#which is WHY I included the point about context

[olderthannetfic]

Hi, Spaniard here who is equally fascinated and frustrated about the Squidgeworld thing. Here is the thing: dialects exists, tuteo vs voseo exists, vocabulary and slang differences exist, and yet, nothing that a quick glance at a panhispanic dictionary can't solve (the Royal Spanish Academy dictionary offers definitions that specify dialect and all). Hell, most of the time context is all I need.

Now, my two grains of salt on this matter is that despite the claims that this was requested, I have a hard time believing these were requests by anyone that thought this through. Why? Because as part of my assigned reading at my spanish school, I had to read plenty LATAM authors and poets (Gabriel García Márquez, Juan Rulfo, Pablo Neruda, Julio Cortázar, etc...). I'm starting to think some (non-hispanic) people might be under the impression that we don't read each other at all? Or something along those lines? The Miguel de Cervantes Prize* regularly awards both LATAM and spanish authors. The point I'm making here is that spanish/hispanic literature includes everyone as it isn't spanish/hispanic -> works from spain but spanish/hispanic -> works written in spanish. The semantics are a bit confusing, I will admit.

*which was created by the Ministry of Culture of Spain and whose candidates are proposed by the Association of Academies of the Spanish Language an organisation created by mexican president Miguel Alemán Valdés.

In any case: there isn't any difference in dialect so significant that they are completely unintelligible and should be separated. And as other people have said, LATAM dialects have differences amongst themselves so it doesn't make sense to bag them together but also splitting them is kind of ridiculous as well, not to mention the regional differences in castillian within Spain itself. It's just... this doesn't seem like a decision made by someone who is fluent in spanish.

The only thing that has ever made my comprehension of LATAM spanish difficult at times is the accents, which you cannot hear in text form, and even that is not that much of a hurdle bc after a while you get used to it.

Now, I have noticed that word processors have spanish (es) and spanish (latam) for the spell checking, so that might be where they got the idea that the two should be split. However english also tends to be separated in english (uk) and (us) (as well as (can)? in gdocs at least) so that still doesn't fully explain it.

And just for a bit of linguistic fun: if you put a group of spanish speakers from different regions together they eventually adopt each others linguistic habits. A spanish friend of mine now regularly uses "chama/o" bc she made friends with a venezuelan girl while studying in France (in Spain we say 'tía/o'), an argentine acquantaince uses tú/vos interchangeably, another ecuatorian friend distinguishes 's' and 'c' and her accent comes and goes because she grew up in Spain, younger spaniards use 'güey/wey' and 'weón' now, which wasn't a originally thing in Spain... It goes on and on.

This got long, sorry about that, I'm a language/literature nerd. It's just so puzzling to me.

--

[bad-surprise]

i find many people in fandom incredibly annoying. that is not a secret and it is not a sin. it is far better, in my opinion, to talk through these feelings privately than to approach said individuals because being annoying is a) not a crime in any way, shape, or form, and b) fully subjective. i am sure other fans find me annoying, and they have every right to talk through their frustrations privately with trusted friends. they also have every right to block whoever they’d like or to share whatever i’ve posted that’s upset them with their friends in order to provide context for their emotions. it might hurt my feelings sometimes and i may not like it, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

as a queer black woman, i find it extremely upsetting when the language of social justice is used in bad faith by those looking to evade accountability for shitty behavior. that is the context of those remarks.

everything i said in that conversation i would state publicly. i didn’t, though, because it seemed pointless at the time. conversation with those involved (not any of the accounts who have centered themselves in this discussion) had already been attempted and the deliberate misrepresentation of events, warping of words, and bad faith tactics that followed rendered the situation hopeless.

fandom is not a monolith. we are allowed to have different opinions on everything, and i really enjoy productive conversations with those who have differing views, so long as they’re rooted in a genuine desire for mutual understanding. people i am friends with are free to be friends with people i dislike, i have never policed that and never will.

i am always open to conversation and will offer clarifications if they’re requested in good faith. i would also point out that the screenshots being shared are very carefully selected excerpts of a broader conversation— it might be wise to ask why those specific quotes (which were poorly worded at times, sure— that makes sense considering that they were part of private conversations between supportive friends who understood each other’s context, values, and intent) were decontextualized and used for this purpose.

