#a bunch of characters from both the Iliad and the odyssey

[ismaeldrawsthings]

I am the friend that's too woke bc my concept of gender dynamics and expressions make it difficult for me to understand What The Fuck are People On when they come to this god forsaken website and say "Madeline Miller imposed straight relationship dynamics onto Patrochilles' relationship" or "Madeline Miller made Patroclus feminine".

Is healing an inherently feminine trait for you? Is him not being fond of violence in the book inherently feminine to you? I don't understand.

It may not go with the context of The Iliad, but it goes perfectly with the context of TSOA. Of course Patroclus, the boy who accidentally took a life when he was still a child, wouldn't like violence. It goes hand in hand within the context of the novel. As well as him being a healer, having learned with Chiron. All of this make sense in the context of TSOA.

Now... And hear me out on this, you're allowed to disagree: I don't believe this is really mischaracterization.

I personally don't believe such thing as "mischaracterizing" a mythological character exist. Since mythological characters are moldable depending on: The culture in which they are written, who wrote them, the historical context, among others. They are multifacetic and their characterizations depend on the aforementioned factors. For example, in The Iliad, Helen fucking hated Paris and wanted to go back to Sparta with her husband. Meanwhile, in The Odyssey, Helen immitates the voice of the wives of the men inside the wooden horse in order to torture them, wanting to sabotage their victory in order to stay in Troy. These are two completely different and opposite characterizations of her character. Helen is one of the biggest examples of how characterization works in mythology. Some people believe she loved Paris and went to Troy willingly with him, others believe she hated him and he took her forcefully and raped her. All of these interpretations are true bc myths are ambiguous and adapt to the people's beliefs and practices.

And they adapt to their time, for which I say that Patroclus' character in TSOA was not a mischaracterization of him as a whole. Patroclus represents kindness, and the traits of a kind man were different in ancient Greece than they are today. It doesn't matter. What matter is that his kindness is a key part of his character, so Miller's writing isn't wrong. It isn't a misunderstanding of his character. She based this "anti-violence" version of him on Shakespeare's interpretation of his character, but Shakespeare was not wrong either. Shakespeare wrote what a kind man was in his time, and Miller wrote what a kind man is in her time based on the representation of kindness from previous time. And both of them are true. Both of them can be true, as well as all the prior.

People say Miller's characterization is wrong and could've not existed within the context of The Iliad or the Trojan war as a whole, for which I say: this is symbolic. The Trojan war is symbolic, is mythological, it does not exist. Is a lesson on moral ambiguity within the context of war and how a man's life is not worth more than other's (and a bunch of other things). It's relevant, it transcends time. It can be adapted and reinterpreted to give that same lesson in different historical contexts.

Why do we keep learning about The Iliad? Why does it matter? Why should it matter, if people are so insisten on the fact that it happened in ancient times to ancient people within ancient contexts? Because it is still relevant. War is still relevant. We cannot just say "oh, those old Greeks!" And rub our hands off because it doesn't apply to us. A modern reinterpretation of these old myths and characters are important for you to still understand the lessons these myths were meant to give in your modern context. And is not wrong to do so. Is not a "mischaracterization" or "misinterpretation". Is just another interpretation.

But that's just what I believe lmfao you're free to disagree with me

Summarizing: I don't believe you can really mischaracterize a mythological character as long as your characterization of said mythological character doesn't interfere with the purpose of their existence in the myth they are from. Patroclus is Achilles humanity and compassion, he stands out for his empathy, diplomacy and kindness. Madeline Miller does a great job of representing this, regardless of whether her representation of these traits differ from what they were like in an ancient context.

[protagaster]

Hi, I don’t know if someone has asked this already but I just wanted to know how everything started in you au?

Why is Penelope the one fighting in war while her husband is at home?

I know is a warrior!penelope au but i would like to know how that works in your story?

I also really like your take in the au it’s so cool!

Hello my friend! Thank you so much for taking the time to ask about the details regarding the AU :)! It makes me very happy to see you interested!

It's recounted with a bit more detail in the prequel (titled 'A King with no Queen') but here is the main gist of it.

Buckle up, it's gonna be quite a ride:

First things first, everything starts off exactly the same as it does in the Iliad. Paris chooses Aphrodite as the most beautiful of the Goddess', leading to Aphrodite taking Helen away from her home and husband (Menelaus) and forcing the mortal woman to be with Paris. From there, just as it goes in Homer's tale, Menelaus and Agamemnon force all of Helen's past suitors to fight with them in the war against Troy; this is because of an oath Odysseus himself proposed in order to keep the peace regardless of who Helen chose to be her husband, quote: "all the suitors should swear a most solemn oath to defend the chosen husband against whoever should quarrel with him".

Everything progresses as it does, with all of our favorite Greek heroes, including Odysseus, fighting in the war. This is where things begin to swerve for the AU.

That first year of war the men actually succeed in sneaking Helen out of Troy's palace thanks to their cunning and spies. They place her on a tiny ship that would sail her back to Sparta as quickly as possible and spend the night celebrating in their hidden camps without a care in the world. Unfortunately, the Trojans were quick to notice Helen's disappearance. While they were unable to keep her from leaving Troy, they decided to settle their seething anger with the next best thing. That night, while the Greek armies were full and drunk with merriment, the Trojans sneak into their camps thanks to the information provided by their [the Trojans] own spies. Right then and there the Trojans attacks.

This leads to the Greek men getting horribly injured, to the point where almost all of them are no longer fit for war. In exchange for Helen, the Trojan armies kidnap most of the Greek heroes (Menelaus, Agamemnon, Diomedes, just to name a few) and keep them alive as a warning and form of ransom against Greece and the Gods who support them. Odysseus, who was speared horribly in his shoulder, was spared from capture only thanks to the relentlessness of his Ithacan men.

Only a small handful of men are both spared from injury and allowed to continue to fight (Achilles and Patroclus to name a couple, that detail is just for you @somereaderinblue). The rest, by order of the Gods themselves, are forced to return home as they are no longer of use for combat.

Odysseus, Eurylochus, and the rest of the Ithacan army that was drafted return to Ithaca. Despite the damage they have received, things look hopeful and the future appears to be bright.

However, Greece still needs an army.

This is a timeline where, by Hera's orders, the Gods slowly work to give the women of Greece more autonomy by allowing them to partake in activities one thought to be only for men. Two of the Gods working hardest to meet this goal are Ares and Artemis, who have collaborated to teach women the art of combat and bearing arms.

Ares, who has never been in his parent's good graces, is in extra trouble now due to agreeing to support the Greeks on Hera's request but then turning around and supporting the Trojans upon Aphrodite's say. Hera declares that the only way to make it up to her is by drafting his eligible female warriors (those of age and with enough skill and experience to survive) to fight in the men's stead.

This includes Penelope, who had passed his trial back when she was still a young Spartan Princess and in turn became Ares' personal pupil (look at Warrior of the Heart if you would like more details). With a combination of Ares' order and Helen's plea, who feels the war is all her fault and wants to learn to fight in order to save her husband, Penelope is forced to leave behind Ody and Tele (a girl in mine and Blue's AU) in order to fulfill her duty.

That's how our version of the Warrior Penelope AU came to be! I'm sure you all know what happens from there ;)

P.S - Here are a few fun facts, not at all relevant to the AU, but still I wanna share em:

Hermione, Helen and Menelaus' daughter, actually snuck herself onto her mother's warship in order to join them in saving her father

The only reason Clytemnestra agrees to save Agamemnon is to kill him herself once they return home, since he still sacrificed their daughter before he and his men headed off for war

Patroclus was surprised when he saw Penelope for the first time. After how much Ody spoke of her, Patroclus had assumed for a time that she was a mere fiction of his imagination, a coping mechanism to keep himself sane (thank Blue for this one!)

On #3's note, Patroclus, Helen, Clytemnestra, and the rest of the Greek army immediately saw the similarities between Penny and Ody when Penny refused to shut up about how amazing her husband is and how much she longed to see him again

[katerinaaqu]

May I ask what's wrong with changing modern adaptations of ancient stories to fit the morality of today? The way I see it, it's hard to connect with the characters portrayed when every second one is a rapist of some kind.

Stories adhering as much as they can will never be as popular or appreciated as ones modified to be engaging to the audience they have now.

Stories are meant to entertain, and the audience they were originally made for is dead. What the audience finds entertaining changes in decades. Does it not make sense to adapt them to that?

You answered your question yourself. By placing modern day morality and fitting it to ancient stories we just twist the original stories and their meaning and we create a false idea of the past to make it sound as if that place was consisted of people who were terrible they had no Morals at all and nowadays we are the great moral people that know what's up.

You said it yourself: "when every second one was a rapist of some kind". That is just false assumption on both the characters and the past. In fact rape was severely punished. Even in the Epic Cycle when Locrian Ajax raped Cassandra the soldiers were trying to stone him to death and he had to take refuge to a sanctuary. Him being a noble didn't matter before such an immoral act. Rape was not casual as "modern morality readings" think. There is a big risk of misunderstanding when we project our morality in ancient stories which were not always THAT far away from us at some things.

At another case I have heard people speak of "gay ancient greece" when the concept of "gay" didn't even exist and not only that homosexiality had a much more complicated meaning in antiquity than we think now and no it was not a bunch of people kissing their partners in public as many people do in 21st century. Again there is a danger to misunderstand stuff and they do get misunderstood

Modern day morality changes by experience of mine never realize the harm they do to the narrative and character development (for example Odysseus giving out his name to Polyphemus has nothing to do with modern narrative saying "oh he was stupid" there is an entire analysis behind it which just harms the character and his development by bluntly say that without taking the background in consideration)

Changing stuff to ellegedly "fit modern narrative" is inheritently dangerous because it contains personal biases on what morality is in the first place and it is harmful often because these stories are far from just entertainment; they are witness of the past and a past culture and by changing them according to the bias of one person on modern morality consequently leads to the misinterpretation of the past. And in the end of the day ancient stories are still entertaining today. Look at the festivals in Greece where we play ancient theater as it was written. We have only changed the concept of the full face mask. So allow me to disagree and say the ancient stories still entertain today and the admirers of them are not dead at all.

