#and another judge homer!

[aybaybader]

we lost but at least we got this cute father/son pic

[dinosaurwithablog]

The Judge Soto Show continues as Aaron Judge hits his 46th home run of the season and gets another RBI getting Soto home after they walked him again!!! These two are on fire 🔥 They make the game so exciting. I don't know where the Yankees would be without them. Actually, I do, but I don't like to think about that 😁 I love this game, and I love these guys!! 😍 Let's go Yankees!!!!!

[lyculuscaelus]

I was in the belief that it’s Conon’s addition to the myth, though it would seem that Pausanias (yes, that well-known geographer from 2nd AD) in his work Collected Attic Words also mentioned the existence of the phrase Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη, with a similar account of this story:

Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη· παροιμία . . . οἳ δέ, ὅτι Διομήδης καὶ Οδ��σσεὺς τὸ Παλλάδιον κλέψαντες νυκτὸς ἐκ Τροίας ἐπανήιεσαν, ἑπόμενος δὲ ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς τὸν Διομήδην ἐβουλήθη ἀποκτεῖναι· ἐν τῆι σελήνηι δὲ ἰδὼν τὴν σκιὰν τὸν ξίφους ὁ Διομήδης, ἐπιστραφεὶς καὶ βιασάμενος τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἔδησε καὶ προάγειν ἐποίησε παίων αὐτοῦ τῶι ξίφει τὸ μετάφρενον. τάττεται δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν κατ' ἀνάγκην τι πραττόντων.

Here’s Mr. West’s translation of this part if anyone’s curious:

I believe the phrase Διομήδειος ἀνάγκη was pretty common back then in places like Attica, and if what Hesychius of Alexandria said was true, then the author of the Little Iliad might probably be the first one who connected this with the Palladium heist:

Although we still don’t know how it exactly played out in the Little Iliad (since Proclus in his summary didn’t elaborate either), I think it is interesting to see that this backstabbing story didn’t make it into pseudo-Apollodorus’s Epitome—the compendium which relied its account of the Trojan War on the Epic Cycle a lot. And if it didn’t make it there, chances are that the Little Iliad only left a hint of what could have been, meanwhile this story existed back then at a folklore level, just like the version of Odysseus’s death where a heron pooped on his head and he just…died. And pseudo-Apollodorus, as we know it, didn’t collect folklores as often as Pausanias did. So it never showed up even in the infamous Epitome.

Anyways, yeah, I don’t really think it has to do with Roman bias since little is shown in Pausanias’s works that he specifically hated certain heroes, even though there’s the Mantineia story concerning Penelope but you know he’s just collecting local tales as he always did. And here, the locals being the Athenians, it’s really intriguing to see how the people of a city patronized by Athena decided to shittalk abt Odysseus, favored by Athena, during the heist of the Palladium, the statue of Athena.

Heyo!

I don't know how exactly to phrase this but I was wondering if you know anything about Odysseus trying/planing to kill Diomedes while they were stealing the Palladium. I have heard some people say that Odysseus did try to kill Diomedes while doing so but Diomedes noticed him so Odysseus stopped.

This feels so strange to me as Odysseus and Diomedes aren’t antagonistic in the Illiad and Diomedes is loved by Athena like Odysseus so betraying him, especially for hubris, seems like a good way to end up on Athena's bad side.

Also the translated summaries of Little Illiad I know don't mention it either but I know those translations can be missing out context. I suspect the Odysseus Betrayal is a "later adition" to the Epic Cycle but I am not that confident on that opinion.

Yes absolutely and I understand completely what you say. That is because the Palladium Heist betrayal story was peobably not part of the original epic cycle but rather a later adittion. More specifically through the work called Bibliotheca by Photius I, the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinopole in 9th century seems to be mentioning in his work a Roman mythographer named Conon.

Conon lived and created during the times of Augustus. It seems that he is one of the oldest if not the oldest mythographer to ever mention this story. So the story quoted by Photius goes as such;

Basically after the revelation of Helen's Diomedes and Odysseus enter the city. Odysseus helps Diomedes on his shoulders so that he could climb but when he reaches out his hand Diomedes doesn't take him in and goes for the Palladium himself. When he comes back apparently Odysseus asks him on it and, according to Photius who quotes Conon, Diomedes "knows his cunning" and says that he didn't find it. That a spirit stole it and that he has another one. Odysseus realizes he is lying so he eventually draws his sword to kill Diomedes and take the Palladium to the Greeks himself. Apparently as he goes to stab Diomedes in the back, his sword casts a shadow by the moonlight or the glint of the weapon, Diomedes sees it and deflects him. He draws his own sword and threatens Odysseus with it wishing to "punish him for his cowardice" but eventually he decides otherwise (arguably knowing that the war needs him) and thus he drives him back to the camp while hitting him on his back with the flat of his sword. And according to Photius this is what gave the famous phrase to Greek language διομήδεια ανάγκη (Diomedes Need) which basically means "do something unpleasant out of necessity for the greater good"

So as you see the story does seem pretty bizarre. First it implies mutual distrust and rivalry between the homeric heroes for Diomedes doesn't take Odysseus in the temple, Odysseus asks him on the Palladium obviously with intention to steal it and Diomedes lying to him and of course the actual act. For starters Odysseus ready to kill Diomedes for the sakes of fame (while he literally saves his life in the Iliad) and not only that, be greedy and stupid enough to hold a sword to the moonlight. So it holds many contradictions to the entirety of Epic Cycle even Iliou Persis which also shows a more unpleasant side of Odysseus.

My guess is that the story is mostly linked to traditions of later years especially Roman sources and is not directly linked to the Epic Cycle. Even art of later years doesn't depict the Palladium Heist as a negative aura between the two heroes. If anything they seem to be cooperating just fine. And as I said this myth as told by Conon shows BOTH Diomedes and Odysseus as rivals and equally antagonizing and deceiving each other which doesn't usually appear to the Epic Cycle. Although of course we cannot be 100% sure given how the Epic Cycle is lost, it seems to me more like a roman legend that usually depict Greek heroes of Troy in general and Odysseus in particular, in the most negative light possible given how Odysseus is known for taking Troy, the mythical city of origin to the Romans (given how Aeneas who barely escapes with his life from Troy is the ancestor of the founders of Rome)

I hope this answers your question; to summarize it seems to me that this story of the Palladium Heist has as much connection to the Epic Cycle as Ovid has to Medusa legend; seems more like a version either created or told by Conon based on traditions of his time and the general anti-Odysseus climate.

