#odysseus would love arguing on the internet

[seasicksilver]

BABYGIRL GO HOME !!!!!

[moonlit-keys]

Okay if you remember me from my Poseidon character analysis, unlikely but still, hi. Sorry I said within a week, I was very wrong. Anywho.

So, obviously Calypso is a super controversial character within the fandom, so I am going to make my opinions on her morally clear right now: I believe she is an abuser, but not a rapist; she is redeemable in the sense that with a lot of self-reflection I think she can get better; her trauma does not excuse her actions in any way. If you don’t like my opinion, don’t read the rest of this because it will probably factor into my analysis. But please do not yell at me for my opinion, if you don’t like what I have to say, then please just move on.

Content warning: I will be discussing the effects of isolation in childhood and emotional manipulation from a victim turned abuser. If that’s not something you are comfortable reading, then I would recommend you don’t read the rest of this. (Please let me know if I did this wrong, I don’t want to trigger anyone by mislabeling)

And finally for a bit of background, I haven’t read read the Odyssey but I have been studying Greek Mythology for at least two years now, I’m by no means an expert, but I want to be clear I didn’t get all my knowledge from Hercules (ITS HERACLES WHY IS THAT SO HARD DISNEY-)

Ah Calypso, you fascinating pile of trauma and emotional manipulation, you really need therapy girl.

For me, Calypso is in the top five of my ‘characters I’d like to place under a microscope’ list specifically because of the amount of trauma she has and how it affects her communication abilities.

According to the internet, Calypso was imprisoned on Ogygia by Zeus because she supported her father, Atlas, during the Titanomachy

Side note: I searched through each of my three books detailing assorted Greek myths and none of them mentioned Calypso in any capacity, even the one with a section on Odysseus. You would think Greek mythology and the Pleadies would go together but noooo. This is what happens when you try to research stuff apparently. The only reasons I am trusting it are one, I have nothing else to go off of, and two, that is a very Zeus thing to do. So yeah. Sorry this isn’t better supported. I tried.

We can pretty much assume this is canon to Epic, for she says she was imprisoned for a century since she was a child. And because of that, we can also assume she has plenty of trauma. She’s also a goddess. And where I am going with this is basically, she has to have absolutely horrible communication abilities and boundaries. It’s reasonable to assume a person who spends a long time alone would either forget or never learn how to interact with other people. I want to emphasize this is not her fault, however, it does not change anything that she has done. Which is my transition into my next topic, emotional manipulation.

Let me be clear. Calypso is an abuser, I don’t think she’s a rapist in Epic at least, but she is absolutely an abuser. Remember how people really hated Calypso when she showed up in Love in Paradise? I would argue that is because when she shows up there, it’s because we see very clearly how she emotionally manipulates Odysseus, later we see how she doesn’t realize she’s doing it, but right then, that’s all we see. This is the super fascinating thing about Calypso. She thinks she cares, she believes she loves him but she is in fact wrong.

Calypso doesn’t get love, she doesn’t get other people, she doesn’t understand the concept of boundaries, of backing off, she does see Odysseus as an emotional support pet of some sort. Kind of like a stray dog she picked up off the street. She thinks she’s doing the best for the both of them. However, because of her lack of understanding about boundaries and backing off, she emotionally manipulates Odysseus with all the “stay here, it’s a paradise for the two of us” despite her full well knowing this is a prison.

Then there’s Not Sorry for Loving You, which I would say holds a major part in splitting the fandom in two over the question of Calypso. For me, it makes me sympathetic to her situation. But it does not excuse anything that she does. She still tries to keep him in a place where he’s unhappy, where they’re both unhappy. That’s not love, that’s fear with a side of unhealthy obsession. You can understand why it happens, obviously a person isolated for a century would have issues with boundaries and unhealthy obsessions. But she still emotionally manipulates Odysseus.

Ultimately, Calypso is a very complicated character. In order to get better, she needs an optimistic, patient person, who takes no fucking shit from anyone (interestingly, I would consider Polites to be that kind of person, but irrelevant). That person is not Odysseus. That person should not have to be Odysseus.

And that’s all I’ve got in terms of character analysis, but i do have a prompt offering that i came up with while writing this. So if you don’t care about that, thanks for reading this far and please don’t kill me.

Anywho, imagine, if you will, that Zeus visits Calypso, kind of like he does with Prometheus in Kaos, so he complains to her about a bunch of stuff and mentions the cunning Odysseus. In this au, Calypso is not as desperate for companionship, but rather freedom (extra points if she’s aroace, because romance? What’s that? Oh. Ew.) so she considers maybe he could help her get out, but doesn’t think more of it because how is he supposed to get here? Then years later, the silver-tongued Odysseus is washed up on her shores. Instead of immediate obsession, she’s super excited because he might be able to help her get out. You might be thinking, isn’t that kind of also unhealthy, her thinking of him as a tool rather than a person? Yes. Yes it is. Hehehehehehehehehe. But it offers up some really good opportunities for collective bettering between them, and imagine if they don’t manage to get off, but Zeus only allows Odysseus to go. You can do whatever you want by that point, maybe god games Odysseus edition, manwhore au but it starts way later, or. He leaves. Without her. Yeah. Or if they do manage to get off somehow, you can explore how they would probably have a ton of gods and monsters on their tail. Have fun with that if you would like.

And that’s all I’ve got. Sorry for how much morality stuff snuck its way in there, it was unavoidable unfortunately. And if you liked this, you might like my Poseidon character analysis, which is under the tag #character analysis on my blog. Anywho, thanks for reading!

(Note: I will likely never do a character analysis for any other character in Epic, mostly because one, I don’t have a super clear understanding of them and everything they do, and two, it’s been done a lot before, I don’t think I have anything to add. But this all relys on me not having an epiphany on motivations and such. So I won’t say this is it, but I won’t say it’s definitely going to continue either).

[gay-furry-poseidon-lover]

"dont pick and choose" where is this enthusiasm for any other crimes that are blantly stated as happening in the musical?

Epic the Musical isnt meant to be perfectly accurate to the original poems. In Epic, we get "seven years shes kept you trapped out of your control, time can take a heavy toll." And then Calypsos songs from her perspective. They are emotional songs, thats like... what musicals are supposed to do, make you feel stuff. Lots of people dont interpret Epic Calypso as a rapist, because its not explicitly written to send that message.

Are we gonna talk about The Odyssey or are we gonna talk about Epic the musical. They are different. "people like Circe," In the Odyssey, Odysseus did not have a choice to sleep with her. He had to. Its not that people just suddenly dont care that she assaulted him, its that Epic is showing us a different version. And Epic's Calypso is shown differently as well.

"I spent my whole life here, was cast away when i was young, alone for a hundred years, i had no friends but the sky and sun," This is what we get about Epic's Calypso's back story. That is different from versions of the myth where Calypso just goes and lives on an island.

However you feel about her is fine, youre allowed to not like her, to hate her even. But this is a fictional character based on a fictional character in a poem from a very long time ago. These arent real people. Odysseus is not on the internet, hes not reading posts about people analizing Calypsos character in a musical and feeling victim blamed or retraumatized. And if you relate a lot to Odysseus and that makes you hate Calypso thats fine. Not everyone sees her in your same context though, and thats not an attack on you. If this is something that is so distressing to you, block people who post about her, hit not interested, stop engaging with it. Take care of yourself. But you don't get to just decide that nobody can like this character ever, and that if they do they're a bad person who thinks rape is okay.