I am not saying it is wrong in every shape or form in fact as I said million times already it is even expected to add some elements from each culture or era to appease the public. The problem begins when that story is exclusively looked through that keyhole and then we have the bias of one person on the text shaping the past and have a story that simply doesn't work and many people even those with no knowledge in the past realize there is something wrong with the picture. See how many people who love the Iliad and the Odyssey criticized Miller for adding too much of her modern morality in her books. Even people who are not experts realized the story was damaged despite her beautiful weiting etc

[leynaeithnea]

When you sit down to write something what is the kick starter that gives you the inspiration and what keeps you going while writing?

Heyo

Mmhmm, It sort of depends I think

For my originial stories (that i dont tend to be able to finish but lets ignore that for now) its usually a piece of dialogue, or an image popping up in my mind that i want to build a story around, rereading my intial notes and making pinterest boards; playlists etc etc usually helps me get interested and excited about the projects again (but instruggle with themes & worldbuilding for my og stories usually so I keep getting stuck)

However when it comes to fanfiction (which i just started again recently) its different

There I usually want to explore my favorite topics for writing (angst & hurt/comfort, dealing with trauma in some form)

And then look deeper into the characters minds

For example my Ody/Dio fic started out as simple "how does the trojan war affect ody?" As well as getting a bit inspired by the lyrics of Epic "all i hear are screams, everytime i dare to close my eyes", as well as some suggestions i got from some tumblr users (being so on edge from having to keep your guard up, that you draw a knife on a friend) and from there on it kind of developed on its own, with my only plan being there ending up being some spice for the fun of it (espeically for my iliad/odyssey fics rn like trying to stay as close to the sources as i can, within the framework of my story idea, eg. Its definitely not aligning with the iliad that dio and ody had an type of romantic/sexual relationship, but they have an interesting dynamic that is fun to explore, so in my story its not necessarily that its the type of "love" between them as would be expected today for people to have an intimate relationship like that, but its a twisted way of making it both the longing from being away from home, the shared weight of responsibility of a goddess attention on you and some more intense interpersonal feelings between them that are quite complex, i suppose i mixed odyssey odysseus and the more "emotional" odysseus we get in epic (that being said odyssey odysseus is not rly LESS emotional by any means (maybe contrary even), but theres more room for interpretation for whats going on in his head/his exact motivations for his actions are often something we can interpret, but not KNOW for sure

So i love exploring these interpretations and letting the parts i like from epic flow into them at times

So all of that kind of develops while writing and is something that then motivates me to carry on and explore another new aspect (first it was just "all i hear are screams" but in troy, then it was odysseus and diomedes "would-be" relationship, and by the end there was also a hint of "what it means to live up to the expectations of a goddess")

For my Ogygia story my desire was to have a retelling of the story that goes more into detail what happened during those 7 years that blends epic and the odyssey again (sticking more to the odyssey and adding in epic when it fits), because from the stories ive read there was always some lines in the odyssey that go unexplored or i dont like the interpretation on

For example "She pleased him no more", something that i probably adapted from your analysis on it iirc?, that initially she treated him nicely, but became more pushy over time only, or the emphasis in the odyssey that the reason ody couldnt leave was that he has no ship or crew (and calypso only helps him/gives her blessing for him to build his raft after Hermes told her so) as well as the lines between calyspo and hermes when she argues that the gods can keep themselves lovers but shes forced to give away hers, all of those (and a good bunch more) were aspects i wanted to explore there and kept motivating me to continue!

So its rly about exploring some aspects deeper through writing it, with giving them a bit of a personal flavor i suppose, those are rarely avoidable :)

Hope that answers the question and makes sense ^^"

[lovevalley45]

so my professor for my class on the modern novel keeps bringing up the idea of epics. which is great for me bc i read both 'the odyssey' n 'the iliad' last semester for shits n giggles. but of course the knowledge i absorbed from this was only relevant when he was like 'okay n this passage where the main character is listing out a bunch of her relatives.. what does this remind u of' n my ass was like. when u meet a guy in the iliad n they tell u his entire ancestry before he gets killed and my professor really was like "yes exactly"

anyways i love being an english major

[thoodleoo]

Could you explain why and how the Inferno/Aeneid etc and other transformative works aren't fanfiction? I swear I'm not trying to be snarky, it's a genuine question. I thought any work that takes elements, places, names, characters etc from another is transformative. Where do we draw the line at what counts and what doesn't? Does quality, a completely subjective thing, factor into that? Is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies for example fanfiction or adaptation or both? Is the Aeneid an adaptation only or something else entirely?

okay i will answer this ONE last ask because you were very polite and i appreciate that

it’s a difficult topic to really discuss because, well...whose definition of fanfiction/transformative fiction do we use? i think in a situation like this it’s actually helpful to take a look at the fanlore.org wiki page for transformative works, since it talks about things like actual legal definitions of transformative fiction as determined by the US supreme court

transformative work is actually much broader than just fanfiction, although fanfiction is a TYPE of transformative work. but to claim that every piece of literature that interprets another piece of literature is fanfiction is reductive and unhelpful

i guess if i had to give any one reason for the divine comedy and the aeneid not being fanfiction, it’s because they’re not written to be fanfiction. dante is not a “fan” of the bible any more than any other christian is. he didn’t write his poetry for the bible fandom or the vergil fandom. it’s true that dante really, really likes vergil, and he draws from a lot of different sources in his writing, but that doesn’t mean that he set out to write a fanwork. similarly, vergil didn’t write the aeneid because he thought the iliad and the odyssey were the best stories ever. like, maybe he did think that, i dunno. but he wrote the aeneid on commission to be a national epic for the people of rome with clear political undertones.

you could also bring the scope of influence into this. i mean, think about how important dante’s depiction of hell is to modern christian interpretations, or think about the sheer reach the aeneid had and still has. there are some fanworks that are immensely popular, but i wouldn’t necessarily say that every well-written, popular piece of fanfiction has cultural significance (although there is an interesting case to be made about fanfic like my immortal which DOES have some measure of cultural significance at this point)

i also have a bunch of people in my inbox right now claiming that i’m being, like....misogynistic because i think fanfic only refers to shitty smut written by women in fandoms? but you really cannot bring quality into this discussion. it has nothing to do with the quality of a piece. i have read fanfiction that i enjoyed way more than i enjoyed the 5th book of the aeneid, and i don’t think fanfiction is something inherently bad or that you should be ashamed of. i love fanfiction! i love reading it AND writing it. but i also don’t think it’s incorrect to claim that dante’s divine comedy is a more influential and important piece of writing than the vast majority of fanfic ever written. again, that’s not a point against fanfic. that’s just....the nature of literature.

that was a lot of words to say about whether vergil was a fanfic writer but basically: fanfiction and the divine comedy are both transformative works- but that doesn’t mean they fall into the same category of transformative

anyway. please stop asking me about this now i am LITERALLY dying

[all-seeing-ifer]

Greek mythology references in Ulysses Dies at Dawn masterpost

I saw a post a while back by @spacetrashpile analysing all the arthurian references in High Noon Over Camelot, and since I know quite a bit about Greek mythology I figured “hey! I should do something like that for Ulysses Dies at Dawn!” I’m just going to go through each of the songs in order and analyse/explain the references in them - hopefully other people will find it interesting!

“The City”

Starting with the title - Ulysses is the Latin name of Odysseus, legendary king of Ithaca and hero of the epic poem The Odyssey. Interestingly, Ulysses is the only character in UDAD who is given a Latin name instead of a Greek one. There’s a couple of potential reasons for this but the most convincing to me is it’s meant to reflect Ulysses’ opposition to the Olympians, who are all based on the Greek gods.

Jonny calls the story a “labyrinthine task of a twisted tale”, referencing the Greek myth of the Minotaur, which was kept in a labyrinth to hide it from the world. This reference becomes even clearer when we later learn the City’s original name.

This one’s less a reference to Greek mythology and more to like, actual history, but the description of the City expanding to cover the whole planet is reminiscent of Greek expansion in ancient times. Ancient Greece was made up of many city-states, or poleis, which established colonies or “daughter-cities”, mostly in western Asia, or “Asia Minor” as the Greeks and Romans called it.

The story opens at a “run-down gin join” called Calypso’s - Calypso is a sea nymph who plays a fairly major role in The Odyssey, keeping Odysseus/Ulysses trapped on her island for seven years.

Fittingly enough, Calypso’s apparently pays money to Dionysus, whose mythological namesake is the Greek god of wine.

Broken Horses

Ilium is the Ancient Greek name for Troy, the city that Greece went to war against, according to myth,. Part of this war is described in the epic poem The Iliad, in which Odysseus is one of the soldiers laying siege to Troy.

Much like the Trojan War of Greek myth, the siege of Ilium is said to have lasted a decade.

Ulysses’ gambit with the horse statue sending out a signal driving the people of Ilium mad is pretty obviously a reference to the Trojan Horse - the wooden horse the Greeks built as a “peace offering” to the Trojans that they used to sneak their soldiers into the City and that brought them victory in the war. Like in the UDAD version, Odysseus/Ulysses was apparently responsible for coming up with this plan.

“Olympians”

Ulysses’ wife is named Penelope, same as Odysseus’ wife in the myths

The Acheron is the name of one of the five rivers of Hades, along with Styx, Cocytus, Lethe, and Phlegethon

As a sidenote, in Greek mythology Hades is the name of the underworld as well as the name of the God of the dead - fittingly enough reimagined in UDAD as the controller of a vast network of half-dead minds (and also Ashes)

The most powerful families in the City are called the Olympians - the name given to the twelve most important deities in the Greek pantheon

Poseidon Industries is named for Poseidon, Greek god of the sea and one of the twelve Olympians. Jonny calls them “one of the architects of the Ilium War”, which seems like an odd reference since iirc Poseidon doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the Trojan War. I guess that’s just there to give Ulysses a reason to want to rob Poseidon Industries.

