#it's a valid way to use mythology to tell a story

[maryychill]

Digimon Adventure Tri: why it's more than you think

Originally posted on Reddit.

I believe Digimon Adventure Tri deserves a more careful, emotionally attuned rereading. I'm not here to claim absolute truth. I just want to share what I understood and felt, hoping this might encourage viewers to see the work through a different lens, especially if they're open to reevaluating it.

Tri isn't broken, it's fractured on purpose

Tri is not a classic sequel. It doesn't try to replicate the adventure spirit of the original series. Instead, it dares to explore a more introspective and emotional space. I've read some people saying that there are many subplots. But if you pay attention, everything that seems scattered is actually tied together by one common thread: the dissonance between who they once were, and who they begin to be when life stops giving easy answers.

I understand that not everyone wants to see their childhood characters grow up. That's valid. Sometimes we'd rather keep them frozen in time, running across the digiworld without ever facing heartbreak or existential crisis.

But Tri proposes something different.

It doesn't ask us to return to who we were, it asks us to acknowledge that we've changed. It shows that heroes can hesitate, that bonds can shift, and that searching for meaning is part of the fight too.

I find it moving that these characters have grown, that they're still evolving, each in their own way. That gives me hope. Because evolving doesn't always look like a flashy transformation. Sometimes it looks like staying, questioning, choosing not to run.

And if this stage doesn't resonate with you, that's okay too. Maybe it wasn't your moment. Or maybe your connection to Adventure lives on a different plane.

The beauty is that nothing takes away what came before or what comes after. It just gains new layers over time.

An emotional, not conventional structure

Tri doesn't talk about an external enemy. It speaks of an internal fracture.

From the very beginning, it tells us:

“Demiurge, the soulless creator... Idea, the true form of the world...”

This isn't just poetic dressing, it's the story's thesis. The Digital World was created as a system, but one that never truly understood the beings it would hold. The infection corrupting digimon isn't just a virus. It's a metaphor, a crack in the digital soul.

Tri doesn't follow the traditional "adventure-enemy-digivolution" formula. Its core conflict often comes in silences, glances, inner contradictions.

What hurts isn't always what happens. Sometimes it's the feelings too complex to name.

Taichi hasn't lost his courage, he's transformed it into responsibility.

Yamato isn't angry for drama's sake, he's frustrated because he doesn't know how to reach Taichi anymore.

Sora doesn't fade, she's depleted from holding everyone together while forgetting how to hold herself.

Joe isn't a coward, he's the first to confront doubt.

Mimi isn't shallow, she's defending her authenticity in a world that tries to mute it.

Koushiro isn't just the genius, he's a child who made logic his shield to avoid emotional collapse.

Takeru isn't just the optimist, his quiet strength is how he doesn't get pulled under by others' pain.

Hikari isn't just light, she's a channel. Her sensitivity connects her to the invisible, but it also makes her deeply vulnerable.

Meiko isn't a mistake, she's the weight of quiet guilt and undeserved blame.

Himekawa isn't a villain, she's a warning, consumed by a love that couldn't let go.

Nishijima isn't a mentor, he's a man who regrets arriving too late.

A symbolic reading of the Digital World

Tri challenges the Digital World's mythology. It introduces concepts like the Demiurge (imperfect creator) and Idea (true essence), pulling from gnostic and platonic philosophy. The infection is not just a digital bug. It's the result of a world built without understanding the emotions that would one day inhabit it.

Distortions in space, corrupted binary code (like the unexplained "2" in a system built on 0 and 1), the merging of realities, and the appearance of soulless replicas like Imperialdramon, none of it is random. It all speaks to a world collapsing from within, not due to external battles.

A quiet story of transformation

At the beginning of this story, Taichi wants to bring everyone back together, but time has passed. They've taken different paths, changed in ways that aren't always compatible. It's not about caring less. It's about learning that closeness sometimes fades without meaning to, and that trying to reclaim it isn't always simple.

A common criticism is that Taichi now hesitates and that this is regression.

Taichi's hesitation isn't fear, it's awareness. A pause. A question: can I still protect, without hurting anyone?

This isn't a contradiction, it's a continuation.

Let’s go back to Adventure:

Episode 16: SkullGreymon emerges from his recklessness

Episode 19: Sora was kidnapped because of him

Episode 45: his leadership fractures the group

Episode 48: we see him doubt and we learn the origin of his guilt, blaming himself for Hikari's near death as a child.

02 never explored that aftermath. The story shifted focus to a new cast. But Tri picks up that thread and now Taichi isn't afraid of danger, he's afraid of causing harm. That’s not cowardice, it's growth.

And in that pause, we glimpse the roots of the future Taichi, who will one day become a diplomat, working for coexistence between humans and digimon.

Yamato doesn't understand the change, and he pushes, hoping to ignite the old spark. But underneath the anger is the fear of losing a connection that once felt unbreakable.

Meanwhile, the Digital World is fracturing.

Not from outside danger, but from the blurring lines between emotion and system, past and present, role and identity.

Soulless Systems

These aren't classic "villains":

Yggdrasill is not an evil mastermind or alien invader. It's a symbolic, near-divine system that governs without empathy. Cold, logical, and utterly disconnected. It never appears because it doesn't need to. Its will is carried out through proxies like Alphamon, corrupted Gennai, and even manipulated humans. Yggdrasill represents the idea of a creator that has lost touch with its creation, a divine absence rather than a presence.

Alphamon is not an enemy. He's an executor without voice or motive. He doesn't speak, doesn't hate, doesn't choose. He deletes threats because that is his function. He is kind of a ghost in armor, a weapon with no soul, following the will of a broken god.

Homeostasis is not the "good side". It's a system that seeks balance. A bodiless, emotionless protocol whose only priority is to restore order when chaos threatens to collapse the Digital World. It doesn't act out of empathy or cruelty, it simply follows its function. It doesn't shift because it changes its mind, but because its compass is not moral, it's systemic. It speaks through vessels (like Hikari) and intervenes not with force, but by rebooting what’s broken to restore balance.

Hackmon / Jesmon is not a friend or foe. He is the system's messenger. He watches from the shadows, especially focused on Meicoomon, whom he perceives as a destabilizing anomaly. But Hackmon doesn't act on feeling. He is the voice of Homeostasis. Its blade. And when observation is no longer enough, he digivolves into Jesmon. But Jesmon is not hope, is protocol. A final measure. He doesn't come to save, he comes to execute.

When the system doesn't grasp the soul

In a world where connections become unpredictable, systems try to fix what they don't understand.

But emotions can't be repaired or deleted with code.

It's there, amidst reboots and algorithms, that the chosen children must decide whether to obey or to choose.

Meicoomon, a rift in the soul

Meicoomon isn't just an infected digimon, she contains Libra, which can't be controlled or regulated.. Her bond with Meiko is the most fragile, yet it's also honest.

Meiko, a chosen child who struggles to understand and bear her role, still chooses to stay. She remains, even when she feels she's the source of the pain, and even when her presence brings discomfort to others.

Libra, the code sealed in the soul

Libra is more than just a virus or a system error. It's an anomaly within the code, a burden sealed within Meicoomon from her origin. Imagine it as a living archive, holding the emotional record of the Digital World before its reboot: light and shadow, order and chaos.

To safeguard this data, it was encrypted inside her, unbeknownst to her and beyond her capacity to handle.

But Meicoomon was not created to carry such a burden. Her sensitivity and natural instability made her vulnerable to that information. It overwhelmed her, turning her into a contradiction of innocence and chaos.

Libra is not her fault. It's the Digital World's doing for putting such a heavy burden on a digimon who simply deserved to exist.

The Reboot: resetting isn't healing

The reboot wasn't a mere narrative whim or an attempt to "fix" the Digital World. It was an emergency measure. The infection had destabilized the system so severely that Homeostasis executed its last resort to restore balance: a complete reset.

This reboot came with an incredibly high cost: the loss of memories, of everything shared between the chosen children and their partners.

It wasn't an act of malice, but one of coldness. A systemic protocol that simply doesn't account for emotions. For Homeostasis, a bond is just another variable in the equation of balance.

Some criticize the reboot for "failing" because Meicoomon remained infected. But that's precisely the point: Libra wasn't a superficial error. It was a deep rift, inscribed in her soul. It wasn't just digital, it was existential. And that can't be erased with a reset. Systems can be rebooted, but the soul cannot.

Yet, even though the reboot failed in its ultimate goal, the most valuable outcome was this: even without memories, without data, without prior programming... the bonds found their way back. Because some connections don't depend on memory. Some encounters transcend code. When the soul recognizes another, it doesn't need reasons. It simply responds.

Tri shows us that some connections can't be explained, they can only be felt. These are the bonds that endure, even through forgetfulness and loss.

And it's within this very mystery, something that completely eludes rigid systems, that the emotional and the intangible begin.

The "canon" isn't broken, the story has layers

The absence of the 02 kids has been one of the most persistent criticisms of Tri. However, from the first episode, their disappearance is presented as a deliberate choice, not an oversight. It's not a case of forgetting or erasing them. It was about narrowing the focus. Also, a narrative void designed to generate uncertainty, and that uncertainty is a key part of the emotional tone the story aims to convey.

Alphamon defeats them off-screen, and while this bothers their fans, it also emphasizes a crucial point: this isn't their story. It's the story of the original chosen children. Of those who are drifting apart and question if they are still the same people. Himekawa deceives them, telling them everything is fine, much like the system watches them silently. This manipulation also reflects an uncomfortable truth: sometimes, we grow up believing everything remains as it was, until it no longer does.

And when Imperialdramon appears in Episode 8 “Determination - Part 4”, it does so as a shadow. Not as the return of a beloved digimon, but as an anomaly. Daisuke and Ken aren't there. There's no digivice, no connection. It's a silent replica that attacks as if the Digital World were projecting a broken memory.

Could the pain of their absence have been explored more deeply? Maybe. But Tri chooses to focus its lens. It doesn't erase or contradict, it simply pauses at a different stage: the stage of those who are present. Those who, without intending to, also somewhat disappeared from themselves.

Perhaps Tri wasn't created to please. Perhaps it was created to make us feel.

Not all errors are failures

Tri isn't perfect. There are narrative moments that could have been more polished, and even the technical aspects of the art could have been refined. Yet, as a whole, it's a work that takes risks and proposes new ideas. It shifts the focus from "what happens" to "what we feel".

And for a series built on emotion and evolution, that might be one of the most natural next steps it could take.