Works of fiction aren't real. Obviously I think that killing a baby is horrible, whether the gods told you too or not. But I still love Ody. That doesnt mean I dont care if people kill babies. I enjoy Zeus's character and songs even though he forces Odysseus to choose between the life of his crew or his own, which is like definitely immensely traumatizing. Enjoying his part in the musical doesnt mean i think thats good?

A lot of characters from greek myth have raped people. But we have the understand that obviously that is bad and wrong, and we would never be fans or sympathize with abusers in real life. At least I do. I havent seen a bit of discourse about Zeus (one of the most famous aggressors) or about any other gods. People enjoy them freely, and thats generally fine.

Why is Calypso treated so differently. Like i don't think anyone is literally arguing that rape is good and its okay that Homer's Calypso did that, nor are they saying that to any victims in their life. And if they are, obviously thats bad. But people just enjoying this character isn't.

May I just point out that calypso is apologising (no matter how backwards it comes off ) only when Odysseus was finally freed by someone else from her.

And that until then she was still actively pushing Odysseus’ Boundaries??

Lighter mot or no she kept this man against his will for seven years. And she didn’t GROW UP on that island. She had a life before that— that led her to be trapped by the gods.

Like she IS a sympathetic and tragic character but let’s not act like she’s innocent.

“for seven years she kept you against your will”

THIS DAMN LINE. LISTEN. BLOODY LISTEN TO IT ALL. DONT PICK WHAT YOU CHOOSE.

There’s a REASON people don’t have an issue with Circe. Are happy to see her as a FRIEND to Odysseus. CALYPSO IS NOT THE SAME CASE.

[reydarcy]

The Hand Touch™ Masterpost

To take a hold of another’s hand is to break from living individually. It is to link yourself to another being, to momentarily entwine your life with another’s, to promise, for a moment, that you need not face the world alone. (via whitneyjustesen)

Since the Hand Touch™ is arguably the best scene in all SW movies The Last Jedi I wanted to compile all my thoughts and interpretations on it. I apologise in advance if I repeat something that’s already been said before (feel free to add any similar post in the caption). 

Let’s start by describing what let up to this moment, shall we:

The Hand Touch™ via ForceTime - What happened beforehand

The Force Bond

One of the main motifs of The Last Jedi is the connection that the force created between our two love birds Kylo Ren/Ben Solo and Rey. 

According to Wookiepedia a force bond is “a mental link between two Force-sensitive individuals, [that allows them] to see and hear each other from separate locations through the Force.”

In the novelization of The Last Jedi Rey describes their force bond as follows: 

The connection between them was so raw and powerful that it reminded her of touching a live wire in the wreckage of a starship. (p. 181)

Although Kylo Ren’s and Rey’s force bond isn’t the first force bond (Count Dooku and Yoda being another example) it is extraordinary how strong their bond is. Not only are they able to see and hear each other across the galaxy, but they can also cough get wet, when it rains where the other one is...

(Source: skysilencer)

... and physically touch each other. They touch hands, while being miles and miles away from each other - and Kylo Ren actually gets momentarily transported to Ach-To, where Rey is. We know this, because when they previously saw each other via force bond nobody but Rey was able to see Kylo Ren (e.g. Luke). But when they touch hands, Luke walks into Rey's hut and catches them in bed cough. 

Rey tentatively raised her hand towards his, expecting to see their hands go through each other and wondering if she would feel it in the Force somehow. But their fingers actually touched. She grasped his hand, jolted by contact, and saw that the same shock had gone through him. Luke Skywalker walked into the hut - to find Rey and Kylo with their hands clasped, staring into each other’s eyes. (p. 181)

(Source: Journal of the Star Wars)

He gets so angry, that he destroys the hut - which he wouldn't have done if he would have seen Rey merely reaching out to nobody. 

The Cave on Ach-To & The Cave of Evil

Prior to their conversation in the hut, Rey had gone to the cave on Ach-to to explore the darkness that had called out to her whilst she was channeling the force in her first jedi lesson with Luke. She experienced something similar to Luke’s vision in the Cave of Evil on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back.  

(Source: ign) Young Luke had to enter said Cave as part of his jedi training with Yoda. The latter described the Cave of Evil as follows: "That place… is strong with the dark side of the Force. A domain of evil it is. In you must go." (Wookiepedia) The jedi master not only challenged his padawan to face his fears, but also to face the dark side of the force. 

Just as with Rey’s cave scene, there’s more to it than meets the eye.  

A very insightful article on the official Star Wars website describes the cave as “[...] a powerful symbol of what lies beneath the surface”. Philosophically speaking it’s also “[...] a metaphorical journey into the window of one’s inner self”. Both Luke and Rey explore what lies beneath the surface - they try to get a deeper understanding of both themselves and the force. 

According to the article the metaphor was used in classical mythology, such as Homer’s Odyssey, where the hero Odysseus “finds himself trapped with the beautiful goddess, Kalypso, as well as the Cyclops, Polyphemus. Odysseus faces both fantasy and fear, respectively, and has opportunities to learn from the experiences”. This translates well to our heroes Luke and Rey. 

Both seek answers (Who am I? Where do I belong?) and need to get in touch with their past - their parents, respectively (Luke's father Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader; Rey’s abandonment by her parents) in order to find them. 

The Force Awakens left many fans wondering about Rey’s heritage. They came into The Last Jedi, expecting to find answers - just like Rey herself. Rian Johnson wanted to see what lies beneath the surface, so he digged deeper - unlike many fans, who were so focused on Rey’s parents.

Rian’s hero Rey, explores her past and future self, and how they’re all connected to each other: 

(Source: Star Wars) 

At first, what they both see is what’s on the surface. 

(Source: Wookiepedia)

Luke has to face Darth Vader. His father (but at this point Luke doesn’t know that). 

(Source: katarainspace)

Rey is searching for her identity. And the mirror shows her the silhouette of her parents (her past) and then Ben Solo (her future).  

(Source: instantstar)

But in the end, Rey’s and Luke’s revelation is the same. It’s all about self-discovery. That’s what lies beneath the surface.

(Source: Star Wars)

(Source: Star Wars)

Rian Johnson explained in an interview:

And so the idea was if the up top is the light, down underneath is the darkness. And she descends down into there and has to see, just like Luke did in the cave, her greatest fear. And her greatest fear is [that], in the search for identity, she has nobody but herself to rely on. (via hiddenremote)

The article goes on to explain that ��due to the overbearing presence of the Dark side at Dagoba, Luke envisioned the worst version of himself. However, due to the balance at Ahch-To, although Rey faced her worst fear, she ended up relieving herself from the burden of searching for her parents.”

So whilst her loneliness at first appears to burden Rey furthermore, it actually frees her of her past. Just like Kylo said “You have to let the past die.”. Up until this point, she’s still stuck in the past. Although she left Jakku behind, she didn’t leave her past behind. She needs to learn to stop waiting for her parents to come back.

But this revelation is hard for Rey to accept. She’s afraid and lonely, and she wants to talk to the one person, who’ll understand her feelings. 