In the Odyssey, Poseidon hates Odysseus/Ulysses for attacking his son, a cyclops called Polyphemus. In UDAD this is changed to Ulysses stealing the diamond from Poseidon Industries’ laser, which is also called The Cyclops.

My Name is No One

The song’s title and chorus is a reference to Odysseus’ famous trick for escaping the Polyphemus’ cave. He tells the Polyphemus his name is “no one/nobody” (depending on the translation) so that when he attacks Polyphemus and the cyclops tries to call for help, he calls out “No one is attacking me” which obviously none of the other cyclopes take seriously. (There’s also a great pun in the original Greek based on the Greek words for “no one” and “cunning” being very similar, but it loses a lot in translation)

However, just like in UDAD, Odysseus messes up this plan badly by calling out his real name when he’s still too close to the island of the cyclops. (although in the Odyssey it’s motivated by him wanting Polyphemus to know his name so he can get glory, rather than just being drunk)

Odysseus bests the cyclops by taking out his eye (there’s debate around it but cyclopes are generally depicted as having only one eye). Obviously in UDAD the cyclops is a machine not a monster, so this is replaced with the diamond at the heart of the laser being called its “eye”.

Also, I’m not sure if this is an intentional reference, but there is a fun irony to the fact that in the Odyssey, Odysseus tricks Polyphemus by getting him drunk so he can then blind him, while in UDAD Ulysses steals the eye of the Cyclops while drunk themself.

“Trial By Wits”

As well as My Name is No One, the whole concept of no one knowing anything about Ulysses’ appearance, gender etc. could also be seen as a reference to the “My name is nobody” trick, or possibly just a spin on Odysseus being a kind of “archetypal hero” - they could be anyone!

Heracles is better known by his Latin name, Hercules (son of Zeus, demigod, inhumanly strong and all that jazz)!

Ariadne is the name of the Cretan princess who helped Theseus slay the minotaur

Orpheus is another of the most well-known Greek mythological figures - the main myth surrounding him says he went into the underworld to rescue his dead wife Eurydice

Oedipus is most famous as the main character of a famous tragedy. His parents are given a prophecy that he would kill his father and have sex with his mother, and so decided to abandon him. As is so often the case with Greek oracles, he ended up doing both things anyway, seeing as how he, y’know, didn’t know who his parents were. The mechs apparently chose to reference this in the most mature of ways by having Jonny call Oedipus a motherfucker. Kind of a lot.

Aside from committing both patricide and incest, Oedipus’ other achievements in myth included winning a battle of wits against the Sphinx, a monster that was killing anyone who couldn’t solve its riddle. This monster is reimagined in UDAD as a disease that Oedipus finds a cure for.

Riddle of the Sphinx

The chorus of the song is taken almost word-for-word from the riddle asked of Oedipus by the Sphinx: “What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs in the evening?” The answer to the riddle is “man” - crawls on all fours as a baby, walks on two legs as an adult, and walks with a cane (third leg) in old age. The Mechs being the Mechs, this is made completely literal in the world of UDAD.

“Ulysses’ Will”

Like the Oedipus of myth, UDAD Oedipus also ends up killing his father and marrying his mother without knowing. Since he’s replaced his eyes with data sockets by the time he helps kidnap Ulysses, it’s pretty strongly implied that he blinded himself like mythological Oedipus as well.

The “twenty years of sirens” could be a reference to the twenty years Odysseus spends away from Ithaca in the Iliad and Odyssey

Sirens

The sirens were half-bird half-human creatures that Odysseus encountered as part of the Odyssey and that tried to lure him to his death with promises of knowledge.

As well as referencing this story, the line “let the lotus set you free” references another episode of the Odyssey, where Odysseus and his crew arrive on the island of the Lotus-Eaters. Anyone who eats the Lotus fruits falls into a state of apathy and will never want to leave the island, so it’s a fitting episode to reference in a song about Ulysses drugging themself to escape their memories of war.

“Trial By Strength”

Heracles’ backstory is essentially the same in UDAD as in the original myths: one of the many children of Zeus’ many affairs, except in UDAD Zeus has affairs with women from “the lower levels”, instead of just mortal women.

Favoured Son

The tasks Heracles performs for Zeus are a reference to the most famous myth about Heracles - the twelve labours he performs to atone for killing his family.

The song references “the ferryman” who takes people into the Underworld. In Greek mythology the dead travel to the Underworld in a boat rowed by the ferryman Charon.

In both the myth and in UDAD there are...what you might you might call “extenuating circumstances” for Heracles killing his family - in the myth he’s driven mad by Zeus’ wife Hera (bc she’s very angy about Zeus having all those bastard children with mortal women) but since Hera doesn’t play a role in UDAD this is changed to him being framed by Zeus himself.

In addition to being king of the gods, Zeus is also the god of thunder - which is where Heracles’ nickname “The Thunderbolt of Zeus” comes from

“Loose Threads”

Heracles and Orpheus “Backing up Jason on the fleece job” is a reference to the myth of Jason’s quest for the Golden Fleece along with his crew (the Argonauts), which included Heracles and Orpheus.

Hylas was Heracles’ servant and another member of the Argonauts. While on the quest he was kidnapped by nymphs, and depending on which version of the myth you’re looking at, either fell in love with them and stayed there forever, or was murdered by them (Hylas is also the only character referenced I had to google to even know who they were lol)

Heracles telling Ariadne that “Your dad helped me out once” is presumably a reference to the seventh labour of Heracles: capturing the Cretan bull. Now the story of the Cretan bull is actually really long and ties into a bunch of other myths but essentially it was sent to Ariadne’s father, King Minos, as proof that he was the rightful ruler of Crete. However, Minos ended up helping Heracles by letting him take the bull with him to prove that he’d successfully caught it (which seeing as the bull was destroying Crete at that point doesn’t seem like a huge favour on Minos’ part, but ok)

Trial By Song

UDAD Orpheus shares the mythical Orpheus’ main defining trait: his skill at singing that he used to help him on his journey to the underworld.

Trial By Song is a lot more metaphorical than all the others so there’s not that many direct references to the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice in the lyrics - probably the most direct one is “But all the landmarks moved as I walked past/Now I can’t look back”, which references Orpheus’ deal with Hades that he can take Eurydice back to the world of the living as long as he doesn’t look back at her.

“The viper town that bled me dry” could also be a reference to Eurydice’s death from a snake bite.

“Hades”

UDAD Orpheus’ motivation is the same as mythical Orpheus - wanting to bring back their dead lover from Hades.

Ulysses, Heracles, and Orpheus all visiting the “underworld” is taken directly from mythology (although unlike in UDAD, Ulysses/Odysseus never actually speaks to Hades).

Underworld Blues

In Heracles’ confrontation with Hades, he says that “I was sent here your dog to seize/Of my tasks, of my tasks/This was to be the last”. There’s a couple of points here - the mythology reference is to the last of the twelve labours of Hercules: capturing Hades’ guard dog Cerberus. However, I do wonder whether this is meant to be literal (in which case guys, why are we not talking about the fact that Ashes obtained a pet dog while in The City?), or if this is a similar case to all the mentions of ‘horses’ in High Noon Over Camelot actually being about motorbikes.

Orpheus singing to Hades and trying to convince them to release Eurydice is also taken directly from Greek myth, except instead of being moved by Orpheus’ song and agreeing to release his love like in the myth, Ashes just tells him he’s poor for a bit and then says he should go commit some crimes.

“Trial By Love”:

The general concept of Ariadne’s backstory - her helping Theseus fight the minotaur only for him to abandon her - is the same basic idea as the myth of Ariadne and Theseus. Although UDAD Ariadne is at least a bit more fortunate in the sense that she wasn’t truly in love with her Theseus, and he also doesn’t straight up leave her on a deserted island.

Ariadne’s family creating the minotaur is also part of her character in the myth. The difference is that in UDAD the minotaur was created intentionally, while the mythological minotaur was the result of Poseidon making Ariadne’s mother fall in love with the Cretan Bull as punishment for King Minos not sacrificing it to him (I said the Cretan Bull story tied into a bunch of other myths!)

The presence of the minotaur in the City is yet another thing that makes even more sense when we learn about the City originally being called Labyrinth!

Ties That Bind

Ariadne’s family name is Minos, same as the name of her mythical father King Minos.

Ariadne describes her family’s actions as casting a “dark horned shadow” over her, which references the typical depiction of the minotaur as a man with a bull’s head and horns.

In the myth of the Minotaur, Ariadne helps Theseus by giving him a ball of string that he then unwinds as he walks through the Labyrinth, letting him find his way out again. In UDAD this is changed to “strings of code”, that shut down the minotaurs programming. (And if you think that pun’s bad, just wait until we get to Torn Suits!)

The song’s title also brings to mind string or thread, so it can be seen as a subtler reference to Ariadne’s gift to Theseus. Same for Ariadne’s line about “heartstrings long since cut”.

“The Daidala”

Daedalus, the leader of the Suits, shares a name with the mythical craftsman and father of Icarus

He is rumoured to “trade as an Olympian under the name Hephaestus” - a fitting alias as Hephaestus was the god of craftsmen and artisans like Daedalus

The rumour that he killed his son for “getting too ambitious” references the myth of Icarus, who famously died after literally flying too close to the sun using wings held together with wax. The heat of the sun caused the wax to melt and Icarus to fall into the sea. The story is often interpreted as a warning about the dangers of ambition.

Interestingly, it could also reference another myth surrounding Daedalus - one in which Daedalus kills his nephew Talos because he was jealous of his achievements.