[coldalbion]

I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY RIVER

From another article on this, first, because it's also relevant:

"The barrister Paul Powlesland, who has acted for climate protesters, was called to jury service last week, and made judicial history by taking an oath on the thing most holy to him – not an ancient book, but a cupful of water from his local river in north-east London: “I swear by the River Roding, from her source in Molehill Green to her confluence with the Thames,” he said, “that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.” Powlesland explained that he wanted to promote the idea of the sacredness of nature, and its place in the legal system. “I hope that many others follow suit,” he said, “and animism is soon found more regularly in our courts.” In fact, the practice has the oldest of precedents. The first recorded oaths in western literature were made by the Homeric gods, who were, you will recall, in the habit of swearing on the waters of River Styx. As Hesiod wrote, breaking such a vow had serious consequences: “And whoever of the gods, pours of this water, and swears on it, and does so falsely, he is laid flat, and does not breathe, until a year is completed; nor will he have ambrosia and nectar to eat, but be laid on his bed while the evil coma covers him.”

And from the main article:

“I explained that nature is my God and I believe the Roding to be sacred and I manifest love in action for her, and in all the things that I do for her, and it would be a really meaningful promise to me,” said Powlesland. “I dipped my finger into a cup of the Roding water and said that ‘I swear on the River Roding from her source in Molehill Green to her confluence with the Thames that I will faithfully try the case and give a true verdict according to the evidence.’ “I got a feeling from the judge that he felt the truth in my voice, that this was a meaningful, sacred promise to me. It wasn’t just me playing silly buggers.” Powlesland is also the co-founder of Lawyers for Nature, a group campaigning for elements of the natural world to be recognised in law in Britain. Rivers, lakes and rainforests have been given legal personhood in countries including New Zealand, Spain, Ecuador and Australia."

[transboyswitchytales]

A Proposition

Wanda Maximoff Professor x Student Reader

Holy shit.

Darcey looks at you tilting her head and you shake your head for her to not draw any attention to you. But Wanda turns and looks directly at you, her breath catching for a moment before her TA hands her some paperwork. She is momentarily shaken from the trance.

Everyone takes their seats and she begins.

“Welcome everyone. My name is Professor Maximoff and I will be teaching you Survey of Litterature this semester. We will be reading large texts and dissecting them. I encourage this class to be argumentative with what you read. I want you to make a paper that not every student before you has written. I’m not an easy A class, you will have a lot of homework. If this scares you, good.” She took a moment to look around the room. “It should.”

There was a large silence that fell around the class.

“I’m here for you to stretch the knowledge of what you already know. Hopefully, after this semester you will be able to construct an argument. ”

You heard a few chairs scrape on the floor as some people left.

“My class is specifically for those who are getting English degrees. So the majority of you are seniors. Which means I expect more. Any questions?” Wanda smiled dangerously.

The rest of class we learned the large reading list that she was recommending. It was a little terrifying amount of homework. But you loved studying classic literature so a few of the books you’d already read. You were surprised by a few of her book choices, Doctor Zhivago wasn’t a story you saw often saw in required reading.

Just then you remembered the feeling of Wanda sucking your clit hard enough to make you squirt. And in that moment your face turned red and she looked at you again. You broke the eye contact and scribbled on your note pad gibberish so she wouldn’t look at you.

Wanda turned towards the board then and started writing out the main themes of Homer's ‘The Odyssey’. She chose three people from the class to come over and argue about Odysseus's line of character. After a healthy debate about ancient Greek gods. She seemed bored moving the chalk between her fingers in a disinterested state. Her eyes fell on you then.

“Y/N.”

You cursed and Darcey turned in a state of shock. No one seemed to care why she knew your first fucking name. You cursed the fact that you’d given her your name and heard her cum chanting it over and over again.

“Yes Professor,” You gulped and hoped your voice didn’t tremble.

“What do you think of Odysseus’s character.”

“Well, he did cheat on Penelope.”

“Can you put the parameter of everyday adultery to this story?”

“I think so. He’s a great lead character but that doesn’t make him perfect.”

“I suppose it says something about your love life, but can we really judge this character on that.”

There was a chuckle in the classroom but you didn’t take the bait. The class settled and Wanda had a small smirk on her lips. You kept your cool though.

“The question was simple, what do I think of his character, you can be heroic and still be flawed. Even if he comes back to Penelope in the end he wasn’t honest.” You had given a tiny dig at honesty. Seeing as how Wanda didn’t exactly lead with what she did for a living after you two had met. She seemed to catch this detail with a little glimmer.

The TA walked over to Wanda and whispered something.

“Looks like that’s our time today. Y/LN, if you could stay after class.”It wasn’t a question. And Darcey looked for a moment like she was going to say something but she held back and gave you a knowing look as you made your way over to Wanda’s desk. The TA handed her a paper and then left along with the rest of the class.

“Walk with me.” Wanda said as she put her coat on and slipped her laptop bag over her shoulder.

“I don’t think that’s a good idea. I can just drop the class” You tried but she didn’t budge. Walking around the desk and closer to you.

“Don’t be silly. You won’t be able to find another spot in time. You’ll need the credits of this class to graduate. Besides, I’ve heard from other professors you are quite remarkable.” She moved off of her desk to start for the doors.

“Professor,” She giggled and turned to you.

“So it’s professor now?”

“You didn’t tell me what you did.”

“You never asked darling.” She smiled guiltily.

“Please don’t call me that?” Your ears turned red.

“Why, if I remember right it does amazing things to you. You liked pet names the other night.”

“Professor…Maximoff, this isn’t a good idea.” Shaking your head you walked closer to her.

“You haven’t even heard what I’m offering yet?”

Part 1

[phoenixiancrystallist]

Homer starts meowing and chirping and pawing at the window like she did at the end of the game, only this time when Judge Bird looks out she sees Frey pacing up and down the sidewalk like an indecisive mess (Cuff is giving her shit about it the whole time, naturally)

So Judge Bird goes to coax her inside like she's a scared kitten herself and the second Frey steps foot inside the apartment Homer barrel rolls into her legs demanding pets, then while Frey's still trying to process this Homer climbs her like a tree, purring so hard Cuff bitches about it rattling him apart

Thinking about Frey eventually going back to NYC only to avoid seeing Homer because of the fear that and won't remember her. It that she'll have bonded to Judge Bird and not want to return to her.

[streets-in-paradise]

Hello there, just some lil questions I wanted to ask: what do you think about Odysseus? Since I am still unsure if he is a good guy after all…and what do you think about the wooden horse ?

Sending best wishes :)

Hi!

Overall? I do like Odysseus.

The question about if he is a good or bad guy? I feel it depends a lot of which Odysseus we are talking about. The many different adaptational Odysseus, one can argue, but I feel it's unfair measuring homeric Odysseus in a good vs bad measure. This is something you can't really make with any homeric figure, not only Odysseus.

One thing I enjoy of Troy (2004) is how in this analogy with modern imperialism it positions Odysseus as a cunning king that remains subservient to the imperial power in order to secure his land. Ithaca is in this kinda third world country position to an United States-coded Mycenae and that is very interesting to see.