Curtain up for The Hand Touch Scene 

Kylo listened intently, his long face impassive, as she told him about being drawn into the cave and into the stone, and how the journey had let to nothing, no revelation, except how alone she was. (p. 181)

They are both really emotional and vulnerable. Rey opens up to Kylo, and he listens to her. He cares about what she has to say and knows that all that she needs is someone to be there for her - someone to talk to. 

She talks to him, because he knows the pull to the dark side and he understands what it’s like to actually explore it, instead of repress it (like Luke urges her to do). 

But there is something else that is important: They both know what loneliness feels like. 

This is perhaps the single most important aspect of their relationship. That’s what makes this scene so powerful. It establishes their deep understanding. Both of them have suffered abandonment. Before The Last Jedi it seemed to most people like those two had nothing in common - that they were polar opposites even. But this scene marks a turning point. Not only do they physically touch each other - they touch each other emotionally as well. 

“You’re not alone,” he insisted, and she believed him.

“Neither are you. It isn’t too late.” (p. 181)

... and that’s when Rey reaches out to him. She doesn’t want them to be alone anymore. 

The various meanings of The Hand Touch

Sex

Let’s start with the obvious: 

If you haven’t heard of Rian Johnson calling the Hand Touch Scene “the closest thing we’ll get to a sex scene in a Star Wars movie” you’re either new to the Reylo community or new to the internet in general, because it literally

broke the internet

(Source: punkbitchreylo, full video: sleemo)

The sexual imagery is something many people have commented on already - but for the director to remark on this topic - now that’s a whole different topic. Rian Reylo Johnson intended the scene to be intimate and erotic. 

With everything else one could argue that it’s all up to interpretation and that maybe we interpret a little too much into everything (although I believe that everything in a movie is indeed intentional and often has multiple layers to it) but this is very blunt. FOR EVERYONE IN THE BACK: There. is. sexual. chemistry. between. Ben. and Rey. 

Even Mark Hamill has come out and commented on Rian’s remark. Although this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Mark isn’t necessarily discrete in interviews ;) 

(Source: pixelrey)

What makes this interpretation even more interesting is the fact that Ben takes off his gloves for the Hand Touch aka. Sex - so they’re basically having unprotected sex (I see Skywalker babies on the horizon). 

Before I move on to the next topic, it’d like to recommend something to anyone who’d like to learn more about the sexual imagery in The Last Jedi: The lovely girls over at starwarsconnection made a great video essay about Sex in The Last Jedi & @skysilencer​ posted a great meta on the issue as well. 

Rey makes the first move

(Source: rougeone/useramy)

(Source)

She can take care of her own, she’s done so her whole life. She get’s annoyed when Finn treats her like a damsel in distress, by taking her hand and therefore undermining her independence. Ben on the other hand respects her as his equal. And he waits for her to make the first move. She’s an independent, strong-willed women and he respects that. But she also waits for him to accept her hand. She doesn’t force it. So when they touch, it’s consensual. When we transfer this to the sexual context - it means that their sex was consensual. 

Opening up to each other

When Rey reaches out to Ben in the hut - she’s opening herself up to him. Ben shows his trust as well. They’re out in the open - they show their feelings unapologetically. They don’t hold back. It’s like they’re standing naked in front of each other. 

(Source)

Rey shows a steady hand. She trusts him completely. This is surprising to me - she’s the one who’s always lashed out. But I feel like she wants to belong so bad - that she’s very trusting. 

(Source: reyloshionship)

Ben on the other hand is shaking. To me he’d always seemed more steady and on terms with everything that was happening between them. He’s so calm around her. 

I guess it takes a lot for him to open up to someone. He’s got major trust issues. But who could blame him - after all his parents passed him on to Luke, because they were afraid of their own son, and Luke (almost literally) stabbed him in the back.

Not alone anymore

(Source: pixelrey)

As I’ve said before loneliness is an important aspect of their relationship - and it’s really important in this scene as well. After Rey’s experience in the cave, she’s very lonely. Ben get’s that. He’s lonely as well. So that’s one reason why they approach each other - to finally not be alone anymore.  

The gloves

Kylo’s mask is his armour - his protection. By putting it on he distanced himself from his past, from his family and he created his new dark persona Kylo Ren. 

(Source: pixelrey)

In The Force Awakens he wore his armour almost the entire time - he was Kylo Ren. The only time when he took of his mask was to talk to Rey. He opened up to her. 

In The Last Jedi this facade begins to crumple. He sheds his skin. At first he destroys his mask and then he takes off his gloves to touch her. The gloves are part of his armour. By wearing gloves he doesn’t touch anyone directly. But he wants to be able to feel Rey’s hand. He undresses himself (figuratively speaking). He peels off, layer after layer - because he wants to connect to Rey on a deeper level, she touches him to his core. 

(Source: driveresque) 

Compare this to the throne room scene where he reaches out to her, with his gloves still on.

Some people separate Kylo Ren and Ben Solo. So I can imagine they perceive those two scenes somewhat like this: 

(Source: spacemakeouts)

I however, disagree with this separation of character. He’s both personas. Everyone has a light and a dark side in them. Loving someone means accepting both the good and the bad qualities about the other one. That’s what both Rey and Ben have to come to terms with in Episode 9. 

And I know that darthrenvan (and everyone who liked/reblogged the post) is with me on this one. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care what you believe and how you interpret everything - to each their own. I just wanted to express my interpretation. 

Foreshadowing & Redemption

Rey reaches out to help Ben Solo. She wants to redeem him, bring him home - to the light. Rey still thinks Black and White. He’s on the dark side and needs to be brought back to the Light. 

The force flows through them, wants them to be near each other, brings them closer to one another - which is expressed through the Force Theme, that can be heard in the scene. The force stands for destiny. 

He reaches out, because he doesn’t want them to be alone anymore (”You’re not alone” - meaning he wants them be together, he wants her to join him). As we’ll later see - he’s moved on from the Black and White to a sort of Grey Area. That’s where he sees them both - neither on the Light, nor on the Dark side. 

But they’re approaching it from different stand points. That’s the reason why they’ll interpret the visions they both get whilst touching each other differently, and that’s ultimately the reason why their conversation after the throne room fight plays out the way it does. 

However, it also foreshadows a possible redemption after this misunderstanding causes their opposing standpoints to clash. The way I see it the Hand Touch Scene foreshadows how Rey’s the one who’ll initiate Ben’s Redemption in Episode IX, but it’s Ben who has to decide to redeem himself, by (figuratively) taking her hand. That’s also why she leaves him at the end of The Last Jedi. She understands that it’s up to him. That she did all she could, but that ultimately it’s up to him to save himself. 

If you’ve made it this far: Thank you so much for reading my post. Please feel free to leave a reply - i’d love to hear your thoughts. 

Further Reading: There’s an amazing text post by reyloisthelastjedi that explores the various meanings of the hand touch scene. It talks about different aspects than the ones I’ve expressed, so it’s a great addition to my post.  

P.S. I’m still pissed that they didn’t choose this take for the movie:

(Source: skyloren)

[heartofaquamarine]

The Simpsons, Parody, Satire, Strong and Weak Characterisation and passing references to James Joyce’s Ulysses.

