#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 Οδυσσεὺς 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 παίω�� 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."

[autumnmobile12]

Odysseus and Calypso Were Lovers

As problematic as that sounds because WTF, hear me out because it's complicated and there's a lot to discuss. Trigger warning for sa. Also, not directly Epic: The Musical related; that's a whole other ballpark.

She trapped him on her island!

I'm not denying that nor am I denying how objectively messed up that is.

However, the captor and prisoner trope is one that does crop up in Greek mythology now and then.  The most famous example I can think of is Hades’ kidnapping of Persephone.  I have seen that situation blatantly called rape in the original story, and yet today, modern storytellers do like to revise that myth into a version that makes Demeter out to be an overbearing mother and Persephone's ‘kidnapping’ so to speak becomes an escape.  Personally, I think that is a very graceful way to make a barbaric story a bit more palatable to modern audiences.

So regarding Odysseus’ situation where falling in love with his captor is problematic…my thought process runs as, “Fucking Greek mythology and its weird idea of what constitutes as a love story.”

As a result, I have no serious thoughts on the morality of certain figures of Greek mythology because they frankly come from a time period where the people had a very different culture and set of moral values and ideas on what was acceptable. Therefore, it's futile to judge their stories by my own modern moral compass.

Where in The Odyssey does it say they were lovers?

The main line I can't ignore that strongly implies the nature of their relationship is Odysseus' farewell to Calypso:

“The sun went down and brought the darkness on. They  [Odysseus and Calypso] went inside the hollow cave and took the pleasure of their love, held close together.”  - The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Emily Wilson.

Keep in mind, she’s already told him he’s free to go.  He’s free to build his raft, she’s giving him supplies, and yet he says goodbye this tenderly.  Note the absence of Calypso using magic to compel him. If you cherry-picked this line, you'd find a fond goodbye.

Odysseus’ Tears

A lot of people making the ‘Odysseus/Calypso was a non-consensual situation’ argument like to cite the line that Odysseus cried every day on Ogygia.  And yes, he did weep every day he was there.  But this is the full stanza.

“On the tenth black night, the gods carried me till I reached the island of Ogygia, home of the beautiful and mighty goddess Calypso.  Lovingly she cared for me, vowing to set me free from death and time forever.  But she never swayed my heart.  I stayed for seven years; she gave me clothes like those of gods, but they were always wet with tears.” - The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Emily Wilson.

‘Beautiful and mighty….Lovingly she cared for me….she never swayed my heart.’  He speaks highly of her, not with hate or venom for her delaying him.

In my literature class where we read The Odyssey, the tears line was discussed and largely interpreted as Odysseus’ reaction to all the monsters he’d faced and losing all his crew and friends.  The PTSD of a war veteran.  From the cultural mindset of Ancient Greece, Odysseus was a king, and he failed his people when they all died under his command and he was unable to bring them home.  Similarly, the hero Theseus was once king of Athens.  He was usurped in absentia (Theseus being trapped in the Underworld at the time) and when he returned to his kingdom, he found another man on his throne, was forced to flee, and died a rather ignoble death when a supporter of his usurper shoved him off a cliff.  So Odysseus being a king who let an entire fleet die under his watch is certainly grounds for shame to the point of tears in the eyes of the Ancient Greeks.  And with an entire line-up of men attempting to court his wife and take his place, it drives home the idea that he was replaceable.

Also important to note:  He’s still miserable when he leaves Ogygia.  When he arrives at King Alcinous’ court, he is welcomed, provided food, shelter, and entertainment, but when the king checks in with his heartbroken guest, he pleads with him to tell him what’s wrong, which kickstarts the telling of Odysseus’ journey.

Odysseus was afraid of Calypso!

That said, it's also important to address this concept because this is Odysseus' reaction to the goddess telling him she is sending him on his way to Ithaka:

‘Goddess, your purpose cannot be as you say; you cannot intend to speed me home. You tell me to make myself a raft to cross the great gulf of ocean--a gulf so baffling and so perilous that not even rapid ships will traverse it, steady though they may be and favoured by a fair wind from Zeus. I will not set foot on such a raft unless I am sure of your good will--unless, goddess, you take on yourself to swear a solemn oath not to plot against me any new mischief to my ruin.’ The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Shewring.