However, there is also the fact that the dynamic of Odysseus and Agamemnon resembles Gandalf and Denethor in the Return of the King. He is the only one seeing the bigger picture while this armchair general calling himself " King of Kings" (the movie makes its own specifical use of this epithet from the Iliad) takes the worst choices ever. In the context of the film, with Agamemnon in the middle of a power driven mystic delirium oathing to Zeus he will sacrifice 40.000 greeks smashing the walls of Troy, you really can't blame the guy.

At that point of the film, Agamemnon is pretty much like grief over Boromir crazy Denethor about to burn Faramir alive, only he is about to get them all killed to destroy Troy in memory of Menelaus. Odysseus reacts as a way to preserve everyone, just as Gandalf sort of taking command in the Siege of Gondor. Arguably, Paris also attempts the same with Priam when he tells him not to accept the horse, but fails.

Speaking of Troy (2004) Odysseus? Yes, he is meant to be one of the good guys. The movie responsabilizes Agamemnon for him having to come up with the trojan horse and for the brutality displayed on the fall of Troy. It's not about power for him anymore, it has became a personal vengeance. He is, essentially, doing to that city for Menelaus exactly what Achilles did to the corpse of Hector over Patroclus.

Now, if we get in mythological territory, things get more complicated. This is why I feel you can't really judge him on good vs bad mentality. Homeric/ Trojan Cycle Odysseus is not a " did nothing wrong" neither a " figure of evil" character. He has both very redeemable and very loathsome moments.

For example, he is a devoted parent. Despite being far away from his boy, Telemachus is his life. While all the other heroes describe themselves in name of their parents, he adresses himself publicly as " the father of Telemachus". However, he is the direct responsible for the death of two kids: encouraged the sacrifice of Iphigenia, and in some versions, killed by his own hand the baby boy of Hector to stop him from growing and possibly seeking revenge for the atrocities commited.

I do feel blaming him for the trojan horse would be as ridiculous as the people who hate on Hector for killing Patroclus. It's an act of war in a war story, the guy did what Athena inspired him to do in order to win. However, the especially vile atrocities commited during the fall of Troy are another story. With the all white cast of the film the thing got a bit unnoticed, but Troy (2004) introduced the concept of the trojan war as the first genocide of the West against the East. As my very first introduction to the story, this idea kind of stayed with me.

I hate what the greeks did in Troy, but the story itself brings them their karma. Am I pissed off about Astyanax and Andromache? Absolutely, but the gods punished Odysseus for me with that trip back home and Pyrrhus got disowned by Peleus to later get killed by Orestes. Most of the greeks turned out cursed, and the trojans ended up founding Rome!! I have nothing left to hate, gods balanced the universe for me.

( If you like to see greek karma in action, like I do, I recommend the book " The Talisman of Troy " by Valerio Massimo Manfredi. Despite it takes the post war greek pov of a wide variety of characters, but mostly follows Diomedes, it is cathartic from the trojan one. The conversation stopping the Aeneas vs Diomedes duel in italy is delicious when it comes to trojan catharsis.)

When it comes to mythological Odysseus, I fall on a middle ground. I am against those fully negative " Odysseus was a cheater asshole" narratives represented by stuff like Madeline Miller's Circe. However, I am not as forgiving of the heaviest Odysseus' wrongs as, let's say, some sections of the Epic fanbase.

And btw, he was not a cheater. When the options are " sleep with this goddess or risk her wrath", there is nothing much the man could have done even if it happened twice. The only time he had the capacity to consent was when Nausicaa got infatuated with him, and he didn't sleep with her. I just say people who hate on Odysseus for " cheating " are looking at the wrong reasons lol.

Books Odysseus is a complicated man, but I enjoy his character too.

( all but the Telegony, in this blog we pretend the Telegony never existed. It's such an OOC trainwreck, even if it's ancient, I refuse to take it in consideration.)

[hyperpotamianarch]

In a recent post, I made the clame that Nicholas Donin was antisemitic despite being born Jewish. I don't expect many people to read it, but out of premature fear that people might try to refute that claim, I'm going to try and answer possible refutations I think may rise. But firstly, some background:

Donin was a French Jew during the 13th century, the student of Rabbi Yechiel of Paris. The latter name might tell you nothing - he was among the last of the Tosafot, a centuries-spanning school of Talmud learning in France and the surrounding area. As a matter of fact, the story at hand likely explains why this school of learning died out a generation or two later. Anyway, Donin was excommunicated by Rabbi Yechiel for rejecting the authority of the Talmud. The English Wikipedia phrases this rather awkwardly:

While the precise reason for his excommunication is not known, Yechiel himself claims that it was because Donin had become a Karaite, rejecting the authority of the Talmud along with the Rabbinic tradition of biblical exegesis.

Which, I mean, I suppose considering what followed we can't completely trust the person who excommunicated him on his reasons for said excommunication, now can we? But I'm digressing.

Following his excommunication, Donin converted to Christianity. He then went on to convince the pope that the Talmud is the root of Jewish evil, which led to the pope declaring that the Talmud needed to be rid of. A public dispute was held in Paris between a couple of Jewish rabbis - including rabbi Yechiel, among other significant rabbis of the time. In this disputation, where a book belonging to one religion was being judged by the metrics of another, the Jews were bound to lose. And so, twenty four carts full of Talmud manuscripts were burned at the Place de l'Hôtel-de-Ville (then knows as Place de Grève), and rabbi Yechiel fled from Paris to the land of Israel. Though there may be some historical debates on whether or not he made it. Donin himself has joined the Franciscan order prior to the disputation, and after writing a book against said order he was executed. So I suppose no one cane out of this story happy.

Anyway, refutations to Donin being an antisemite include: a. The term "antisemitism" was coined by Wilhelm Mar, a proud antisemite, by the end on the 19th century as a term for the scientific, race-based hatred of Jews. It would be anachronistic. b. Donin hated the Talmud, not Jews. c. "Donin was right in his hatred of the Talmud! Plus, he was excommunicated so he had good reason to hate Jews!"

The latter... Isn't a refutation. If anyone raises it, it's a confession that they themselves are antisemitic. I will talk of it regardless, because sadly part of the point of this post is prematurely preparing for people perpetuating disagreement over basic points.

Let's start with point a, then: it's anachronistic, and the term refers to the racist hatred of the Jewish people. Well, it is fully true that it's anachronistic. However, we're bound to use modern terms for things that occured prior to coining those terms. In the same manner, calling Achilles and Patroclus "homosexual" is also anachronistic because this term wasn't coined when Homer codified the Iliad. That doesn't stop the greek myth side of tumblr for calling them that. Obviously I can't take for granted that people accept this usage of relatively modern terms either, plus Donin likely didn't hate Jews based on race. To that, I can say two things: one, antisemitism is widely accepted currently as the word for Jewish haters of any kind. This is why I used this word, as it's universally understood as the term for that. Two, if you really insist on semantics, we can call him Yudophobe. Not a perfect solution, but this can be a term for people who hate the Jewish people based on things other than race. It could be very exciting, to get into the finer details of why a given person hates Jews! But that particular conversation is for another day.