A while back I had small seed of an idea, created by, suitably, watching two episodes of the sadly ended PBS Idea Channel back to back. The first was “Is Homestuck the Ulysses’ of the Internet?” and the second was “A Love Letter To The Simpsons”.

At the time, I was reading an annotated copy of Ulysses, and one of the things that struck me was the meaning behind the name of the book. Joyce, it seems, was obsessed by the level of detail that the mythological Ulysses (or Odysseus) is portrayed in Homer’s (not the yellow one, the poet) Odyssey, calling him the only fully realized character in literature. This is what gives the novel its name; Joyce is trying to examine a different, contemporary (at least to him) character in as much detail as his mythological counterpart, and it appeared to me that we have another modern piece of art that performs a similar function.

(My apologies if the theme song is now in your head)

Obviously, no individual episode of the Simpsons fills this function, but taken as a whole series there are two factors that I think allow it to. The first is of course the length of the series, but the second one I think is the fluidity of the characters. The Simpsons are caricatures, but they are not consistent caricatures. Homer is, depending on the episode, a loving, if not particular bright, family man, a layabout slob, a hard line anti-intellectual, an abusive drunk, or a depressed man in a bad situation. Lisa can be a tiny crusader with no regards to others, a desperately lonely child, a super intelligent little girl, a mischievous little minx or a fairly standard school child with friends and a love of toys and cartoons. I wouldn’t say that the Simpsons provides any characters that Joyce would argue as well rounded, but rather that we are shown multiple cartoon portraits of each character (well, the main cast at least), which we can then deflate back to a central characterisation. This ballooning of character traits in theory allows the series to have its cake and eat it as well; outsized characterisation for when it is needed to make the jokes it is trying to make, and an underlying character that provides the backbone of the series and allows it to pull off the more emotional elements when needed.

An important consequence of this, and one I feel that is obvious but is important enough to restate, is that for the Simpsons, characterisation is a consequence of the direction of the comedy they are attempting. The Simpsons began life less as satire of the real world, but as a parody of what was then the default model of sitcom’s; a family ruled over by an intelligent and loving father figure. The Simpsons flipped this around for everyone, with the possible exception of Marge. Homer is a buffoon, Bart has no respect for authority, and Lisa is the forgotten middle child who legitimately had something to say. As Dan Olsen in his Folding Ideas video on Homer points out, this is one of the reasons why Homer’s personality changes so much for the worse as time goes on. He is still attempting to parody sitcom fathers, but now those fathers are, as often as not, parodies or copies of himself, dragging him further and further away from his starting point. There has been efforts to reverse this (most notably the Movie, which is entirely focused on Homer trying to redeem his character), but his core characterisation has undeniably changed over the years.

I bring up the difference between parody and satire for a reason. These are obviously related forms of comedy; parody is simply satire applied to works of fiction rather than reality, but I think there is a bigger difference than that. Satire is bigger than parody, just because what it aims at is real life, not self contained pieces of fiction (it’s also far more inherently political, since creating satire itself gives a message about reality, and yes, satirising “both sides” equally is still creating a message that both sides are terrible). A lot of the best Simpsons episodes operate as parody that has elements of satire; Homer the Heretic is a good example. While the episode definitely contains elements satirising religion, the majority of the actual comedy is entirely character and parody based; its Homer having a great time not going to Church, with the ending twist about the importance of religion in making people do good. Any satire on religion is brought down to the level of the (let’s face it, pretty small and petty) characters. A lot of the worst Simpsons episodes respond the other way; they keep what they are satirising the same size and weight, but inflate the characters up to that size and importance, past what they can actually fit into. That’s not just a knock on latter sessions either; I legitimately loved the episode “Homer Goes To Prep School” which satirised doomsday preppers by a.) having the apocalypse be localised and not really that bad and b.) not actually showing what happened, just the aftermath where everything is fine, instead focusing on Homer and the preppers, but there has been a noticeable shift from character based parody to satire as the show goes on.

And on. And on.

One problem that a lot of really long running series have is their ability to keep commenting on the real world while the real world itself changes rapidly around them. A good example of this is comic books, particularly ones like DC and Marvel which try to keep everything not directly related to superheroes as it is currently, at least in the main lines. This causes a few issues, such as characters like Reed Richards and Tony Stark seeming to be unable to actually use their tech in a productive way on a social scale outside of beating up bad guys, but to be honest I think that one of the biggest issues is that, and I mean this in the fairest way I can, satirists are not really on the cutting edge of most things.

Satire is inherently a reaction based form of art. It requires something to be satirised and to make good satire, you need to have at least some knowledge about what you are trying to satire. For a mass market audience you also need to be able to express that satire in terms that the audience will get. Not necessarily all the jokes or riffs need to be obvious, but most of the audience need to be nodding their head most of the time. Ideally you want them to be laughing at what you are satirising, not with, because that’s how you get “totally ironic” Nazis and Peter Griffin.

The problem is that this requires the writers to have a fair wider knowledge and interest base than they actually practically have. South Park is a really good example of this; Parker and Stone’s best work is usually base either around religion or parodying stories, because that is where their interests and understanding respectively appear to be. The worst South Park episodes are usually the ones that are created within two weeks based on the most surface level understanding of the circumstances. It is this surface level understanding, I think, that is why they fall back on “both sides are bad” so much; it is easier to just aim at the most visible positions on an issue than to actually dive into it, and South Park’s incredibly short episode production schedule just doesn’t give you that time.

The Simpsons has the same problem, and it has gotten worse over time as the world changes. This is most visible I think in any episode involving technology; I can’t think of a single Mapple (get it? Like Apple, but so they won’t get sued!) joke that actually lands in the entire series, but you can also see it in how they have struggled to keep up with the changing tastes of young people, both for Bart and for Lisa (although the one where Bart gets into a game where you summon plastic monsters by rolling balls is pretty good). The episode about participation trophies is especially bad at this; it is basically a full 24 minute rant about kids today getting too many trophies.

Basically what I’m trying to say is that sometimes satire doesn’t land because it isn’t being taken seriously enough.

Strong and Weak Characterisation: The Tragedy of Barney Gumble.

Another weakness of the fluid characterisation of the show emerges from how the show uses its characters episode to episode. Let’s talk about the difference between strong and weak characterisation.

Suppose we are dealing with a scene. A guard enters the royal throne room, and announces the arrival of a prince. If the story is focused on the prince, then the prince will usually have strong characterisation. He will have motivations, fears, weaknesses, some kind of tragic flaw perhaps, or a backstory. Conversely, while the guard is a character, that character is weak; limited to perhaps a remark about the condition of their armour. They are a character but their role in the story only needs to explore the full depths of them sticking their head in the door and announcing the prince (you could have had it the opposite way around; the prince is random noble #194 and the guard is a Sam Vimes style protagonist). The level of characterisation is set by the story.

As an aside, this is what is meant by people wanting strong female characters. It isn’t just a case of stories about physically strong action heroines, but it's about telling stories where the strong characterisation is given to female characters. An important thing to remember when analysing stories on a social meta level, as you do when talking about trends and widespread failings, is that while you might argue a story calls for a certain spread of strengths of characterisations, ultimately the choice of what story to tell falls on the author, and so the question then becomes why the author chose the particular spread of characterisations they did. This even applies to stories based on real life; Hamilton the Musical notably had its subplot about slavery that ran through several songs mostly removed. You could, absolutely, make a musical that made that a core part of the narrative.

