#based on the myth

[that-guy-in-the-chiton]

A quick doodle based on this; https://www.tumblr.com/notthesomefather/744144361095348224/an-oldie-but-a-goodie-image-description-to-come?source=share

[justvea18]

Iris (delivering Hera's divorce papers) meeting Hermes (delivering Zeus' apology letter)

[mugwot]

funnyjokespunperson

[szynkaaa]

I think that would sum up their travel-relationship pretty well.

[natjennie]

hey language loving people, have you heard of the game chants of sennaar?? it's an atmospheric puzzle game based on translating between the different symbol languages of groups of peoples in a tower. it's beautiful and touching, tender and melancholic. you can map different elements of the languages to each other and identify patterns in the parts of speech, it's incredible. play it right now. look at how gorgeous it is.

[s0rr3l]

based on this post from @szynkaaa literally changed my brain chemistry

@jeminiikrystal @blackknight-kai @marcu-bug

[hildegardladyofbones]

One of the best things about Disco Elysium by far is that it does not fear ugly women. The world is full of ugly men, but ugly women are so hard to come by.

[diesmercurii]

heyybesties. so ive been looking into ancient greek lore recently (mostly for hermes) and. the transition from chiton wearing bearded messenger hermes to athletic, chlamys wearing twink hermes is extremely funny to me i had no idea he used to look like that.

anyway hermes looked especially cunty in that second image i wanted to redraw him with my own design but his chlamys is covering his hips too much you cant really tell :(

[xinyuehui]

Who do you like more ⸺ me or Lumiere? ⊹₊｡ꕤ˚₊⊹

[finngualart]

since my last sketch the weather turned and we've had a lot of hail and thunder storms and i was compelled to draw... him :^)

[gingermintpepper]

One of my biggest pet peeves is the assumption that something has to be sad for it to be tragic.

I've always been a big believer of the 'Apollo has an awful love life'/'Apollo is plain unlucky with love' line of thinking but it does bother me that the general reasoning for that statement is given to the concept of 'Apollo is somehow undesireable and thus rejected' (Cassandra/Daphne/Marpessa) or 'his lovers die young and thus their love is unfulfilled' (Cyparissus/Hyacinthus/Coronis). I personally think that's a very unfortunate way of looking at things - not only because it neglects the many perfectly cordial entanglements and affairs Apollo has had, both mortal and divine - but because it presents a very shallow interpretation of the concepts of love and loss and how loss affects people.

Apollo can still grieve lovers that have a long, healthy life. The inherent tragedy of an immortal who knows his lovers and children will die and cannot stop it does not stop being tragic simply because those lovers and children live long, fulfilled lives. The inherent tragedy of loss does not stop being tragic simply because someone knows better than to mourn something that was always going to end.

What is tragic is not that Apollo loves and loses but that loss itself follows him. Apollo does not love with the distance of an immortal, he does not have affairs and then leaves never to listen to their prayers again. He does not have offspring and then abandon them to their trials only to appear when it is time to lead them to their destinies. He raises his young, he protects the mothers of his children, he blesses the households that have his favour and multiplies their flocks that they may never go hungry. He educates his sons, he adorns his daughters and even in wrath he is quick to come to his senses and regret the punishments he doles out.

Apollo loves. And like mortals, there will always be some part of him that wishes to protect the objects of his affections. Apollo, however, is also an emissary of Fate. He knows that the fate of all mortal things is death. He knows that to love a mortal is to accept that eventually he will have to bury them. There is no illusion of forever, there is no fantasy where he fights against the nature of living things and shields his beloveds from death. Apollo loves and because of that love, he also accepts.

And that, while beautiful, is also tragic.

[lavellaned]

With Solas “trapped” in the fade in the prison that he himself created, I’m reminded of what Bianca tells an artificer inquisitor about building the door in the deep roads: to start with the lock and work from there.

In short he’s absolutely not stuck in the fade and I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t even there when rook isn’t.

[opheliaveu]

I'll trade my soul for a hermes doodle.

[genericpuff]

I wonder why christian misrepresentation are rarely talked about if compared to other religion misrepresentation. Like, I've seen people really vocal about Greek myths misrepresentation in LO and such (and it's valid because it's a culture and religion) but I rarely saw the same thing with christian even though there are many media who use christian religion innacurately, to the point where it comes off as using it as an aesthetic and not a proper religion.

Is it because of rampant religious trauma especially in western world? No ulterior motives on this question. I'm not a christian and yet I'm curious about this. I apologize if this sounds harsh.

I obviously don't have The Answer(tm) to this but personally speaking (and I'm about to get VERY personal here so take this with MOUNTAINS OF SALT), I think it's just the obvious - Christian mythology is one of the most well-documented and strongly protected out of virtually any other religion on the planet. Especially here in the West, it's commonplace for kids to go to Sunday school, for couples to have Christian weddings even if they're not practising Christians themselves, even the American anthem references the Christian God. It's simply not as easy to 'misrepresent' it because the representation is written into our very fabric of society. Even Greece itself is primarily made up of Orthodox Christians.

