necromancer-at-abattoir

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

I've seen this post before, and I wanted to argue against it.

Now, bear in mind that this is supposed to be a friendly debate and I don't want to offend you.

With that being said, let's look at the bullies that Percy's called out.

The teachers and students who bullied him at his old schools for his learning disabilities, Nancy Bobofit, Gabe, Dionysus, Tantalus, Ares, Hades (yeah he qualifies, he made Percy feel bad and Percy stood up to him. Go Percy, boss moment honestly) Clarisse, Matt Sloan and his gang.

These are people that Percy heavily dislikes (well, Clarisse is an exception, but at the time she bullied Percy, he heavily disliked her.) This makes it easier to call out their bullshit.

Annabeth is someone he likes. It's difficult to call out the bullshit of people that you like-very rarely can people can do this.

And we're forgetting that Percy's fatal flaw is loyalty. He's loyal to the people he loves and blind to their flaws, so he is the exact opposite of a person who'd be fair with both their friends and enemies.

Take Sally Jackson, for example. Sally herself admitted that she was selfish and kept Percy with an abuser so as not to be attacked by monsters instead of dropping him off at Camp where he would have been safer, especially with Poseidon's influence. Logically speaking, Percy should have resented her for this a little bit, right?

Now, for the morons who'll come to this conclusion, I am not saying that Sally Jackson is the devil incarnate. She was a struggling single mother stuck in between a rock and a hard place-there was no completely good option for her to choose here.

But she still chose to marry an abuser to keep Percy and herself safe. She knowingly married him knowing that he'd make Percy's life terrible and that Percy would be affected by this. This was definitely not a good choice on her part and it doesn't make her a good person (though she still is a good person, just not as good as one would make her out to be).

But Percy doesn't even think about this-he just idolises her (understandable, considering the circumstances, but still) and he never thinks about the situation from this point of view.

And Grover in Wrath of the Triple Goddess. Percy calls him out, but Percy later feels guilty for the stupid reason of Grover thinking he's going to be lonely when they (Percy and Annabeth) go to college, which is why Grover almost ruined the quest. Percy literally says that he should have been thinking about what Grover felt (Grover, who is responsible for his own self, Percy is not responsible for Grover) instead of, you know, thinking about himself and his future.

This is complete malarkey. It's a terrible reason for Grover's terrible actions. And what does Percy do?

He shoves it down, takes the blame, forces himself to be calm even though he should rage. This is another example of Percy not wanting to call someone's bullshit out because they're a loved one.

And Percy loves Annabeth. She's his friend, she went on his first quest with him, she's saved his life and she has a lion's share in his view of the mythological world since she was pretty much the first demigod that he really knew (discounting Luke who left after the first book).

All of this makes it pretty difficult for him to call out her bullshit-especially when she hates being called out on her bullshit, which she does.

Of course, he called out her bullshit during TLT and SOM regarding himself and Tyson respectively, but this is when they're not really friends. In the later books, where they're better friends and he likes her more, he doesn't do it.

And also, Percy has called Annabeth out on her bullshit, but she doesn't listen to him, so he becomes resigned to it.

Her calling him Seaweed Brain? He says that he's gotten used to it in TTC, meaning that he didn't like it but she didn't stop, so he just became used to it.

He says in TLO that he wanted to argue with Annabeth regarding his cabin inspection marks, but no good would come of it, so he just resigned himself to his marks.

He says that he wouldn't argue with her because she would beat him up.

Annabeth yells at Percy and blames him for leaving even though they both know that he was kidnapped. Does he call her out on this, tell her that she was wrong? No.

Annabeth pushes him off a cliff with no prior warning and he calls her out on it, but she brushes it off and so does he, because he doesn't have a choice at this point, or at least he doesn't think he does.

Annabeth makes Percy feel scared every time she brings up Rachel. This makes Percy feel bad and he does not call her out on it.

All of these are examples of Annabeth not listening to him and bulldozing her way over his protests, so he becomes resigned to it.

That's a common abusive tactic that I've experienced myself-don't listen to the victim and bulldoze your way over them until they become silent and resigned.

Now, I don't want to go so far as to call Annabeth abusive, but she is definitely pretty toxic towards Percy at times. I know that she loves him, I'm not denying that, but you can love someone and be toxic towards them.