initially, this fandom was a very creative place, filled with diversity of thought and opinion, characterized by a sense of curiosity, imagination, and collaboration. the occasional bad actor popped up, yes, and there have always been issues with antis (which i define as those who believe there is a moral component to shipping, though it seems like in this case it is being applied to people who simply have differing opinions about a ship beloved by both parties) and those outside of the fandom who dislike the ship, but generally it was a pleasant space in which to exist alongside others. that has slowly diminished to the extent that it’s now very difficult to find reasons to remain involved. i worry that the point of all this is to push people out, but i also hope that isn’t the case.

there is no right or wrong way to ship sauron and galadriel. there is no right or wrong way to ship, full stop.

i’m so fucking exhausted by this conversation and by the fact that accusations of racism or homophobia in this fandom so often target black and queer individuals, misrepresenting our response to circumstances where our lived experiences are repeatedly decontextualized, devalued, disregarded, or manipulated in the service of something as petty as a ship war. it’s not leftism, it’s not social justice— it’s tone policing as an attempt to stoke moral outrage, and it feels a hell of a lot like an effort to dictate the rules of participation in a ship.

but i genuinely believe there’s enough room here for all of us, including those individuals i personally find disingenuous and/or annoying.

[elrielbaby]

What do you think of the Gwynriels being too confident in their ship? Are you sure Az has feelings for Gwyn and is always looking for her and stuff? And what are they matte?

I have tried, really really tried, to see where they’re coming from. I’ve re read the books multiple times to ensure I’m not missing any context, I’ve looked at it through every angle possible and I still cannot fathom why they are so confident.

I have a couple of theories as to why they’re so confident and I’m feeling a little spicy today, so I’ll share. I could go in to heavy detail, but I’ll try keep it brief anon.

1. They hate Elain and so are looking for any other option. Literally anyone. G*yn happens to be in the bonus chapter and so they go with that, without really thinking about it* (I will circle back to this).

2. They blindly follow the word of one or two people online.They don’t like Elain, or they love L*cien (and they totally miss all the clues that say L*cien doesn’t actually want Elain but that’s a whole other can of worms) and so they accept other people’s interpretations - which those people very intentionally present as fact, and use them as a jumping off point, so when they go back to the books they have that other persons narrative in their head that far better suits their ideals and so they’re looking, twisting, turning any and all of the narrative to fit that. They are gaslighting themselves, basically.

3. They don’t re read the books and they don’t open themselves up to any other possibility. I can say for myself that before I started posting online about elriel, I had heard about G*riel after reading the books and re read them to be sure. I’m nearly positive a lot of them don’t do that, and either never re read or re read as per the second point.

As to the second part of this question, I don’t believe he’s got feelings for G*yn, nor do I think he’s always looking for her - so, I’m very sure of that. If you meant Elain, it’s pretty obviously laid out in the text, without SJM having Azriel and Elain say ‘I’M IN LOVE WITH HIM/HER AND I DONT CARE WHO KNOWS IT’ - because how does that make any sense when they haven’t had their book? If they had, I’d be less sure of their endgame.

As for the last part, I’m going to assume you’re asking if I think either G*yn or Elain are mated to Azriel. I do not believe G*yn is Azriels mate. At all. There are a few signs that Az & Elain could be, but it truly doesn’t matter to me if they are or not. I think SJM has been metaphorically winking at us with some of the things she’s said about them but it could go a number of ways, in terms of wether they’re mates or not.

One things for certain though - they’re endgame ❤️

* to circle back to them not really thinking about it, as I didn’t want to bog down the main text with this, they don’t seem to consider a number of different things.

They don’t consider that it’s a limited bonus chapter that was only available for one specific book store. It is not available in the copies of ACOSF you can buy now, nor was it available in a huge number of copies you could buy at its initial release.

They don’t seem to consider that if you remove the bonus chapter, we still have four books that include build up for them. It literally makes no odds as to wether the bonus matters or not. For them though? Most of their argument relies on that bonus chapter.

They don’t seem to consider any other reason as to why G would be in that bonus chapter. None whatsoever. The Elain part was explicitly romantic and if you look at G’s part there is no romanticism in sight. The ‘spark’ happened after a conversation with Clotho, not even when G was present. Almost like G didn’t actually have anything to do with it at all. If you connect the dots to the main text, at least for my interpretation, you have Elain & Az, who very clearly have feelings for one another. You have G, who has a powerful affect on Nesta, and Clotho who also has, to a smaller extent, a powerful affect on Nesta.