So, point b: he hated the Talmud, not Jews. Which is dangerously close to point 3 actually. So, I'd like to point out: the Talmud is a religious book (or a series of books. Really, the definition of what is considered a singular book can be fluid) of the Jewish people. It's an inherent part of most of Judaism - the only actual exceptions being Karaites, with maybe secular Jews as well. Hating something that is inherent to a given culture is what we call bigotry - meaning hating said group. Making Donin and antisemite/Yudophobe.

As to point c... well... it doesn't even argue that Donin wasn't antisemitic. It just argues that he had reasons to be one and that thus it should be acceptable. It's hard to argue with this point, because it inherently undermines the basic assumption that antisemitism is bad. The question is, then: should it be handled as something that a person might raise? Should I assume that some people I talk to see antisemitism as acceptable under the right circumstances and try to argue with them on that? Or should I just cut them out as antisemitic themselves, since they allow antisemitism in their midst?

All things considered, I think this is a matter of axioms. So I don't actually think this point can be argued. Either you think antisemitism is unacceptable under every circumstance, or I really just can't discuss antisemitism with you. It's unacceptable because no matter how righteous you think your hatred of my people is, you still hate my people and want me dead. Kind of beats the point of discussion. One might argue that since Donin supposedly didn't hate Karaites he can't be considered an antisemite or Yudophobe. I don't think this is any better of an argument - being Rabbanicophobe or even hating just Orthodox Jews aren't really any more justifiable than hating Jews indiscriminately. In short: if you agree that he was a bigot but are trying to justify it by minimising it or rationalising it, I'm not sure you belong in this discussion.

Hope that was comprehensible, thank you for reading and have a good day!

[bloody-pony]

What I say: a book-accurate adaption of Blood Meridian into film is very much possible. Due to BM's age, published in 1985, it has accumulated nearly 4 decades' worth of interpretation, discussed and analysed in academia and in the wider public sphere. One need only, for example, search for the novel on Spotify, and they’ll be met with a wealth of playlists and albums showcasing the vastly different lenses BM's readers have applied to the novel (a personal favourite of mine is Hellenica's sythensizer-spaghetti soundtrack). This goldmine of art, writing and music, not to mention McCarthy's own prose and dialogue, should make it ridiculously easy for any director to produce a halfway acceptable film that, by and large, ought to largely appease its long-awaiting fanbase.

Most detractors for a BM film cite the novel's extreme violence, but this, imo, is the easiest part to render for the silver screen. Full Metal Jacket and Apocolypse Now prove compelling showcases of the disorganised-organised chaos of war and the violence it wroughts in the hearts of its participants, with no short supply of dark humour, and even The Passion of the Christ portrays human cruelty and suffering with unflinching affect (see Acolytes of Horror's YT video). However, as is the curse of all adaptations of grand novels into grand films *gestures to Villeneuve’s Dune series*, it will never wholly meet the expectations of its hardcore readership, because novels (but especially in BM’s case) rely so heavily—by design—on the imagination of its audience. This is a work where the sun rises "out of nothing like the head of a great red phallus", and where "little devils with their pitchforks" are thought to skitter along the mouths of volcanoes, not to mention the immortal, 7ft tall, 150kg hairless albino who traipses the pulsing red horizon in search of souls to recruit for his plight of perpetual war. How, then, can a film best capture the mythopoetic haze that stains the sands of BM? It's doable, sure (see certain shots from Ken Russell's Altered States or Tarsem Singh's The Fall for the general vibe I'm trying to get at), but like with any calamitous attempt at adapting Homer's Odyssey (not including the 1968 mini series <3), how do you make a myth concrete without clipping its wings?

Like I mentioned earlier, I think the recent Dune films (another book series that, in the wake of Lynch's 1984 adaption, was likewise once considered too dense and rich for film) have opened people up more to the idea of a BM movie, or even a whole franchise (there's certainly enough material to go around, personally I'd enjoy a duology), some may make the mistake in wanting a literal, line for line, act for act, page to screen adaptation. And, yes, thanks to McCarthy's command of plot and prose, he certainly provides material, and with a few edits here and there made for time (*cough cough* James Robert Bell/the imbecile *cough cough*), it can surely be shaped into a 20-hour masterpiece—which I would definitely enjoy—but, nevertheless, a literal adaptation still runs the assured risk of losing that blood-red shroud of mysticsm which makes the world of Blood Meridian so intoxicating. A literal adaptation would reduce it to solely a Western, but, to me, it is placed better as a Thriller (my mind always goes to Harry Powell as Robert Mitchum in The Night of the Hunter whenever I imagine the judge's speeches) or an Epic (see Aguirre, the Wrath of God) or, even better, a Horror (like Come and See). In a way, though, Blood Meridian is so vast, so fantastical, that filming it in the desert, with an endless budget to spend on fake blood and stunt horses might, strangely, prompt other failings. It's partly why I personally would rather see it not expanded but condensed, confined and made abstract, forced into sets like the kind Eiko Ishioka designed for Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters or Joel Coen's stark and foggy sets on Macbeth. Music is another tricky thing. The only person I feel could do proper justice with BM's score would be Ennio Morricone (RIP), but Johnny Greenwood is a close second, then again I'm also tempted to suggest no score at all, like with No Country for Old Men. Tarrantino's playing of 'Apple Blossom' by The White Stripes during The Hateful Eight is an interesting way of evoking theme while not adhering to a film's time period, but it's only used best in small doses.

Considering half of BM's dialogue is in Spanish, though it would be marketing suicide, it would be cool if they didn't provide subtitles during the Spanish conversations in the film, keeping in line with how non-Spanish speakers likely felt when reading the book.

Of course, we haven't even touched on the subject of the kid. A big part of the novel is how McCarthy never lets us properly gauge the extent of the kid's participation in the Glanton Gang's slaughter and debauchery. He's no angel, certainly, but his heinousness is only determined by us, the reader. A film may feel compelled to flesh the kid out in ways that undo the intentions of the novel, marketing him as sympathetic or relatable in ways that threaten BM's basis of having no likeable (or even knowable) characters. He is a blank slate that shuffles from bar to brawl, apathetic but not passive and borderline suicidal. He has few defining traits other than his dark humour and his proclivity for mindless violence which he's harboured since birth. The kid is not Paul Atreides or Luke Skywalker, nor is he Holden Caulfield or Arthur Morgan, and if he ever met any of them, he'd either tell them to fuck off or shoot them, or both. He's hardly blockbuster material.

Of course, I'd still love to see the kid portrayed on film. Casting and marketing is another area worth considering for Blood Meridian, as I am of the opinion there should be few, if any known actors cast to play the Glanton Gang. The kid, especially, should be played by a Tennessean random, to keep in line with his anonymity as a character. Glenn Fleshler would absolutely kill it as Judge Holden, going off his performance in season 1 of True Detective. I don't know why, but I always envisioned Tobin as Andy Serkis, but he's probably still far too young for the role. Whoever they'd cast, I don't want to see a single set of veneers or drop of botox. Role them in dirt if you have to, I don't care. I don't want a single member of the Glanton Gang to look like they know what Ozempic is, and cast as many Native American actors and Mexican actors as possible.