Daedalus is also apparently the architect of The City, which was originally known as Labyrinth. This once again references the labyrinth which held the minotaur, and which Minos forced Daedalus to design. Considering the labyrinth’s purpose in myth, it seems like an appropriate name for a city that keeps all its inhabitants trapped with no way out.

Presumably the Daidala in the title refers to the City: Daedalus’ finest creation. In Homeric Greek, daidala is a word that refers to finely crafted objects such as armour.

This track also has another reference to the Orpheus and Eurydice myth when Orpehus offers to sacrifice himself to open the vault - “But he can’t see it through can he? Flinches, looks back. And it doesn’t work.”

Torn Suits

This song is notable for having quite possibly the worst pun in Mechanisms history - “Ulysses pulls out their snub-nosed laser and fires the last shot, splitting the beam across twelve axes”. This references one of the climactic scenes of the Odyssey, where Ulysses/Odysseus wins an archery competition against his wife’s suitors by shooting an arrow through twelve axe heads. (get it, axes as in the weapons becomes axes as in the plural of axis do you get it?????)

Another, marginally less bad pun is Heracles getting “the lion’s share” of the beams, referencing the popular image of Heracles wearing the skin of a lion he killed as one of his labours.

“Sunrise”

The code to Ulysses’ vault: Elysium, is another word for the Elysian Fields. In certain Greek religions, this was an afterlife separate from Hades’ world where heroes and those chosen by the gods would go after they died.

Ulysses’ vault is revealed to contain the “sole surviving oak tree”, under which Penelope is buried. While it’s not as direct a reference as some of the others, this is pretty clearly inspired by the way Odysseus proves his true identity to Penelope at the end of the Odyssey - by telling her that he carved their bed from a tree still rooted to the ground, something only the two of them know.

The track ends with an homage to Homer’s use of similes in the Odyssey: “And as the weary hound, once more at its master’s feet after so long, lays down with the sunlight warming its fur, breathing its last – even so did the eyes of Ulysses close forever.” Not only is this stylistically identical to Homer’s similes, it also doubles as a reference to Odysseus’ dog Argos, who waited for him for twenty years and finally died when he saw Odysseus again.

Elysian Fields

This is possibly a bit of a stretch but the image of Ulysses lying beneath the last tree, next to where Penelope is buried, especially with how they say they’re “with my beloved” and “beside my wife” really brings to mind the scene in the Odyssey where Odysseus and Penelope lie in their tree-bed together for the first time since Odysseus’ return. Which, incidentally, is theorised by some to be the “real” final scene of the Odyssey and everything after that was added on later, but that’s another story.

That’s everything I’ve picked up on but it’s possible there’s more I’ve missed so let me know if there’s any more! I’d like to thank the Mechs for giving me an opportunity to put my useless and extremely niche knowledge to good use!

[maskedlady]

things people who haven’t read/studied the homeric poems should know

the iliad isn’t about ten years of war. it’s about fifty-one days from the last year of war. more than nine years have passed since the beginning. neither the recruit of achilles or odysseus nor aulis nor the sacrifice of iphigenia nor the trojan horse and not even achilles’ death feature in it. it actually ends with hector’s burial.

similarly, the odyssey starts during the tenth year of odysseus’ travels, when he leaves the island of the nymph calypso who had kept him there for eight years. while the story of his travels is actually there, it’s a massive flashback that odysseus himself narrates.

odysseus actually only travels circa one year, if you subtract the seven years spent on ogigia, the one year with circe, the various months and bits they camped in other places.

part of the odyssey is actually about odysseus’ son, telemachos, and his quest to find his father. also another part is about odysseus returning to ithaca and killing a bunch of princes who were trying to usurp his throne.

the aeneid is not a homeric poem. it’s styled on the homeric model, but it was written in latin by a roman poet, and the protagonist is technically one of the antagonists from the iliad.

homer never existed.

he isn’t a historical figure, he is a name with a legend attached, to whom these poems are attributed. the poems were written—no, not even written, composed orally by a series of unnamed aoidoi (hm... ministrels?) through the ages.

in fact this is quite obvious when you read the iliad. there are a lot of inconsistencies, like frequent style changes, chapters that have nothing to do with anything else and no influence on the story whatsoever, strange time lapses—at some point it’s midday twice the same day

it is thought that all of these separate fragments were then collected and organized by one person, and this version was then handed down, orally, until the first written edition around 520 b.c.

the mycenean civilization that these poems originate from ended in 1200 b.c. circa

the odyssey was initially part of a whole group of nestoi, aka “return poems”, that were basically the tales of the return of each hero from troy. the odyssey is the only one that remains, though we do know something about the others too from other pieces of greek literature

a warning for the interested. these poems are a pain to read. they are delightful but they are a pain. they were composed orally so they are full of epithets, descriptions, metaphors and similitudes. these acted as fillers to help the aedo of turn reach the length of the verse, make the various characters more recognizable, and also make the poems more comprehensible to the general public, composed mostly of common people who had never actually been in a battle—so battles and duels are often compared to more familiar scenes, like fights between animals.

no i’m not joking

there is one in particular where the screeching army of trojans coming down the hill is compared to cranes migrating over the oceans.

also, the duel between hector and patroclus is one of the “compared to animal fights” scene

when odysseus is about to drown, he talks to his own heart. possibly because it sounds slightly less crazy and more Romantic than just directly talking to oneself.

helen insults paris real often. hector berates him both internally and publicly. in fact everyone insults paris. paris is the local coward and scapegoat. deservedly. i rejoice

everybody loves patroclus. all the kings hate each other but everyone loves him—so much so that they risk their lives over his corpse 

which, mind me, wasn’t something that special in and of itself. it was important to retrieve comrades’ corpses because if the enemy got ahold of your body he’d leave it to rot and be devoured by dogs and crows, which was a huge dishonour (and also possibly barred you from entrance to the afterlife)

so much so that the ancient greek version of “go to hell” is eis korakas, “to the crows” (“may you die, lie unburied, and your body be eaten by crows”)

at some point they hold a truce (possibly several times) so they’ll have the time to collect, burn and bury all the fallen soldiers. 

back to patroclus because i got sidetracked: still. this time it is kind of a big deal because the literal centre of the fighting after patroclus dies is all the major greek heroes playing tug-o-war against hector and his brothers with patroclus’ corpse. the centre of the fighting, people, this is no joke

at some point someone is sent to tell achilles that his lover’s body is in danger so he better get out of your sulk, hurry up and come help the rest of us

achilles going armour-less to the battlefield and screaming for patroclus is enough to send the trojans running.

i am sure that all of you know this but the reason achilles doesn’t have armour is that when hector kills patroclus he takes achilles’ armour, that patroclus was wearing, as spoils of war

so an entire book after that is devoted to hephaestus forging achilles new, better armour so he can actually fight again

look, it is not actually stated that they were lovers, but it’s obvious. in greek culture especially. that was the norm and italian school teachers can get over it and stop omitting it from lessons and school books any time now

odysseus isn’t actually an asshole. sure, a lot of his misadventures were caused by him being too curious and disregarding his comrades’ advice *cough*cyclops*cough* but most of the most destructive events were caused by them disregarding his orders.

“do not kill and eat the sacred cows of apollo! he’d kill us.” guess what they did. guess how it ended 

or when they stopped by eolos’ island. eolos, god of the winds, gave odysseus a flask with all the adverse winds imprisoned inside, leaving free only the one that he needed to take him to ithaca. they got so, so very near, and then odysseus fell asleep and the others opened the thing because they thought there was more treasure inside it, and all the winds came out and blew them halfway across the mediterranean

athena often glamours odysseus to look younger and prettier or older and then again younger. it’s amazing because he always looks either like an old beggar (for camouflage) or like a young and handsome man.

do some maths. at the beginning of the war he must’ve been at least twenty. + ten years of war. + ten years of travel. at the end of the odyssey he is at least forty. by ancient standards that was not young.

odysseus’ whole voyage is basically a pissing contest between poseidon and athena. actually between poseidon and the rest of the gods. poseidon hates him and all the other gods take turns helping him.

odysseus is not an asshole, but the greeks probably considered him a shitty character, because he was clever, shrewd, and the only survivor of his community. the greeks really insisted on the concept of community, the individual doesn’t have worth in and of themself but as a part of society. this is particularly evident when he gets to the cyclops, who are the very antithesis of the greek man, described as uncivilized and living in isolation without assemblies or laws. a lot of emphasis is put on the fact that they live outside of a community.

alternatively, the difference between the iliad and the odyssey (and their respective heroes) signifies the change in greek culture, from the warrior myceneans to commerce and voyage: odysseus represents the victory of intelligence over force, and his qualities are the characteristics, for example, of a merchant

i should perhaps point out that the odyssey was composed much later than the iliad, which is also the reason it has a more complex structure (begins with the gods + telemachos’ quest, we first see odysseus on ogigia, then he recounts his whole voyage in a long flashback triggered by a bard at a feast singing about the trojan war)

oh look i got sidetracked again

back to the trivia!

do not be fooled by madeline miller. patroclus was indeed a warrior, and a very good one at that. and briseis was indeed achilles’ lover, and loved him (that is explicitly stated).

odysseus might have loved penelope but that does not mean he did not sleep around with every woman he met

circe. calypso (by whom he is imprisoned for seven years). and nausicaa princess of the phaeacians falls in love with him. this is engineered by athena 

i don’t think he actually sleeps with her but athena does make him look younger and prettier so she’ll be smitten and welcome him at the palace and give him a bunch of gifts and eventually a ship to take him back to ithaca

in the poem named after him, his own poem, odysseus is always the stranger, the guest, or the beggar.

or all three.

or all three, but it’s a lie and he’s actually at home, the king returned.

despite the iliad being about one and a half months and the odyssey being more than a year + more time taken up by other characters, the iliad is about one and a half times the odyssey.

more to come (maybe)

[frickengreenfrickyeah]

An Irreverent Intro to the Iliad

A/N:I’ve taken the introduction to the Lombardo translation and condensed it. Any time I says something to the effect of “don’t quote me on this” that means I’ve added my own analysis or thoughts that I cannot back up in any way, so don’t, like, put it in an essay if you don’t plan on doing your own research.