Anyway, back to the Simpsons. I feel the best characters to examine how the Simpsons use varying strengths of characterisation are Homer’s two foils; Ned Flanders and Barney Gumble. Both represent things Homer could be; Ned is the devoted family man and hard worker, while Barney is an alcoholic wreck.

Famously, Ned lent his name to the trope Flanderization, where one aspect of a character becomes increasingly blown out of proportion until they become nothing more than a cartoon of that one trait. While I think this happened to a degree with Ned, the shift is not a uniform one, and the extent it happens depends on the strength of characterisation given to Ned by any given episode.

Ned started off as a parody within a parody. The Flanders are exactly the same kind of sitcom family the show was created to lampoon, allowing them to loop back around and comment on their own commentary. Over time however, the aim of the show shifted and it became more focused on attempting political satire, mainly from a left wing, fairly atheistic stance. Ned, who had previously been established as a keen church goer, was now the go to example of a hardcore creationist right wing christian, with his sons, Rodd and Todd, getting increasingly more coddled and cowardly.

Except that...here’s the thing. The original Ned was still there...but mainly in episodes that have him as a major character focus, where he has strong characterisation. Some episodes, like season 12′s I’m Going To Praiseland are far more focused on his grief at the loss of his wife, while others focus on his relationship with Homer and the coddling of his kids. A lot of the religious fanatic Ned, with the exception of The Monkey Suit in season 17, comes not from his moments of strong characterisation, but his moments of weak characterisation, when he is used as a one off gag in the episode, such as him taking Rodd and Todd into a bomb shelter upon hearing Lisa is a Buddhist.  

The show itself treats each incarnation of Ned as essentially his own character, not just in the treehouse of horror episodes, but as viewers we build our characterisation of him based on all the appearances we see. Strong characterisation and weak characterisation for the same character, all mixed in a blender.

I actually think Barney’s characterisation history is a lot worse than Ned’s. Another one of the factors that allows The Simpsons to be so long running is its ability to snap back to a default state after every episode. Kid’s get stranded on a deserted island in Das Bus? Get rescued by, oh, I don’t know, let’s say, Moe. Homer loses his job? He will get his job back. Ect ect ect. This snap back is actually really important for the longevity of the series since it means episodes can be shown in any order and you don’t need to have tuned in to the previous 27 series to understand what’s going on.

The big exception to this tends to be character relationships. Apu doesn’t snap back to being a bachelor after Manjula is introduced (although given that the writers don’t seem to have a clue what to do with her...), Skinner and Krabappel had an ongoing relationship subplot until she ended up with Ned (which then tragically was cut short by the real life death of Edna’s voice actress, Marcia Wallace) and Comic Book Guy’s girlfriend/wife Kumiko remains after her introductory episode and seriously Simpsons writers could we stop with the continued introduction of (usually designed to be attractive) female characters who are partnered with existing, usually non-classically attractive male characters and then receive little characterisation outside the nagging wife stereotype? I mean, seriously, this is a recurring problem with the series, how it handles adult female characters, particularly ones in a relationship, and it isn’t one that I see brought up in those lists about why the Simpsons has stopped being funny or whatever. Marge has always had the weakest characterisation of the main Simpsons, and is the one least changed from her original sitcom counterparts; the difference is that she’s married to Homer instead of Ned, most other character beats are kept the same unless she is needed to have a one episode vice like gambling or road rage and gaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.

Okay, hold onto that paragraph, since it's worth exploring in more detail but this post is already getting overly long, so I guess look forward to a second Simpsons meta on how it handles marriage, women and the fact that of the writer’s credited for writing 10 or more episodes of the series only two are women so okay that might be another long one.

Anyway. Back to what I was saying.

A piece of character development they tried to keep around was Barney Gumble going sober. He cleaned up his act and started to rebuild his life. I actually really liked sober Barney; for one thing it was an actual ongoing character arc, and for another it meant that he now contrasted comedically better with Homer, who is eternally stagnant. This did mean that the position of Homer’s negative foil, what he could be if things went wrong, was open, but we have plenty of characters around for that. Moe, for instance.

Actually Moe could be another instance of a character who’s characterisation got steadily weaker and based entirely around how horrible his life is as time goes on...it is really easy to get sidetracked with the Simpsons, they have such a huge cast of characters and they are so bad at actually using them...seriously why haven’t we had an episode exploring Lisa or Marge’s fair weather friendship with the other existing female cast?

Anyway, going back to the male cast members since I want to actually finish this post before starting a new one on how the Simpsons handles women, the status quo is God, so Barney returned to being a drunk, specifically because it was more difficult to come up with jokes for him. And while I understand why this would be an issue for comedy writers, to be honest it has always been kind of disappointing for me to see.

The Simpsons has always suffered from desperately trying to keep up with the times while not allowing itself to actually change with them. If, as I stated above, the Simpsons works best when it is a character driven parody with satirical elements shrunk down to fit into character’s lives, then of course it will be unable to properly satire an ever changing world with a static cast who are distorted into the roles a particular episode needs them to be. By the same token though, it can’t just continue onwards with the current model of allowing the characters to simply drift without a core characterisation that is deliberately changed. The factors that allow the Simpsons to survive so long are also what is killing the series, and that’s just sad.

[streetcartoonist]

Xenophanes

Xenophanes was born in Colophon, a city in Ionia, during the sixth century BCE. The dating of his life is not exact however in his surviving fragments he referred to the Greco-Persian war as an event that occurred in his life while Heraclitus referred to him the past tense. This gives us a window of when he probably lived. Like other Ionic Greek speaking people, he would have been aware of the Milesian school and foreign sciences such as Egyptian geometry and Babylonian astronomy. However, these are not the topics he is known for addressing. When Xenophanes was relocated, he went to what is now Sicily and later to what is now southern Italy, Elea to be exact. This is rather similar to what Pythagoras did and Xenophanes did in fact live around the same time that he did. Despite these similarities, there is no reason to think that the two thinkers met. Pythagoras was famous within his own life time and it would be fair to argue that at least Xenophanes knew of him. It is also important to recall that the Orphic mystery religion was influential in this region at the time. Little is known about Xenophanes and there is some speculation as to why that is, Aristotle did not like Xenophanes and said he was more of a theological theorist rather than a student of nature. Despite the fact that Xenophanes’s fragments indicate his interest in topics such as nature. Aristotle basically said he wasn’t a philosopher and was incredibly dismissive of his ideas. Xenophanes was incredibly unpopular in his own time as well, when you consider what his main tenants were this does not come as a surprise.

Imagine rural Texas, a place where there are people who are quite religious and really enjoy sports such as football. The culture of some towns in rural Texas revolve around the church and the local sports teams. Now imagine the kind of person who not only mocks these beliefs but claims his beliefs are better. This is the kind of person that Xenophanes was, and I hope the analogy sheds light on just how breath takingly unpopular he was. Xenophanes was an ardent critic of Greek religion and in some respects, he was a critic of the Greek ideal and culture at large. Comparing Greek athletics to Texan’s love of football does not do justice to how much the Greeks valued athleticism. Achilles, the hero of the Iliad, was often considered the ideal person and he was a warrior as well as a talented athlete. Odysseus was also a remarkably gifted archer. The high value on athleticism went beyond the poems of Hesiod and Homer, by the time of Xenophanes the ancient Olympics had been occurring for over two hundred years. I cannot emphasize enough how important religion and sports were in Greek life. Xenophanes criticized all of this.