His suspicion certainly suggests mistrust and fear that she intends to do him harm, and considering his track record of being hated by deities, that's understandable. This isn't exactly what you'd call a loving relationship. But this also brings up a weird contradiction in the poem. I would 100% say this was a completely non-consensual situation were it not for this line:

His eyes were always tearful; he wept sweet life away, in longing to go back home, since she [Calypso] no longer pleased him. - Wilson.

Not ‘she did not please him.’  She no longer pleased him.  That implies she 'pleased' him at one point and because of that, one could argue Calypso was a mistress and Odysseus eventually tired of her. (Probably long before seven years had passed.)

What Do The Translators Say?

I can't speak for all translators, but in the Emily Wilson translation, she includes a lengthy introduction describing Odysseus' world, the culture of Ancient Greece, the reasoning behind specific English wordage in the translation, etc. In the introduction, she refers to Calypso and Circe as Odysseus' affairs. Not his abusers. He also has a brief flirtation with Princess Nausicaa, the daughter of his final host, King Alcinous. Wilson then goes on to describe how these affairs are not a character failing of Odysseus in comparison to the treatment of Penelope where she is expected to be faithful and how that is indicative of a good woman.

Taking a step back from Greek mythology, consider the actions of King Henry VIII of England. Most historians agree that, for the first few years, the king's relationship with his first wife Katherine of Aragon was unusually good for the times. And yet he was an unfaithful husband, had at least one acknowledged bastard and historians speculate there were more. But while 'indiscretions' such as this were frowned upon in the Tudor Period, Henry VIII did not receive near as much criticism as Queen Katherine would have if she'd had an illegitimate child. If Katherine was 'indiscreet,' that was considered treason because she compromised the legitimacy of the succession and that was cause for a beheading.

Because misogyny. Again, different time, different moral values.

Misogyny in The Odyssey

Whatever one's thoughts on Calypso are, it is incredibly misogynistic of Homer to solely blame her for keeping Odysseus trapped while he conveniently ignores the plot hole that her island is completely surrounded by ocean and we all know that Poseidon was lurking out there just waiting for his shot at vengeance.  Odysseus is barely two stanzas off Calypso’s island before Poseidon goes after him.  It’s almost hilarious how quickly it happens.  The poem says Poseidon was returning from Ethiopia, not that he was there for the whole seven years, and Hermes clearly did not pass along the memo that Odysseus was free to return to Ithaka.  Although I like to imagine it was Zeus who forgot about Poseidon’s grudge against Odysseus, and Hermes, being the mischievous scamp that he is, did not remind him.

If one line in the text says Odysseus/Calypso was consensual while another says otherwise, which is it?

Honestly, I don't think there's a conclusive answer with just The Odyssey. I'm a hobbyist, not an expert, so I do refer to the judgment of translators like Wilson to make that call. If she and other translators say Calypso and Circe were affair partners and I can see the lines in the text to support that, I'll believe it and chalk up the rest as Greek mythology being problematic.

That said, we can also look at the opinions of other Greek poets in their further writings of the mythology:

“And the bright goddess Calypso was joined to Odysseus in sweet love, and bare him Nausithous and Nausinous.” - The Theogony; Of Goddesses and Men, Hesiod, translated by Evelyn-White.

“… after brief pleasure in wedlock with the daughter of Atlas [Calypso], he [Odysseus] dares to set foot in his offhand vessel that never knew a dockyard and to steer, poor wretch…” - Alexandra, Lycophron, translated by Mair.

Both seem to be of the opinion Calypso was Odysseus' lover.

Interestingly, Hesiod also writes in The Catalogues of Women Fragment:

“…of patient-souled Odysseus whom in aftertime Calypso the queenly nymph detained for Poseidon.” - The Catalogues of Women Fragment, Hesiod, translated by Evelyn-White.

The wording ‘detained for Poseidon’ implies Calypso was acting at Poseidon’s command or she was doing the sea god a favor or she possibly didn't have any free will herself whether or not Odysseus stayed on Ogygia. Either way, it does neatly account for Homer's aforementioned misogyny/plot hole.