Anyway, you don’t care about that stuff, you came here to read about the Iliad.

It’s really fricken long, so, for the sake of mobile users, everything’s under the cut except for this:

“Rage. Bitch, lemme tell you about the time that Achilles fucked over the entire Greek army by Rage-quitting.”

Timeline for the Noobs 

Ten years ago:

Aphrodite bribes Paris so she can win a beauty contest between herself, Athena, and Hera. Paris’ reward for his ‘heroics’ is Helen

(There’s probably an essay’s worth of symbolism you could dig into here, what with the goddesses all representing different priorities: erotic love, wisdom/justice, and familial duty. I wonder what Paris’ choice reveals about his character?)

There’s some disagreement about whether or not Helen when with Paris willingly

Seeing as literally no other woman in the Iliad (and maybe the entire Cycle? Don’t quote me on that) willingly went with her kidnapper, I’m calling bull on that. Do with that what you will.

Menelaus gets really mad that Paris stole his wife, so he rounds up the Greek army, and they go to war. (It’s worth noting that Athena and Hera are both on his side here.)

Present day:

Agamemnon(Boo), Menelaus’ brother kidnaps a girl. Then he has the balls to get upset that the girl’s father called Apollo’s plague down upon the Greeks until she’s returned

Achilles points out that Agamemnon’s being a dick and people are literally dying because he won’t let go of one girl. Agamemnon says, “Fine. If I have to give up my lady-war-prize, I’m taking yours as recompense.”

Achilles allows Agamemnon to take his girl, then Rage-quits. As consequence, people die.

Hypocrites. Hypocrites everywhere. If you wanna analyze that for an essay, I think there’s plenty to talk about. 

The Theme Worth Giving a Shit About (Because it Drives the Narrative)

Heroes risk their lives on the battlefield in exchange for Prizes

Ie. riches, bitches, and clout

Honor <--> Shame is how they judge the value of others and themselves. Honor wins Prizes, Shame loses Prizes

3 Characters Worth Giving a Shit About (Because They Explore the Aforementioned Theme)

Achilles: Main character. Rage is his thing. Also, pouting. 

His honor is insulted by Agamemnon(Boo) taking away Briseis, his lady war prize. Since war prizes are how their society rewards heroes for risking their lives, Agamemnon is basically saying he doesn’t care of Achilles dies or not.

And that hurts Achilles’ feelings because he knows he’s gonna die. There’s a prophecy about it. 

The only reason he’s fighting is because society conditioned him to believe that Prizes and eternal glory were worth dying for.

Now that he doubts everything he knows, he refuses to fight for the Greeks.

The entire poem is the consequences of his Rage-quit

Agamemnon: fuck this guy

He loses his lady war prize, so he takes Achilles’. Because short-sighted spite is the best motivator.

He and Achilles start the poem in the same place, believing that material goods should equally compensate a loss. Achilles is the one who learns that that’s not how that works.

Agamemnon starts as a dick and ends as a dick. Google Iphigenia if you want to learn more. And that shit he pulls with Cassandra? Major dickbag. Fuck this guy. 

Hector: The Trojan hero, and honestly the only likable guy here. 

He is Achilles’ foil. 

Just like Achilles, he’s separated from society - but, unlike Achilles, it’s not because he rejects their values. It’s because he never questions them.

He’s basically the perfect hero, and he suffers for it:

His son is scared of his war helmet

He can’t stay closer to home to fight defensively because that’s ‘shameful’

And he can’t even stay in the city that long on his breaks because wine and women are too tempting. 

Side Characters to Maybe Give a Fuck About

Patroclus: The most important of the supporting cast, and he’s only in it for, like, maybe a book

Achilles’ BFF and probably more

(Read: Definitely more. If you listen carefully, you can hear me chanting OTP OTP OTP every time you open your book.)

He is Achilles’ double

He never doubts society but supports his bestie’s midlife crisis anyway

His death at the hands of Hector symbolizes Achilles’ death because he was wearing Achilles’ armor at the time

Achilles causes Patroclus’ death btw

When he Rage-quits, he asks Zeus to help the Trojans (because short-sighted spite is the best motivator). Patroclus goes to help the Greeks wearing Achilles’ very recognizable armor, causing Hector to target and kill him

His death redirects Achilles’ Rage at the Trojans instead of the Greeks

Diomedes: a badass fighter

Greater Ajax: a badass fighter

and (I think) the guy who talks sense into Achilles at some point

Ajax the Lesser: a badass fighter (are you sensing a theme in these characters?)

Odysseus: the only smart guy here

The Odyssey is about him btw

The Trojan horse was his idea, according to the Aeneid (and maybe other places? But definitely the Aeneid.)

WTF is an Epic Poem Anyway?

Epic Poem: recounts events with far-reaching historical consequences, sums up the values and achievements of an entire culture, and documents the full variety of the war

Basically, if “’Murica, Fuck Yeah” sums up America, then the Iliad sums up Ancient Greece

(Actually, Hamilton is a better comparison, but I needed to make a joke. Fite me.)

That “full variety” thing is why Book 2 and a couple other places just list off a bunch of ships or leaders and their dads. That shit is boring. Skip it. 

But also, that ‘full variety’ thing is what makes other parts of the story so interesting. Homer will sum up a dude’s life story right before he kills them or some shit. It magnifies the scale of the narrative by showing how insignificant one person’s experience is - no one person can stop the war.

That’s what makes Achilles’ story even more powerful --> because his impact on the war is significant. His Rage controls the ebb and flow of it. 

He can’t stop the war though. No one can. 

The Gods are Petty as Fuck

Homeric gods look/act like humans, but they’re different mainly because of two things:

1. They can’t die.

That means they treat the events of the war less seriously than the mortals do.

2. The gods know about fate

To the modern reader, it seems like the humans have no agency, but that’s not really the case

Knowing fate is a bit like knowing the plot of a movie. It gives insight into a character’s actions that would otherwise seem random.

By reading this poem, you’re basically a god. Don’t let it go to your head. (But, hey, there’s a reason I’m majoring in this shit)

Bards like Homer would more directly be gods because they changed and adapted the story as they told it, just like the gods influence human actions in the story.

Don't quote me on that tho

Character choices are usually doubly motivated - by the human, and by the gods

Ex: Achilles chooses not to kill Agamemnon because Athena tells him not to.

This is personifying the literal thought process he had so that the reader understands what’s going through his head.

Fate doesn’t force anyone to act out of character --> fate is the consequence of their life choices

The gods not caring about death and his own lack of foresight is what Achilles messes up on

He asks Zeus to help him get revenge on the Greeks because he assumes Zeus cares about that sort of thing, but Zeus is bigger than that.

That leads Patroclus’ death, btw.

The “Enduring Heart” Shit

Achilles is really butthurt that Agamemnon wronged him

The lesson he has to learn is that even if material goods can’t make up for losses, there’s no other option --> you can’t bring people back from the dead, so you have to move on

That’s the Enduring Heart shit

also, if you abstract that concept it sounds kinda like entropy to me (Don’t quote me on that tho)

He learns that lesson by feeling pity for Priam (Hector’s dad) instead of perpetuating the Rage Train

And, hey, that Enduring Heart shit is a lesson that all of us could take to heart. None of us want to die, but it’s gonna happen. Maybe that’s not fair, but throwing a temper tantrum isn’t going to change anything. Really, the only way to avoid being miserable is to embrace our mortality so we can appreciate life while we have it

don’t quote me on that tho

In a nutshell, Achilles has to accept his mortal-ness. Otherwise there’s a lot of unnecessary suffering. 

That’s why we don’t need to see him die in the Iliad even though everyone makes such a big deal about the prophecy about his death. His journey was completed as soon as he found pity in himself instead of Rage - essentially rejecting the godly side of himself (oh yeah, I forgot to mention. His mom is a goddess) and embracing his mortality. 

because gods don’t have to deal with death, they can Rage all they want, remember?

Also, if he never dies, he can’t be reunited with Patroclus. 

OTP OTP OTP

You could probably write an essay about how Achilles died as soon as Patroclus did.

Honestly Boring Historical Context (That might be interesting if you’re a nerd like me?

The poem was basically historical fantasy even when it was first written. There are gods and super strength and shit

Greek History Over-Simplified: The Mycanaean Period was prosperous but ended suddenly. The Dark Ages of Greece followed, and we don’t know much about what happened during that because they forgot the written word was a thin. 

The events of the poem probably take place during the Mycanaean Period because they use bronze weapons. 

But warfare is described from more of a Dark Ages perspective. Like, they don’t use chariots the right way

Which suggests that chariots were part of the source material, then the Dark Ages made people forget how they were supposed to be sued, so the bards just kinda made shit up to explain their presence. (Don’t quote me on that tho)

The Oral Tradition of the poem means that this story was told thousands of times over hundreds (thousands?) of years. So the narrative is hones at shit.

it has the sculpted body of an Olympic athlete. Each muscle toned to do a specific job and everything works perfectly together to accomplish the sporty feat of interest. Every verse is packed with character, setting, plot, and cultural significance

Except for that Catologue of Ships shit. Boooo boring ships.

There were probably lots of other versions of the poem, but Homer told it best. His version was written down as soon as the written word was (re)invented

Side Note that wasn’t in Lombardo’s Intro

The Iliad and Odyssey are both parts of a larger body of work known as the Epic Cycle 

(The Aeneid is basically Caesar Augustus-insert fanfiction at that, btw. Virgil was a satirical fanboy and I’m living for it.)