What Tri tells us (if we dare to listen)

Tri shows us that growing up isn't just about leaving things behind, it's about relearning who you are when everything changes.

It shows us that sometimes, bonds break without anyone being at fault.

It reminds us that you can't always save another person, but you can stay, watch, feel, and simply be there.

And above all, Tri makes us realize a powerful truth: that bonds, even if they fade, change, or cause pain, are still what makes life truly meaningful. Because to feel, to doubt, to make mistakes, and to try again with another, that is truly to evolve, and it's absolutely worth it.

Recommendations for a better viewing experience

Divide it into chapters. I know Tri was originally released as OVAs, but you might find it on platforms like Crunchyroll, which divides it into episodes. This makes it easier to digest its emotional pacing.

Watch at least these prequels beforehand: Digimon Adventure, Our War Game and Digimon Adventure 02. Not because they're strictly mandatory, but because I think Tri is in direct conversation with the memories and events of those stories.

Choose the original japanese audio with subtitles. The dubs (especially in english and spanish) often contain significant errors that distort the emotional message. The original japanese voice acting is also rich with subtle nuances.

Avoid external noise. Don't let soulless criticisms or external expectations contaminate your experience. Watch Tri with a clear mind and open heart. Let the story unfold and speak to you, at your own pace, in your own way.

If it helps, approach it as a side story. Think of Tri less as a continuation and more as an exploration of this particular stage in the original Adventure kids' lives.

And if Tri wasn't for you, that's perfectly fine. Don't worry. It doesn't ruin anything, and it doesn't change anything. You can simply choose to omit its existence, or you can enjoy the layers it adds as it leads us toward the epilogue of Adventure 02.

Thanks for reading. If Tri also stirred something within you, offered you comfort, or left you with questions... it's truly wonderful to inhabit that space with you.

[utilitycaster]

I wanted to explore the idea of people who dislike C3 not engaging with its themes because I haven't actually seen anyone making the argument give a full rundown of said themes, and this may end up being several posts. I'd like to start with anticolonialism. Perhaps it is a theme; if so, I think it's presented exceptionally badly, in a way that appeals uniquely to white westerners desiring to see themselves as a combination of victim and savior, rather than as a complex issue in a story centering the colonized. It got very long, so it's under a cut.

If this is the theme with which we as the viewers are not engaging, I'd argue neither is the work itself - it's largely projection. As many others have pointed out, the use of Marquet, a setting inspired by Africa and Asia (and presented in a highly stereotyped and Orientalist way in Campaign 1 no less) as nothing more than a casual backdrop with little engagement with the cultures present, and with much of the story elsewhere, undercuts that badly. I'd actually argue this is a recurring issue with Critical Role's works; Ank'Harel appears and is even fleshed out more in Call of the Netherdeep, but the story follows, and mostly takes place, among the Calamity-era ruins being excavated and amid faction squabbles concerning them. The culture and politics of Ank'Harel remain a distant second to the greater mythology of the Calamity, and again, after the society and culture and everyday people of the more European-inspired Wildemount took such a front seat in Campaign 2, it seems like a worrying pattern. Given the increased sensitivity and investment towards the cultures based on those in our own world that (for the most part) did the colonizing, and the "set-dressing", as others have called it, status of Marquet, perhaps this world is not a good one to tell that story. What's also interesting, and telling, is that the African and Asian - especially West, South, and Southeast Asian - was even a defense within the fandom: the reason so few of Bells Hells were from Marquet, we were told, is because the cast is white. In that case, and given how Marquet is so poorly integrated into the story that multiple beats relying on knowledge of the Apex War fall flat, why didn't we set this in Issylra (notably, the continent in which modern, mortal-driven occupation efforts are occurring)? And more importantly why are we trusting a group nearly entirely made of white culturally Christian Americans to tell what is argued to be an exceptionally leftist story on religiously-motivated colonialism if we can't even trust them to play a character from a real-world culture heavily impacted by said colonialism?

Another rather significant wrinkle is the fact that those wishing to release Predathos in the service of destroying the gods were happily working with the Kreviris Imperium, who desired to colonize Exandria. Remember how everyone was just talking about how the poor Ruidians would die if the planet were destroyed and how they're the victims in all this (and honestly, I don't disagree that the commoners of Ruidus, especially those without psychic powers, have a uniquely rough deal) when the planet cracks? Well, let's talk that through. I think the role of the Vanguard's Ruidusborn in this is rather important, ie, if they are throwing off the colonialism of the gods (to be discussed later whether I consider that valid), they are doing so by stepping on the necks of the common people of Ruidus. And if those people will be doomed by the release of Predathos, it is Bells Hells who doomed them.

The people of Ruidus were told of their manifest destiny of the Blue Promise by their governing body (which also served, effectively, as religious leadership, with mind control). I think "Propaganda" is a poor real-world metaphor for "sends dreams of the land promised to you each night, making you both jealous of what they have and very much influenced by their culture, while you have no dreams of your own" but it's the best I have, but that itself occupies an interesting space. It's a great beat for sf, but this actually leads to a rather worrisome metaphor regarding the nature of cultural influence (which was spoken of on a 4-sided Dive and is often cited here, and I think the way it's discussed fails to consider the implications). The idea of cultural hegemony and globalization is a very real one. It can occur within one's country (I, a non-Christian American, am well acquainted with many Christmas songs and traditions and am given Christian holidays off work but must use vacation for my own). It can also occur outside of it, as with globalized beauty standards - white ideas of beauty leading to light skin being prioritized in India, or double-eyelid surgery becoming common in South Korea. The situation on Ruidus therefore has some interesting implications. What does it mean for them to have inherited culture from Exandria - but at the hands of their own government that seeks to colonize Exandria? Is this a good way to explore these topics, when Exandrians are neatly excluded from the spread of their own cultural hegemony (as they had no idea) and are also poised to become the victims in this colonization? This idea, incidentally - that the people of Exandria exist in an impossible in-between space in the colonization metaphors, blameless victim yet free from the ugliest consequences of being a colonized culture - will recur, and I think that is the most damning evidence that this is at best a story of anticolonialism stripped of nuance and complexity.

In a further exploration of the cultural impact of colonialism, what does it mean that, again, I, Jewish from birth and raised in a Jewish home and sent, even, to a Jewish school through middle school (though not a Jewish preschool) have a pretty thorough knowledge of not just Christmas songs, but could probably name a bunch of individual Christian denominations and maybe even the intricacies in how they depict their crosses - while generally having freedom to practice my religion within the dominantly Christian US, if not equality in doing so - but Bells Hells, living under the presumed thumb of the gods, can't reliably tell their symbols or domains? Others have already covered this but if the gods are the dominant force, why have Bells Hells managed to largely avoid any actual consequences for godlessness other than "when I asked for something, I didn't get it?"

Why have all the governments we've seen, save Vasselheim (which, again - we haven't ever spent a ton of time in, so why did we go to Marquet again?) failed to convey religious dominance at the hands of the gods? The Clovis Concord, Tal'Dorei, Whitestone, Niirdal-Poc, Syngorn, and as far as I can tell Ank'Harel, Jrusar, Bassuras, Court of the Lambent Path, and the Stratos Throne (and if the latter isn't then Imogen and Ashton grew up in its borders without any religion forced upon them) are all secular governments that at most have outlawed Betrayer God worship. The Empire (in which Ludinus Da'leth has been a major political force for centuries) has strong restrictions on worship of all but six gods, and if you look at the first Tal'Dorei Campaign setting, it was at the timed conceived of as banning all deity worship. The Dynasty is a theocracy for a non-pantheon entity, engaging in missionary work but largely depicted as (if I may, oddly) devoid of violence. While Uthodurn's King Imathan Talviel is himself a worshiper of the Arch Heart, Uthodurn appears to have no state religion. Indeed, I'd say, as again, someone of a frequently persecuted religious minority, who lives in a country with a dark history of forced conversion of the native colonized people into Christianity [the Native American residential school system] I'd say that for a world in which the gods are objectively real? Exandrian governments are bizarrely lenient and bloodless when it comes to religion. Only the Dynasty even has a state religion of the aforementioned locations, and they don't even outlaw worship of non-Betrayer gods. The Empire, Concord, and Dynasty have, at most, fines or incarceration for worship of illegal deities. Hearthdell lost more people from their own attack and from the people teleported away by the solstice than from the missionary work; you think the might of Vasselheim couldn't have slaughtered the entire town if they went in? The only places we know of as even possibly more brutal are the Betrayer-worshiping Iron Authority, which remains vague and undescribed (weirdly, actually, given that the Crown Keepers might have gone there in the time between EXU Prime and Bells Hells); and Aeor (execution by hanging for deity worship).

I am not saying that any outlawing of religious worship (nor lack thereof) is a good thing, but we live in a world where people have - and still are - killed for gods for which we have, in my opinion, no proof of existence. It is unbelievably telling that the grievances provided (Tuldus, Ludinus, and members of Bells Hells) are all entirely individual experiences rather than anything systemic. It's people mad at their small communities or their parents, and that anger is valid, but it is immensely dangerous to take one's own individual negative experiences and treat it as systemic. This is the underlying motivation of how countless people are radicalized into hate groups (see: MRAs/incels, who are mostly mad at their mothers or at the fact that increased rights for women means women don't have to date or marry men if they don't want to - men are still the dominant class here, but their perceived individual slights and their extrapolation to this as systemic dominance of women is the radicalizing factor). The fact that Exandria has failed to set up a world where this is any sort of religious hegemony - Vasselheim is certainly important, but they aren't even a centralized governing body of worship a la the Catholic church, let alone a force outside of Othanzia, and are seen as an ally by the nonreligious Percy and Keyleth - again lethally undercuts the idea of this as anything but the most softened and childish discussion of colonialism and religion. Even Deanna's question to Pelor regarding Hearthdell reveals it as inaction - a failure to stop - rather than a command to act. It's at the level of how we teach American kindergarteners of the first Thanksgiving, except unless the entire narrative is wholly unreliable this is the actual story of Exandria. One giant pulled punch.