Given BM's violence and characters, I worry for the kind of audience it'll attract, media literacy being what it is these days (*gestures at the hundreds of Judge Holden edits all wildly missing the point of his "Before man was, war waited for him" speech*). With the marketing, I take issue with casts of serious films and shows doing dumb promotional content, like those Buzzfeed puppy interviews. Considering the tough subject matter of Blood Meridian, I don't see why they'd need to do anything more involved than simple, respectful interviews and panels.

In the end, Blood Meridian can obviously be made into a film and it looks like we're finally getting one, whether we like it or not. But just because you can doesn't mean you always should, and though I can't say I won't be the first in line to watch, I also can't promise it won't be without obscenely high expectations. Every director is different, and though John Hillcoat's track record with McCarthy adaptations hasn't proved all that inspiring, I am nevertheless pleased to be seeing another person's interpretation of a novel that has captured by every waking moment ever since I read it over a year ago.

What I want to say: Blood Meridian should be a ballet/dance with little to no plot à la Ravel's Boléro or Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring (and mayyybe Akram Khan’s Giselle)

[sky-squido]

i, like every other fic author in existence, love getting comments from people who enjoyed my work. i don't care if your comment is "late" (that's so weird to me like it's literature—do you apologize to homer for being late to reading the odyssey?) or "unintelligible" (late night commenters, english language learners, people who feel like they "just aren't that good with words", believe me, i entirely understand what you mean and appreciate it immensely), or anything else that you feel might make your comment 'not good enough'. i love all of the comments i receive and i am eternally grateful to all of you for your continued support.

and yeah, i've read fics where i felt like adding a comment would be doing the fic a disservice because there was nothing that could be said that wouldn't cheapen or patronize the magnum opus i'd just witnessed. in instances like this, that is exactly what i say in the comment: "there's nothing i can say that doesn't do this work of art a disservice. thank you for writing this."

actually, now that i think about it, there are a bunch of ao3 comments i've gotten that i still haven't replied to because i felt any thanks i could give would be inadequate. i should really get around to replying because i want them to know how spellbound they left me. i love you all, have i ever mentioned that?

all of that being said, i would like to make a public service announcement!

at least under default settings, ao3 authors do get notified every time you edit a comment. i've accidentally hit send too early before, or realized i forgot something i wanted to say, i get it, i really do. i have edited many comments in my day.

but you don't have to do this. really, it's okay. most of the time i honestly can't tell what the difference is. i'm not going to think worse of you for having typos in your comments because i guarantee that there were more in the fic you just read sfkljghsl

also these edits were over the course of twenty full minutes. i got another email while writing this post and had to update the image. please do not spend 20 minutes agonizing over your comment and changing the capitalization and adding a few words. it's okay, i promise. i love your comment, and i'm very very grateful for it, regardless of how "polished" it is. i'm not your english teacher in disguise.

tl;dr, i love you all and i hope you don't feel anxiety or a compulsion towards perfectionism in my ao3 comments section. i won't judge you, i promise <3

[dinosaurwithablog]

Oswald Peraza gets an RBI homer, his first of the season, and the 9th home run of this game! It's only the 7th inning so this home run ensures that Aaron Judge will have another at bat!! The score is 20-6. Once they got rid of max fried, no one else has scored a run. They have had numerous pitchers for the Brewers, but they can't stop my boys!!

[katerinaaqu]

Why did Helen choose to torment the Greek Warriors inside the Trojan Horse? (An Odyssey Analysis)

Okay so here is a conundrum that seems to be quite interesting in homeric poems. One of them seems to be Helen's behavior before the sacking of Troy. Menelaus informs us and Telemachus on the events of the night before taking Troy and speaks on the moment where Helen knocks on the Trojan Horse and calls upon the Greek warriors inside imitating the voices of their wives.

Three times you circled the hollow ambush and out of the best of the Danaans you called the names and all the Argives heard the voices of their spouses. Nevertheless I and the son of Tydeus and the godly Odysseus heard you as you called out and while we two were eager to rush out and act to our sudden urge, Odysseus though held us back and restrained us despite our eagerness. Then all the other sons of Achaeans endured apart from Anticlus wanted to respond to your call but Odysseus placed his hand upon his mouth non-stop and strongly and thus saving all the Achaeans until Athena Pallas led you away

(Translation by me)

So basically here we see a very cruel act right? Helen knows the Argives were away from home and their wives way too long, over a decade so why would she play such a cruel game to them and call upon them by using the voices of their wives? It seems unnecessarily cruel at some point especially since she did express the need to go back to her husband already a year prior during the events of Iliad.

So here are a couple of explanations for it.

So for many I would epxect this would be something one might consider inconsistency at writing which leads many people to turn to the "different writer" trope. Quite honestly I can see why and as a hypothesis is really valid or maybe if one takes the hypothesis that Odyssey was witten way after the Iliad that the author himself changed his mind on some stuff or reconsidered his sources etc.

However let's hypothesize for one second that this is a logical continuation of the story and character development (yeah I am not convinced on the different writer theory, fight me! XD) and let's just think for a second the context of the scene based on what we know from the Iliad and the Epic Cycle in general.

We know that Helen lived in Troy a decade (yes for the "20 years theory" I have answered an ask here). She knew these people for a long time. We also know from the Iliad as she stood next to Priam, giving him information about the Greek leaders and kings and we know that she was not judged by him or any other of the Trojans. If anything she was blaming herself quite a lot for it. Even in the funeral of Hector she expresses her love for him (not romantic love guys) and her respect for him. She had no real hate for the Trojans even if she already had a change of heart or Aphrodite's spell on her had weakened. For the reasons why she stayed I also answered another ask right here but apart from that reason we know she wanted to go home so why did she do that to the Greeks? Well in the same scene Menelaus seems to be excusing his wife and he presents this very interesting explanation as to why she did it:

And then you came there: called by some god, no doubt, who wished to extend the glory of the Trojans

(Translation by me)

Menelaus seems to be excusing his wife once more and presents the hypothesis that Helen was inspired by some god or goddess (δαίμων) to go and disturb the Greeks inside the horse. Helen doesn't deny it but doesn;t confirm it either. In fact Telemachus speaks soon after and Helen orders the slaves to prepare stuff. The conversation on this subject seems to end there. So the one explanation could be that indeed Menelaus is correct and that Helen was once more either coersed or blackmailed by a god, potentially Aphrodite again, even if not mentioned, and went to the Greeks and tried to lure them out for the sakes of that god that wished better for Troy. It stands as an explanation as well.

