#Same with Circe

[tamaruaart]

The thought of Odysseus telling Menelaus how he saw Agamemnon in the underworld augh no one talk to me

[thebat-musicman]

Odysseus: *lying, traveling, stealing, etc*

Hermes, the god of all those things: YOURE DOING AMAZING SWEETIE

[ghostmaggie]

MAYBE SHOWING ONE ACT OF KINDNESS LEADS TO KINDER SOULS DOWN THE ROAD 🤝 I'D LIKE TO SHOW MY FRIEND THAT KINDNESS IS BRAVE

[ophii]

"i dont love anybody, thats my power" yeah right

[aq2003]

has anyone gotten the idea that odysseus' storyline in hades 2 is a depiction/exploration of trauma over his SA and how he's blaming himself for things that were out of his control? because that's the impression i'm getting from what i've seen. he talks about "goddesses" as his "greatest weakness" and that "he's not one to say no to them"...

when mel invites him to the bath, he brings up mortals having different standards for intimacy than gods and how it usually has a more romantic/sexual connotation. she then asks if he's uncomfortable and he has a startled reaction and brings up circe and calypso again (but never actually by name)

(this isn't ship/romance bait btw. odysseus knew mel as a kid and they're stated in-game to have a sibling/uncle-niece relationship)

also he grew apart from penelope after his return, but the game makes a point of showing that his love for penelope and telemachus is what drove him on at all so that element of his character isn't brought into question

[microscotch]

recreation of the first ever image i shared on simblr 💛

[somereaderinblue]

Ghost!Circe: There's a thin line between bravery and stupidity. *points at Penelope & Ctimene* My two besties use that line like a fucking jump rope.

[dootznbootz]

"Girlbosses" 🙃

Understand that I like all these "girlbosses". these are silly

Template down below for friends who wish to add to the collection ｡.ﾟ+ ⟵(｡･ω･)

[itsakarp]

I love the beginning of The Underworld cause Odysseus is like “this is what Circe told me to do. Now YOU tell me what we’re going to do.” He is Tired. They definitely had this conversation at least 5 times on the way there. He said we are NOT going to have another bag of winds situation today

[be-it-so]

I like Epic, but I think the worst thing it brought to the odyssey fandom is that some people now think that Odysseus could have easily refused Circe out of love for his wife, and Circe would accept it and be even impressed by this.

[minlicious]

in an alternate universe, young telemachus would braid flowers into ody’s hair and penelope would look at them lovingly

[smolandweirdwriter]

"you're a good kid" he's a kid telemachus is a kid 

yes odysseus was a "boy", but the implication was always that he was going to be a warrior of the mind, a general, a child king, a leader

telemachus is not a tactician-- he does not fight because it is the only logical outcome, he does not fight because he knows he'll win, he does not fight because he needs to or because antinuous overtly threatens him, not at first. he fights to defend his mother. more than anything else, he fights for someone he cares about.

[backpackingspace]

I am once again thinking about how odysseus who witnessed the horrors that the captured women went through (one of his main duties in the iliad was taking the women back home and making sure they were as comfortable as possible and safe because he was the only one trusted not to violate them further due to his devotion to penelope. And in the odyssey part of the reason circe sent him to the underworld was so that he'd have to listen to all these women's stories (before he could talk to the prophet) ). Who was one of the few that saw women as people and respected their space and opinions. And was then put in those exact same situations. I don't have the motivation right now to do a full literary analysis of this (I'll site the sources too) but oh man one day I'm going to write a full essay on this.

[cowboys-tshot]

I keep seeing people call Eurylochus a hypocrite, and while I kinda agree, I also kinda disagree. Hear me out.

So, people's main thing with Eury is that he gets mad at Odysseus for sacrificing six men to Scylla, but he doomed all of the crew by opening the wind bag, and wanted to abandon 22 men-turned-pigs on Circe's island. (For anyone wondering where I'm getting that number, it's from The Odyssey).

But these events aren't really the same, or comparable. Let's take them one by one. (This is gonna be a long one, so I'll cut the post here for the sake of your timelines)

The wind bag. I fully understand why people are pissed at Eurylochus for doing this, and I am too. But you have to remember that he did not do this out of malicious intent. He did not know this would end in the eventual deaths of the entire crew. Even though Eurylochus was warned about the storm being inside the bag, none of them knew it would take them right to the Laestrygonians. He had no idea Poseidon was pissed off at Odysseus for blinding Polyphemus. It was a stupid decision, certainly, but the following events were not intentional on his part.

Circe's island. Eurylochus had no reason to believe there was any way of rescuing those 22 men. Circe's a goddess/witch. What the fuck are two human dudes gonna do about that? Odysseus didn't even know what he was going to do. He would not have had any solution if not for Hermes, which is not something Eurylochus could've predicted. It's pretty reasonable for him to think that those men were a lost cause.

Scylla. So far, all of the deaths have been "accidental:" 14 from Polyphemus, 543 from Poseidon/Laestrygonians, and 1 from Circe (RIP Elpenor). I am not attributing the 543 deaths to Eurylochus for the reasons detailed above. No one knew these deaths would happen. They were all sudden/unexpected. Let's take these next sixth deaths moment-by-moment:

Odysseus redirects the ship, using directions that no one else knew (Odysseus was reading the siren's lips, but everyone else was too busy catching the other sirens, and all of them had beeswax in their ears). Odysseus tells Eurylochus to light six torches.

One by one, Eurylochus watches every man that he handed a torch get brutally eaten. He himself is almost eaten, but he passes his torch off to someone else before he notices the correlation. He only realizes what's happening as the sixth man is about to die, and Eurylochus is too late to save him.

Odysseus won't even gaze at the blood left behind. But it's all Eurylochus can look at.

These deaths were planned. Odysseus knew what he was bringing his men into, and not only did he keep it from them, he sacrificed his men that didn't even know what was happening. And Eurylochus likely feels part of the blame, having been the one to light the torches, even if he didn't know the consequences of it.

Eurylochus has a right to be upset, to be angry. These are the first deaths that could have been prevented, because Odysseus could've simply not taken his men through Scylla's territory. But that's the only way to get home. Odysseus sees it as a necessary sacrifice, but Eurylochus sees it as needless. Because at this point, Eurylochus has given up hope that they'll ever get home. What is the point of sacrificing these men for a goal we will never achieve?

This is not a situation where one person is at fault. Odysseus and Eurylochus are both to blame. Like Scylla says, "There is no price we won't pay." Odysseus himself says, "You know you'd have done the same." People do stupid, dangerous, bad shit to survive. Odysseus sacrifices his men. Eurylochus still wants to live, he just doesn't see the point in trying to return to Ithaca. That's why he kills Helios's cattle. He is starving and he wants to live, even though he knows the consequences.

The whole point of all this is that people will do awful and/or stupid things to survive. Not just Odysseus.

[its-your-girl-geekerella]

Y'all... did we just decide that this series just kept getting better?

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.