But if Hesiod and Lycophron's works are not part of The Odyssey, why should we take them seriously?

You don't have to consider them canon. Just because I prefer to consider all mythology canon doesn't mean anyone else does. Just as easily, I could ask why we should take Homer's work seriously even though historians can't even agree whether or not he was a real person.

The truth is, Ancient Greece as we think of it lasted a thousand years.  Their culture/values changed several times and so did their stories to reflect those changes, and those stories continue to evolve to the modern day. Odysseus himself goes through a few different descriptions over the centuries, being described as scheming and even cruel in other works. So I consider modern works like Percy Jackson, Epic: The Musical, Son of Zeus, and so on to be just more cogs in the evolving narrative. Much like how retellings of Hades and Persephone are shifting to circumstances easier to accept by audiences today.

But why would Odysseus be unfaithful to his loving wife?

The loving wife he claimed as payment for helping out King Tyndareus? Yeah...Odysseus and Penelope's relationship may not quite be the undoubted loving one modern retellings make it out to be nor is Odysseus a saint in The Odyssey.

“A blast of wind pushed me [Odysseus] off course towards the Cicones in Ismarus.  I sacked the town and killed the men.  We took their wives and shared their riches equally amongst us.”  - The Odyssey, Homer, translated by Emily Wilson.

Raiding a town unprovoked, killing the men, kidnapping the women, stealing their treasure is not indicative to what we in the modern day consider heroic or good protagonist behavior. Also, at the end of the Trojan War, Queen Hekuba was made a slave and given to Odysseus.

As for the chapter with Circe, Penelope's name isn't even mentioned. Moreover, the wording of the Wilson translation gives the troubling connotation that Circe may have been the one who was assaulted.

Hermes’ instructions to Odysseus are as follows:

"...draw your sharpened sword and rush at her as if you mean to kill her. She will be frightened of you, and will tell you to sleep with her." - Wilson

She'll be frightened of him? Hermes is encouraging Odysseus to render Circe powerless by eating the Moly plant so she can't turn him into a pig, then threaten her with a sword, which does frighten her, and then sleep with her. That line of events is disturbing. Circe is the one who offers to take Odysseus to bed, sure, but there’s a strange man in her house, she’s allegedly afraid according to Hermes, and she’s unable to resort to her usual defense and turn him into a pig as she did with the others.  Under those circumstances, sleeping with an invader is a survival tactic.

However...after Odysseus makes Circe promise to turn his men back, she bathes him and gives him food like a proper Ancient Greek host. Yet before Odysseus accepts the meal, he puts his men first, saying he can't bear to eat until he knows they're well. So Circe turns them back, then Odysseus returns to where the rest of the crew are waiting on the shore. They're all convinced their comrades are dead until Odysseus tells them what transpired and they rejoice. All except suspicious Eurylochus who calls them fools for trusting Odysseus' word based on his previous bad decisions. Odysseus thinks about cutting his head off for speaking that way. Damn, that went from zero to a hundred fast.

But Penelope's name is missing from the story.

Odysseus only thinks of leaving Circe's island when his men speak of returning to their homeland, after which he goes to Circe about the matter, and she instructs him to go to the Underworld.

"That broke my heart, and sitting on the bed I wept, and lost all will to live and see the shining sun." - Wilson

Odysseus and his men all lament the idea of sailing into the land of the dead. So his tears and despair did not start with Calypso. Also, they return to Circe's island after the journey so she can help them make sense of Tiresias' instructions.

But setting all that aside, even when Hermes instructed him on what to do, Odysseus didn't make some grand speech on how he can’t betray his wife.  He doesn’t specifically say he’s crying for Penelope on Calypso’s island.  He doesn’t mention Penelope at all, and when King Alcinous asks him about his sorrow, Odysseus tells his whole story, barely bringing up his wife or his love for her.

So is Odysseus a good guy?