However let's make things more spicy and let's assume that Helen was not influenced by divine intervention by the gods and instead it was her own free will to do what she did. If yes then why? So here's a hypothesis. Before in her narration Helen talks about how she met Odysseus and recognized him in his disguise. She also mentions how Odysseus informs her on the plan to take Troy:

And then he entrusted me everything he had in mind for the Achaeans

(translation by me)

How much he told her is not clear. Did he already have in mind to make the horse so he tells her that? Maybe he warns her on the one day that the Achaeans shall enter the city without speaking on precice details? Either way Helen would know Odysseus was up for some ploy and she knew she had to act fast. Menelaus also mentions how Deiphobos was with her at that time (how Menelaus knew? Well probably Helen told him). So immediately if Helen had a reason to do what she did, we have two reasons;

She wanted to persuade Deiphobos on her loyalty to Troy. Arguably when Odysseus escaped, as Helen said, he killed many Trojans on his way out. Most likely her loyalty must have been questioned at that tensed time thus being accompanied by her new husband all the time. By doing this, ellegedly tormenting the Greeks, was showing to Deiphobos her loyalty to Troy (manipulating him into believing that she was on their side) plus showing him like "See? Nothing here. No danger whatsoever". She probably knew already Odysseus would be inside and he wouldn't fall for her trick and she trusted him and her husband to hold the rest of the Achaeans inside the horse so they wouldn't cry out. So not only did she show to Deiphobos that she was on Trojan side but also manipulated him into believing indeed there was no danger.

Two, this part is the best, in my opinion, she was signaling to the GREEKS inside the horse. She called them all by name by immitating their wives. More or less tells to them that she KNOWS and that she knows EXACTLY who they are and who their families are, and that she could have betrayed them at any moment if she wanted to but she chose not to because she was on their side. Like that she would have more hopes not to be killed by vengeful Greeks during the siege of Troy or her daughter by Paris, Helen, and ensure her and her daughter's safety. Also signaling her change of heart in person to them.

Conclusions:

Like I said before I do not believe Odyssey was written by a different author altogether and Odyssey itself gives us some very good explanations on Helen's behavior. I am actually willing to side with my second hypothesis. Perhaps Menelaus was talking literally when mentioning a god but I tend to believe he was more like metaphorical. In an essence "what's gotten into you?" manner. However I tend to believe that regardless of whether there was or wasn't a godly intervention in Helen's behavior, Helen is extremely intelligent and she knows that after the fuss Odysseus caused (literally a Greek spy in Troy, possibly two if we count Diomedes too) that got in, stole the Palladium of Athena and killed people on their way out might as well throw suspicion on her and she needed to make sure she would continue have the love of Priam, which was literally her shield of protection at that moment. Two she knew that her husband was coming for her and that he was potentially furious and if it wasn't him, some other of the Greeks would be or they would get battle-drunk with their success. She wasn't going to rely only on Odysseus's silver tongue that he persuaded the Greeks on her change of heart but she wanted to make sure that they knew on her talents and power and the way that she could literally give them away at any moment and that she chooses not to because she is Greek like them and because she had a change of heart!

I hope you find this analysis interesting! Let me know in the comments below! I'd love to hear your thoughts! ^_^

[polutrope]

By the way, do you have the impression that Turgon and Thingoil are characters that I think Tolkien liked and admired much more than most people who write fanfics, that Tolkie really admired them and has better opinions of them than many people in the fandom in relation to fanfic about them.

Hi Anon!

I am probably not the most knowledgeable about fandom-wide opinions because most of the opinions I'm exposed to are from people on my dash that I've chosen to follow, and I read fic by and recommended by that community of people. That being said, I try to branch out and remain open to various interpretations. My experience participating in fandom this way has actually led me to a lot of people and writers with quite nuanced, generally favourable opinions on Turgon and Thingol! It's only from those people that I have heard that this is not necessarily the norm 😔.

Based on what I have heard and occasionally encountered, I do think Tolkien "liked and admired" Turgon and Thingol more than many readers in fandom, but, crucially, I don't think he was approaching them with the same mindset as most of those fans who take an unfavourable, even hostile, view of them.

I'm not an expert on Tolkien the Man, i.e. who he was as a person and how that was brought into his writing, but I do know that he was a scholar and enjoyer of literary traditions that did not follow the conventions of dominant contemporary storytelling. Many of the stories that inspired Tolkien were about legendary, epic heroes who were violent, fallible, selfish, etc... but still heroes -- basically because the genre said so. I didn't study Norse and Anglo-Saxon culture and traditions like Tolkien, but I did study Homeric literature a bit and the stories and heroes of the Silmarillion have always reminded me of those legends and characters (it's why I love it!).

I think it's impossible to reach a conclusive argument about the morality of or a verdict on the actions of e.g., Homer's Achilles or Odysseus. It can be diverting, an interesting mental exercise, creatively fulfilling, but I think the storytelling is ultimately incompatible with that kind of analysis. The characters just are what they are, and if the text says they are Great then they are. That's that.

I believe it's that way with Thingol and Turgon. We are told they are glorious and wise kings but a lot of what they actually do doesn't seem very glorious or wise. (Feanor is like this, too -- big time lol.) I think that's because the genre/traditions the Silm is inspired by do not necessitate that the story back up a character's "quality of excellence." We are just invited to accept it.

My sense is that that is not satisfying to many people (works for me though!). It is interesting to judge characters for their actions. It's what contemporary novels/TV/film/etc invite us to do, and many like doing it (again, not really me, but I'm strange).

(Tolkien's later writings, like LotR and some of the post-LotR writings, do invite this kind of reading, and I think that Tolkien at that stage was taking pains to show as well as tell us that X character was noble/wise/brave/etc. Which brings me to an issue that I think is at the root of so many interpretive disagreements about the published Silmarillion, namely that it's compiled from a selection of drafts written over decades and those drafts are not always compatible with one another in terms of genre and tone. Christopher did his darned best, and anyone who has read through HoMe will appreciate what an impressive job he did, but while he could iron out inconsistencies, without extensive rewriting -- which he was determined not to do -- I think incompatibilities like this were unavoidable. So we get Tinwelint from the 1917-19 Tale of the Nauglafring blended in a soup with Thingol of the 1950s Narn i Hin Hurin and the result makes for a bit of a strange aftertaste. There's even some full-on characterisation whiplash for those who are looking very very closely, as us fans like to do. Turgon is another character whose story is drawn from disparate strands of the Silmarillion's textual history, hmm... maybe something there.)

So, I have been theorising that all this is possibly why there seems to be a disconnect between Tolkien's presentation of characters like Thingol and Turgon and how much of the fandom receives and interprets them. Storyteller and reader are looking at things through incompatible lenses. Which is interesting! I think the problems (and vitriol) arise when people are not recognising that their opinions are filtered through a particular lens.

Probably far more than you were looking for with this Ask, but this issue has been circulating in my mind. I hope it makes some sense. I am trying to articulate half-formed thoughts through the fog of a head cold.