To quickly cover other items highly relevant to any sophisticated discussion of decolonialization/postcolonialism/colonialism in general that are absent from Campaign 3, and indeed Exandria as a whole: as multiple other fans have discussed, there is no concept of people of mixed race if the gods are the colonizers here. There is insufficient discussion of how, for example, many colonized or oppressed cultures have adopted western religions and see them as highly integral to their culture today - Catholicism in Central and South America and parts of Southeast Asia; Islam in other portions of Southeast Asia; Christianity within Africa and among African-Americans descended from slaves. This does not make the original forcing of said religion right or just; but any discussion of decolonization must account for the wants of those colonized, and I find that Campaign 3 fails to do so. The lack of meaningful conversation with common people across Exandria is something many of us have brought up. If we assume the members of the Accord are not necessarily speaking for those they rule, why do we have no concept of how the people at large of Whitestone, Gelvaan, Jrusar, Bassuras, Uthodurn, the Silken Squall, the Empire, the Dynasty, and the Tal'Dorei Republic feel? And if they are speaking for those they rule, well, we know how they feel.

I finally want to discuss that weird and, in my opinion, nonexistent irl space between actual colonizer and the colonized that mortals occupy. I personally reject the idea of the gods as colonizers given what we've seen in Downfall and because the metaphor is rather messy given the mythic scale. However, let's let treat them as such in this moment. Exandria was populated by titans. The lore is (possibly deliberately) vague and at times contradictory here, but either the titans lay dormant for a time after the gods arrived but before mortal society developed; or they lived in harmony with said mortals (who were created by the gods). They assisted, in some tellings, of the sealing of Predathos by the gods. They then, for unknown reasons, either awoke, or turned on the mortals; in the resulting schism they were killed and sealed by the Prime deities and the mortals. The Betrayer gods were those who wished to leave. The Betrayer gods too were sealed. The last known titans, sealed but not dead, were either destroyed or banished by the Ring of Brass during the start of the Calamity in order to prevent complete annihilation. The titans are now dead. Per Ashton's commune with them, there may be something that will rise again should the gods be eliminated; [only] the strong will survive it.

Questions to consider:

Why are a number of fans arguing that this story is one of anticolonialism so eager to place blame on Asmodeus and hope Predathos eats him first, when he is arguably the ringleader of those who most hoped to leave Exandria to the titans while they were still living? Do you hate the leader of the one most willing to decolonize? Or is the issue that this would also mean abandonment of the mortals, in which case, which is worse - destabilization or maintenance of a current situation (ie, the status quo)?

If the gods are colonizers, why isn't Predathos? It is no more a native of Exandria than they are. We know the gods were driven by an existential danger to their lives (which may or may not have been Predathos). Did Predathos lead the gods to Exandria and later corner them there, setting all of this in motion? Or is Predathos no different from them, driven to Exandria out of the need to survive? Given the titans opposed Predathos as well it is difficult to paint it as their savior (and the idea of an external savior of the colonized is, as discussed, one with unfortunate implications)? What is Predathos, and why is it better than the gods, if you believe it to be?

What are mortals here? They are not colonizer, nor are they native. I've discussed the (also very unfortunate) implications of treating sentient beings as ecology metaphors, but given that mortals truly did have, per the story, no agency in arriving on Exandria but were rather created here, are they akin to a non-native species? Such a species can be either invasive or beneficial, which fits with the idea of mortals being unique in their ability to change. Mortals were the ones under threat from the titans despite, again, being neither colonizer nor colonized; mortals participated in their destruction.

Where do the eidolons - seemingly unaffected by all of this - fit in? For a story about how change and newness might bring a better world, why the focus on the long-dead titans instead of the nature spirits that have seemingly taken their place? Why are many of Bells Hells constantly looking back and not forward?

And that last point feels particularly salient. The people of Exandria - a people whose opinion, again, in this campaign, it feels we have failed to explore - exist in an in-between state. They are more the heirs of the colonizers, in this assumption that the gods are colonizers, than the colonized. They cannot undo what the gods did. The gods can at this time only act through them.

What does it mean that we as the audience are intended to see ourselves most in a people who were not themselves those doing the colonizing, who are now under threat from colonization, and who might cooperate with the driving force behind that colonization? What does it say that our mortal viewpoint characters put more effort speaking to and for the dead than to the living? What does it tell us that many of them see themselves as the victims? What does it say that past campaigns had multiple characters subjected to actual systemic oppression (the twins, Jester, Molly, Veth-as-a-goblin, and Fjord all experienced racism) and explored the concept of the other (the Dynasty) and Campaign 3 never did? And when we add that to all of the above - that this world has failed to set up religion as even remotely close to both the meaningful and the oppressive force as it is in our own, despite the gods being real, that the grievances are individual and not systemic, that nearly all actions by the gods are motivated not by greed but by survival - is this an anti-colonialist work? Does it grapple with the problems of decolonialism meaningfully? Or does it let a white American viewer fantasize about a world where they are the oppressed, under threat of colonization, where their personal grievances are all forms of systemic oppression, cleansed of their own complicity in these systems, and where they can never be blamed for their actions because this is all so hard to choose- despite a far softer and gentler world than the one in which we actually live. And does it do so in a work they were going to watch anyway because they've been watching since well before this was introduced, thus permitting them to pretend they are experiencing a sophisticated anticolonialism narrative without having to go through the effort of actually reading that linked pdf of Orientalism they reblogged?

[starcurtain]

Interpreting Aventurine's Situation

(HSR 2.1 spoilers, watch out!) I think one of my favorite things to come out of Penacony is that the plot has left us with two completely opposite but equally valid interpretations of Aventurine's character. Is he a chosen child or just a "lucky" dog? The story leaves the door wide open for both possibilities.

Under a read more for space:

One Interpretation: Unfortunately for Him, Aventurine is Actually Blessed by an Aeon

If you work from the assumption that the Avgin mythology is correct, and Gaiathra Triclops is actually real (possibly a minor aeon of an unknown path or Ena, if you're on that train), then it's entirely possible, in game, that Aventurine has been blessed by a goddess to the point that he functionally cannot lose any gamble he makes. The odds are, literally, ever in his favor. In this interpretation, it doesn't matter how many gambles he takes with his life as the chip because he will always succeed. Despite how risky his behavior looks to everyone else, he's actually been perfectly safe all along.

But this is especially tragic because it means that, despite his mother's and sister's belief that his blessing will help everyone in their tribe, Aventurine's blessing has only ever extended to himself. He's not an omen of good fortune for his people. His luck was never going to protect his parents, sister, or friends. The goddess of the Avgin chose just one person and left the rest of her people to die.

This is where Aventurine's doubts stem from. He asks repeatedly: If the goddess can bless people, then why is life so miserable for the Avgin? Why do they have to live in pain, suffering, fear, and abject poverty if she could make them lucky enough to thrive? Why do people live if it's just going to be horrible?

(To be honest, I don't think this is out of line for the behavior we've seen of aeons so far. Even with aeons like Yaoshi, described as gentle and benevolent, with no intention to cause harm, their gifts often create horror in the human world.)

Aventurine's hands still tremble when he bets. He doesn't really believe he's blessed and still expects his own downfall at every turn--but it's never going to come because he is one of the few human beings in the entire universe with the direct favor of an aeon. Even Ratio, a skeptical, evidence-based genius, seems to think this might be the case.

(Choosing the Chinese because the text is a little clearer than the English, but basically: "This guy always has a way of dragging himself up out of the abyss, which can't be explained by just 'good luck.' Everyone is waiting to see him fail... Maybe even he's waiting too. But as time passed, I couldn't help but wonder: Will that day really come?")

This means Aventurine has lived a life of fear and uncertainty for nothing. He's spent his entire life awaiting a failure and painful death that will never come. He can't recognize the love of his own goddess nor trust in the faith of his own family.

The central question of this interpretation becomes "What does it mean for a single human to be favored by an aeon?" Can Aventurine really be called lucky after losing every single thing that has meaning in his life--all because an aeon chose him and only him? Should that be called a blessing or a curse?

The Opposite Interpretation: Aventurine Isn't Lucky At All, He's Just Skilled

On the other hand, the story leaves the door open to interpret Aventurine's situation in the complete opposite manner too. If, as the IPC seems to think, Gaiathra Triclops isn't real and Aventurine isn't blessed at all, then that means every single risk Aventurine has taken has actually been life-threatening--and that every single achievement he's reached has been by his own merits alone.

If Gaiathra's blessing isn't real, then Aventurine's life becomes one long self-run psyop: Everyone tells him he's blessed, he's lucky, he's favored--so young Kakavasha starts gambling early. Banking on this idea that he's favored, that he's chosen, he starts paying attention, he learns the tricks of the trade, figures out how to slip cards up his sleeves, how to word things just right so people will take his bait--he practices, practices, practices, until he can spot winning odds a mile away, until he can predict every possible outcome, until he's seen it all before.

In this situation, every single gamble he's ever made or will make carries a very, very real risk of failure--but Aventurine continues to succeed because he's just that quick-witted, just that aware, just that good at reading people. (He's been doing it for so much longer than everyone else he meets, after all.) He is the gambler extraordinaire, the archetypal charming rogue who can squirm his way out of any tight spot he gets into, time and time again.

He fears every gamble he makes because he has good reason to--there's literally never any guarantee that he will succeed, and he's constantly just flipping a coin to see what outcome he'll get. His personal skill and quick wit continue to turn things in his favor, but it's inevitable that one day he'll meet a situation that outwits him, a gamble where only a supernatural force could have saved him. And if you take this second interpretation, Gaiathra isn't real, so there won't be one.

This story choice would be interesting because it implies a greater degree of responsibility for everything that happens. If it's Aventurine's own quick wit and skill that continually save him, shouldn't he be able to help others with that skill? Shouldn't he have been able to help himself? How was he able to save himself from death but not from slavery? If it was skill, not luck, all along, then who do you blame for all the misery he still experienced?

This interpretation leads to greater questions of self-doubt and anxiety: Is it actual skill or just sheer dumb luck? Does Aventurine have what it takes mentally, psychologically, emotionally, and even physically to always come out on top by his own merits, or is he just the benefit of the wheel of fortune--statistically speaking, a one in a million chance still has to come through for that one, right? And when it all comes crumbling down eventually, will he have only himself to blame?

A Life of Uncertainty

The story doesn't actually give us any firm indication whether Gaiathra is real or not, or--even if she is real--if Aventurine is actually genuinely blessed. We just don't know, as players.

And Aventurine doesn't know either.

His faith in the goddess of the Avgin is shaky. He seems to want to believe and hold on to his people's mythology, but he has valid doubts that a goddess would choose to bless one person while leaving everyone else to suffer.

Is he the chosen of an aeon? And if he isn't chosen, then what meaning does any of it have? Is he just unbelievably skilled? Has he merely been lucky up to now? When will this blessing or luck or skill finally fail him?