Again, I don't want to be disrespectful and I respect your opinions. I'm just providing valid arguments as to why I think your statement was wrong.

when you say that percy is stuck in an abusive relationship with annabeth, you are not only insulting annabeth, you are erasing one of percy's best character strengths: how he is NOT afraid to call out people's nonsense and stand up against bullies no matter how bad or insecure they make him feel

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Ok, listen………..I haven't seen anyone talking about this. So………men and other people who say that men are losers say that they don't have a job, a house, an apartment friends or a girlfriend. And I'm just like……..ok, the first four are valid concerns, but why do you need a GIRLFRIEND? It's just, they're treating all of these as goals to be accomplished, things to be bought and had, and girlfriends are not goals to be accomplished nor things to be BOUGHT AND HAD. They're real, living, breathing people. People who say that they have 'no job, no home, no girlfriend) are essentially treating girlfriends like objects to be had so that they can be better and more accomplished. Stop. There is NOTHING WRONG with NOT HAVING A GIRLFRIEND. More men NEED to see this. DO NOT TIE YOUR VALUE TO A PARTNER OR SIGNIFICANT OTHER. Say that you don't have a job, living space, real friends, but NEVER say 'Ugh, my life so bad, dude, I don't have a job, a house OR a GIRLFRIEND.'

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Magnus and Thalia

Does anyone ever think about Thalia just going to Boston sometime, maybe after Annabeth is dead, or even when she's alive? And then she meets Magnus there, and she notices his last name, and she says that one of her friends has his last name-'Annabeth Chase'.

And Magnus is shocked because THAT'S HIS COUSIN! And Thalia is also shocked, so they talk about Annabeth together, and Magnus learns more about her, and Thalia learns something from Magnus too.

And maybe they have regular meetups, or maybe she just swings around to Boston to see if he's there, and they talk about Annabeth.

(And maybe they grieve together after Annabeth dies.)

Come on, PJO fanfic writers, WHERE ARE YOU

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Am I the only anti Percabeth who doesn't ship Percy with anyone?

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

There are blogs that love Solangelo and Percabeth

There are blogs that hate Solangelo and Percabeth

There's a blog that likes Percabeth and hates Solangelo

Now find me a blog that loves Solangelo and hates Percabeth and my life will be complete

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Do people really say this?

Percy had suicidal tendencies from the very beginning and Annabeth didn't know that he had consciously made the decision to swim into the poison and die.

He did not tell her. She did not know.

We need to stop blaming her for this. Yeah she's not blameless, you can dislike her for certain reasons, but we cannot blame her for a decision that someone else independently makes when she was unaware of it.

me, when someone doesn't like percabeth: okay no problem 😁 we all have our own different ideas of what makes a good ship, I respect you don't like mine 🤝 uh huh? perachel? cool i love rachel ✨ good day to you, my friend

me, when they start talking about how percy's suicidal tendencies were increased because of annabeth and hate annabeth for not knowing about the BOO drowning incident when percy never even told her about it: ok 🫵 get out 🤬 eww eww eww 😭 do not come within a mile radius of me please 🙏 bye 👋 bye 👋 bye 👋

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

I honest-to-god want to set up two similar, open-question and open-structure interviews with Rick Riordan, one with a girly WOC and another with a straight cis white man to study the results of both.

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

a quick psa to anyone recently getting into greek mythology and is a victim of tumblr and/or tiktok misconceptions:

-there is no shame in being introduced to mytholgy from something like percy jackson, epic the musical or anything like that, but keep in mind that actual myths are going to be VERY different from modern retellings

-the myth of medusa you probably know (her being a victim of poseidon and being cursed by athena) isn't 100% accurate to GREEK mythology (look up ovid)

-there is no version of persephone's abduction in which persephone willingly stays with hades, that's a tumblr invention (look up homeric hymn to demeter)

-as much as i would like it, no, cerberus' name does not mean "spot" (probably a misunderstanding from this wikipedia article)

-zeus isn't the only god who does terrible things to women, your fav male god probably has done the same

-on that note, your fav greek hero has probably done some heinous shit as well

-gods are more complicated than simply being "god of [insert thing]", many titles overlap between gods and some may even change depending on where they were worshipped

-also, apollo and artemis being the gods of the sun and the moon isn't 100% accurate, their main aspects as deities originally were music and the hunt

-titans and gods aren't two wholly different concepts, titan is just the word used to decribe the generation of gods before the olympians