Although Aristotle would say that Xenophanes was not a philosopher, he would not contest that he was a theologian and a poet. Philologists have been able to accurately determine if a fragment is a quote directly from Xenophanes or merely a paraphrased segment because of his poetic writing style. Xenophanes tended to write in hexameters and iambic trimeters. Directly from the fragments we know that the chief criticism that Xenophanes had of the Greek mythos was that people’s gods look a lot like they do. The gods of the Ethiopians looked Ethiopian, the gods of the Thracians looked Thracian, and the Greek gods sure looked Greek. He went so far as to claim that if horses had gods that they would look like horses. The significance and meaning behind these statements were not lost to the Greek people of the day. They understood that Xenophanes was questioning the validity of their beliefs. It could even be argued that he meant the poems of Hesiod and Homer were not ancient truths but the ramblings of ordinary men.

Xenophanes himself is reported to have been a monotheist, and from this, contemporary scholars have concluded that his criticism of the epic poets was not rooted in a criticism in supernatural belief but particularly anthropomorphizing God. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out that Xenophanes took particular issue with the gods being portrayed as profane and having flawed character like ordinary men. The idea that the supreme deity of the universe would cheat on his spouse and then lash out in anger at getting caught was especially profane. Xenophanes believed that God was good and above the flaws of humankind.

Although many writers state that Xenophanes was a monotheist, this is a contested point in history. Despite the fact that it would have been unusual for a Greek to have been a monotheist, monotheism was not an unusual idea at this point in history. The Persians who were typically practitioners of the Zoroastrian religion were monotheists, and an Ionian like Xenophanes would have a higher likelihood of encountering their ideas. Also, the second temple era of the Jewish religion was developed at this point, the diaspora in Babylon ended with Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great’s reign, and the second temple period was prominently monotheistic. Some alternatives to the monotheistic view of Xenophanes would be that he supported a particular brand of Greek religion or that he was an atheist. I think that it is unlikely he was an atheist because later philosophers were atheists and writers of the time took significant note of it. The absence of mentioning that Xenophanes was an atheist would indicate that he is not an atheist.

Despite the contention in scholarship over the exact beliefs of Xenophanes it is clear that his outright criticism of Greek culture was new for his time and paved the way for future thinkers like Socrates or Epicurus whose beliefs went further in thinking critically about what people believed. The Milesian School, Pythagoreanism, and the beliefs of Heraclitus each marked a departure from normative thought in their day. But none of them went so far as Xenophanes.

[katerinaaqu]

On it definitely is. Like I said about 90% accurate. There are times they follow the Odyssey almost line for line. They do change things (for example like I said I believe, they place the Laestrygonians before Polyphemus because of budget I would expect for they couldn't make 12 ships for the shots) also they do not show Skylla and Charybdis unfortunately but again my guess goes on budget and their capabilities (it IS 1960s after all no cgi available). They also take some liberties that seem conscious for example the discus competition was focused on a sword fight in Phaeakes Island to show how Odysseus is still absorbed at war and such. But overall I argue is the best Odyssey retelling there is and Bekim Fehmiou is amazing! Quite honest I could never imagine someone topping the classic 1950s version of the Odyssey in the sirens scenes till I saw Fehmiu! The guy just gave it all! And yes both the brief history of the location as well as the Greek theater additions made it amazing! And the way they used amazing chorus singing for the Pylos scene remains in my mind forever!

Well I see it more as a Neverending circle. They start on by wishing to change stuff for the sakes of changing (like I said I feel we changed the word "retelling" so much that we feel that a retelling should be totally unrecognizable when compared to original lol) and then the creators realize that the rest makes no sense so they have no choice but change it more and more. And yes of course feministic ideas and all...tale as old as time now...

Not at all. It's a pleasure. Of course like I said do not hesitate! Sorry it took me so long to answer your last ask by the way.

(Yeah I am not expecting anything now which is why I am not really interested to follow it. I do listen to some songs on occasion because sometimes I get pleasantly surprised like the last moments of "love in paradise" where I went into a "fucking finally!" Mode due to the fact we have had SOMETHING that matches the Odyssey but yeah apart from that I do not expect much... I know it is already warped as you brilliantly stated)

PS: Also oh my goodness I believe I have left out the second part of your initial answer! I am so sorry! I will answer it now!

PREV STUFF=>About Paris the musical, YEAAHH I love Patroclus too <3 it's the first time I see him being represented not as a passive character but as a fighter, which is honeslty so refreshing!! I mean he's a fighter too AND older, people can stop making him the pure innocent guy protected always by Achilles, PLEASE (again, I have a funny feeling Patroclus' character was shaped in the internet view by Madeline's retelling in TSOA)

Also I don't know why they made Odysseu not belive in gods, but what I've gathered in my research, is that technically there's a stage version of Paris in which the events take place In a rlatively modern setting? Which would explain why the gods are pretty much absent in the musical, apart for some very small parts from Aphrodite, amd why many characters question the gods so much. But I can't say for sure because sadly I've not found much information about it.

Also business is one of my favourite songs too!! It's just so fun to listen, and it's exactly for the reason you said, there are many people many interactions, and it's very true to the real thing! Just a man is also a peak choice, I honestly really like this variant of the myth of Astianax, it fits very well for Odysseus! (I personally knew another version which if I remember correctly was introduced to me in high school, in which Andromacae had to give herself as slave in order to save Astianax, but in the end the Greeks killed them both, if I remember correctly, but this one has so much more angst potential for Odysseus, so I'm good haha)

Anyways, after this long as fuck rant (sorry haha) I gotta say that a positive side we can take from the creation of these musicals is the fact that they're spreading the original myths and many are actually reading the Iliad or Odyssey because of them (I'm one of them and I've definetly convinced multiple of my friends ti read the Odyssey haha) and also many creator are mixing the original myth in these stories more and more.

Thanks for answering my questions and satisfying my curiosity! I didn't know that you got targeted because of your opinion on Epic, so I hope that me asking doesn't actually bring more bad attention or anything TwT.

Lastly, I wanted to ask, have you found some modern media about ancient greek myths that you like? And also, if you'd like to talk more about Eurylochus character and why you like I'd be glad to hear! He's one of my favourite characters in Epic, so again, I'm just curious to hear your toughts.

Thanks again for answering me!! ^^

I absolutely agree! Patroclus in Paris the Musical was a masterpiece! The way he has a fighter's atttude is exactly the Patroclus we need! Yes Patroclus was also extremely gentle in the Iliad (so are many other characters) but yes nothing ike this meek things we get in modern day media like TSOA and all (for real though! I mean the kid murdered someone because he lost at a game as a kid! He is NOT some poor innocent baby who wants protection! He is a strong complicated character!)