So anyone that does 'misrepresent' it are either completely mislead hardcore Christians, or people who are doing it intentionally, such as with the intent to make a parody of it or to deconstruct it through a different context or whatever have you. And of course, people will still get mad at those things, if you're implying that people aren't vocal about Christian misrepresentation then frankly IDK what to tell you there LOL If you want a contextual example in the realm of webtoons, Religiously Gay was dragged to hell and back during its launch for having a very crude and insulting depiction of St. Michael, and frankly, yeah I don't disagree because what the fuck is this-

(like at best it's just terrible character design lmao that said, there's also plenty else to criticize Religiously Gay for, including its fetishy representation of gay relationships and the fact that it's still just the "naive person who looks and acts like a child hooks up with mean person in a position of power" trope, blech, but the character design is definitely the first thing you notice)

There are even plenty of hardcore Christians who will deadass claim "misrepresentation" over things that ARE factually correct but they just haven't read the actual Bible and simply cherry pick what works for their own agenda. And of course those people are routinely called out by people like myself who know for a fact that Jesus wouldn't have promoted the war crimes that many modern day Christians are committing and justifying today. So it really depends on the definition of "misrepresentation" here.

The issue specifically with LO and Rachel that I personally call her out for (and many others) is that she's called herself a "folklorist" and claimed she's so much more knowledgeable on Greek myth than anyone else, while making a complete mockery of the original mythologies while not being honest about her intent as to whether LO is actually supposed to be a legitimate retelling OR a parody (because it sure acts like the latter more than the former, but she still seems to expect us to take it seriously and consider her knowledge of Greek myth superior?) Which leads to a lot of her teenage audience claiming shit like "Persephone went down to the underworld willingly" and "Apollo did assault Persephone in the original myths actually" and the classic "why would Lore Olympus lie or make up fake myths?"

You just can't pull off this extent of erasure with Christian mythology because we have a whole ass book of it that's been preserved, sold on shelves, and systematically integrated into society for thousands of years. Of course, there are people who will still try their damned best to twist the Bible to match their own bigotry with the whole "Jesus hates gays" bullshit (he would never), but it's met with equal amounts of 'misrepresentation' that are actually fully well-read and are intentionally subverting and changing things to either critique, parody, or restore the original intent of a lot of stories in the Bible without all the manufactured right-wing crap.

Greek myth, on the other hand, has some stories that are well preserved, and others, not so much. And in the modern day outside of the poems and hymns, you'll also rarely, if ever, see anyone use stories from Greek myth to ostracize, torture, and murder other people. "Misrepresenting Christianity" is more often done by actual Christians who are using the Bible to commit hate crimes than the people who have actually read the Bible and are just taking creative liberties with it for the sake of deconstructing / parodying / analyzing / subverting it. Veggie Tales "misrepresents" Christian stories because obviously Moses wasn't a fucking cucumber lmao but it still accomplishes its goal by retelling Christian stories in a way that's fun and educational for children.

By comparison (on the whole, I'm not comparing LO to Veggie Tales LMAO) LO just isn't clear in its intentions beyond Rachel's initial statements that she was trying to "deconstruct" the myths, while labelling herself as a folklorist. Therefore, I'm going to criticize how she does it because the way she's done it up until now has been very mishandled and has resulted in a lot of misinterpretations of the myths simply for the sake of fandom. And yes, these people exist in Christian media as well - they're called TV evangelists.

And that's my (very heavy) two cents.

[ineffabletimehusbands]

GUYS

I just had a thought

It's always been about dual sacrifice, but I don't think Loki really knew that.

Look back at episode 1 where Loki and Mobius are addressing Loki's time-slipping. If Loki doesn't prune himself in time, he's lost to time, if Mobius stays out there too long, O.B. says that he'll gradually age and get his skin peeled off.

When Mobius and Loki bicker about it, Mobius tells Loki he would rather violently rip himself from the timeline

"At least you get to live."

"Live? What's the quality of life with no skin?"

Obviously it's played for laughs, but it can have a lot deeper of a meaning. If Loki didn't make it back then, we know that Mobius would've stayed out there. Loki (wrongfully) assumes that Mobius would be able to live through getting his skin peeled off (god logic ig). But he wouldn't have. If Loki didn't make it back, neither of them would've.

Applying that to the finale, Loki assumes that his actions will let everyone (including Mobius) live. And he's right this time actually, Mobius does live-

But what's his quality of life?

He doesn't feel like he can stay at the TVA. He can't go back to his family. He's completely alone.

Just like Loki is.

Dual sacrifice, and in both instances Loki didn't realize that Mobius would go down with him too. He thought Mobius would just be able to go on with his life.

But he can't, neither of them can. They're connected. Look, his name is literally Mobius M. Mobius. They're both burdened with the weight of eternity. Forever conjoined, but always separate. All either of them can do now is just "let time pass."

Very poetic and sad.

[francarieq]

i heart hermes i’m so sorry guys