In all, Odysseus is a clever character who is known for using his wits to get out of any situation.  Polyphemus, the Sirens, Scylla, he had a plan.  The idea that he’s suddenly helpless against Calypso and Circe is out of character.  They may be goddesses, but they’re not exactly the heavy hitters of the pantheon, which is why Poseidon could absolutely order a minor sea nymph to stop what she’s doing and hold a man prisoner for him. And while Odysseus spends the entire story being thwarted by the gods, one could say he also thwarts the gods right back by refusing to give up.

Like most Greek heroes, I would say Odysseus is not what we today would call a hero. But when he shares a roster with characters like this:

Zeus:  Serial rapist

Poseidon:  Serial rapist

Hades:  Kidnapped Persephone (setting aside modern interpretations she went with him willingly)

Herakles:  Raped a princess named Auge  (Yes, really.)

Theseus:  Kidnapped Helen of Sparta when she was a child because he wanted to marry a daughter of Zeus, aided and abetted his cousin in an attempt to kidnap Persephone, abandoned Ariadne, etc.

Jason the Argonaut:  Tried to abandon his wife. (I say ‘try’ because he didn’t get the chance. His wife Medea killed the other woman first.)

Hephaistos:  Raped Athena after she refused him.

Achilles:  Murdered a child to prevent a prophecy from coming true.

...Odysseus's atrocities are weirdly tame by comparison. Even the narrative where he kills the infant Prince Astyanax, modern retellings usually give that role to the lesser known Neoptolemus. More on that here.

In the end, it's not necessarily thematically important whether or not Odysseus is good or bad. The core of his character revolves around his cleverness and ability to build and strategize and make his own way in the world he lives in. Rounding this out is Emily Wilson's commentary on the symbolism behind the tree bed,

"In leaving Calypso, Odysseus chooses something that he built with his own mind and hands, rather than something given to him. Whereas Calypso longs to hide, clothe, feed, and possess him, Athena enables Odysseus to construct his own schemes out of the materials she provides." - The Odyssey, Homer, trans. by Emily Wilson, Introduction Pg 64.

So were Odysseus and Calypso lovers?

Based on the above, my opinion is 'Yes they were, but with the caveat they were problematic af.' Because problematic themes like that are pretty par for the course in Greek mythology.

[athamad]

Ah yes finally I'm finished, Ratings of Odysseus and Penelope's reunion artworks let's get started!!!

No.1

-I like this very much

-but Odysseus isn't participating enough

-your wife is on her knees Odysseus do something!!!!

-Aww they're about to kiss...l think?

-I feel like they can just rub noses forever

-love the third wheel back there

-also love the hand placements

8/10

No.2

-l love this

-theyre not gonna kiss tho

-they can stare at each other for days

-and l support that

-the women in the back are Athena and Homer(I'm the chair)

-basic but love it overall

-again love the hand placements

9/10

No.3

-Penelope why are you grabbing Odysseus' beard so aggressively???

-l get why you're mad but damn

-I mean he might like it?

-why are they kneeling

-are you gonna make out on the floor or what?

-"If I'm going down you're coming with me." "yes babe ❤️"

-who are the other guys?

-l don't like the crowd that much

-too crowded 😬

6/10

No.4

-WAIT WHY ARE YOU GUYS NOT HUGGING

-HUH?????

-GOD DAMMIT BE AFFECTIONATE

-why are you guys so lifeless???

-l don't like this

-at least the coloring is nice

-but a hand hold isn't enough

2/10

No.5

-this is too perfect

-I love the idea of Penelope just jumping into Odysseus after she figured out it was really him

-and Odysseus is like "l got you babe"

-this is too much l love it

-perfection

-l like the art style too

10/10

No.6

-this is so good

-Penelope my beloved

-Odysseus is a bit lifeless

-dude show some emotion we don't judge

-overall l like it

-but Odysseus is cold for no reason

6.5/10

No.7

-now this is unique

-malewife Odysseus? Sign me up

-l love it

-Odysseus is probably giving a romantic speech

-Telemachus is flabbergasted

-there are things going on on the background but not important

7/10

No.8

-I LOVE THIS AAAA

-theyre so in love l wanna eat them

-Penelope threw herself at him and he caught her

-EEEEKKK!!!