[misterspectacular]

Mr. Burns (and Smithers) in Bart Gets Hit By A Car, episode 2x10

---

Overview: Homer is convinced to file a $1 million lawsuit by a dodgy lawyer after his boss at the power plant, Mr. Burns, hits Bart with a car.

---

BART rides into the street on his skateboard and is hit by Mr. Burns. Smithers insists they call an ambulance. Mr. Burns mutters in irritation.

---

Homer meets with Burns to discuss a cash settlement. Mr. Burns offers Homer $100, but Homer says that won't even cover the medical bills. Mr. Burns thinks Homer is trying to extort him so takes the money back.

---

Homer sues Mr. Burns for $1,000,000. Mr. Burns tells Smithers to fire Homer, but Smithers states that'll be bad for his image. Mr. Burns decides instead to bide his time and wait to strike.

(I love that this is what Mr. Burns imagines the headlines will be haha)

(Mr. Burns' body language and expressions in this sequence are brilliant)

---

They take it to court. (This bit is hilarious.) Bart tells his side of the story, Mr. Burns tells his. They're both extremely exagerated versions of the story, where they are innocent and the other is an utter fiend.

"I should be able to run over as many kids as I want!" - Mr. Burns (I'm going to randomly post this image alone without context after I finish this and see what people do)

Bart tells his story. He says that he was skateboarding very innocently when suddenly Mr. Burns appeared, hunted him down and deliberately hit him.

(I need to draw Mr. Burns with sharp teeth now, they did it a couple times in this episode!)

And this is Mr. Burns side of the story. He claims he was driving some toys to the orphange when Madman Bart rammed into his car. Mr. Burns says he got out and showed incredible compassion! "Take me! I'm OOOLDDD!!!"

(The license plate hahaa, I wonder if that was in his story as he told it. "I was driving one of my very few automobiles; one of which is the color of pink, is adorned with flower decals and has a license plate that reads Luv One.")

(Hahahahahhaaa!)

"And that's what happened." (Smiles deviously and is clearly very pleased with himself)

---

Nobody believes Mr. Burns' story. They believe Bart. Homer and Marge meet with Mr. Burns, where he offers them a $500,000 cash settlement. He and Smithers then leave the room and spy on the two. Homer doesn't want to take the $500,000 because he wants 1 million instead. Marge goes on to express her disappointment at what Homer has become and what he's doing to get money from Burns. She says Bart's doctor was a phony, and Mr. Burns (having been eavesdropping) returns to the room and says the deal is off.

(He's so evil lol)

(So funny, they show you that he originally wrote down $800,000 but changed it to $500,000. And then added a little smiley face to entice them.)

(Love this shot, the room is so cool. His chair, the rug, the armor statue, the tiled floor. I also like when he goes BUP-BUP-BUP!)

(Another "Smithers is Mr. Burns lap dog" reference.)

---

The judge calls Marge to the stand, who doesn't lie. Mr. Burns wins the case. He then offers Homer a handsome sum of $0 dollars. Haha

The End (of Mr. Burns/Smithers scenes).

[stoicbreviary]

Dio Chrysostom, On Kingship 3.1 

When Socrates, who, as you also know by tradition,​ lived many years ago, was passing his old age in poverty at Athens, he was asked by someone whether he considered the Persian king​ a happy man, and replied, "Perhaps so"; but he added that he did not really know, since he had never met him and had no knowledge of his character, implying, no doubt, that a man's happiness is not determined by any external possessions, such as gold plate, cities or lands, for example, or other human beings, but in each case by his own self and his own character. 

Now Socrates thought that because he did not know the Persian king's inner life, he did not know his state of happiness either. I, however, most noble Prince,​ have been in your company and am perhaps as well acquainted with your character as anyone, and know that you delight in truth and frankness rather than in flattery and guile. 

To begin with, you suspect irrational pleasures just as you do flattering men, and you endure hardship because you believe that it puts virtue to the test. And when I see you, O Prince, perusing the works of the ancients and comprehending their wise and close reasoning, I maintain that you are clearly a blessed man in that you wield a power second only to that of the gods and nevertheless use that power most nobly. 

For the man who may taste of everything that is sweet and avoid everything that is bitter, who may pass his life in the utmost ease, who, in a word, may follow his own sweet will, not only without let or hindrance but with the approval of all—when that man, I say, is at once a judge more observant of the law than an empaneled jury, a king of greater equity than the responsible magistrates in our cities, a general more courageous than the soldiers in the ranks, a man more assiduous in all his tasks than those who are forced to work, less covetous of luxury than those who have no means to indulge in luxury, kindlier to his subjects than a loving father to his children, more dreaded by his enemies than are the invincible and irresistible gods—how can one deny that such a man's fortune is a blessing, not to himself alone, but to all others as well? 

For in the case of the generality of men, those either in private station or holding some petty office, the individual's personal fortune is of slight account and concerns himself alone; but let untold cities yield obedience to a man, let countless nations be governed by his judgment, let tribes of men unnumbered and hostile to one another look to his prudence alone, and that man becomes the savior and protector of men everywhere—that is, if such be his type. 

For when a man governs and holds sway over all mankind, his prudence avails to help even the imprudent, since he takes thought for all alike; his temperance serves to restrain even the intemperate, since his eye is over all alike; his justice gives of itself even to the unjust; and his courage is able, not only to save the less valiant, but even to fire them with greater courage.

For no one is such a coward as not to feel reassured when he follows a general with whom victory is certain, nor so exceeding indifferent as to sit at ease when he sees submitting to take orders that man to whom God has apportioned the right to give orders only, nor, again, so completely lost to a sense of shame that he can watch a man toiling in behalf of another although under no necessity to toil—and yet refuse him aid. This, it seems to me, is exactly Homer's view as well; for, after speaking of the ideal king, he concludes by saying, 

And virtuous​ the people beneath him. 

Such a king considers virtue a fair possession for others but an absolute necessity for himself. Who, in fact, must exercise greater wisdom than he who is concerned with the weightiest matters; who, a keener sense of justice than he who is above the law; who, a more rigorous self-control than he to whom all things are permissible; who, a stouter courage than he upon whom the safety of everything depends? And who takes greater delight in the works of virtue than he who has all men as spectators and witnesses of his own soul?—so that nothing he may do can ever be hidden any more than the sun can run its course in darkness; for, in bringing all other things to light, it reveals itself first. 

These things I say in the full knowledge that my present statements will have to be repeated at greater length; and yet there is no danger of my appearing to speak aught in flattery, since I have given no slight nor fleeting evidence of my sincerity. If, in bygone days when fear made everyone think falsehood a necessity,​ I was the only one bold enough to tell the truth even at the peril of my life, and yet am lying now when all may speak the truth without incurring danger—then I could not possibly know the time for either frankness or flattery. 