Aventurine's most defining character trait is the extreme uncertainty that has plagued his whole life. What is true? What should he believe? Is he blessed or cursed? Does he have the talent to back up his massive boasts? Should others put any faith in him--should he put any faith in himself? Should he cling to his people's beliefs or reject the goddess that left him the sole survivor of a cultural extinction?

He can't trust anything. He can't trust his family's faith; he can't trust that he's actually a "chosen one" (because how could he chosen and his family be left to die?). He can't even trust that he's lucky because maybe it was just the years of suffering practice he put in. Then again, he can't trust in his own skill because maybe he's just blessed?

Which is it? Which is it? Which is it?

Nothing is certain. Nothing can be taken for granted. Nothing can be proven empirically true or false. There are no guarantees for Aventurine.

Every single thing in his life is a gamble, and none of that is his fault.

What an amazing character. What a great story. Thank you for the treat, Hoyo!

[sugar-crash]

🍬King Candy (Wreck-It Ralph) x (gn) Reader👑

(Reader Who Mythologizes Turbo Edition)

(Picture’s not mine!)

(Request here! Alright, did someone order a dosage of existentialism in their King Candy headcanons?)

- When he finds out about this aspect of your personality and opinion I believe he for sure plays along with it but doesn’t outright say anything that confirms or denies the validity of the RoadBlasters incident due to the fact that he isn’t really supposed to know anything.

- In general he’s trying to have a neutral stance on it to separate himself from Turbo as much as possible, to keep the game going, the ongoing dance that must be done perfectly.

- Even with that he loves to play it up alongside you, uttering the “going Turbo” phrase with a wiggle of his fingers and a faux serious voice before a delighted laugh leaves his lips with a hand he clasps it over his mouth.

- Yeah, he’s loving this way too much. His more malicious side comes out as he humors you, but of course he makes sure there’s a limit, the invisible line that he occasionally brings up in a nonchalant way when you get a bit too raunchy about it for his taste.

- Finds himself biting back an insult or two as you ramble about just how stupid the story is over some tea with the king, I mean— Who’d be so stupid to have not just one game cabinet unplugged but two?? Bafflingly foolish.

- …. Just one more thing on his ever growing list of things he won’t ever openly admit to anyone, hiding behind a somewhat strained smile he hides as he lifts a cup up to his lips with a dainty hand.

- To save face I believe he adds in a comment or two about the message behind the story, that people must keep it in mind before they act, putting on a kingly spiel of being responsible and mindful… Yeah right.

- He’s so fucking two-faced it’s insane. Acts as if he’s the voice of reason in the relationship even though that’s FAR from true, gently nudging you into the opinion that Turbo was something that was born from the stigma of game jumping... But of course there are people who were from the that time who were there and could confirm it!

- Fix-It Felix for example is one who wouldn’t stray from telling others of a more detailed story of what happened that day, much to King Candy’s chagrin.

- And he isn’t exactly known for being a liar, but he’s also bit of a pushover, not forcing you to believe it, but rather hoping you keep the warnings the story has in the back of your mind if you feel yourself wanting to stray away from your game for “greener pastures”.

- Of course King Candy is easily able to sway you back into your way of thinking by telling you that, yeah, it may have been based off of true events but aren’t almost all horror stories or folklore?

- Basically uses the boogeyman allegory to sweep any wariness you may have after speaking with Felix, tries his best to stir you away from actually believing it but of course, he also uses the story to his advantage and manipulating it like he has done to so many other things in his reach.

- Fear-mongering is basically what he does with it, using it against his people as a means to an end… Much like what he does with Venallope albeit on a smaller scale due to his desire of wanting to keep the idea of Turbo light so people don’t see the parallels between the two, no matter how insignificant the similarities may be… Though I may be giving him too much credit.

- He eventually gets overzealous with it, letting those things pop up as you two have some witty banter between the two of you which strikes you a bit as the feeling of recognition dawns on you as you find yourself connecting your partner to this man of myth…

- Those random spouts of anger, those cutthroat and bitter words of sarcasm that contrast deeply with his usual sugary sweetness.

- Bear with me, I’M MAKING A POINT, to quote The Crucible, “; no crack in a fortress may be accounted small.” In context to what I’m saying, his facade is imperfect even as strong as he makes it out to be, his metaphorical fortress is more akin to a piece of porcelain that does have it’s cracks.

- As dense as you may or may not be for not believing people who were there you’d have to be one of the most foolish people to not realize King Candy isn’t who portrays himself to be.

- Who knows if you figure it out fully by the time it’s revealed, but at the very least you have a suspicion and suspicion could lead to you rethinking your opinion on the tale you had come to love for its mysteriousness and tragedy, fiction and fantasy melding into one another in a way you can’t find yourself comprehending till it is too late.

- Who knows how it feels to see your lover shifting in out of his form, making way for the creature that you had only heard stories and secondhand accounts from. Do you feel sad? Full of rage??

- Or does the feeling of your favorite story finally being confirmed to be real help better your feelings? Aiding your obsession? Did you get your fill of the mystery? The tragedy??

(.-- .... --- / -.- -. --- .-- ...)

[branwenjade]

James got really into comparative religious mythology while he was recovering from his time on Tarsus IV. Which in turn fed a need to learn the languages that the mythologies were originally written in.

His favorite myth turned out to be an ancient, pre-reform Vulcan tale. Jim didn't really believe in the tales, but something about the story drew him in.

It spoke of a deity, one that not even Vulcans could accurately say was male or female or something else entirely, a being of love that had drawn members of the various warring tribes to his/her/their side. An entity who had mourned as their planet fell into madness, a god who had been powerless to stop the wars and destruction.

What had drawn Jim in so deeply was the fact that the legend was spoken of on multiple planets, the name only changed to match the naming conventions of whatever world that the myth appeared, and the fact that the myths all came to be years before any of the worlds went to space.

James begged his parents to let him go to Vulcan, where the earliest mentions of the myth originated, and finally the summer after his 16th birthday his entire family traveled to Vulcan.

Jim knew that they were only humoring him due to guilt at what he'd gone through, but cherished the chance to dig deeper into the mystery. After they'd settled in to their housing, the Kirk family made their way to the ancient temple that Jim wished to study at.

He'd been on Vulcan for a month, barely leaving the temple, barely speaking to anyone but the few priests and priestesses that made the temple their home, when a new person came to join the daily lessons.

The Vulcan was young, not as young as Jim was, but close enough in age to him that his presence was startling, as besides himself the youngest members of the priesthood who resided there was over a century old. He, too, was startled by Jim's presence in the temple.

"In all of my visits to this temple I have never encountered anyone younger than myself, nor have I encountered a non-Vulcan."

"What can I say? I found the texts when I was... recovering from... Let's just say that I had a lot of time on my hands..."

The young Vulcan raised his brow, as while he'd addressed Jim in Standard Jim had replied in Vulcan, "They are... pleasing. A... comfort when..."

"... proof that someone, something out there gives a damn about you when everything, everyone else is telling you that you don't matter..."

"... that even if you are... wrong, defective, do not have a valid reason for existence..."

"... that you are wanted and loved and have a reason to exist, that you aren't just taking up space and resources that someone more worthy, more deserving could use..."

"Yes. You... understand," and Jim could hear the brokenness in the other young man's voice, something so deeply emotional that it startled him to hear coming from a Vulcan. "My... contemporaries... I am an abomination to them. Not really Vulcan, but neither Human."

"You're special. Something new, and sometimes... kids can be cruel to those who are different."

They fell into silence as one of the priests began teaching from the ancient texts, only speaking when asked questions.

When the sky grew dark Jim's heart broke the tiniest bit when he saw his new friend, who he'd never gotten the name of, picked up his belongings to leave.

...

Jim smiled as he hugged his brother, letting Sam drag him to the rec room. His breath caught in his throat when he noticed the Vulcan playing chess across the room, and found himself staring. His thoughts raced, even after 10 years, he never forgot that face.

Later that evening he finally had a name to go with the face that had haunted and blessed his memories over the last decade.

"Do you still study..." Spock had asked him soon after they'd been finally introduced.

"I try to make a yearly pilgrimage to the temple. I... I'd hoped to see you again... but..."

"I left for Earth and Starfleet Academy the day after we met. I have thought of you."

"Same. I... okay this is going to sound forward but... There's a connection, I'm not just imagining that?"

...

It had been years since Spock had last stepped foot into the temple, and yet everything was exactly how he remembered it, save for a single new painting, an image of two young men, heads leaned close as they look down at the text before them, one Human, one Vulcan, himself and his James, and Spock couldn't help but reach out to touch the much younger face of the man who stood at his side on the painting. The old pains and hurts evident on their painted visages. He looked over at his companion, his best friend, his love, his mate, and bowed his head in reverence to the deity who had drawn them, two broken hurting young men, to each other's side.

Jim intertwined his fingers with Spock's, knowing that no one in this place would be offended by the show of their love the act represented. He smiled softly at his love, his soon to be husband, and gave a thanks to the one god he actually believed in for bringing him the love of his life.

[fandomluver-101]

So my sister found book reports I wrote in middle/high school and it brought up a number of things I hate about Twilight (yet I did enjoy the books to an extent). Shes not happy and I'm reminded why I so not engage with Team Edward Twihards.

Rant incoming - also, this is about the BOOKS, not the movies

Middle school me knew there was something wrong with Bella and Edward's relationship. The "eternal seventeen" view my friends had (and still have) didn't hold water to me because I was the same middle schooler reading a whole bunch of books about vampires, werewolves, fae, and mythology. In my report on the first book, I said that there's no such thing as an immature immortal character - they'd be dead if they were truly immature.

Because seriously, Bella is a teenager with no real world experience compared to Edward. I said "think of it like a thirteen year old girl dating a eighteen year old boy." Back then, I pretty much wrote about grooming without fully understanding it in depth (I got sent to the counselor and ended up learning more). Edward himself acknowledges the power imbalance of their relationship, he does incredibly disgusting things that are NOT romantic, and reading Midnight Sun years later only validated my old views.

Jacob is also a teenager with no experience. Setting him up as some type of romantic rival to Edward doesn't acknowledge the MAJOR issue of JACOB BEING AN ACTUAL TEENAGE CHILD! A lot of my very rantish book report on that aspect was detailing how Jacob is just as much a victim of the story as Bella if not worse. He's written as a sweet and caring boy trying to do right by his family and friends, gets abruptly turned into an incel because Meyer realized she made Jacob too perfect for Bella, and then enslaved for the rest of his life AT RHE AGE OF SIXTEEN. He did not deserve any of what happened and it happens because Meyer made him, a CHILD, Edward's rival.