-ugh l love them

-Athena is like "my job is done here"

-for the third time those hand placements are so good l will eat this artwork

10/10

No.9

-GODDAMMIT WHERE IS THE AFFECTION

-ODYSSEUS HUG YOURE WIFE

-why are you so angry? Hello???

-Penelope is so cute l wanna pinch her cheeks

-if you don't hug her l will

-and then beat you with a stick

3/10

No.10

-oh

-my

-GODDDD AAAAA

-THE WAY THEY LOOK AT EACHOTHER JFNDNSKSNE

-theyre so cute I'm gonna explode

-the ideal couple

-Penelope threw herself at him

-AND HE CAUGHT HER AAAA

-They don't look like they will kiss but it's fine

-nevermind they will

-Athena represents all of us

10/10

So, uh, that's it! This was fun tbh, l might do this again with another moment from the Odyssey (maybe Naussica finding him or his step grandma realizing who he is) but let me know what you think :D

Uhhhh, have a nice day!

[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.

[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

[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.

[trash-gobby]

Hello, love!

I was wondering if I could request some HCs for Severen and how he would be with a mate that is a pinup & girly and how he’d be around them and maybe what the Hooker clan would be like towards them as well? Thanks so much 🖤

Severen With a Pinup Girl Reader Headcanons

Pairing(s): Severen Van Sickle X PinupGirl!Reader

Characters: Severen Van Sickle, Reader, Jesse Hooker, Homer, Mae, Diamondback, Caleb Colton

⚠️ Warnings!: I do bash Jesse Hooker for being the grumpy old confederate he is

______________________________________________________________

✨Severen wasn't really sure about his S/O at first. Warming up to anyone is a little hard for him, and your overly girly peppy demeanor.

✨What really drew him to you was your dedication to your aesthetic choices. Your love for the Pinup Style and culture, not giving a crap if people would judge you on the street, or men giving you lecherous looks.

✨Pinup culture of old was very much about exoticizing and sexualizing women for the pleasure of soldiers at war. That was Severen's only impression of the culture and his first impression of you.

✨You convince and show him however how the modern movement of pinup culture is about sex-positive empowerment. Your style is a part of expressing your sexual nature and making it your own. Not just for the male gaze.

✨The way you are willing to passionately and staunchly defend your choices in the face of the often grumpy, judgmental and toxically masculine Jesse is another thing which attracted Sev to you.

✨Severen has always been a rebel who enjoys defying authority. Seeing your bravery and willingness to go to bat for your sub-culture is something he finds super attractive.

✨Your obsession with tight high waisted pants, spending your time perfecting the victory roll hairstyle, and applying a balanced red lip was another big turn-on for Severen. He isn't a perfectionist when it comes to style in the same way, finding your dedication interesting and worth learning from in your relationship.

✨Jesse is gonna judge Severen's choice to make you his mate pretty harshly. He still holds the Pin Up culture as something sexualized only and that you're not gonna be loyal. He doesn't take you seriously or how you feel for Sev. Jesse's entirely conservative attitude won't allow him to even consider the possibility of sexual empowerment through this sub-culture.

✨When Severen confronts Jesse about it and backs up your position stating: You're just stuck in the past, and I ain't gonna waste my time on you if you keep pushing this bullshit on my girl. Jesse decides it's better to just deal then fracture their family due to a disagreement.

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@thealmightyemprex @makingboneboy @professorlehnsherr-almashy @princesssarisa

So last night I watched Super Eyepatch Wolf video essay 'What the Internet Did to Garfield', which analizes transformative fan art made on the Internet, that transformed the gag comic strip into more dark scenarios focused on a portrayal of Garfield as an eldritch entity that drags the anxious and depressed Jon Arbuckle into a neverending cycle of abuse and torment from which not even death can save him.

The video essay itself is more analytical of why the proccess of making this transformative works happen, and what is their appeal, and how the maker of the video saw itself in Jon Arbuckle in both the strips and the transformative artwork, which is good, but my problem is with the transformative art works itselfs: how they can be so lost in imitation, and so focused in one aspect of the Garfield stories that they loose grasp in other aspects.