Again, all who act deliberately do so either for money, for reputation, or for some pleasurable end, or else, I suppose, for virtue's sake and because they honor goodness itself. But I could never bring myself to accept money from anyone, although many are willing to give it. Nay, little as I had, you will find that I not only shared it with others, but actually squandered it many a time. And what sort of pleasure was I seeking, when even those flatterers who openly follow the business acknowledge that to play the flatterer is of all things most distasteful? For what pleasure is there in praising someone else undeservedly merely to be deservedly blamed one's self

Furthermore, flattery seems neither reputable nor honorable even when practiced to gain distinction, or from some other worthy motive. Nay, of all vices, I may say, flattery will be found to be the meanest. 

In the first place, it debases a thing most beautiful and just, even praise, so that it no longer appears honest or sincere, and—what is most outrageous—it gives to vice the prizes of virtue. Flatterers, therefore, do much more harm than those who debase the coinage: for whereas the latter cause us to suspect the coinage, the former destroy our belief in virtue. 

Then again, as I see the matter, we always call the bad man a fool, and so he really is; but for downright folly the flatterer outdoes all, since he is the only perverter of the truth who had the hardihood to tell his lies to the very persons who know best that he is lying. For who does not know his own business? Or who is so stupid as not to know whether work or idleness brings him joy, whether he finds pleasure in over-reaching another or in acting justly, and whether he is the slave of pleasure or a lover of noble deeds? 

And, further, it seems to me that the flatterer fails worst just where he is most confident that he is succeeding—namely, in pleasing those whom he praises. Nay, he is odious rather than pleasing to them unless they be utter fools. 

For example, he who congratulates a poor man on his wealth not only lies himself, but holds up to scorn the poverty of the man he congratulates. Again, does not he who praises a most ugly person for his beauty simply cast his ugliness in his teeth? Or how could he who calls a cripple able-bodied please him by reminding him of his misfortune?

The man, however, who lauds the fool for his wisdom is perhaps the most convincing of all on account of the stupidity of his hearer and thus does all the greater harm, since he induces the fellow to take his own counsel and not trust to intelligent men. But the man who extols the coward as a hero makes the most justifiable use of the folly of him who is flattered; since, if the craven believes him and attempts to perform heroic deeds, he will come to grief all the more speedily. 

Yet, generally speaking, when the flatterer is found out, he is not only condemned, but hated as well, since his words are thought to be mockery; while, if he convinces one of the truth of his words, he gets no very great thanks. 

For what great favor is he thought to confer by simply telling the truth? Besides, he is a much greater rascal than a lying witness: for the latter does not corrupt the judge, he merely deceives him; but the flatterer corrupts at the same time that he praises. 

IMAGE: The Emperor Trajan 

[yourpixieandbuddy]

Rate (or roast or recommend) My Personal Library

my hope for 2025 is to review and read a book a week…this first week is coming to a close and naturally i have yet to open a book but maybe we’ll slide just one in. all less than savory reads will be donated to my free library on my street 📚

i lost all my personal books i collected over the last fifteen years in an emergency move last summer, so judge lightly

The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy - Douglas Adams

Martyr! - Kaveh Akbar

Little Miss Sunshine: The Shooting Script - Michael Arendt

The Handmaid’s tale - Margaret Atwood

Tuck Everlasting - Natalie Babbitt

New Animal - Ella Baxter

Sleepwalk With Me + Other Painfully True Stories - Mike Birbiglia

The New One: Painfully True Stories From A Reluctant Dad - Mike Birbiglia

Someone Who Will Love You In All Your Damaged Glory - Raphael Bob-Waksberg

World Travel: An Irreverent Guide- Anthony Bourdain

Grace - Daphne A. Brooks

Graffiti (And Other Poems) - Savannah Brown

Closer Baby Closer - Savannah Brown

Love is a Dog From Hell - Charles Bukowski

On Cats - Charles Bukowski

Molly - Blake Butler

Create Dangerously: The Power and Responsibility of the Artist - Albert Camus

Breakfast at Tiffany’s - Truman Capote

To Photograph Is To Learn How To Die - Tim Carpenter

Lewis Carroll’s Guide For Insomniacs - Lewis Carroll

The Awakening and Selected Stories - Kate Chopin

The Alchemist - Paulo Choelho

700 Sundays - Billy Crystal

The Year of Magickal Thinking - Joan Didion

Slouching Towards Bethlehem - Joan Didion

Notes From The Underground - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Crime And Punishment - Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Wild Things - Dave Eggers

Disrupting The Game - Reggie Fils-Aime

The Interpretation of Dreams - Sigmund Freud

The Book of Delights - Ross Gay

The Anthropocene Reviewed - John Green

The Cult of Trump - Steven Hassan

People We Meet On Vacation - Emily Henry

The Twilight World - Werner Herzog

The Christmas Thief - Mary Higgins Clark

Open Throat - Henry Hoke

The Odyssey - Homer

The Haunting of Hill House - Shirley Jackson

No One Belongs Here More Than You - Miranda July

The Metamorphosis and Other Stories - Franz Kafka

The Trial - Franz Kafka

Girl, Interrupted - Susanna Kaysen

Book of Dreams - Jack Kerouac

Newspaper Blackout - Austin Kleon

Lady Chatterley’s Lover - D.H. Lawrence

Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West - Gregory Maguire

From The Basement - Taylor Makarian

Wooly: The True Story of the Quest to Revive History’s Most Iconic Extinct Creatue - Ben Mezrich

Tropic of Cancer - Henry Miller

Tropic of Capricorn - Henry Miller

Big Little Lies - Liane Moriarty

My Year of Rest and Relaxation - Ottessa Moshfegh

Memoirs - Pablo Neruda

Fifty Beasts To Break Your Heart and Other Stories - Gennarose Nethercott

The Birth of Tragedy and Case of Wagner - Friedrich Nietzsche

The Twilight of the Idols/Anti-Christ - Freidrich Nietzsche

Zarathustra’s Discourse - Friedrich Nietzsche

The Vulnerables - Sigrid Nunez

Haunted - Chuck Palahniuk

Lullaby - Chuck Palahniuk

A Bathroom Book For People Not Pooping or Peeing But Using The Bathroom As An Escape - Joe Pera

The First Rule Of Punk - Celia C. Perez

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo - Taylor Jenkins Reid

The Land That Time Forgot - Edgar Rice Borroughs

Another Roadside Attraction - Tom Robbins

Normal People - Sally Rooney

Franny and Zooey - J.D. Salinger

Nine Stories - J.D. Salinger

The Devil In Massachusetts - Marion L. Satarkey

The Woman In Me - Britney Spears

Little Astronaut - Hope J. Stein

Perfume: The Story Of A Murderer - Patrick Susking

Strange Tales From A Strange Time: Gonzo Papers, Vol 1: The Great Shark Hunt - Hunter S. Thompson

Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas: A Savage Journey To The Heart of the American Dream - Hunter S. Thompson

Galapagos - Kurt Vonnegut

The Time Machine - H.G. Wells

John Dies In The End - David Wong

Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow - Gabrielle Zevin

The Private Lives of Adam and Eve - Albert Zugsmith

for reading tax here’s some images of my library/office space 💓📚