-hector isn't the villain some people make him out to be

-hephaestus WAS married to aphrodite. they divorced. yes, divorce was a thing in ancient greece. hephaestus' wife is aglaia

-ancient greek society didn't have the same concepts of sexuality that we have now, it's incorrect to describe virgin goddesses like artemis and athena as lesbians, BUT it's also not wholly accurate to describe them as aromantic/asexual, it's more complex than that

-you can never fully understand certain myths if you don't understand the societal context in which they were told

-myths have lots and lots of retellings, there isn't one singular "canon", but we can try to distinguish between older and newer versions and bewteen greek and roman versions

-most of what you know about sparta is probably incorrect

-reading/waching retellings is not a substitute to reading the original myths, read the iliad! read the odyssey! i know they may seem intimidating, but they're much more entertaining than you may think

greek mythology is so complex and interesting, don't go into it with preconcieved notions! try to be open to learn!

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Percabeth.

gonna go out on a limb and say i think some people don't understand the difference between a toxic relationship (WAHOO!!!!) and a toxic person in a relationship (boooooo)

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

You always have the best posts that articulate what I want to say! Keep it up.

hello! I hope your having a good day! If you don't mind me asking, what is your opinion on the Cupid Scene in Hoo? And if you could how would you change it?

my opinion on the cupid scene…well, i don't think a traumatic coming out scene is automatically bad. the problem i have w it is that rick capitalized on shock value instead of good writing. rick retconned a bunch of things to make nico alone and miserable so that he could have this scene, and it was completely unnecessary. ppl can have friends without coming out. and, as i’ve repeatedly said, the way hoo is written is literally a repeat of his arc in pjo but worse, because we’re acting like important events in pjo didn’t happen in a series that’s supposed to be a sequel to pjo and rick is inconsistent so the payoff is questionable.

the solution is…good writing. creating a cohesive and intriguing plotline where this scene is either necessary or scrapped if it isn’t.

thus begins an unnecessarily deep dive into all the retcons, inconsistencies, and general what-the-fuckery of nico’s arc in hoo bc i’m the verbose king and we've accidentally stumbled abt something i have a lot to say abt.

first retcon. in son, frank explicitly says that nico does not make him nervous and describes nico as mysterious. not weird, creepy, off-putting, or anything similar. and nico is! he is clearly hiding things and shows up infrequently. this is a neutral description, and frank goes on to say that pluto’s powers, and specifically the underworld, isn’t enough to make him dislike pluto or nico.

also this, showing nico is comfortable enough around frank:

but then in hoh, frank thinks going somewhere with nico, alone, is terrifying.

at worst, frank would’ve felt awkward. they’ve never had to talk alone bc nico is at camp jupiter for hazel and doesn’t have any reason to talk to frank by himself. if frank didn’t want to be alone w nico bc of that, it’d make sense. but that’s not what’s said or implied! and nothing has happened! nico got kidnapped, they saved him, and since then he’s been chilling on the boat, exactly as weird as before, if a little more understandably distressed. like, nothing happened to change frank’s opinion this drastically. even the difference between pluto and hades (wealth vs death) doesn’t matter bc nico uses his powers in son. also frank literally summons a skeleton guy in son and hazel is a zombie, like…

(the source isn’t important but i've been quoting these five seconds for years)

oh! and that’s not all, it gets worse!

these scenes from hoh are incredibly infantilizing. why are we treating nico like a feral dog that needs to be domesticated??? yikes. and once again, it’s not true! nico was fine talking w ppl in pjo (if a bit over-enthusiastic). and then in son he was perfectly civil and was fine having the conversation abt the quest. his issue w ppl was that his powers/parentage put ppl off, and, even in son, that he had to keep a secret.

nico is perfectly capable of speaking like a normal person and working as part of a team (see: final botl battle, final tlo battle, the sword of hades). like, nico’s struggle in hoh should be 1) that ppl are calling him creepy behind his back (and therefore has nothing to do w his social skills) and/or 2) that he just survived an incredibly traumatic experience and is understandably withdrawn. neither of these are properly addressed and instead the implication is that nico is hiding himself bc he’s gay and everything will be solved if he accepts himself.

second retcon. percy…as i’ve said many times before, percy explicitly calls nico his friend in tlo.

this immediately makes hoo trying to act like they don’t know each other and were never close a retcon. they were friends, they saw each other frequently, nico made silly jokes w percy…and we’re ignoring all of this in hoo.