You know how when works about making fairy tales dark or cynical like Into the Woods and Shrek came out, and they were very good, but then a wave of writers and filmakers tried to imitate to the point of saturation, we started to notice how superficial their understanding of fairy tales was to properly make deconstructions or parodies, and then you just wanted a return to the wholesome fairy tale content with happy endings again?

So, that is what happened in most Garfield fan works on the internet:

Somebody saw one aspect of the stories (Jon's loneliness and sadness while Garfield failed to properly show empathy), made some fan works about it, and then everybody started to make fan works on this grimm dark line.

And I get it: with the gag comic strip that goes on for 40 years, following a basic formula of character writing, with some subtle changes to the status quo, can give this more sad view of characters living in the formula structure without changing (just look at audiences reaction to Marge and Homer's relationship problems in 34 years of The Simpsons).

But the thing is: the gag comic strip is not the only place where the story was told.

The animated series Garfield and Friends and their specials are another, if not more important part, to consider in the portrayal of the characters.

There, the characters could be allowed to be more complex, not restriced by formula.

So you saw narratives about:

Jon getting to save Garfield from his own imagination;

Jon and Garfield travelling to a cheap hotel in a Pacific Island, and slowly enjoying themselves despite all the trials and tribulations;

Jon taking Garfield and Odie camping, the cat initially complaining, but eventually getting to enjoy the forest, going to save his friends of a wild panther in the clímax despite being terrified;

Jon and Garfield enjoying a wholesome Christmas with Jon's quirky and loving family;

Jon successfully amusing a young lady who has similar problems with awkward social interactions.

This goes to give dimension to the characters, showing Jon not as "just a pathetic looser", but as someone who, while branded a looser by others, and ocasionally acting melancholic, is still optimistic and adventurous.

Showing Garfield as a pet who can be capable of moments of sensibility, sharing his owner's sad moments, initially judge his choices of fun, but slowly learning to enjoy himself.

And Odie, how so much of the edgy fan works just make Odie exist in the middle as the dumb dog, when his character is the heart of the disfunctional little family: a bit naive, but capable of showing great inteligence when the other characters don't expect it?!

We shouldn't just see Jim Davis as the creator of the characters: few people talk about it, but besides voicing Garfield, Lorenzo Music was also a writer, producer and composer in his animated encarnation!

His input, alongside Low Rauls and Desiree Goyette's music, helped flash out the characters beyond being just mean spirited gags!

What I mean is: the dark and edgy had their moment of the zeitgeist, but I think highliting what is good and wholesome about the characters will be even more revoluctionary artistically, and show a better understanding of the characters beyond the limits of the three framed panels.

[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! ^_^

[dinosaurwithablog]

With bases loaded, Aaron Judge scored a run on a wild pitch. There have been 3 walks in this inning already. The Guardians switched pitchers after the second walk, which loaded the bases, and then the reliever walked Rizzo in 4 pitches to load the bases again after Judge scored!!! Another wild pitch allows Stanton to score!! 3-0, Yankees!!! And the bases are still loaded!! No one scored, and the inning ended, but what an inning it was!! It started out with Juan Soto's homer, and then pitching helped us score 2 more runs with wild pitches!!! Yeehaw 😁 😍 Let's go Yankees!!!!!

[wtficedance]

Thanks for answering my ask- I was the one who asked about Ben Agosto. So basically if he's "supporting the narrative" he's fudging stuff like whether Lilah actually deserves her scores in favor of spinning what the ISU's peddling. Isn't that kind of bullshit then? He's looking for ways to justify what they're doing, even if it's really thin - like Charlene's back flexiblity vs. Lilah's skating - and doesn't account for what's actually happening? Thanks for explaining that - I can smell the spin in what he's saying and now I see why - he's not good as say Mark Hanretty at walking the line

Q #215:

Combining with another similar ask as well for conciseness:

“Don't you find it ironic that he can't say the truth because it'll "undermine viewer confidence in the sport"? Like you're literally saying that there's a lack of integrity in it. Viewers should not have confidence that it's a fair sport, basically lol”

Hi anons,

The short answer is yes it is ironic and of all of the things I truly do love about ice dance (the really cool artistic inspiration, the creativity, imagining new ways to incorporate movement, etc.) the integrity and fairness of the sport has never been notable. All sports which involve a judged component (even in the forms of an umpire/ref/linesmen etc.) will have controversies about officials inserting themselves into the game and affecting results, but sports which are purely judged will have significantly more of it.