And those are just the few things off the top of my head that I have the bandwidth to come up with right now. ❤️

[conundrumoftime]

heavens above

Look: there are a lot of Haladriel Discords and groupchats. I'm in some of them, I'm not in others, there's plenty I don't know about. There is not a Haladriel Discord specifically set up to talk shit about newer fans on Tumblr (or if there is, I don't know about it and I'm not in it). Anyone who tells you that is Making Things Up, and if you've been in fandoms before you may want to have a think about why they'd do that.

Lots of smaller groupchats include safe spaces for people to vent about things that are frustrating them in fandom, without personal attacks or co-ordinated harassment campaigns. And if you don't like any of my Tumblr takes - or my ships or my fic or whatever - I absolutely encourage you to go complain about that in a private groupchat somewhere. (also! I know this happens already! and it's FINE.)

To answer two specific questions though: "Why didn't you speak to Apolo directly?" (I did; see below!), and "why didn't you just block Apolo" (I did, right after that, when Apolo's response made it clear she wasn't interested in listening to a different point of view on this one).

For context to anyone who missed this/can't see it because of blocks, I'll put here the post I was responding to and my response itself, which was also informed by seeing Apolo say previously that there are no Celeborn fans just anti-Haladriels. You are free to judge for yourself which one of these contains the language you are happier with seeing in fandom about other fans.

This is my post from Saturday about how I would like Celeborn to return in TROP;

This is from Apolo's post two days after that, addressed to people who want Celeborn to return in TROP:

and this is my comment:

Not going to comment on it or any of this beyond that.

My messages are open and anyone is free to speak to me or ask questions or whatever they like at any time. Or you can block me for whatever reason, I won't get offended.

[blueikeproductions]

Hasbro has always had a terrible ability to read the room, nor have they ever really truly cared about their IP that much.

The Marvel team submitted a fake script where half the cast died horribly by sheep droids just to see if Hasbro was paying attention. Their suspicions were confirmed when Hasbro didn’t bat an eye at the ludicrous script and just submitted some casual notes.

Hasbro REALLY wanted Optimus to die in the 80’s film, despite being warned multiple times not to do that. And naturally they were shocked when killing Optimus traumatized so many children, and had no choice but to bring Optimus back.

Hasbro couldn’t make up their minds on whether they wanted to renew Beast Wars and RiD15, so each series had their own way of referencing that. Beast Wars would have their cliffhanger endings end with “The End?” or “To Be Continued…?” because had the series been canceled in S2 specifically, …Megatron won. He hands down won even if he made the time stream swiss cheese at that point.

RiD15 wrote each season to be self contained, having a final bad guy they’d defeat and then ride off into the sunset. RiD15 didn’t commit to anything that big like Prime did probably for this reason. RiD15 was also bragged about by Hasbro in particular how well it did at the time, as like it or not, RiD was very successful with its target audience, and even the grumpiest veteran fan had to admit the monster Decepticons were cool, with Steeljaw being very popular. The popularity of Decepticons like Bisk and Springload are why they got toys at all, as Hasbro initially didn’t want to make toys of certain characters.

They were incredibly unhelpful in the development of Netflix WFC, forcing the writers to make all their outlandish ideas work. One such idea they insisted on before backing off was trying to make WFC canon to the 80’s cartoon… when absolutely nothing the show was trying to do made sense for the 80’s cartoon. It’s also pretty apparent the original intent for the toys was to adapt the movie and season three, but at the last minute they threw in Beast Wars, which is why you confusingly have Rodimus and Cyclonus in a Beast Wars line, but not including them in the cartoon at all despite using Galvatron… Beast Wars also wasn’t supposed to factor in the show was it was originally supposed to end with the Transformers awakening on Earth in the 80’s.

Hasbro really wanted a Legacy cartoon on Netflix, as they were happy with WFC… despite fans rejecting the show hard during Earthrise and the ratings in the toilet. Netflix understandably passed on making more since the other show didn’t do them favors.

So Hasbro reps being brain dead about the clear apathy and disinterest in EarthSpark from audiences since day one doesn’t surprise me. Even fans of ES have turned their back on the show to the point some TF YouTubers point this out when discussing the very abrupt transition from ES to CyberWorld and Wild King, that’s how bad it’s gotten. Like you don’t immediately fast track CyberWorld if EarthSpark was doing well, and Takara finally just going “Up yours, we’re doing our own thing” after years of failures post Animated.