i've talked abt this previously (in response to tsats), but nico is the one putting distance between him and percy. percy reached out to nico repeatedly thru pjo.

when percy notices that nico excludes himself, percy finds a private place to talk to nico and assures him that percy wants him around and offers solutions to his discomfort (this is not percy’s responsibility. percy is a child). when nico insists that he won’t stay, percy sees it from nico’s perspective and, instead of forcing nico to do something against his will that may totally backfire, says “i hope we don’t have to be enemies,” leaving room for nico to decide whether he’s willing to be friends.

bc percy understands the root of nico’s issue (that no matter the accommodations made at camp, there’s always going to be the implicit message that he doesn’t belong there), he addresses it and uses his wish to make sure that nico has a home at camp.

and when nico tries to prove he’s useful, percy proves he would’ve invited him in whether nico was or not. bc he thinks nico deserves to be a kid.

“i wonder if [nico] had ever had a birthday party,” percy thinks at his own birthday party where he didn’t invite his friends bc he felt it was too much of an inconvenience, in a story where he never had friends prior to these ppl he didn’t invite, and the only person he had for twelve years of his life was his own mother. and percy uses his own loneliness to empathize w how lonely nico is.

percy is not some distant figure nico is idolizing. he's a kid trying his best to care for another kid at a time where no one else did, while experiencing his own trauma. all of their hang-ups exist bc of that.

going back to their relationship in hoo, even trying to make percy uncomfortable w nico’s powers (and therefore not wanting to associate w nico) doesn’t work bc percy has gone on record and said he thinks some of nico’s powers are cool and has neutral responses to others, not to mention percy is also a big three kid who makes other ppl wary (i could write a whole meta on how what percy finds disturbing w nico’s powers is directly tied to what percy finds disturbing w his own powers, but i’ll restrain myself. please clap).

and if that wasn’t enough, the entire reason percy stood up to hera in botl is bc she was willing to let nico die specifically bc he doesn't fit in bc of those powers.

this plotline was tired before it even began.

you could argue that all of this changed w nico’s betrayal in tlo. but then why didn’t percy tell anybody when it happened in tlo (annabeth would’ve reacted to it if he had)? why did percy trust nico to come when he called? why didn’t any of percy’s animosity come out afterwards at camp? and in the throne room, percy didn’t have to single nico out w his wish. he didn’t have to watch nico to make sure he was settling in. but he did. and because he did, any writing that suggests percy doesn't trust or care abt nico bc of that is bad writing. maybe rick forgot this, but u can be angry w and hurt by the ppl you love and still love them.

even the justification that nico lied in son isn’t good enough to completely change their relationship, bc it’s pretty clear why nico lied and percy says he can’t stay angry at nico when they rescue him, and let me remind u, anger is a core part of percy's character. while nico lying might be enough for characters like leo and jason, who have no rapport w him, to doubt him, it’s not enough for percy. and why are we so obsessed w dismantling percy and nico’s friendship anyway? why is that necessary to the story? like i said before, ppl can have friends without coming out. isolating the only queer character (at the time) isn’t necessary.

this conflict doesn’t even work in hoo bc their distance is still one-sided…

when did percy not give nico a second chance in hoo? the only times they’ve interacted prior to this was when percy remembered nico in son and tried to talk to him and then when they saved his life. and then nico brushes off percy's gratitude and tells him to back off. this is not nico idolizing percy who doesn't care abt him. this is percy reaching out and yet again nico putting distance between them.

and, obviously, this doesn’t work at all w pjo when the entirety of botl exists, you know, where percy chose to trust and protect nico and then went out of his way to make sure nico knew percy held none of nico’s anger against him. it’d be one thing if nico was supposed to be wrong, but considering how there’s an entire arc in hoo abt jason being the first person to trust nico, and tsats seriously acts like percy only ever talked to nico when he needed something, it’s safe to say this comes from a place of stupidity.

ok. this sections getting long, so i moved the it was stupid to have percy give jason a reason to doubt nico section to a new post. but know that i'm aware and i think it's stupid.

back to the point of all these retcons w percy. there's nothing in hoo that necessitates changing percy and nico's relationship from pjo. while percy in hoo is never cruel to nico, they just act like strangers for some reason. so, it's changed for no reason and it's written poorly.

sigh. and then all of chb is retconned (or recycled if you’re feeling generous).