Like I said on Odysseus my money falls on the fact that usually clever or intelligent characters are portrayed as agnostic in modern day media aka "I have logic and don't believe in these stuff" but yes Odysseus not only was extremely religeous but he also talked to gods in person! I believe that in order to achieve the thing they did they left the gods outside the narrative similarly to the movie "Troy" but yes I think it is the usual stereotype of intelligent characters in media being agnostic.

Yup! I also loved the chaotic feeking of "Business" and they even included the moans of disapproval or nods of approval and the hums in the background making it very realistic indeed Well I am more on the version of Neoptolemus killing the baby instead (which is why I also had some random ideas of Odysseus "taking the blame" in my stories) but yes I really loved that part with the musical (another reason I was disappointed with the rest of it) Really? Don't remember that version. Andromache basically by general agreement she would end up a slave anyways because that was how things were done in ancient greek literature.

As you notice I simply LOVE this kind of long runts myself! Hahahaha! Oh as I said I absolutely agree. If people get inspired to read them I absolutely am about that! (hehehe great!)

It was my pleasure! Hehehe well "being targeted" is a strong word! Hahaha basically like I said I have had my page swarmed with comments or questions like the ones you saw, aka why I cannot see them as different and such. Another outcome that happened to my page which I suspect is related to that is that many commenters and reblogs I had in the past from certain people have stopped because I am openly expressing my dislike to the musical and possibly became disagreeable or annoying to them. Like I used to get reblogs t my stories but not anymore by some people so I suspect that is the reason No worries at all! If there was an issue for me I wouldn't have answered you! ^_^

Oh I believe I have partially answered that but I am open for more!

Oh absolutely I would love to discuss Eurylochus in general from Odyssey till the character development in media! ^_^

Hello!!

Since I've seen that you've listened to both Epic and Paris the musical, I was curious to know what are your toughts on them! Did you like how the myths and characters where handled? What do you like best and worst? (If you'd like to share, what's your favourite song/moment in each?)

Thanks :]

My my you really wanna get me have an even bigger target on my back than the one I put already! Hahaha! Ok so be it! Hahaha If this gets waaaaaay too long or too runty forgive me! ^_^

You have noticed from many of my comments and my notifications, memes or jokes. I am not a fan of EPIC. Not at all. I believe I am one of the most disliked people on Tumblr on mythology matters because I so openly speak my dislike against EPIC and being annoying about it! Hahaha! XD The thing I absolutely love about it is of course the guy's passion with the project, the way the music works and all (undoubtedly the guy is a very talented composer and can combine the scene with music and emotions and the tricks he uses with music are great) but the way the plot of Odyssey was twisted beyond recognition and to the point that to me you can literally change the names of the characters to anything else and still have the story he presents with the Musical. Maybe that was his goal but in my head that is not what a retelling or an adaptation is about. A retelling to me is not something that seeks to change literally as much as possible from the plot to fit the modern standards or the fanbase. A retelling is something as the word says that "retells the story" aka adapts the story as loyally as possible and adapts it to the audinece by taking creative liberties that are still generic to the story as it was originally told so that it will fit more to the modern standards or ear.

I believe we have so much twisted the word "retelling" that nowadays "retelling" seems to be equivalent to "let's change the hell out of the story because the original plot is not even THAT important to be salvaged and no modern person would watch it anyways" which in my opinion is not the case at all. Unless of course one writes satire. Then it doesn't matter, as I mentioned to another ask of mine.

I lost interest and was massively disappointed from the end of second saga and the song "Storm". The first two sagas were a masterpiece. The creative liberties were amazing to make sense with the plot and give the characters motivation (for example "I'm just a man" was FANTASTIC! The way the myth from Iliou Persis that gave us only one phrase "Odysseus kills Astyanax by throwing him off the wall" is now transformed into a marvelous emotional dilemma and a painful decision). In this case the creative liberty work WITH the plot and not against it. I didn't mind it as much that they made Polites a fluffy guy for no reason to fit that stereotypical "innocence of the team" plot because Polites is a clean slate character in Odyssey. However after Storm I started seeing your typical "Hollywood film 'adaptation' logic with changing stuff at the plot". I was intrigued at how they decided to give Polyphemus an excuse to kill like the guys enter a cave that is obviously habitable and kill an animal that is obviously domesticated and they do not know someone lives there? In the original it was clear someone lived there which made Odysseus curious to interract with them. I was willing to ignore that because ok creative liberties but then Athena was there!? And she gave Odysseus every opportunity to kill him while Odysseus was just "TOO NICE?!" like since when? Odysseus was all about killing him but he had no guarantee he would plus he needed him to open the cave. And the way he revealed his name in the musical was so rush and almost "out of spite" for Athena not a result of a secclusion in a cave for days and days and then his pride speaking up when Polyphemus called him a coward (which I tried to capture to my fic, not sure if I succeeded but still). So anyways at that point I was sure we wouldn't see the last of it with the changes. Poseidon destroys the ships instead of the Laestrygonians (no surprise there, rarely ever see anyone even mention the Laestrygonians yet alone show their contribution to the Odyssey) but then Circe happened and I just knew that we would have to derail from the original more and more

Circe's role was incredibly diminished for the sakes of making her actions more mellow and pass the message of loyalty and kindness. Circe in the original gives Odysseus valid information for his trip provisions and much more. In Epic not only we do not see the importance of Odysseus selling himself to Circe and we have Circe for some reason seducing him to kill him (removing her humanity from when she got scared that her magic won't work on him, potentially thinking he is some kind of god, begging for her safety to then suggesting her bed as Hermes predicts) I mean she had lions and wolves to her disposal she doesn't need to seduce him to kill him. Then of course Jorge realized that a big chunk of plot is missing and so he made Odysseus find out about Skylla by the sirens?! Like...okay... Even Tiresias gives him almost nothing (in the original he also tells him how to break the curse) Which seems interesting how Odysseus breaks down with "Monster" in Tiresias when he has received an act of kindess before. Wouldn't it be more amazing if he had that breakdown AFTER he paid the price with Circe with his own body? That even kindess has a terrible price? Of course the most iconic scene of the Odyssey after the murder of the suitors and Cyclops, the Sirens were twisted to whatever we had there; Odysseus listening to their song was of massive importance to his natural curiocity and we didn't get that (not to mention how would the sirens spell work on him and have Penelope there if he didn't hear their song in the first place?) and of course the fact that he kills them?! Like...how that even works I have no idea and like in the original people were running for their lives. Didn't even look back. Apparently they had all the time in the world to capture them, they knew apparently exactly how many they were and then they kill them?! Like I won't even say that they used the medieval mermaid instead of the sirens and then they "leave them drown" (how you drown fish people is beyond me! Maybe they are sharks that need to keep moving lol) and of course again that scene seemed to me that it was there only to show that "Odysseus is a monster" which makes no sense Odyssey-wise for many reasons. and then of course again Skylla; Odysseus doesn't gear up to protect his men, he is the one who chooses the sacrifice out of spite etc etc

Many others got sped up like the Helios cattle but ok I guess that is expected up to one point even if it could be handled differently but of course then we have also Zeus being a jerk and again making Odysseus choose? The storm that took the lives of his men was a natural consequence, not some twisted thing to prove how "monstrous" Odysseus is. In fact Odysseus tried till the last moment to sail away and save the lives he could (see my other analysis here) and of course again as many people said on God Games and all how Zeus was twisted yet another time although in Odyssey he had zero reasons to object apart from the natural hubris nemesis sequence. He never called Odysseus "shameful" either. In fact he says he agrees with Athena that calls him the most pious.