Because, YES, Jacob IS the superior match for Bella. Not simply because she canonically calls him her sun, but because HE'S AN AGE APPROPRIATE MATCH. Nevermind that, canonically, Bella acknowledges that she IS in love with Jacob and if, not for Edward the manipulator being her drug of choice, they WOULD be together.

She has a whole "what if I married Jacob" sequence where she had a happy and healthy relationship and LIVED, no amount of gaslighting could change my opinion when I wrote "this is like that old movie that glorified domestic abuse - Edward is constantly slapping Bella and he is her true cause of her death, but 'love in adversity' is the lesson we're meant to take from it."

There's also a paper I wrote using Twilight to discuss racism and PDF-philia in literature for my AP Lit class. And it holds up! Meyer legit had Quil imprint on a TWO YEAR OLD, Jacob on an infant (with the kind of an adult which adds another layer of horror and abuse to Jacob's treatment), made the shifters all angry hotheads who harm the people around them, has them referred to as dogs and mutts by the very White elitist Cullens, and gives all of them awful endings. She legit made it canonical that the shifters have to cut their hair, something that even a cursory amount of research would tell you that is a cultural no-no.

Meyers, and the fandom, give Edward so much grace for his predatory, entitled, and petty behavior and simultaneously drag Jacob for his very justifiable hatred of the Cullens and desperation to get Bella away from them. The Cullens legit repeat history by invading native land and despite KNOWING that their proximity is causing them to shift and result in deaths, THEY DONT CARE (they did it TWICE, by the way). They don't care about Bella either, they constantly put her in danger and treat her like an object, why WOULDN'T Jacob try to get her away from them?

And Bella defending the Cullens, but not ONCE defending Jacob or the wolves from the Cullens and the disgusting things they said THAT WEREN'T TRUE.

And the two page rant I wrote about Jacob imprinting on Renasty (that is legit what I kept calling her) holds up so much that my sister is re-reading the series right now. Jacob is legitimately terrified of imprinting and having what little control he has left taken from him. And when it happens, it is legit HORRIFYING. He's untethered from everything that made him an individual, his life becomes all about Renasty

I don't hate Twilight, mainly because it was part of my formative years. But I DO kinda hate Meyers for the shit she wrote and I hate a chunk of the fandom who share her mindset. My sister might join those ranks lmao.

[slimelover165]

I want to take a second to talk about some of the main criticisms people have with the Moon Knight show—the ones that are actually valid, not just comic purists crying about “accuracy.”

The two biggest issues people bring up are:

Marc’s DID stemming from his brother’s death and his abusive mother instead of the serial killer Nazi who infiltrated his inner circle.

The portrayal of Jake as the “evil” alter.

Now, quick side tangents:

First, it’s hilarious how people will complain about Jake falling into the “evil alter” trope in the same breath that they demand comic accuracy—as if that exact portrayal didn’t come straight from the Bemis run. And when you point that out? Suddenly, that run “sucked” and “shouldn’t have been used.” The cherry-picking is unreal. They want comic accuracy, but only from very specific runs—ones that almost no one can agree on. Which is especially tricky for a character like Moon Knight, who has had some truly terrible runs. (I have been in too many Twitter arguments with comic purists, can you tell?)

Second, people refuse to acknowledge that when Moon Knight was released, Disney and the MCU as a whole were still extremely toned down when it came to violence. The Moon Knight team had to fight just to get that TV-14 rating. And honestly, this show is probably the reason we’re now getting Daredevil with actual violence and longer seasons. Moon Knight pushed the envelope and showed Disney what audiences actually wanted. Just had to put that out there.

Back to my initial rambling—I've never seen Jake as an “evil” alter. In the show, he’s clearly the protector. His violent nature isn’t random; it’s a response to the role he was forced into.

Building on that, I’ve always believed Jake formed from the incident with the Nazi. Marc was terrified in that moment—his safety, his identity, everything was under attack. That kind of trauma could absolutely trigger the creation of a protector alter.

This also strengthens the connection to Marc’s Judaism. Imagine the horror of realizing someone he saw as a close family friend delighted in killing Jews—and told him so, to his face. That kind of direct, personal trauma, coupled with witnessing brutal antisemitic violence, could explain both Jake’s aggression and Marc’s complicated relationship with his faith.

And yet, people give Moon Knight so much shit for not cramming 50 years of comics into six episodes. The comics themselves took 20+ years to name Marc’s DID, and 37 issues before acknowledging his Judaism. Even now, these aspects of his identity are often treated as cameos—quick mentions that have little to no impact on the story. When it does have an impact on the story, it is for drama or to move the story along without being treated like an actual disorder or piece of his identity that affects the way he lives or functions as a human being. 

Not to mention the long history of completely ignoring or outright disrespecting these parts of his identity. Calling him “crazy” or “schizophrenic.” Writing him into a Christmas special. The show handled him with more respect than most of the comics ever did, and if you can’t see that, you’re straight-up blind.

Oh, and let’s not forget: this was also the first piece of Moon Knight media to actually respect his Egyptian roots. The comics? They cherry-picked the mythology, kept whatever served their story, and disrespected an entire culture and their history in the process. But sure, let’s pretend the show was the problem.

Comic purists on Twitter act like the show assasinated his character. In reality, they’re using these technically valid criticisms as a front for their real issue—it’s not their version of Moon Knight. And half the time, they exaggerate how “inaccurate” it even was. Like, let’s be real, a lot of the changes were necessary. Take Steven, for example—he was barely a character in the comics, and what little we knew about him was a comic book cliche. In order for his character to move past the copy accusations and become a long-lasting character, he needed to be changed. 

Let’s be honest—virtually every reasonable issue people have with the show could be solved with more screen time. That’s why I, like most fans, am praying for a second season or even a solo movie. Throwing him straight into crossovers would ruin one of the best aspects of the show: the lingering question of what’s real and what’s not. If they rush his development for the sake of team-ups, we lose all the previous set-up.

Of course, that’s assuming that if he did get more screen time, they’d handle it well… and with MCU writing, that’s never a guarantee.

Anyway, I could rant about Moon Knight forever, but I’ll stop here. Shoutout to @NotHenryDumb on Twitter, who made a fantastic thread on this idea. I’ve had this take for a while, and I just wanted to go deeper into it. I know this would rile up the comic purists and Twitter oomfs alike, but honestly? I’m done with that side of the fandom.The Moon Knight show and character have brought so much joy into my life, and I refuse to let some comic-obsessed gooners ruin my hyperfixation.

[boymanmaletheshequel]

you're soooo thirsty for sympathy and approval but fail to address actual valid points that paint you as a MISOGYNIST. Being gay doesn't mean you can't be misogynist it's almost funny that you're trying to use ancient Greece, the gayest and most misogynistic society in history. Artemis would smite you if she saw your face (read her myths and you'll know this is true) but luckily for you you've failed to be seen by the gods

Alright, I’m getting pretty sick of your shit. I tried to handle you and your blasphemic hatred the kind and sympathetic way but clearly thats not how you wish to play it. First of all, please explain to me how I have “painted myself as misogynistic”? All I’ve ever done is post in favor of feminism and have expressed and embraced my femininity and androgyny thoroughly, as have I disavowed toxic masculinity on numerous occasions. I have been NOTHING if not understanding and sympathetic to your arguments and views, and yet you attack me nonetheless. Well now it’s my turn channel her rage.

how fucking dare you attack her followers? We are all devoted to her divinity and her grace, and her animalistic beauty, wether we are male, female, androgynous, non binary, or anything else. We are her cult, and in her cult, she does not appreciate such senseless and hateful infighting. I admire the rage and righteousness you hold, but it is Ill placed. Artemis doesn’t hate men, she hates abusers, she hates men who abuse their power and hubris to attack and defame women who have done nothing wrong. And that’s the difference here, YOU have done something wrong. I’ve spoken to Artemis directly and asked for her guidance in typing this right now, and she has made it clear that she is ashamed and incensed that her own follower would backstab and lambast one of her devotees and bastardize her convictions and righteousness in such a volatile way. She HATES IT. she doesn’t hate you, nor does she hate me, but she hates IT. I have read her myths and now where does she or her cult ever mention hating boys or men for the sake of being men, nor women. She hates those who use sexism, misogyny, and yes, even misandry, in her name, and who disrespect her by claiming those views and hubrises to be her own.

And while yes, gay men are NOT exempt from misogyny, to suggest in your snarky and tone deaf little message to me that acceptance of homosexuality in Ancient Greece is equivalent to misogyny is downright homophobic. Gay men have done just as much for women as women have done for gay men across all of history.

As for the smiting, Artemis has not smitten me, she was the first god I started worshipping, and she has stayed a mother figure and a lesson teacher to me since than. And although she’s taught me a thing or two and sometimes rather aggressively called me out for my faults, she has been just as supporting and nurturing when I learn to overcome and learn from them, and now, right now, she makes it clear to me that YOU are the one abusing her name and image. So fucking STOP IT. she says she doesn’t hate you, she hates the way you are acting. You tell me to read her myths, have you? You are so quick to judge my interpretation of Hellenic mythology that you seem to have forgotten to consider it yourself. Neither Athena nor Artemis, nor any other god hated men, nor did any hate women.

Artemis specifically liked Orion so much in some versions of their story that Apollo got worried that she would forget her oath to remain a virgin, and she never did, she simply admired him for being a good man who was not toxic and abusive.

She also admired Hippolytus, son of Theseus, and she loved both the male and female children of Greece. In fact, the notion that Artemis held some grudge against men is rather recent, and doesn’t appear in any ancient texts. As for the idea she hates those who don’t remain chaste, one of her most sacred duties was to help Pregnant women give birth, which they would’ve needed to break chastity to do. Just because she’s a feminist and a more feminine deity, doesn’t mean she hates men and masculinity, only the noxious and harmful parts of it, and the followers that misconstrue her notions, which having confronted her about it myself, she has assured me in ways more than one that I’m not one of them. I accidentally knocked over one of my favorite plants recently, and I was afraid I might have upset her, and I felt terrible, but than, the plant healed right up afterwards as reassurance that it was just an accident and nothing against me. I have a thriving garden I’ve devoted to her, and if she hates me as you suggest? than surely it would’ve died long ago.

And by the way, while we’re on the subject of gender, and to end this part of this discussion, I think I need to make something quite clear here.

I DONT IDENTIFY AS SOLEY MALE.