This is especially true for ice dance since there’s less obvious mistakes that someone who’s never seen the sport before (falls!, clear stumbles, losing grip on your partner) can pick out and understand that it’s playing a role in the score. It’s why twizzles went from being a very insignificant part of the sport to its more talked about element, because while something like ONLY pirouetting isn’t obvious, being slow, not covering ice, falling out of rotation, lack of sync, are very noticeable no matter your experience watching ice dance. Meanwhile, step sequences are a huge part of ice dance scoring but apart from obvious mistakes like stumbles and falls, it can be hard for a first time viewer to understand why they're scored the way they are.

So yes, commentators have to choose whether they're going to fully buy into the narrative (more of a Ted strategy, and also one taken more by commentators who don't have ice dance background but are former singles skaters) or whether they're going to go more with the half-picture but mostly true lines. Because--at least on English-speaking channels--unless its homer/"we were robbed!" comments, people generally tone down the "this result is bullshit and actually the team who placed first shouldn't have even podiumed" stuff. ESPECIALLY, when its at a relatively low stakes event like a GP vs. the Olympics or Worlds where that at least generates interest/potential viewership.

But generally, post-SLC, you see a large reluctance of commentators to really play into the controversy. My general hypothesis is that it is because 2 things: 1) an increased awareness that it will be weaponized to say that FS isn't "a rEaL sPorT" and 2) because of the number of old timers who attribute it to IJS/the system. Elaborating on 2), a lot of the immediate reaction after Adelina won in Sochi by FS commentators was that she won correctly within IJS, and that under 6.0 Yuna would've won. Kurt Browning in particular comes to mind. Which... Adelina did not win because of IJS. She had a level 4 step sequence despite tripping, virtually tied Yuna in PCS, beat Carolina Kostner in SS, and got away with quite a few UR calls. All of those things SHOULD have been punished if IJS had been correctly applied. There's a tendency for people who dislike IJS to blame the system itself. A lot of it in ice dance comes back to not just IJS but also "well if we still had the compulsory dance" but I'm going to be quite honest and say a lot of the time teams who were in fact NOT the strongest skaters won the CD. AND while I fully concur that too much of the score in ice dance is now choreographic elements and step sequences have been devalued, a team like F/G should still not be in the top 8 if they were scored correctly in the current system.

All of this to say. Yes, F/G's results this season are rather absurd, they are not reflective of the skating on the ice, they've been way too high in the context of their ability and the timing of the quad, some commentators have been significantly more effective at addressing the absurdity of the scoring, and that their rise isn't particularly unique because ice dance has always been particularly susceptible to narratives and egregious politicking. And particularly this year, there's some interesting dynamics about pushing European teams and Russia as the traditional ice dance power being absent. Which I don't think will benefit F/G in the future if a particular team comes back.

But, in the end while I do wish the scoring was more fair, it is a reality I have come to accept because I don't watch competitions to see who wins but to enjoy some truly creative and special programs.

P.S. agreed on Mark :)

[dogttpurmament]

Deux: A Tumblr user's beloved pet!! Pictures here

Frank: What's this!? Another real dog?? Where are the pictures??

Lord Foog the 2st: A dignified and regal dog turned meme. Ready to steal the crown of the competition

Blankey: From the Yu-Gi-Oh universean adorable German shepherd dueling for the first place in the tournament

Gromit: From Wallace and Gromit this dog will save the day with the power of common sense and silently judging you

Homer: Golden Retriever from Animorphs. When crazy shit is happening sometimes you just need a dog nearby

Puppycat: Both a puppy and a cat!?!? What is this sorcery!? Too much power for one single being!

Potato: From the anime Air. JUST SO SMALL SO CUTE SUCH A LITTLE BEAN

Scooby-Doo: We all know who Scooby-Doo is! Part of the mystery incorporated gang goes around the country in a hippie van and destroying rich people. What's more to like?