made abundantly clear. It ends, once again, by asking the question of if the reader wishes to be "saved". Again, snippets of scripture are liberally sprinkled throughout, providing a "Biblical" basis for the points being made.

The fourth, and final title, "The One Sin", offers a final bit of explanation. The witness lays out why people go to "hell", which it turns out is because they reject the offer being made in this tract; namely "salvation through Jesus". It ends with the line, "It's your decision."

The final bit of text on the back is separated into two sections; the "prayer" and the "mailing address". The prayer is provided for those who have read through the tract, found it convincing, and have decided to "accept Jesus into their hearts". This is followed by a small note, asking that if you have been "saved", to write to the ministry which provided the tract. This is usually left blank by the publisher, and stamped with the name and address of the aforementioned church. Subsequently at the very bottom is the publishers information and some disclaimers about how the tracts are not to be sold.

So there it is, a quick overview of a four page Christian tract with a little bit of analysis as well. To continue on with that; I've mentioned it a couple of times, but this format is the "gold standard". A question is presented, it is then elaborated on and some evidence in the way of scriptural references are used to support a foregone conclusion. The context is then personalized by explaining why the reader ought to be concerned with the question, which is again backed up with scriptural references. The answer to the question is then provided, and the answer (regardless of the question) is conversion to Christianity, or at least which ever version of Christianity is providing the tract. Finally the personalization is reinforced and the choice is left to the reader. For those who have been convinced, a prayer and contact information is then provided. I can not think of a tract that doesn't follow this pattern, even Chick Tracts, wacky as they are, follow this basic format.

So now the fun part; because nothing says fun like a disembodied stranger explaining how awful you are and why they know better than you. I mentioned it before, but despite their simplicity, a lot can be gleaned about the worldview of the author (and generally the church distributing them). So from this tract I've picked out a couple of aspects I touched on in the summary: the logical fallacy of bifurcation, appeal to sola scriptura/ Biblical literalism and anti-intellectualism.

Fallicious bifurcation:

The reader is presented with a choice, but the choice is bifurcated: on/off, black/white, "saved"/"unsaved". In this case either you "accept Jesus as your personal saviour" or you are "doomed to hell". As complex as an entire worldview can be, it turns out many people seem to have a very simplistic perspective, and this is exemplified by this (and other) Christian tracts. Of course, what the publishers and distributors have going for them is western culture in general. The assumption is that whoever picks up the tract will have some degree of familiarity with Christianity or the figure of Jesus. With that "hook", the entire discussion is couched in terms which take for granted the model of the cosmos where you are either "saved" or "unsaved". Any other perspectives are soundly ignored, never entering into the equation. Those other perspectives, or more accurately, strawman depictions of them, are fodder for other tracts.

Sola Scriptura/Biblical Literalism:

The tract takes every opportunity to try and support the points it makes, or ground its explanation in Biblical scripture. As such, all arguments made are followed by some citation of a verse from the Christian Bible. Once again, the assumption made by the author, is that this will have some weight behind it. Which is not as odd as it may appear at first blush. Remember these tracts are written for an audience that is inundated, even infused with a cultural view which is coloured by the prominence that Christianity has had historically. Most readers of the English language will know what a "Bible" is, and so too its status as A, if not THE, most important book on religious matters. The author, however, takes it a step further, and here is where an observation can be made about the special place of privilege the Bible inhabits in the authors world view. The arguments do not rely on logic, or rhetoric, or even established facts; they rest on the trustworthiness of the Bible. Actually this needs to be taken a step further, the inerrancy of the Bible is the basis for all arguments. To quote, "God knew we needed something to go by, so He put everything there is to know in His Bible." This simply screams sola scriptura, that is in religious (and I suppose in every matter actually), the Christian Bible (and I think it is safe to say that it can be specified to whichever interpretation of whichever version of the Christian Bible the author accepts) is the final arbiter. It is the basis upon which their world view is constructed, and so is obviously going to be the standard upon which the writer bases their arguments. Regardless of how nonsensical or facetious the claim may be; after all there is nothing written about making ink, making paper, printing presses, computers, bus seats or telephones within the pages. This does tie into the final aspect of the world view.

Anti-Intellectualism:

This is the bit that got me hooked into collecting tracts in the first place, the sheer asininity of the arguments or statements contained within the tracts. Long before I realized they were small windows into the minds of their authors, statements like "Saved is a Bible word, not a term thought up by man.", "Plato, Aristotle, or Einstein could only think as far as their finite minds were able. They could not even solve the problems of this life, such as sickness, disease, pain, hunger, and death, let alone know anything about eternity." Though I think it is summed up perfectly in this quote, "Believing must come from the heart, not the head." So lets unpack these statements. The first one is a good example of cognitive dissonance; to claim that the Bible is not the product of human hands, human minds, human writers and editors, that the concept of "salvation" simply appeared ex nihlo, betrays a very basic ignorance of history and reality. The middle quote is as anti-intellectual as this particular tracts gets, and makes use of three very well known thinkers. Completely unaware of the fact that the writings of two ancient philosophers not only predate the Christian Bible, but are still in print and have been hugely influential in western thought, they are trotted out and shown to be lacking because they did not solve any of those problems. But hold on, if Jesus solved those problems, why are they still around? Is 2000+ years not enough time then? This is a very good example of "special pleading"; that these points disqualify these people, but not this other person. Why? Because I said so. That's really all there is to offer as a rebuttal, and advocates will fall back on a combination of jargon/rhetoric (Biblical ages, physical v. spiritual death, Biblical innerency, etc.) while offering nothing else as a basis to support their perspectives. The last quote is pretty clear in its intent, and while probably not a literal belief that "belief" comes from ones heart; the sentiment that feelings matter more than reason is implied. Of course, that goes by the wayside the minute ones "heart" finds itself at odds with "scriptural knowledge".

Well that about wraps it up, I hope this has been enlightening, or at least entertaining. Perhaps the next time you find yourself on a bus or walking past a phone booth and you spy one of these little pamphlets, you just might spend the two or so minutes it takes to read them. If not for the laudable goal of understanding someone else's perspective, then do it for the lols.

Won't (or the English language is insane)

I was sitting on a bus today, reading the various advertisements and came across one in particular which made use of the word, "won't". I paused and thought about the word; obviously it was a contraction in the same vein as "can't" or "don't". But wait, I thought, "can't" is a contraction of "can not", "don't" is a contraction of "do not" and "won't" is the contraction of "will not".

So wait a minute, how does one get "won't" from "will not"?

The "ill" is dropped completely, the "n" and "o" flip positions and we add an apostrophe to stand in for, well nothing, clearly the "o" is still there. This makes no sense.

Etymologically, he root terms are wo'n't, wonnot or willn't, and all are archaic and generally obsolete. Somehow it seems that this bizarre contraction has managed to survive, where its slightly more sensible precursors have not.

I can think of a similar example, albeit few actually use the word outside of a mocking tone with some sort of highfalutin accent attached. The word, "shan't" which is a similar contraction of "shall" and "not". Even then the contraction is not quite as terrible as "won't".

English, as I have long believed, is a ridiculous language.

"Untitled Moon"

The long night stretches out before me

Winter's chill shivers my bones

Yet warm is my soul

Piercing the very heart of the night

The bright beauteous moon

A pearl of purest silver

Shadows retreat at the sight of her

Mounted in the sky by the gods

A shimmering jewel

Through the dark and chill night

A lovely lamp to guide me

On my way home