I have long considered myself andro, and although I do have masculine attributes, (as did artemis, btw, but I’m sure you’re not ready for *that* discussion) I lean much more into my feminine traits. So you attacking me as a man and soley as a man is ignorant and not very respectful or considerate of you, or of Artemis’s character and attributes you so revel in attacking me for recognizing.

That is all, if you wish to keep this conversation up, at least stop being a coward and hiding in the asks, you and I both know that Artemis wouldn’t do that. She was no coward like you are being, she fought proud and claws out, just as I am now.

Please reconsider your understanding of lady Artemis, and understand that Greek myths are exactly that. MYTHS. As rumors are spread about us mortals, myths are spread about the gods, and like rumors, they are often exaggerated and disingenuous. Do you truly believe that Artemis was a crazy non-virgin hater who sent hunters out to kill them? Do you believe she was as cruel and as spiteful as gossiping men and women alike painted her as? And by the way, attacking and killing women who lost virginity, including by RAPE in some of her myths, is not feminist AT ALL. She DOES that in some of her myths! Do you really think she ACTUALLY did that? because I doubt that those events really went down like they are written. people use your same argument style to condemn hades, Zeus, and Athena, among many others, and their followers with them, not understanding that one’s fictional and embellished stories do not define them and that all of the gods are much more complicated and nuanced than the myths humans made up or wrote about them. Thank you, and finally, have a nice fucking day. I hope you can learn and change how you conduct your views, and let Artemis show you the truth she has shown to me.

[cultkinkcoven]

OKAY

I think we need to discuss something that I’ve literally never heard any other practitioners talk about but I think it’ll immediately clear up A LOT of confusion! This is obviously my own upg so take it with as much validity as you please.

When doing any kind of work with any kind of deity, you really need to understand the concepts of archetypes and syncretism.

Religion, faith, and mythology, it’s all a big mess. Our clumsy archaic human language and our tendency to destroy and distort information means that the ancient world is really, to our modern understanding, A LOT (and I mean a LOT) of hypothesizing.

We often use the same words to describe different concepts, mix up names, combine names, and misunderstand each other. Such is the nature of humanity.

Theology is always fluid. Different entities have different cultural associations, some major entities or characters are even shared among multiple groups of people. Syncretism means that groups of people develop their ideas with the influence of other groups of people, though shifted to make sense for their personal experience.

My favourite thing in the world is when different religions share stories- viewing history from totally different perspectives- Retelling the same events through the scope of their theology.

This is why we have archetypes. There are many goddesses of love and sex that are associated with the planet that is commonly known as Venus. Why these archetypes emerge in the way they do? That’s up for you to debate with yourself.

The question of whether Aphrodite is Astarte or Ishtar or Lucifer or Helel or Eosphoros or Hesperus is not a question that can be answered entirely objectively. It can never be proven and it can never be disproven. Because sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes the answer is definitely no, and sometimes it’s really hard to tell.

The way that we all experience the energy that is “Venus” is going to be different. If she definitely feels like the same energy as Astarte to you, then that could be the case. There’s no objective authority on reality or faith. There is no reason why the findings of 1000 year old magis are more legitimate than yours. Study, learn, experiment.

I like to imagine it similar to colors. We all agree that wavelengths between 620 to 750 nm are red. We have silly little cones in our eyes that work with our brains to turn information into color. But we all understand that there are thousands of shades of red, and some people can’t even see red. Do you see where I’m going? I hope this makes sense.

Because of the way that we interact with reality, there are as many Aphrodite as there are people who believed in Aphrodite- and this is true for every God (at least in my silly little opinion).

There are as many variations in her energy as there are variations of people who follow her.

I try to scope this around what Jophiel told me once. YHWH created him, sometimes. But not at the moment when I was talking to him. When I asked him if Lucifer was the Satan of Christianity he said “sometimes” as well. It depends. It all depends. That’s the beauty of this weird wacky thing that we do.

Anyways,

I don’t know how else to write this but to say some people aren’t compatible with every archetype lol. This is totally okay though, it’s not anyone’s fault! It’s just like … spiritual chemistry. Alchemy? Stay with me!

Nature has laws. If you try to push against these laws you will experience difficulty and suffering. ☹️

Nature creates certain compounds. Stable compounds thrive 🙂 and unstable compounds explode ☹️. Interactions create products and outputs. When two or more elements that are not compatible are introduced they may have a volatile reaction.

I will not claim to know how divinities operate. This is all just my silly billy pondering. But I do know for fact, that at least in my experience, certain entities that share the same address interact with different people in different ways- and some entities will only respond to you under a specific face. Some entities will share faces, and some won’t even respond to you at all.

I’ll use a couple personal examples for reference.

When I first started working with Prince Cerberus, I addressed him using his Goetic name Naberius, as recorded in the Lesser Key of Solomon. I used his sigil and addressed that name.

One of the first things that came through crystal clear was his request to not be called Naberius. He made it very clear to me that he wanted to he called Cerbere or Cerberus, or that I could make up a personal name, but never should I use Naberius. He did not give a reason but he was firm on it.

Now, does this mean that we all can’t use the name Naberius and that we should all blacklist the name? NO! and this doesn’t mean that anyone who works with Naberius is disrespecting Cerberus!!!

For whatever reasons, I don’t know why, my Naberius is Cerberus. I don’t know if Naberius and Cerberus are the same entity or not, I just know that when I think of Naberius I get forwarded to Cerbere. I’m still able to use Naberius’ sigil, but I always get Cerberus.

That might not be true for you. That might not even be logical. That’s just the way that my spirit interacts with that spirit.

I’ve been a long time admirer of Lord Hermes. I approached him and tried desperately to gain his favor, but he refused 💔💔. He made it pretty clear that it wasn’t going to happen through a few ways, and since then he’s repeatedly rejected me…

lol 🥲

I was confused about that for a while, until I started getting hints towards Lord Mercury.

I can’t explain why, I have no idea what the real reason behind this is, but I feel extremely compatible with Mercury, but not with Hermes, like at all. Their energy feels quite separate and different to me. My Mercury isn’t quick like silver, he’s actually quite slow and contemplative.

I was bummed to not be able to establish a “work” relationship with Hermes but it’s probably for the best. Mercury is an excellent teacher.

What I mean to say through all of this rambling is that these things are not concrete. My Astaroth is only Astarte sometimes. Sometimes they feel very similar, sometimes they feel very distinct.

It’s important to remember that the Gods are not one thing, but many things at once. The answers to these questions are all variable. Only you can find the answers for yourself.

If you read this far you’re a real one 🫡

[genericpuff]

Hello, I am a huge fan of your work and I’ve been following you for a while! I am a gay Greek student at the History & Mythology department from Aristotle University. I had to do a lot of research and homework regarding certain subjects and one of them was Κρόκος (Krokos/Crocus). Crocus was in fact in love with a nymph named Smilax, but was never, in any valid story, involved with Hermes romantically. Contrary to popular belief, homosexuality was something that was condemned in the majority of most city-states of ancient Greece, especially Athens. In fact, they even had the derogatory term for gay people “kinaidos” (κίναιδος) and they were banned from participating in politics, banned from the Olympics, banned from participating in the war, banned from being priests and in worse cases, they were sentenced to death. :( “Αν τις Αθηναίος εταιρήση, με έξεστω αυτω των εννέα αρχόντων γενέσθαι, μηδέ ιερωσύνην ιερώσασθαι, μηδέ συνδικήσαι τω δήμω, μηδέ αρχήν αρχέτω μηδεμιάν, μήτε ενδημον, μήτε υπερόριον, μήτε κληρωτήν, μήτε χειροτονητήν, μηδέ επικυρήκειαν αποστελλέσθω, μηδέ γνώμην λεγέτω, μηδέ εις τα δημοτελή ιερά εισίτω, μηδέ εν ταις κοιναίς σταφονοφορίες σταφανούσθω, μηδέ εντός των της αγοράς περιρραντηριων πορευέσθω.

Εάν δε ταύτα τις ποιή,καταγνωσθέντως αυτού εταιρείν, θανάτω ζημιούσθω.” Translation: “If an Athenean performs this, he will not be allowed to become member of the 9 lords, he will not be able to become a priest, he will not be able to become an advocate of the people, he will have no authority inside or outside of Athens, he cannot become a war preacher, he will not be able to express his opinion, he will not be allowed to enter the sacred public temples, he will not be able to take walks happening in Agora. If he ignores any of these laws he will be sentenced to death.” - Solon Laws in book 5, chapter 5

Also, the term “Pederastry” actually meant “Mentoship” and it had nothing to do with sexual relationship between a male teacher and a male student. Many of the homosexual depictions regarding historical and mythological figures are created in modern times without any evidence to back it up. For instance, Achilles and Patroclus are often assumed to be lovers in modern media when in all actuality they were just cousins. Patroclus’ father Μενοίτιος (Menoetius) and Achilles’ father Πηλέας (Peleus) were brothers.

Alexander the Great was never in a relationship with his best friend Hephaestion as there’s no evidence to back it up besides him telling him his secrets and mourning his death.

The only historical figure that could be a legit bisexual was Sappho from the island Lesbos (which is why Greece now calls the island “Mytelene” to avoid any association with lesbians, despite it being the name of one of the cities there). She was accused of being a promiscuous woman who was sleeping with many men and that she was a woman-lover due to her poems, but this is still up to debate to this day.

The worst of all is that most pictures involving homosexual activity used as evidence to prove queerness have been modern remakes of an ancient artifacts depicting heterosexuality (or even the rape of women). Eros Kalos is responsible for many of these “queer copies”.

This deeply saddens me as I am a homosexual myself, but I don’t think Ancient Greece deserves credit for being “open-minded” on the subject knowing that they would treat me badly if I was born in my country in that era. I don’t feel comfortable with people trying to prove that it was gay when that’s not true at all. Anyway, I am very happy that artists like you exist and make their own fictional versions of the characters in ways that feel comfortable for us to look at. Stay amazing. <3

Wow, this was a super interesting read !!! Thanks for all the helpful info :3 It's sometimes difficult to discern what "love" between gods and mortals means in the translated texts, as sometimes it can mean romantic/sexual love, and other times it just means godly love, i.e. mortals who were "chosen" by gods to be their patrons (so just having a very strong spiritual connection in the same way the Christian God "loves his children") and I feel like sometimes those two things become conflated a lot in discussion around those stories, but that's why it's always important to listen to other interpretations and translations to try and get the most accurate recounting possible.