the ppl at camp accept him while his cabin gets built. pretty nice. then in boo nico reveals they got tired of him after a week–which is still summer–despite there being an influx of kids from all descents, some of whom would be weird or uncomfortable or whatever this justification is. that’s not even mentioning how percy’s own experiences (remember how he was ostracized…multiple times…) should have made them more accepting of nico.

why…was this necessary at all…? especially when u have an entirely different camp that treats nico as weird bc they didn’t have that good experience w him? this is really what gets me. If rick wanted to be lazy and repeat nico’s arc, he could’ve done so without retconning things.

for example, with the seven, leo, piper, jason, and maybe annabeth (she doesn’t have much to say abt nico in pjo), i could understand having animosity towards nico, as well as camp jupiter, but retconning established relationships to make ur only (at the time) queer character isolated and miserable only to then have his coming out be violent and traumatic is. well. bad! especially when the person who is w him for that experience is not someone he has built any sort of camaraderie w. nico isn’t choosing to trust jason, he’s being forced to.

and the whole nico-needs-to-learn-to-trust-ppl plot doesn’t work anyway bc of rick’s inconsistencies.

jason has a moment much like frank where he doesn’t want to go anywhere w nico bc nico is so weird and scary. nico has every right to pull himself away from ppl who treat him like he’s got something contagious. and there’s more:

“since when does jason defend nico,” as in they have shit on nico before and jason has not, in the past, defended nico. as in nico had every reason to not trust jason prior to this bc everyone, including jason, were talking shit behind his back. why are we acting like nico is being unreasonable? oh no, y’all are talking behind my back…clearly it’s my fault bc i push everyone away and that has nothing to do w ur behavior or anything…yes this is good writing.

and we’re supposed to believe that jason (and reyna and hedge and will) is the first person to be kind/reach out to nico, but we have this scene from botl where percy comforted nico and gave him a piece of his childhood back:

and this is after percy cleared the air to make sure nico knew he didn’t hate him and offered to make accommodations for nico at camp and then respected and understood why nico wouldn’t want to. like,

woah, you’re telling me that a character reaches out to nico after a traumatic experience in an act of kindness and this helps nico grow as a person? and it happens multiple times?! yeah, apparently rick and fandom have completely forgotten abt this (also hazel exists???). they’re even phrased similarly! “maybe it’s time to take a risk and embrace something you’ve pushed away.” furthermore, they both support their point by helping nico, percy by inviting nico into his home to enjoy cake and ice cream, jason by drinking from the chalice. once more w feeling: nico has been loved the entire goddamn time!

i get what rick was trying to accomplish w the whole cupid scene concept. which is that it’s okay to be gay and that it can feel very “othering” to be gay. nico has to accept himself in order to make friends. that’s what this

and this

are trying to say, right, but this doesn’t work when you’ve blatantly retconned established relationships to have characters push nico away for his powers/parentage/whatever. nico’s struggle is not an internal issue that can be solved by accepting himself, it’s an external issue caused by how other ppl treat him for his powers/parentage (which he has never been shown to reject btw).

the thing is, the powers-as-queerness metaphor only works when you don’t have, you know, characters who aren’t queer going through similar ostracization. not only was percy ostracized at chb in tlt for his powers/parentage (very similar to nico!), percy has a moment in this same book where his powers terrify annabeth, and then piper in the next book, in which he, you know, lets himself almost die to poison bc he feels like he “deserved it” for using those powers. again, this is not queer-coding for percy (unless…?). moreover, like i said, nico doesn’t reject his powers, so the whole queer-coding w powers and needing to accept himself is already iffy (...rejecting powers...hold the fuck up…percy isn’t…unless…). even the out-of-time metaphor doesn’t work bc it’s something he shares w hazel, who is not canonically queer (unless…?!). so, already, we’re on shaky metaphorical ground. all of this could work, theoretically, if combined w strong writing, but combined w the retconning and inconsistencies, this plotline makes no cohesive sense.

we’re supposed to believe that nico is the one pushing everyone away while they are secretly super supportive while simultaneously being shown that everyone talks and thinks shit that affirms nico’s thoughts abt them that makes him want to pull away. and then in boo we completely ignore that these ppl have been pushing nico away and suddenly everyone (reyna, hedge, will, etc) is supportive.

pick a struggle!

also nico’s coming out scene in boo sucked (yeah this is the segue).