I don’t buy for an instant EarthSpark is continuing on into 2026 alongside CyberWorld as the old planning document states, like do fans not understand plans change on a dime? I sooner see some final episodes already in the tank trickling out next year to coincide with what has been stated to be a last minute small extension to ES. Cyber Glow Megatron screams final power up in that context, but ES isn’t very great at advertising its toy gimmicks so who’s to say. But I think ES having a last minute extension sounds like they’re largely intending to abandon it after Cosmos and Scareglow Megs comes out. We already know they’re working on CyberWorld with new toys ready to go, the same with Takara working on Wild King, so any chance of guys like Terratronus, the Insecticons and Hardtop getting proper toys are next to none in their own cartoon’s toy line.

Age of the Primes is probably the only place these guys get something, at least some of the Terrans would make sense for Quintus’ toy. Though with how much Thrash and Twitch toys I see on clearance I’m skeptical.

So there was an interview posted today with Hasbro Entertainment president Olivier Dumont. Looks like more ES episodes are still coming:

Here's the article if anyone wants to read it. I have to say that ES being mentioned like an afterthought after Peppa Pig of all things is pretty damning considering how Hasbro has been treating ES lately.

[thebreakfastgenie]

Since this has come up again I gotta say I disagree with you about the use of the word. I think it’s bizarre to call it a slur that is extremely offensive to use and then also say it’s been “defanged” in the same breath. I also think it’s strange that I’m sure I have seen you reblogging posts about why people ID with slurs but then you also say that use of slurs is just “edgy” and “white noise”.

I assume you’re not really interested in a good faith discussion about it but the gist of it in my opinion is as follows.

1. Many people have had these slurs weaponised against them and using them in a casual context or self-identifying with them allows them to reclaim them in a positive way and take away the power of them. I.e. this isn’t a scary word because it was shouted out a car window at me or used by the person who assaulted me. I am not scared of this word. This word is who I am and I am okay with that.

2. Some people find that words commonly used as slurs feel more true to their experience than the polite, socially acceptable versions of the words. This can be for a variety of reasons but one I’ve commonly seen is that they feel as though the softer word is shying away from how they identify rather than facing it head on.

3. It can be a way to make people pay attention and get your point across. This can be wielded politically like in protests or pride parades or in pseudo political protests like online calls to action. As in, “the people who hate me call me a [slur]; well, this [slur] has something to say”.

4. Some people feel rubbed the wrong way by rainbow marketing (I.e. big corporations putting rainbows on things in June and talking about how inclusive they are while not actually doing anything meaningful to support the community and sometimes actively working against them in other ways, purely in the interest of getting the gay dollar) and like to self identify with words that squeaky clean corporations are never going to sell back to them.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it covers a few of the common reasons that I have seen. And it’s certainly not just the f word for gay men that gets used this way. Consider Alison Bechdel’s Dykes To Watch Out For, a piece of lgbt pop culture so entrenched that the term “the Bechdel test” is commonly used in media criticism. It certainly wouldn’t have been improved, in my opinion, by being named “Lesbians to Watch Out For”.

I think I was pretty clear that a word can be defanged in one context and remain a harmful slur in the other. The crux of my issue with using that word is that I do not know how it is being used when a stranger says it to me. As I have mentioned before, I live with two gay men, one of whom does use that word, and when he does it I am comfortable with it because I know him and I know the context in which it is being invoked.

I do not know that context online and I am not going to assume a stranger on the internet is a safe community member just because "tumblr is the gay website." First of all, it isn't, and I don't make a habit of assuming strangers' sexual orientations without strong contextual reasons to do so (e.g. gay bars, and even there it's not a guarantee). Secondly, people can be members of the community and still use slurs inappropriately.

I do not feel that everyone who is using slurs on tumblr is reclaiming them in any meaningful way. It looks much more like this is the cool new word, like a bunch of second-graders who just heard the word fuck for the first time. This is why I talked about it being defanged. My reference to white noise was because the word "gay" has been overused so much on this website (e.g. "gay little [x]") that it barely means anything anymore. It's practically a filler word. The alternative used to be "queer," but now that's been overused and sanitized because it was adopted by the mainstream and corporations found it. People picked up on "fruity" for whatever reason, probably because it's a bit old-fashioned and not used much by serious homophobes anymore, and also just sounds kind of funny. And that was quickly overused, the way memes are run into the ground.