Characters and events are introduced with the assumptions that the reader already knows their importance

But we only have fragments of the rest of the Cycle today because it was either never written down or the manuscripts were lost

I’m looking at you, Burned Library of Alexandria

*sad fiddle music plays in the background

Videos That I Learned Shit From (Only, like, the first two links are relevant to the topic at hand, btw)

Basic Plot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faSrRHw6eZ8

More about the Epic Cycle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3bn0eKt4Rw 

Iphigenia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifFsKCrH3GM 

Oresteia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kpGhivh05k             

The Odyssey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3rHQ70Pag&index=4&list=PLDb22nlVXGgfwG1qbOtNgu897E_ky_8To (Also, this story is my favorite of the Epic Cycle)

The Aeneid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRruBVFXjnY&list=PLDb22nlVXGgfwG1qbOtNgu897E_ky_8To&index=5  

Ancient Greek History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzGVpkYiJ9w&index=2&list=PLDb22nlVXGgexsbafIwirG6Tk9uww9dSW    

And, yeah, these videos are all from the same channel. I’m a basic bitch and a ho for not leaving my comfort zone. Fite me. 

Honestly, if anyone has other sources, let me know. Youtube history/video essays are my shit.

I hope this was helpful.

[elucubrare]

i have never been able to read any Homer derivatives (with the sole exception of Zachary Mason's The Lost Books of the Odyssey, which was pretty okay but did a couple of annoying things), but really For the Most Beautiful is doing most of the things I don't like. i've read 74 pages, which is all I plan on reading, and i've got enough material for about a 2000-word essay, which i will spare you, but I do have a bunch of complaints, many of which boil down to "you are getting a PhD in Classics at Yale, how are you so wrong about this?"

I hate her take on the gods. I don't have an objection to portraying the gods as foolish or petty, though it's absolutely not the tack I personally would take. I have a problem with portraying them as childishly petty. On a slight tangent, it's true that Greek gods are human in their passions and choices, but there's still a distinction, in ancient material, from humanity - the thing that's described as deinos, or terrible. and very few modern retellings understand or try to convey that. 

this is so petty, but she describes one of the gods as eating a "bunch of ambrosia." We don't, it's true, know what ambrosia is, but "a bunch of ambrosia" says "I really wanted him to be eating grapes but I know the gods don't eat mortal food on Olympus."

She retells the Iliad from the perspective, so far, of Chryseis and Briseis, which is, or rather could be, an interesting and valid choice, and I know I've complained extensively about Anachronistically Independent And Feisty Female Characters, but I think that, together, her two narrators have had maybe one thought that isn't about either a man or someone's attractiveness, like, even if a woman is, say, stuck in the women's quarters weaving all day like a good Athenian woman, she would think about the pattern of her cloth or something rather than her husband literally all day. 

To return to divinity:

the gods definitely exist

a character says (paraphrased) "I'm not an atheist or anything, but"

the Trojans are like "Achilles is the son of a god!"

like if your characters have definitive proof that the gods exist and have no problem taking Achilles' semi-divinity as a fact, there should be literally no room for even the suspicion of atheism

she says that Achilles is joining the Greeks two weeks after Helen is kidnapped. I'm fairly sure her sources are the fragments of the Epic Cycle, so why are we cutting the whole "Thetis hiding Achilles on Skyros" thing? 

She uses reconstructed Mycenaean spellings for the names of the gods, which is fine I guess but mostly gets on my nerves. 

 Look, I am not one to jump to "that's gay" as soon as one female character notices another's attractiveness, but: "And her [Helen's] breasts – her ripe, full, creamy breasts...I forced myself to look away." Chryseis, that's gay. 

ok also I know we enjoy various gibes at male authors' fixation on their characters' breasts but I am fairly sure both narrators talk about their own breasts, Cassandra's breasts, and definitely Helen's breasts. 

Again petty and I'm willing to be corrected on this but I don't think that "Princess" or "Prince" is a particularly Homeric appellation – there's the (w)anax and his sub-kings, but I don't think there's an exact term for the child of an anax. 

LASTLY, I promise, she mentions rich Trojan women being able to write and I am almost 100% sure that the societies as depicted in Homer are pre-literate.   

[widerivertales-blog]

RPGs and Stats

I've started working on a new tabletop RPG, with the tentative title of Olympiad. It's PbtA, and will throw players into the world of Mythical Greece-- where heroes do battle with monstrous creatures and each other among the sunny seas.

I've been thinking a lot as I get into it about Stats, and their importance (especially in PbtA games, where the rules are so directly tied to the kind of narrative you're helping to create) and in the interest of organizing my own thoughts I figured I'd spend a little time discussing them here.

Stats (or Attributes, whichever you prefer) are sort of the first line of defense as far as indicating what kind of a story a game should be telling. Take DungeonWorld, for example, one of the most popular PbtA games and one which draws its stats directly from D&D. This leads players to engage with it as a more narrative-heavy version of D&D, which I think is what the creators were going for.

Other games handle it differently. Spirit of '77 (a game which Wikipedia calls "an action RPG based on 1970s pop culture") has five stats: Four fairly standard, if genre-tinted (Might, Hustle, Smooth, Brains), and one which is rooted explicitly in the narrative they're trying to create (Soul). This keeps things action-centered (Might and Hustle are both physical traits, and the others are far from soft), fitting for a game which requests you play "at Maximum Volume."

Saga of the Icelanders (an RPG about the earliest settlers in Iceland) goes further, giving the player only four stats: Versed, Young, Gendered, and Wyrd. Versed measures the skillfulness of player characters, Young their youth, Gendered the degree to which they match societal expectations for their gender, and Wyrd for their fatedness, the driving force behind all action. These four create an explicitly different environment from Spirit of '77-- a less action-packed one, one more about community and individuals relationships with it and with a harsh outside world. This is, of course, fitting for a game about settlers in a frozen waste. It's less violent, as well-- although all the stats might be applied to physical situations, it's a far cry from DungeonWorld, which differentiates between Strength in Dealing Damage (Strength) and Strength in Withstanding Damage (Endurance).

I think there are two big questions you have to ask yourselves in figuring out the stats for your game:

A.) What attributes do I want to highlight in the characters?

B.) What am I willing to abstract?

DungeonWorld wouldn't be DungeonWorld if Strength, Dexterity, and Endurance were bound together in a stat called "Physical", in the same way that Spirit of '77 wouldn't be Spirit of '77 if it didn't have a way to measure that intangible oomph of a character's soul.

This all brings me, in a roundabout way, to my own project. What, exactly, makes a Greek hero tick? BY what standards must we measure them, and how far can we abstract?

Lets take a list (pulled from Wikipedia, then edited down to the heroes who I actually know enough about to discuss).

Achilles (Αχιλλεύς or Αχιλλέας), hero of the Trojan War and a central character in Homer's Iliad

Aeneas (Αινείας), a hero of the Trojan War and progenitor of the Roman people

Ajax the Great (Αίας ο Μέγας), a hero of the Trojan War and king of Salamis

Bellerophon, hero who slew the Chimera

Daedalus, creator of the labyrinth and great inventor, until King Minos trapped him in his own creation.

Ganymede, Trojan hero and lover of Zeus, who was given immortality and appointed cup-bearer to the gods

Hector, hero of the Trojan War and champion of the Trojan people

Icarus, the son of the master craftsman Daedalus

Jason, leader of the Argonauts

Odysseus, a hero and king of Ithaca whose adventures are the subject of Homer's Odyssey; he also played a key role during the Trojan War

Orpheus, a legendary musician and poet who attempted to retrieve his dead wife from the Underworld

Perseus (Περσεύς), son of Zeus and the founder-king of Mycenae and slayer of the Gorgon Medusa

Theseus, son of Poseidon and a king of Athens and slayer of the Minotaur

Lets work through these, one by one:

Achilles: A noble hero, son of the Nereid Thetis, skillful in battle and (in some version) indestructible. Deeply Prideful.

Aeneas: Son of Aphrodite, leader of the Survivors of Troy, Progenitor of the Romans, Namesake of the Aeneid.

Ajax the Great: Tall and mighty, most famous for his great shield. Wrathful, and at one point a rival of Odysseus.

Bellerophon: A great slayer of beasts. Rode Pegasus, killed the Chimera by tricking it into suffocating. Defeated the Amazons by dropping boulders on them. Destroyed when he attempted to fly to Olympus.

Daedalus: Renowned inventor, designer of the labyrinth. Designed wings and escaped.

Ganymede: A prince of Troy, so beautiful that Zeus abducted him.

Hector: Noble Prince of Troy, and a mighty warrior. Fought Ajax to a standstill.

Icarus: The son of Daedalus, died when he flew too high on wax-sealed wings.

Jason: Leader of the Argonauts, Proud and Skillful. Abandonded Medea and lost Hera's favor, was killed when the Argo rotted away and crushed him.

Odysseus: The Clever King of Ithaca, better at escaping problems with his mind or his skill at Archery than in combat. Delayed in returning home by his boasting to Polyphemus, and the latter's curse.

Orpheus: Famed and skillful musician, Argonaut.

Perseus: son of Zeus, killed the Gorgon to save his mother.

Theseus: son of Poseidon and also King Aegeus. Slayer of the Minotaur, escaped the Labyrinth with the help of Ariadne.

Obviously this a varied bunch, but I do think there are a couple of through-lines that might be interesting to explore. Lets run that list again, simplifying them down into just their attributes:

Achilles: Noble, Skillful in Battle, Prideful

Aeneas: Noble Trojan

Ajax the Great: Mighty, Wrathful

Bellerophon: Slayer, Clever, Prideful

Daedalus: Inventor, Clever

Ganymede: Beautiful

Hector: Noble, Mighty

Icarus: Prideful

Jason: Proud, Skillful, Desired by Medea (Until Desertion),

Odysseus: Clever, King, Skillful, Archer. Proud.