Mind you, I am not Greek so take ALL of my opinions on this topic with OLYMPUS-SIZED-MOUNTAINS OF SALT LOL

I actually had no idea about the Alexander the Great x Hephaestion thing, and upon searching it up, it brought up articles about a Netflix production? Would I be wrong in assuming that's what motivated you to clarify on that ? 😆 (or is it just a common sentiment these days? genuinely asking haha I'm not so sharp on my Alexander the Great lore these days 😔🤡)

I absolutely agree that Greece itself isn't exactly a pillar of LGBTQ+ representation or rights (it is, after all, predominantly Orthodox Christian and they just legalized gay marriage in this, the year of our suffering 2024) and it's important not to put on blinders or use our connection to the gods and myths to erase what's going on historically. It's certainly not a magical imperfect wonderland - no culture or country is - and the more people are aware of that, the more they can become aware of ongoing issues and fight for things like equal rights (as they should!) so they can move towards positive change.

I think there's definitely lots to be said about the fandomification of Greek myth as well, where a lot of people take fun in the cute / funny / easy-to-headcanon parts of the myths without recognizing where they come from, why they were written, and who they were written for. It's easy to be a non-Greek person consuming and engaging with all the fun parts of the myths, because we get the privilege of being outsiders looking in who can interpret the myths in our own way free of consequences or the reality of the culture these myths are from. And I say that as someone who's not Greek and absolutely falls into that camp! Some of us use that privilege responsibly, others... not so much. And again, that's something that can happen with any culture (though I can definitely name a handful that have become notorious for how fandomified they've become through pop culture cough Japan cough Korea cough Canada, yes I fucking said Canada-)

That said, as with any culture that becomes more popularized with people outside of it, as much as that can lead to harm and misrepresentation in many ways, it can also lead to a lot of joy and appreciation. I'm glad that so many people have found themselves in the myths and find their hope through them and reclaim their power through them even if they've had a messy history. I see this sort of reclamation thriving in Christian mythology as well, through those who want to reclaim the beauty of many of its stories and messages and express the joy and love and compassion in them, rather than using them for hate and discrimination as they're so commonly and systematically used. In that way I think you can easily have adaptions that aren't historically accurate, but are more reflective of the culture and hopes and dreams of the people who are retelling them in the modern day. I think it's important to keep both in mind.

IMO it's one of those "if we don't find joy in it and use it to spread love to others, that means the bigots get to use it for harm" type things, if that makes sense :'0 But that doesn't mean we should pretend like history never happened, because in doing so, we're doomed to repeat it. We should always do our best to respect where these stories came from, and do more to learn about them when we get the opportunity to do so, because not doing so is how we end up with adaptions and "retellings" that are so far removed from the source material - but still ingrain themselves so seriously without a shred of transparency - that they almost become erasure in and of themselves. As I say a lot here, balance is key, and we should always be making efforts to learn ( ´ ∀ `)ノ～ ♡

[primordialruin]

The main reason why I write Lilith as a victim of circumstances & rejected by Heaven, is due to it bearing validity to her mythological canon. She was written as the wife that was made together with Adam, who needed to be replaced. She sought equality and stood up for herself, which brought on a lot of insults her way, not excluding insulting the soil she was made from to justify the abuse.

Lilith is an abuse victim. Now, whether you would like to attribute this abuse to Adam or the higher powers, it is up to each interpretation. I personally view both humans as victims of their particular circumstances since it is the angels who decided to KILL her. (Myth accurate - they first told Adam they'd blackmail her with killing her children if she didn't return, only for that entire thing to switch when she rejected them instead) — should preface that the abuse thing is something I write from her perspective; the higher powers that may be that have turned her into an actual danger is a separate thing. I'm strictly telling the story of her experience from the POV of an ignorant and reluctant vessel of evil. Yes, Heaven has every right to be guarded about her. And yes, her experience as a human who doesn't understand her impact or the treatment ministered to her IS valid. Eden Lilith is just that - a human. Post Eden Lilith & her sinister plotting that ensues from her growth as a person/queen/antagonist/antihero/whatever is separate.

I won't force this portrayal upon any angel muses that she interacts with, if you're not with it. I will happily reference the angels Sennoy, Sansennoy and Semangeloff (the angels who were tasked with bringing her back & who decided to kill her) and use them as guest muses on my blog & you can decide how your muses feel about those characters.

[judaismandsuch]

A Small Note on Gilgamesh (and arguments based on parallels)

So, I saw a post that briefly refrenced the simalarities between the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah.

Now, I am not going to recount the 2, because... I don't want to, but suffice to say the similarities are not simply surface level, but are fairly significant.

Now, I have seen that used as a 'GOTCHA' for Judaism/the bible. "This story clearly predates Judaism, so the religion is clearly bulshit."- though not exactly phrased that way- is the thrust of the argument.

I want to address *exactly* how stupid that argument is/give several counter arguments that exist with a quarter ounce of thought.

Assuming that Judaism *is* correct in it's entirety, and that therefore the story of Noah actually occurred as written, then of fucking course another culture in the area would have a near identical version of story! It happened! It's collective history! It would be weird if they didn't!

There was a major flood in the area, it permeated the collective unconscious and, due to base cultural similarities, both cultures independently developed there own similar myths.

The flood story was incredibly common across all cultures in the area, and when G-d was creating the mythological history if it was ignored people would have rejected the creation myth, so HaShem took the most popular one (Gilgamesh version) re-adjusted it to fit the morals and lessons that were desired, and put it in.

It is a portion of Jewish theological doctrine (not a necessary aspect, but a popular view) that G-d went to each people and offered them the Torah, but it was rejected by all but the Israelites. If this occured, the ancient Babylonians would have heard the Noah story, and then re-jigged it to match their beliefs in the epic of Gilgamesh.

The dating of Israelites and/or the creation of the bible is off. So the 'historical analysis' of the bible puts the creation of Breishit at around 500 BCE*, but the Exodus at around 14th c. BCE (usually), Assuming that the Jewish view of the creation of the Torah is correct, it would be written at 14th c. BCE as well. The oldest copy of the Gilgamesh flood myth is 1640 BCE, toss in a touch of wiggle room, and you could have Gilgamesh written post exposure to Israelite nation.

Abraham is dated to about 1800 BCE, if HaShem told him the flood story, there would have been more than enough time for him to tell it to others, and for it to make its way to Assyria.

Now, basically all of these do depend on one running with the pre-supposition that Judaism is actually G-d given (or at least willing to accept that for the sake of the argument), which I feel is kinda ok in an argument about whether or not a religion is full of crap. After all, if you refuse to accept any argument with 'the religion is to some degree true' as a premise, no argument about its validity can function.

But I am not endorsing any of these arguments per se, rather I am giving them to show how stupid using another religions flood myth to discredit Judaism is.

The same form of argument goes for a lot of the caananite religion based 'gotchas' that people have tbh.

*k I'll be honest, the arguments about the bibles age and authorship bug me *so* much. They all feel preseneted in a 'if you disagree with this you're a fucking religious nut job' kind of way, and really run with 'lack of physical evidence before such and such a date', which... its a book, written on hide. How much did you expect to survive in an agrarian society almost constantly at war which went through multiple periods of straight up ignoring it and reverting to paganism? Like, they would have pushed them more recent if the dead sea scrolls hadn't been found! I know it's a tad fundamentalist of me, but damn those arguments annoy me.

[therese-lokidottir]

“Loki has every power imaginable now! He’s the one above all and is finally not useless! He finally learned to quit being a selfish coward! Why aren’t you happy?! He smiled at the end! He’s happy! Why don’t you want him to be happy?! You’re an idiot who doesn’t understand emotional complexity. This is exactly like mythology!”

I’ve heard it all before from the toxic side of the fanbase. I’ve been attacked online and called stupid for expressing my dislike of the series.

I’m sick of the gaslighting toxic stans do to try and convince you to like the series and finale. You can like the finale all you want, I’ve had friends who audibly yelled excitedly to me on the phone over it. But Loki engaging in self punishing behavior ain’t growth. (Also I’m sick of people saying Loki used to be a selfish coward. Tell me you didn’t watch the films before Ragnarok without telling me.) I don’t want an All-powerful Loki, I want a healthy and healed Loki, I want him to stop hating his jotun heritage which was never touched upon. (But I feel like I’m the only one in the fanbase who feels this way, even people who disliked the series danced in the street over the finale, it’s isolating. ): )

Sorry for ranting.

Loki was a lot of things, but he was never a coward. I spend a lot of time defending him and making a point how other characters are guilty of wronging him and just have other misdeeds that make it so they don't have the right to judge Loki as harshly as they. But my point is never that Loki is an innocent and did nothing wrong. My point is always there was more to the situation then Loki is just bad.

I have made this point multiple times but Loki sacrificing himself doesn't show character growth, because he already did that before. Because hi entire character is being co-dependent on others and doing everything for others approval and validation. Sacrificing himself is just another form of that.

Everything about Loki passed and is erased and made so it can never be resolved. He can never resolve things in his family, he can never accept his heritage and he can never find his place in the world.

Loki ends his story as a martyr for the people who caused the problem he had nothing to do with and was pulled into. He lost everything and he's the one he has to be condemned forever alone while everting moves on without consequence. Even though again, they're the ones who caused the problem and isolated Loki so he had nothing to go back to.

It's not a satisfying conclusion when the story starts with Loki terrified being alone and then the story ends with him being alone.

[winns-stuff]

LO RANT:

Because why not? I just don’t understand the way that fans think, on one hand we can’t associate or even compare Lore Olympus to the myths because they’ll say “well it’s her retelling she doesn’t have to do things exactly alike” but on the other hand when you’re talking about the story by itself they’ll then try to counter whatever argument against Lore Olympus by saying “this is what they did in the myths!! why are you guys mad at greek mythology??” so which one is it because it’s giving me a headache. I get so tired of seeing the exact same argument from fans it’s so redundant and I mean that in the nicest way possible, I’m sure a lot of you are great people but the things y’all say and do for this comic is insane.