I think the massive change that I believe is abused by modern retellings is the whole "monster to man" trope. Odysseus losing his moral compass and "becoming the monster" and the plot around revolving to it. That was never the pont of Odyssey in my opinion. Odysseus never really lost his moral compass it is just his morality was not all pure and lovey in the first place. Was he changed by his experiences to be more ruthless in general? Absolutely but he was never changed to a monster according to Homeric version (because post-homeric versions already treat him as a villain from the get-go)

As for the things I liked about it, I had made a post you can see here:

I do love the harmonies and the music in it and I love the passion and the talents of the people in it. It is just that the whole plot for me is just not it. Also maybe I am also mostly annoyed with how the "fandom logic" has taken over it. Like internet getting swarmed by it. Epic quotes or facts getting literally mixed up or associated with the original or the fact we can no longer speak on the original unless someone brings up Epic the Musical... This annoys me to no ends. Of course I recognize the passion of the fans of the musical. Is just a personal thing to me. I felt the same when people were using Percy Jackson or Miller's books to talk on mythology before. Is the same here.

Of course I need to say this all the above is my PERSONAL OPINION. I have literally NOTHING against people who love the musical and the original equally. I am just NOT one of them. Also i have nothing against the artist either. I just do not agree with his outtake. Still appreciate his hard work. However when I saw the firsttwo sagas I knew this guy KNEW his mythology which is why I feel so disappointed that his later sagas felt like "Hmm...let me use that knowledge I definitely have on Odyssey just to change the hell out of it!" And that had me very sad and lowkey annoyed because I think this guy had some real stuff to create an actual Odyssey adaptation and yet again we had your average hollywood film plot where you barely see any of the plot he ellegedly adapts

Now on Paris the Musical I had answered another ask you can see here

I will not take more space on this already huge and runty post that probably made me more annoying and irritating around Tumblr! XD Generally again has little to nothing to do with Iliad but I loved the music (it was arguably one of the most original choices for music for a musical) and the songs I mention to the ask. Apart from that I am ot ecstatic by it either (arguably stage musicals do not seem to work for me when it comes to the ancient classics to a large degree because of how much the plots need to be overly simplified to fit the time frame) but I am more happy that it din't get blasted out of proportions like Epic was so the plot of it doesn't even need to be pointed out that it is not accurate and all. It is self-evident. The fact that the creator of Epic needed to "warn the fans" on how inaccurate his work is, speaks volumes to me.

I will close this runt now because is already too long. I think both Epic and Paris musicals have little to nothing to do with the things they adapt but Ironically Paris the Musical changed less stuff than Epic in comparison to magnitude. Both are passionate projects with great potential and very good music but plot wise I am not anymore surprised that they do not follow the actual plots or character developments. I am surprised that Epic was more accurate to the character development of Eurylochus than the main protagonist Odysseus! Made me focus more on Eurylochus than Odysseus! Hahaha!

I am glad that the musicals make more people willing to read the originals though. For that I am grateful.

And if I have to pick one song from each musical I would say "Just a Man" and "Business" respectably but of course I like others as well especially from Epic such as "Horse and the Infant", "Will of the gods" and "Storm".

I hope this answers your questions! I will elaborate further on some of the points I make here if you want! ^_^

[jwbarkstrom-blog]

8/23: Gleick pages 1-50

In Nature Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Words are signs of natural facts.” Plato, on the other hand, describes words as “eternal characters which are no part of themselves” (30), far removed and abstracted from reality, and Gleick takes the side of Plato. Words, Gleick argues, “[permit] whole new architectures of information” (32) that are valuable not only for what they represent but also for their own inherent structure. Although words can be signs of natural facts Gleick shows that words and information are far more flexible than Emerson’s paradigm because they can build on themselves. Simply put, words can be meta. The word ‘definition,’ as a simple example, only has meaning because other words exist.

The structure, architecture, and flow of information matter just as much as the content. I was reminded of my presumably inadequate understanding of Wittgenstein, as I think he would argue that words do not say something in themselves; rather, the structure of words pieced together in context can show something. The chapter about African drums seems to further his (my?) point: the extra drumbeats providing context take language from ambiguity to a usable degree of precision; the drums show with the extra beats rather than say precisely what cannot be said. Words and other symbols only can exist as signs because of context—we take for granted being ‘shown’ because we have prior experience with words and a handy dictionary known as Google—and when symbols return to the ambiguity they once had when we were children, as in the example of the African drums only being able to represent tones, one realizes that showing through structure and “extra bits for disambiguation and error correction” (25) is necessary. That “single precious bit” (16) that has the possibility to convey information such as the fall of Troy as a Boolean data type, one or zero, fire or no fire, only ever has meaning in context. Context is the intrinsic meaning.

In my mind, context existed before writing only as a sort of present general consciousness, flowing around the world with the exchange of ideas. Now, however, past context has defeated the constraint of time through preservation in writing, giving it a very present effect on present context whenever one reads a book. For example, Shakespeare and its context still influences people and the contexts they live in today. The reader, reading something from the past, can also be influenced in his interpretation of the past by present context, leading to an unimaginably meta series of influences: the past influenced in interpretation by the present influences the present, which can then influence interpretation of the past. Is this generally understood idea of language of somewhat stupid when put in writing? Yes. Language is complicated as information. No one knows whether life imitates language more than language imitates life, despite what Oscar Wilde might think. When he said, “Life imitates art more than art imitates life,” he was just making a case for the neglected side of the argument. Language absolutely can be used to “structure experience” (36), but one is not necessarily above the other; rather, language and experience are deeply intertwined.

What does all of this influencing mean? Who knows, but if I were Odysseus and I found out I had been immortalized and that my story “belonged to anyone who heard the song” (28) of the muse, I would not cry. I would rejoice at being sewn into history. As the cliché goes, the rest (a guy named James Joyce made famous for writing a 1922 book bearing Odysseus’s namesake, for example) is history. Being a part of the flow of the world’s information, something alive in the world that still writes one’s consciousness into the consciousness of others—isn’t that everything?

Yes, as long as that ‘something’ is good. If you do something nice for someone, if you make someone feel loved and cared for to the point where they feel empowered to use what you have given them to love and care for others, then you may have changed the world for good infinitely. Everything you do that influences someone else, ever, has potential to indirectly influence again and create a chain of infinite scope. The truth of influence and information is (ironically) Emersonian in that its scope cannot always be understood, ranging from success in the meme economy to changing the world.

As a product of the copy-based internet, memes serve as a funny but appropriate example of how information flows in our world today. Many, many people contribute to memes: they take the idea from the world as a copy, add something small to it, and give it back to the world, over and over again. Some, but only some, changes are realized and picked up by others—immortalized in the meme—while others are ignored unless someone picks them up later. The same is true with information in general. It flows like memes. People use it and are influenced by it, change it, and give it back to hopefully influence others. The invention of writing and subsequent invention of the internet inherently allow more pathways of influence, making our world more responsive than ever to flows of information and something like memes possible. Now, catch the right time and get picked up by others, and one could provide the “single precious bit” (16) that will change the world—or at least the world of memes.