Orpheus: Skilled Musician

Perseus: Son of Zeus, Slayer

Theseus: Son of Poseidon and Aegeus, Slayer, Lover

Here, I think we can see the similarities more clearly. Many of the heroes are Noble, or of Noble Blood. Many are Mighty or Skillful in Battle. Several Are Clever. Several are skillful in other ways (as Sailors, Tacticians, or Musicians). Many are Romantic, Desired, or Beautiful, and almost all are Proud.

We can simplify these things into six basic stats:

NOBLE

MIGHTY

CLEVER

SKILLFUL

DESIRABLE

PROUD

Which would be good, but I'm not entirely content. I think some abstracting can be done-- and CLEVER and SKILLFUL have a little too much overlap for my comfort. After all, where do we draw the line? Odysseus's tricks are clearly him being CLEVER, and Orpheus's music is SKILLFUL, but what about the tactics of Bellerophon? What about the skill at sea of the Argonauts? What, frankly, about some of Odysseus's military plots? Sure, creeping out of Polyphemus's cave under the sheep is CLEVER, but isn't blinding the Cyclops in the first place more an act of SKILL?

Let me make something clear: There's nothing wrong with having both. I think they're slightly different, and interesting things to play with: I just don't know if, for the sake of the kinds of stories we're building, it's important to differentiate. In broad strokes, I think heroes who fit into one category will usually fit into the other-- much as with Strength and Endurance. There's nothing wrong with separating them, I just think it indicates something different about this game's priorities than what I'm looking for. Lets merge the two, and pick the broader of the two names (SKILLFUL).

So our final five attributes are:

NOBLE

MIGHTY

SKILLFUL

DESIRABLE

PROUD

And, yeah, DESIRABLE and PROUD are probably related. For the moment, I'm keeping them separate. For the moment, I'm putting CLEVER and SKILLFUL together. That may all change as the process moves on.

[agoodlinerp-blog]

PERSONALLY:

Kurt Hummel is a 25-year-old Off-Broadway actor, living in Manhattan, New York. He’s married to Blaine Anderson, and hopes to someday be a Tony Award-winning Broadway star.

PREVIOUSLY:

2015 was a big year for Kurt Hummel. He got married - finally - to the only man he’s ever truly loved, he successfully led a bunch of hyper-talented high-schoolers to a National Show Choir Championship victory, and he helped the school that had been a prison for him become a safe haven for artistically minded students. Even just a few years prior, Kurt hadn’t thought even one of those things would ever be possible, let alone all three - but here he is, thriving.

After returning to New York with the New Directions safely in the hands of Sam Evans, Kurt finished his undergrad at NYADA, proving once and for all that obstacles are just fuel for his ambition. In his final semester of his senior year, Kurt auditioned for and - incredibly - won a role in the cult ‘classic’, The Golden Apple, which, Kurt would tell anyone who listened, was the first Off-Broadway musical to transfer to Broadway - nevermind that it immediately flopped upon its arrival. Encores! put on the performance, with only ten days of rehearsal for a four-day run of the cultiest cult show of Broadway, and Kurt lived for it. While no great lover of the classics on which it was based, Kurt found himself living in the musical world. He read all of the Iliad and the Odyssey and stayed on top of his schoolwork, and fully embraced the campy, over-the-top aesthetic. They were the NYT Critic’s Pick, and that didn’t mean nothing.

After graduation, Kurt auditioned, somewhat on a wim, for Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812. It was exactly the sort of musical that Kurt would have died to see, replete with hyper-talented newcomers to Broadway (much like himself), puck-rock imagery and religious irreverence, so he thought why not? With low expectations, no pressure and a low chance of success, a successful performance and a rock-solid education behind him, he got it. Just a role in the chorus, but he got it. He was on Broadway, for real this time! For longer than four days, for real. It was a dream come true. He wasn’t one of the primaries, no, but he was on a Broadway stage, and that was more than enough for him. It kept him busy - wore him out, actually - but it was like he’d finally come alive; like everything he’d been through and everything he’d worked for finally had a reason. Like he had a reason.

It was just a role in the chorus, but it sparked his career, as twelve-time Tony Award-nominated shows are wont to do, even for those not specific to the nomination area. He remained in the chorus for its entire run, just under a year, and after that, it was a whirlwind. He moved from Comet to Anastasia, again as a chorus member, though this time with the added pressure of being a swing for a couple of named roles. He worked on a few workshops, a few screen tests, and kept auditioning throughout his tenure on both shows, refusing to ever for a moment get complacent or rest on his not-nearly-shiny-enough laurels.

PRESENTLY:

Now, finally, his hard work took him to Jersey Boys, where he’s currently starring as none other than Frankie Valli, his naturally wide, higher-leaning range earning him the part when the actor from the touring cast decided not to keep the role. It’s off-Broadway, but he’s still playing a character with an actual name, which is a huge step up - and not just a name, but the name, the eponymous character. It’s weird, being the  It’s more than he ever expected - Kurt privately considers his getting this role as a middle finger to everyone who thought he couldn’t pull off ‘leading man’. Really, though, aside from the baggage, he loves the whole aesthetic: the glittery red suits really do something for him, what can he say?

POTENTIALLY:

Professionally, Kurt wants to keep on his upward trajectory going. He hopes to originate a musical or play, he wants to lead a role on Broadway, he wants to win a Tony, be part of a touring cast, maybe help out with screenwriting or directing - maybe jump to TV or the silver screen someday, who knows. He’s still interested in fashion; he and Isabel still keep in contact, so that’s not something he’s completely given up, either, and he’s not writing the possibility of getting into that career later, either, though the idea of cutting his teeth in not one but two highly competitive creative industries makes him a little queasy.

Personally, Kurt’s happy romantically and socially, for the first time in his life, but...well, he hasn’t quite worked up the courage to say it out loud yet, but Kurt’s been thinking about himself and Blaine as fathers. He’s terrified, of course, and he knows that he hasn’t even figured out how to be the perfect husband yet, but...well, he thinks they’d be pretty good at it. He’s not sure if he’d want to go to the artificial insemination or surrogate route, since he thinks it would be incredible to have something half-his or half-Blaine’s, or the adoption route, since there are so many unloved children in the world, but...he knows, deep in his heart, that he and Blaine are meant to be parents. He just doesn’t know when or how to make that happen yet - but he knows there’s nothing he and Blaine can’t do.

                                          PLAYED BY ADMIN JULIE

[charliejrogers]

The Trip to Greece (2020) - Review

The Trip films are an odd bunch. Director Michael Winterbottom has been filming the travels of Rob Brydon and Steve Coogan while they play caricatures of themselves for ten years now over the last four films. In fact, the films aren’t even the original product of their work. Winterbottom first edits and releases the footage as a television series for the BBC that is usually about double the final length of the eventual feature film. I’m not sure if there’s any way for a Yankee like myself to lay my eyes on the full, 3-hour television versions, but I’m also unsure whether the extra footage would add or detract from my enjoyment of the film. Largely, it would depend on whether that extra footage was more of the The Trip’s comedy portions or drama portions. Generally, the former far outstrips the latter.

This is all to say, I find this series the most enjoyable when it doesn’t try to be too overly ambitious in trying to be dramatic art. Most people are like myself: they are turning on this movie because they want to see two very skilled comedians riff on one another. In particular they want to see them show off their incredible skills for impersonation. The Trip to Greece has no clear stand-out scenes of impersonations like the previous films. The first film will be immortal for the two comedians’ dueling Michael Caine impressions, and in some ways each of the subsequent films has always seen the pair struggling to recreate the freshness and originality of the first film’s easy back-and-forth energy. The second movie expanded on the viral nature of the first film by revisiting Michael Caine with the added joy of ripping on Tom Hardy’s non-understandable Bane. Plus, that film saw pitch-perfect, darkly comedic performance of Brydon’s famous “man-in-a-box” voice at the ruins of Pomepii, making it seem like there was someone still trapped inside the site’s molten figures. Then, for me, while the third film is the weakest of the bunch, Coogan’s Bowie and Brydon’s Jagger impressions single handedly made it worthwhile. This film’s coup de grace comes in a superb scene where the pair recreates the dentistry torture scene from the Dustin Hoffman & Lawrence Olivier movie Marathon Man. There’s also an impressive feat of ventriloquism where Coogan speaks while also making his mouth look like they are saying different words, as if someone is dubbing a voice over him.

Luckily, these movies don’t rely exclusively on only scenes of impersonation. The conversation between the two talented actors is entertaining on its own, with one always racing to beat the other to punch line. The winner is always us, the audience, and that remains true in this film.

But as I mentioned, the comedy is only about half the equation for each of the film. All of them have a sadness that runs just below their surface. Generally, it revolves around a failed or, in some cases failing, marriage of one of the actors. Or perhaps the two actors start to discuss and struggle with the fact that they are aging and feel that their lives lack meaning. A not-so-subtle loneliness lives at the fringes of the films, particularly when it focuses on Coogan’s character. At its best, the dramatic aspects of the films are thought-provoking and act as sobering subtle criticisms of the seemingly hedonistic, vain lives of actors and those in show business. At its worst, like in The Trip to Italy or The Trip to Spain it’s a self-indulgent mess that we put up with just so we can get more of the impersonations and snarky banter. The first film probably balanced the drama the best by leaning harder into the comedy throughout, with the dramatic undertones only becoming prevalent at the end – a beautifully impactful end to an otherwise frivolous film.

This movie leans much more into the drama than the first film, but unlike the prior two installments the drama is still well-balanced by the comedy. I think that this is largely due to the fact that the actors decide to slide back into their respective roles from the first film. This means that Coogan plays the role of the self-important, womanizing, superior actor, while Brydon is the more light-hearted, good-natured, merry-prankster, unlike in The Trip to Italy where their personalities seemed reversed. And, importantly, this film gives equal screen time to both actors instead of The Trip to Spain where the dramatic bits were skewed towards Coogan.