Rachel is adding yet another sex scene and people are rightfully angry. We’re in the climax where the world is basically in an apocalyptic state and the gods are all in danger of having no mortals to worship them and give them any purpose and it’s all because of Persephone, no one is thinking “oh yeah this is the perfect time for intimacy” and if you wanted to give fan service to those who are craving it you should’ve did it in a more calmer setting?? No one is threatening Rachel and telling her that she needs to add these ridiculously high stakes to her comic which prevents her from smoothly writing NSFW of the main couple, she’s literally doing this herself which is one of the reasons why it gets so annoying whenever fans get mad at people for being upset or disappointed. She’s doing this to herself, am I saying harass the woman or cyber bully her? No but that’s not what a lot of these people are doing, in every single webtoon especially one as big as Lore Olympus you’re going to have people who view your content differently or disagree with the way you’ve written things. I’m not trying to encourage the idea of changing your entire story to bend to those people but a large majority of your fandom are starting to have the exact same complaints and it’s clear that your plots are not being fleshed out at all, these people are just asking (no, begging really) for a cohesive story not a masterpiece.

Which brings me to my next point, all of the criticisms and explanations many critics have been sharing are entirely valid. You cannot put a sex scene as a replacement to storytelling, it just never works since it adds virtually nothing to what’s happening. Especially right now when, like I said before, Rachel is starting to spiral the plot into chaos (I’m not being insulting by saying this it’s literally chaos it seems like all of the characters are in trouble) and introducing or welcoming back a lot of intriguing plot stories and characters that many people are excited to see. To make an odd and unnecessary shift to romance in the middle of absolute destruction is crazy, especially when none of it is earned. I’ve said this in my later rants but I’ll say it again because it’s true, the romance between Hades and Persephone has no stakes and it never will it seems since Rachel doesn’t even allow stuff like that to happen. Nothing about their romance keeps you straddled on for the ride or leaves you at the edge of your seat which is why so many people are bored with their dynamic if there even is one to begin with. Slow burns and other romances are all about the payoff that’s what everyone’s here to see, after chapters on chapters of wondering if their love will brave the dangers around them and between them we finally get our question solved with appropriate intimacy.

Lore Olympus as a whole rarely wants to develop actual relationships in real time, it only skips to “the good bits” while completely ignoring the fact that the entire bonding experience between your ships and your fans rely heavily on us actually witnessing their chemistry/bond and being shown why they should be together, not being told by forces outside of the relationship.

All in all the potential sex scene is just terrible timing on Rachel’s part and it should’ve been done while literally nothing was happening to avoid all of the backlash that it’s getting now.

[ganeshpnf]

To the anon that sent me an ask about asking my thoughts about the tv show, Im so sorry but something happened and I think it got deleted 😭 But dw I would still answer it here-

So this would be a critism post and I want to make it clear that everyone is free to reblog and comment their thoughts freely, while being kind. Critism is valid and its not rude, but any bad comments or hateful remarks to any actor, especially child actors, would be deleted. I dont like blocking so dont make me please!

Okay to start, I would be so honest and say I did not find the show successful and I did not like it. I would explain all the reasons, but did it make me feel nostalgia a bit? Yes it did. Did it make me cry at the end? Yes :) I would add pros at the end. But first:

Cgi was really bad, I mean that claiming scene would be a laughing stock in a few years. Chimera? Nope- Medusa's hair also looked better in that movie in 2010. Also they avoided showing Grover's legs so much, also didn't even show us riptide's change...They got 15M per episode and if these are the results, then it is a problem. Background of Percy and Ares's fight- so so greenscreen. I wish Disney can take things seriously.

Lighting was so dark, especially for the lighting thief. Which was such a humor filled book and it was way too colorful. Why make it all so dark and lifeless?

Also humor? Way too low for pjo. "But we are not reading Percy's mind!" Yet, there were so many jokes in the books that could have been add, but they didn't. Yes there are some good jokes (pinecone fate) but to the standart, I expected to laugh way more. Its pjo!

Changes? Well to be honest I am a person who keeps book and show separate, I dont think they are the same at all. So I dont complain about the changes at much. But most of the changes were pointless to me and so many things left unsaid. I wish they didn't make Gabe way too soft. Children's show, yes. But then again, what would you do for later seasons if they cant even show Crusty's dead. Sally's real reason to marry Gabe never get explained, why? 4 pearls, why? Missing deadline? Totally pointless. Not mentioning Riptide's name? Chiron might have say it. Love tunnel? Now its a long one. Rick explained they couldn't do spiders and its hilarious, you gotta do sea monsters man- And instead of a chance to see an actual comedy: live on Olympus and Annabeth losing her shit. We get to see such a early scene of Percabeth drama. Why changing one of the funniest scene in the books to drama? You needed more edits for view or smt? Hephaestus falling over to the speech of friendship was nothing but cringe to me. Moving on, Thalia's acting to Annabeth. Why she is not nice to her and Annabeth had to earn her love. The point was Thalia to remember Jason and taking Annabeth under her wings immediatly bcs of it. Medusa's scene- Instead of us laughing to trio's silly behaviours and falling to her trap like little kids would, we get to hear a monster-hero talk. Yay another speech! Ovid's side of the story also bothered me. Greek mythology, why adding Ovid? Just us to sympatize with Medusa. Lotus Casino scene- We could have watch them have fun and going crazy but noo- they had do add more drama with Hermes. Did not see the point of his appearing either. Why is he there? I wanted to see them being children...And wanted to see the magic of the place!

Now if I move to characters, Percy's I know it all side is just annoying and adds no suspense to the viewers. What's the point if he knows everything already? "But his mom taught him!" But guys, remember, the whole point of pjo was: us to learn with Percy! We were learning the Greek myths with Percy, who is new to the world. They go somewhere and Percy immediatly: "You are Crusty, my mom told stories about you!" 😑 What a relief then! You tell us. Percy's sudden bravery at the end? Dude, he has 5 books for that.

Annabeth turning to a stoic child soldier? Suddenly goody-two shoes? Where are her emotions? Her fears? Her flaws? Her fricking love of architecture? She doesnt need to know everything to be smart girl. She had ADHD, she is 12! Ofc she was supposed to fall in traps. We should have watch her blushing as Luke talks, getting all wet by Percy in the toilet, she was supposed to our little girl. She is not just a badass queen yet, please. Give her personality back. Why she only smiled once at the end of the series? And not having a childhood, not even watched a movie? You guys cant be serious- She grew up in chb! She picked up strawberries, she played games and she watched movies when she was little, remember? She was not in legion... She is one of the most emotional characters, should we remind this to Rick and writers? She cries, she has feeling! Dam she was crying when they left Cerberus! She was a trouble-maker, she stole clothes, remember? Her portrayal was awful...

And about the Gods- Just..."He is trying to make them look awful at the beginning" Then why the hell it was only Athena? Almost turning her to second Zeus- Are you kidding me? You make her suddenly a child killer, when in the books she was nothing like that. Why making her worse, when other gods(Poseidon, Hermes, Hephaestus,Dionysus,Ares,Hades) seem way more human and nicer? You cant tell me he tries to make them worse when they are portrayed like that! No sir- Hephaestus is nice enough to release Percy after a friendship speech. Poseidon is suddenly a perfect dad, he is not sorry that Percy is born. Ares is just a dumb twitter bully, where in the books he was threating them to no end. And fricking Hades?! I am sorry but Hades like that- He should have been scary. But no, he is just a lonely cool guy. I thought he softened after Nico. Cant wait for the development now...

Other than that, one of my most important things: vibe. Sorry...Like I said, it was way too boring for pjo. Even that horrible movies had more vibe! Gimme the vibe!

Pacing? Has a problem and I hope they fix it. Episodes being too short? Also another issue.

Now for the chb, I was hoping to see more activity. Why the camp is not full of noisy kids running around, playing hide and seek like in the books, training wild around the areas, camfire and silly songs? Where are our children screaming and being ADHD demigods? Instead they play chess in the cabin- Please, give more life to chb.

Finally, for the things I liked:

Riptide song!!! That song is my favourite thing in the whole show- Like its soo good.

Seeing Sally's struggle to raise Percy. Also a plus for me. Because I was curious. Also adding Poseidon to the scene was okay. I loved that parts.

Young Percy did awesome and he was such a good actor :)

Percy's dreams were good, I loved seeing them. Congrats! Andd, child accurate cast. It was important. But I wish they hurry so then we wont have it anymore 😭

That was it! Like I said, I find it a bad show, as a fan of 12 years. I waited this for so many years. I was dreaming this. But sorry, bad show is a bad show. At least it did give me some nostalgia and it did make me cry at the end :) I hope they improve because it would suck if they get a cancel before season 5. The bad thing is, I feel they knew we pjo fandom wanted a show for years. And they knew we would eat the crumbs. Its just not fair, you know. They would like it anyway, type. They are not taking it as seriously as they should. With that budget, look at other shows with that budget. I know, its still a kids' show. But I dont think its an excuse for them to upset the fans who waited this long...

Thanks for the ask anon! And like I said, feel free to add your thoughts :)

[simonalkenmayer]

So, um, uh. Whilst watching Secrets of the Occult, there's an episode regarding Gilles de Rais meeting Barron.

In this episode it is reported that Gilles aquired 140 children at Barron's request.

Validity?

Also know anything regarding the supposed public ritual in honour of his "friend?" Joan of Arc with The Mystery of Orl ans?

Thank you

Yes, I know. I was there.

Allow me to explain. There are parts to that story that I did not tell you. The reason, my recordings of my short stories stopped where they did, is because I sat me down to write the missing pieces, and could not bring myself to do so. I have a heavy burden of guilt for my actions during that time. I was intent on having this man prove to the world what a monster he was so I exploited the mythology created by a conman. Unfortunately, this was the wrong thing to have done. I made the situation far worse and suffered at the time because of this poor decision. But by the time I realized I had some part in this catastrophe, it was too late for me to stop it. I had to carry it out to get it to stop.

I can tell you about anything you want to know about, but it is very difficult for me to address. I would be happy to try again at completing the story. I am not sure I can record it until I’ve processed how I feel.

I will see if I can attempt it this week, but I warn you that the story is somewhat triggering in many respects, including dealing with the magician. That specifically makes me feel very, how do the kids say these days? Skeeved out? Some such.

Guilles was a sick man surrounded by sick man. And I made it worse. It’s because of how that ended that I decided to never participate in any sort of vengeance again. And so for a long while, I did not use my abilities to aid humanity in any way. After that time, I eventually ended up in England . It was only then that I dipped a toe back in, because I believed that it would bring more peace. I was correct in that decision, and so after that maintained a kind of policy of distance. I only ever use my skills to build things, never to destroy them or tip a scale this way or that . Until I came to the wild West and people tried to kill me. It was my anger that drove me then, and capitalism made it possible for me to tip the scale in a way that was direct, but distant at once.

I’ve always loved gambling. It’s free money.