Re: Hope’s Truth: The origins of Hope

October 3rd, 1806 Professor Shaw, Cease publication of your article ‘Hope’s Truth’ <b>immediately</>. After reviewing the pages—whose criminally late arrival on my desk has been noted—I cannot, in good conscience, allow it to reach the general public. What madness propelled you to put such ink to paper? To shirk the academic duty to research? To trust in the beguiling falsehoods of Greek mythos? To curse Pandora as the catalyst for Hope rather than praise her? By gods, Shaw, it’s debasing. If I had any sense, I should banish you from The Archives, but meet me here nonetheless. If your honest desire is to share the truth of Hope, it’s time you learned its origin. I’ll have the librarians scrounge the proper materials for you. There are texts you should see. In good faith, Dr Marion Griffiths

October 8th, 1806 Professor Shaw, I should have known your time with the Hermetics would render that brilliant mind of yours dull. The texts I showed you tout Zeus as the creator of Hope—this much is true—but is that the <b>absolute</> truth? I beseech you, read deeper into those passages. Note the similarities between Zeus and one Elder Fae we call Asteroth. Read between the lines! This leads to my next disappointment: Shaw, you have downplayed Pandora’s part! The All-Gifted was not solely beautiful; her charm hid a wit behind it. Take a closer look and you will see that she did not close Zeus’ jar of curses out of fear, but rather with intention. Read again. And again. Only then can you transcribe the events that led to humanity’s grasping of Hope. I’ll expect your latest draft by noon tomorrow—and no later! In good faith, Dr Marion Griffiths

October 10th, 1806 Professor Shaw, I must say, after reading the latest draft, I had no choice but to alert Markham at <i>The Outland Explorer</> and petition him not to consider publication until he heard word from me. You have failed to fix your article’s most profane mistake: Hope is not a curse like the Greeks were wont to believe. It is true to recount that Asteroth designed Hope as a curse, for what could be more tortuous than perpetually yearning for that which can never be obtained? But Fae contracts require a keen eye for the fine print. Pandora read the contracts on the jar and discovered that all that remained within was hers to keep. She saw what Zeus could not: a gift of immense power crafted by an Elder himself. Look <b>closer</>! Pandora saw it. Why can’t you? In faith, Dr Marion Griffiths

October 16th, 1806 Shaw, While Napoleon’s defeat of the Prussian army at Jena is certainly cause for concern, it is no excuse for the continued shirking of your duty to academic integrity. What the public needs now is Hope from a respected source, not <b>lies</> peddled by an opportunistic egomaniac. If any form of reason is able to penetrate that thick skull of yours, I plead you ask yourself this: Why would Pandora gift her daughter, Pyrrha, with Hope prior to the Great Deluge and why would Pyrrha scatter it across the Earth afterwards if it were a curse? No, what Asteroth intended as madness, Pandora turned on its head. That, Shaw… That is the true power in Hope—in <b>humanity</>. To pull perseverance from madness, to find resolve amid desolation. Hope is a light on the horizon that blinds and taunts us with unattainable idealism. From this lens, it is cruel torture. But for we humans, reaching the horizon is not always what we need. Sometimes that light itself is enough. Do <b>better</>. Do not force my hand. Dr Marion Griffiths

October 20th, 1806 Ephraim P.W. Shaw, After much consideration, <i>The Outland Explorer</> finds it prudent to decline publication of your article, ‘Hope’s Truth: The origins of Hope’. While your research and content are commendable and timely, we feel a duty to the public and to our journalistic integrity not to claim absolute truths about what is inherently an abstract concept. As we considered your article, we heard a great deal from one Dr Marion Griffiths; however, even his annotations to your content were far too abstract, and sometimes too self-contradictory, to provide a balanced second opinion. We would posit that a topic such as Hope requires more discussion and room than an article has to offer. Might we suggest you and Griffiths take the debate to a public forum in the style of an open debate? We feel this format would serve you better and provide the public with a more well-rounded view of hope and its origins. Thank you for considering <i>The Outland Explorer</> for your article, and do not hesitate to reach out for future publications. Sincerely, Sir Clements Markham