this is the culmination of nico’s arc in hoo. he’s finally accepted himself enough to speak the truth without pressure. we ruined percy and nico’s established relationship for this. and they don’t even have a conversation. then nico walks over to will bc percy, “regular guy” percy, is “not [his] type.” don’t look too deep into that.

so, how would i fix the cupid scene? well.

there were a million different ways to write a better arc for nico and earn that cupid scene. for example, rick could’ve stuck to a plotline.

the trust plotline could’ve been good. bc this exact thing is what causes the accidental kidnapping situation in tlo. nico doesn’t trust percy enough to tell him the truth and chooses to manipulate and lie to percy instead. this choice is what sets up their conflict bc percy views this as betrayal (something that’s important to a guy who’s fatal flaw is loyalty).

it’s also interesting bc nico does choose to trust ppl in hoo; he eats the pomegranate seeds despite not knowing that someone is coming for him, he just trusts that someone will (we’re ignoring what boo says abt nico’s tartarus experience bc fun fact! that is also retconned). and it pays off, bc not only does he get saved, we see hazel and percy even willing to challenge the other members of the seven to make sure he gets saved. so, it’s not a lesson he’s already learned, it’s a lesson he’s learning. but, going back to the main question here, would the cupid scene still be necessary? was being dragged into tartarus and almost dying not enough spectacle?

regardless, my biggest problem w the cupid scene in all of this is that it gives the impression that u have to come out in order to have ppl love u and trust u. a much better message to send is that the ppl who love u will love u before and after u come out. no isolation necessary.

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Broke: The Greek gods were often ruthless and bad.

Woke: The Greek Gods were described by humans to be "in their image". So the gods although immortals and powerful, they still expressed anger, happiness, sadness, jealousy. Because to the ancient Greeks the gods were reflections to humanity, who were supposed to be flawed. So the deities themselves are too complex to simply put labels on them.

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Holly Black needs to tell us more about this I swear

I can't stop thinking about how the murder of Jude's parents and the disappearance of her and her sisters is probably a very famous unsolved mystery. Youtuber's do their makeup while talking about ot and true crime Podcasters salivate over the mystery. Someone gets canceled because their video got so popular that they decided to make distasteful merch referencing it. It's a whole thing. I think about this a lot

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

This is exactly the type of message some people need to hear.

"depiction is not automatically glorification" can and should coexist with "some depiction is glorification and you need to be able to tell the difference"

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

I think that Sophie Foster should finally die so she can get some much needed peace and quiet.

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

I absolutely love this post and every PJO fan needs to see it.

I want to add my two cents to it and say that Rick Riordan was born in 1964, Texas, America. He's a straight white Christian man and his writing is full of sexism and racism which he has ignored and dismissed. I won't say that he's homophobic, but his queer rep, while being revolutionary when it was written (though not now) isn't the best either.

OP has said that male SA victims struggle to be taken seriously, and I think that Rick Riordan's environment during his upbringing heavily contributed to his writing of Calypso and Odysseus.

I've said this before, but Calypso in the Odyssey is a grown woman who raped Odysseus for years on the end. In Percy Jackson, she is turned into a young girl who had a consensual romance with him (and before you ask me how this was possible, I've barely seen anyone talking about it and the author himself never explains it.)

This feeds into the harmful stereotype of male SA victims not being taken seriously.

Now before you come at me with 'IT'S A CHILDREN SERIES!' I am well aware of this fact.

This fact does not matter because this still feeds into the blatant erasure of the suffering of raped males.

Rick Riordan did NOT need to turn Calypso into a young girl. He could have let her be an adult and left the romance with Percy out. But he did, and he turned Odysseus' assault into a consensual romance.

Turning a rape into a consensual romance is not ok, not even in a children's book series when you could have just left it out.

He did not leave it out. In Trials of Apollo says that Calypso is very enchanting and that Odysseus stays with her for seven years before leaving, which directly says that he consensually stayed with her, which is not the case.

And it's harmful, because many people read it and see it and think that it's true. It's harmful because it ignores the sexual assault of males and turns the female rapist into an innocent young girl, thus absolving her of accountability.

Rick Riordan didn't need to write this, but he did, which says a lot about him. I don't hate him, but I do somewhat dislike him and his works because of writing and misinformation like this.

Did you know that Calypso is reduced to a 15-16 year old teenager in Percy Jackson but she fought in a war and also somehow romanced TWO GROWN MEN while still being mentally and physically a teenager?