But above all else, I think the film feels so balanced because it takes such great advantage of its setting to enhance the drama rather than just serve as a pretty backdrop for silly conversations. The script uses the Grecian landscapes to hearken back to the ancient Greeks, with particular emphasis on this land being the birthplace of drama and comedy. Unlike today where “dramedies” dominate much of the premium TV landscape, for the Greeks these were two completely separate styles of theater. Dramas were largely devoid of comedy, and vice versa. The Trip to Greece take advantage of this separation and allows each of its character to embody a different stereotype. The self-important Coogan, of course, embodies the drama. He scoffs at Brydon’s lack of knowledge of Classical philosophy and seems more impatient than ever with Brydon’s imitations. He particularly bristles when Brydon claims that Coogan’s recent BAFTA-winning dramatic performance as a real-life comedian/entertainer in Stan & Ollie was nothing more than an imitation.  Brydon, the light entertainer, is like a court jester, always smiling, the embodiment of comedy.

But what I like even more than how this comedy/tragedy separate thematically resonates with the actors’ temperments is how the movie uses this same duality and  applies it to the overarching “plot,” if it’s appropriate to even call it that. The whole idea behind this particular trip is that Coogan and Brydon are going to follow the course of Odysseus’s eponymous Odyssey. In fact, the first words we hear from the movie, with the screen is still dark, is Brydon reciting the first words of the Iliad. The first image we see is the pair looking over the ruins of ancient Troy. What’s so wonderful is that the actual Odyssey is not a piece of theater. It’s an epic poem with as many pieces of light-hearted adventure and romance as there are set pieces of grief, destruction and other heavy drama. As such, the film allows Coogan and Brydon to experience their own, separate aspects of Odysseus’ original journey. By the end of the film, both do reach their respective homes, but in a way that matches the vibe of type of theater they embody.

Like any good Shakespearean comedy, Brydon’s journey ends with a marriage of sorts. Ever the light-hearted romantic, he asks that his wife fly out to meet him in Greece. Now, far from his home in England, Brydon has found his home in his wife, his Penelope. With the domineering Coogan out of the picture, Brydon becomes king of his castle, i.e. now HE drives the car.

Meanwhile, Coogan is haunted throughout the film by the possibility that his ailing father will die. His eventual death is all but confirmed by a dream Coogan has midway through the film which essentially recreates Aeneas’ famous flight from Troy while carrying his son and aging father. As those who know the Aeneid know, only one of those three will survive to make it to their new home. His dramatic story arc concludes with the emotional reunion all the way back in England between himself and his son, recalling Odysseus’ eventual reunion with his own son Telemachus.

It’s a beautiful way to end the film. It gives consistency and weight to the fairly rigid juxtaposition of to the two character’s personalities in the film, and it does so in a way that almost seems fated in a way that recalls Greek tragedy. This thematic consistency is overall satisfying without being distracting in the way the dramatic portions detracted from the second and third films. Ultimately, it serves to complement the comedy you show up to enjoy. While it will always be tough to top the first film’s originality and surprisingly poignant end, this is by far the most artistic film in the series, and the arguably the best since the series began. Here’s to more and more trips to come!

*** (Three out of four stars)

[hermanwatts]

Sensor Sweep

Science Fiction (Kairos): Congratulations to Analog for coming up with a more concise and even lamer award name than the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. Then again, that award was created because Burns accidentally emasculated someone. The Astounding Award specifically recognizes emasculation.

Cinema (Walker’s Retreat): This is not just corporate fan fiction. This is everything that fan fiction routinely gets shat upon put forth front and center, and passed off as “original”. Yes, right down to all sorts of contradictory narrative incompetence and Very SMRT Boy signalling. Yes, we get exactly what Rey Sue was going to get at the end: a galaxy where she’s the only Force User, making The Force Is Female a literal fact. We get the last of the Original Trilogy notables dredged up and abused in service to Rey Sue before being removed from the stage.

Gaming (Niche Gamer): Frozenbyte has released another new trailer for their upcoming space sandbox game,  Starbase. The new trailer, which you can find above, shows off the physics and mechanics involved in creating your own starships in the game.

Here’s a rundown of the game.

Fiction (Jon Mollison): As part of the on-going effort to challenge indy writers to do better, let’s take a look at two of the most popular guidelines: “Avoid passive voice,” and, “Show don’t tell.”  To do so, check out the masterful opening to The Scarlet Citadel, by the king of sword and sorcery, Robert E. Howard.

Television (Wasteland and Sky): Now, am I arguing sitcoms are on the level of high art that have been usurped by pretenders looking for its glorious crown? Hardly. What I’m arguing is that it’s another medium that was usurped and replaced by those who wanted to use it as a weapon, and then destroyed.

Sword and Sorcery (DMR Books): When “The Shadow Kingdom” by Robert E. Howard appeared in the pages of Weird Tales, no one would have guessed that it would continue to provide inspiration for fantasy authors for ninety years and counting. This remarkable story is often pointed to as the beginning of the sword and sorcery genre, although this opinion is not unanimous.

D&D Gaming (Polygon): One of the most delightful surprises of E3 2019 was the announcement of Baldur’s Gate 3. Die-hard fans of Dungeons & Dragons and computer role-playing games in general were ecstatic to learn that Larian Studios, creators of the excellent Divinity: Original Sin franchise, will be handling the project. Those same fans were notably confused, however, by the in-fiction timeline of Baldur’s Gate 3.

H. P. Lovecraft (M.C. Tuggle): How is it possible that the feverish works of a writer who died in poverty and obscurity more than 80 years ago still matter?

And yet they do matter, and to a growing number of fans and admirers. Here are three recent takes on Lovecraft’s continuing popularity, all from vastly different points of view, though they agree Howard Phillips Lovecraft has something to say to modern audiences.

Biography (Gardnerffox.com): This book is far overdue! Why wasn’t this book written twenty years ago? The comic book and pulp paperback industries, primarily American, brought the majority of what the world consumes as entertainment, today. It should go without being said that most of the people creating for these two industries would not have known the impact their work would have on generation upon generation of creatives.

Fiction & RPG (Cirsova): In the past, I’ve made the dangerous claim that good short fiction, like the kind you read in the pulps or in Appendix N, poses a threat to a product-driven OSR whose focus has moved away from systems and into settings materials and modules. My reasoning is that a short story is far easier to digest and build a game around than your typical Gazetteer-style setting product with its oodles of townships, kingdoms, persons of personage, blah blah blah.

RPG (Rlyehreviews): One of the issues with RuneQuest—recently and beautifully republished as RuneQuest Classic by Chaosim, Inc.—was what it hinted at and did not provide. It hinted at a setting, that of Glorantha, which we know of today in all of its richness and detail through numerous roleplaying games and supplements.

Fiction (Adventures Fantastic): Jack Vance was born on this date, August 28, in 1916.  We lost him on May 26, 2013.  Vance was a master of both science fiction and fantasy.  He often wrote in a highly stylistic manner.  I first read Vance in The Hugo Winners, edited by Isaac Asimov, when I was a freshman in high school.  That volume contained “The Dragon Masters” and “The Last Castle”. 

D&D (Skulls in the Stars): As long as I’m still on an old school kick, let me try and catch up with all my posts from twitter! Part 1 of Old School Dungeons & Dragons on the blog can be read here.

Without further ado, here’s part 2! N4: Treasure Hunt (1986), by Aaron Allston. The first thing you may notice when looking at the cover is that this module is unusual in that it is for 0th level characters! What is the deal with that?

Gaming (Postmodern Pulps): Today I just wanted to highlight the wargame I am most invested in on an emotional level – Games Workshop’s Warhammer 40,000. For those who don’t know what it is – I’ll do this REAL QUICK – a bunch of British tabletop miniatures folks had a set of wargaming rules called Warhammer. It had armies of Elves and Dwarfs and guys with swords and pikes, and orcs and goblins, even skeletons and ghouls and “chaos” warriors and monsters.

D&D (Brain Leakage): Last week, I talked a little about the corporate same-y-ness that overtook later editions of D&D, and how it differed from the kitchen sink, anything goes weirdness of 1st Edition AD&D. That post was written largely in response to a recent episode of Geek Gab.

Macabre Science Fiction (Old Style Tales): After 1906 Wells’ speculative fiction output had rapidly dried, and was only sporadic (and never particularly effective, unique, or good) after that point. During the fifteen years that he did write speculative fiction (which, to clarify, includes sci-fi, weird tales, ghost stories, horror, mystery, fantasy, alternate history, apocalyptic fiction, utopian fiction, and paranormal: all genres which Wells contributed in sizeable ways), Wells wrote nearly two dozen short stories of horror and the supernatural, most of which were of high literary merit as well as being entertaining. fter 1906 Wells’ speculative fiction output had rapidly dried, and was only sporadic (and never particularly e, unique, after that point.

Science Fiction (Tellers of Weird Tales): As I have thought more on it, I see that a distinction can be made between two types of projection, speculation, or extrapolation in science fiction:

First are things that don’t change. These are easy to project into the future because what is true today will also be true tomorrow. I’m thinking specifically here of human nature. If you write convincingly about human nature, your story can never be obsolete. Witness the Iliad and the Odyssey, composed nearly three millennia ago and still comprehendible to us today because its people are real.  

Tolkien (Alas Not Me): If much of what we have seen in the first three chapters of Book Four traces a descent for Frodo, the next three chapters will show his path turn upward again. For the pity he showed Gollum is Frodo at his best, and confirms the good opinion Gandalf and Bilbo have of him. Soon, though, and in the name of his quest he uses the Ring to dominate a Gollum whom he would not kill and could not set loose. 

Fiction (Postmodern Pulps):  I wanted to highlight a series of fiction anthologies being put out by Wolfpack Publishing, and curated/edited by Paul Bishop, a retired LAPD detective and venerable novelist. The first anthology, Pattern of Behavior I read as soon as it was released, and while not every one of the stories was entirely my bag, so to speak, all of them were well-crafted tales from highly-talented authors.

Sensor Sweep published first on https://sixchexus.weebly.com/