Rage on this please

I think that for starters this obsession with everyone trying to baby Calypso it is not only missing the point of Homer by hundreds of miles but is also hushing an important matter up which is the matter of sexual abuse against men in general and by women in particular. Even with the famous "me too" movement we haven't addressed this issue. In fact men are still not believed that they are sexually abused even if the perpetrator is a man (unless we talk about children. In that case we THANKFULLY properly address this disgusting matter!)

However when men are declaring they were sexually abused at best they are not believed ("how is it possible a woman take a man down?" Or "how then did you perform if you didn't enjoy it?") Or at worst they even get mocked or talked down for it ("oh yeah you had it soooo badly that the gorgeous woman had her way with you" or "lucky you! I wish I were in your shoes!" Or "man every man's fantasy!") And other disgusting comments like that when the raped victim is afraid even to talk about it and are confused and traumatized by the act.

The way that Odysseus was treated mind you not only by modern media but also by antiquity shows that this mentality hasn't changed. In ancient sources oftentimes ancient writers depict their "relationship" as willing through and through. However what modern media does is that they place Odysseus even as the one who initiates or the one to "blame" when the female characters are once more pictured as victims (see what Miller did with her Circe for example). So they "babying" of Calypso seems to me like an attempt to serve yet another purpose like this; to somehow create the image in our head that Odysseus is the big evil man that has his way with women and these two women were those who either had no choice or they were choosing to do this because of "evil patriarchy". Best case scenario they are pictured as a mutual relationship with the character.

And Calypso (or even Circe) matter is always hushed up by most media that at best they try to dodge the subject (see for example what the musical did recently) or at worst case scenario they twist it (Riordan or Miller)

Now for Calypso being 16 I think Riordan was trying to show us that "he knows how antiquity works" by showing us "see? I am touching taboo subjects! Because I know history!" (And interestingly the age of consent in many places in the world is swinging in between 15 and 18 years of age anyways) and in Homer there IS one example that points to the direction of a large age gap (I am of course talking about Nausicaa falling for Odysseus. Nausicaa was undoubtedly unmarried therefore young, probably younger than 20 most likely between 14 to 16 years of age, while Odysseus was arguably in his 50s by the time he met her) but what I find so interesting (and NOT in a good way) is that instead of touching the subject properly Riordan chose to make Calypso look and potentially act young as well

That is to be used as a tool of sympathy towards her (because even if his only purpose was to make her unaging the choice of character to be 15 seems way more than that) and a way to swift the blame from her to Odysseus or someone else by making the audience see her as a child rather than as a deity born out of a powerful titan most likely hundreds if not thousands of years before Odysseus. By making her both act and look like a teenager he singlehandedly seems to be telling us that she is not experienced of the world, that either she genuinely falls for Odysseus or she was experimenting and Odysseus the old and mature man who could show her better chose not to.

At least that seems to be the message he passes here which ironically was the opposite of what Homer wanted to pass! Odysseus could one say he did have a crush on Nausicaa (since he avoids her subject when he tells his story in Ithaca) but he never acted to it because he loves his wife and his home and because Homer wanted to pass the message that the marriage between an older man and a young girl would appear unnatural (same way Penelope denying marriage from the suitors who could easily be almost the same age as her son or they have the right age to be her son taking under consideration her age and the way that women often got married at around 16 years of age on a rough estimation). Odysseus denies a young wife that could have the same age as his son if not younger and then Riordan tells us that nope that is no issue

Now Riordan might as well call upon other sources that have Odysseus accquire young brides (see for example Telegony or other stories by other writers) but still it so misses the subject of Homer's Odyssey and like I said before it is yet another example in my mind of erasure of this very serious issue which is men being coersed into sexual activities or straight out raped and still are not heard or they are afraid to talk about it

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

THIS. I dislike the way Zeus was portrayed as an abusive father figure, but I love the messages and themes regarding abuse and breaking the cycle.

Yes, I love RRverse Apollo. As well as TOA for its excellent theming and writing

Yes, I hate almost all Greek mythology adaptations, including Percy Jackson!! for their inaccuracy and lack of nuance when it comes to the source material and inaccuracies when it comes to the gods Apollo specifically

Yes these things can coexist

[necromancer-at-abattoir]

Oh my god, this is BRILLIANT. Comedy gold. I love this scenario. Oh god, it's too good.

Well Hermes you aren't helping in this situation..

The golden apple 0.2 place your bets who is the winner? (No dire consequences at all!)