But here's the thing: there is no word that is safe from rainbow marketing. There isn't. Maybe they would never use f*ggot now. Give it time. If you want to outrun mainstream society, you will always be hopping to a different word. Especially with the internet. People become desensitized very quickly to memetic language, simply due to saturation.

Tumblr users did not reclaim f*ggot. They turned it into a meme. They did the same thing with the limp wrist. And yes, gay people do these things with each other. In private. In gay spaces. Not on the public internet. Even if tumblr were a gay website (it's not) content from this site ends up on twitter, instagram, tiktok, and facebook. I do believe the use of slurs on this website is edgy. I won't speak for individuals, but as a trend it is at least partially motivated by being cool and getting clout. My point in saying it had been defanged was it was no longer accomplishing its purported goal of reclamation. Some of the reasons you listed for using slurs--facing things head-on etc.--rely on shock factor, and therefore have a naturally limited lifespan. People still say "queer as in fuck you," but when queer is the standard academic term and has been adopted by mainstream institutions, does it really hit the same way?

Each slur has its own history. I'm a fan of Dykes to Watch Out For. I attended a Dyke March last year. I am personally uncomfortable with f*ggot because unlike other slurs, I have personally experienced this one being used by homophobes. I think it was fairly popular in the United States in the 2000s, so many people have this experience, and therefore it is still more strongly associated with homophobia. This is still true outside tumblr, regardless of the defanging I observed here.

I am concerned about the eagerness of some to use slurs and engage in "ironic" homophobia (e.g. limp wrist) at a time when many countries are facing such a serious homophobic and transphobic backlash. I am concerned about slurs for the LGBT+ community in particular, because the idea of "who can reclaim them" is more fluid than with racial slurs and many other slurs. Someone can be raised in a homophobic environment and be a homophobe who calls people f*ggots, then come out as gay themselves and continue calling people f*aggots but it's "okay" now, whether or not they ever had any self-reflection about it. I am not accusing specific people of following this exact path, but this pattern is responsible for a lot of internalized and intracommunity homophobia.

I do believe that reclaimation is a conscious, active process. A lot of talk about reclaiming words on tumblr sounds like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy: I didn't say it, I declared it.

I hope I've explained my opinion a little bit here. Contrary to your assumptions, I am interested in a good faith discussion. The person who asked if they could call me a f*ggot was not.

[greenerteacups]

Hermione and Ron’s difference of opinion about the significance of heiress and heir is SENDING ME. That’s exactly how it would be. Thank you ever so much for introducing us to Lucia Darcy Malfoy, First of Her Name, Queen of Daddy Issues and Most Assuredly That Bitch.

"Is Malfoy(15f) Hot?" - the greatest thread in the history of gryffindor tower, locked by a prefect after 12239 hours of heated debate,

[movedtodykedvonte]

Have been rewatching House md, stumbled upon the episode where there was a woman who couldn't fall asleep, no matter what she did.

So I thought, imagine if you couldn't fall asleep. But couldn't die either. The exhaustion, the trembling, hallucinations, nausea, headache, emotional exhaustion as well, absolutely torturous. All the pack, but you are not capable of dying, you live in this state for days. For months. For years. Forever.

This is the horror I was thinking about when I decided my Spamton had little to no needs or feelings as a puppet because it adds to the mess you mentioned above by the virtue Spamton longed for that.

There was no pain of agony for Spamton, maybe the memories of such but nothing that ever came close after that. He could not shiver or tremble, there was no exhaustion or sleep-deprived hallucinations. There was no physical longing for rest. The only thing there was, was nothing. For days there was nothing, for months there was nothing, for years there was nothing. No feeling of wind on his porcelain skin, no eyelids to get heavy less a mechanism was acting up, nothing. Not even the comforting in pretending he needed rest, closing his eyes to darkness, more nothing no light permeating his now solid eyelids, no phosphenes, just solid nothing.

It says something that Spamton would find her experience a more preferable fate... at least for a long while.

[vimbry]

[alexanderwales]

I'm a big fan of wizards-as-programmers, but I think it's so much better when you lean into programming tropes.

A spell the wizard uses to light the group's campfire has an error somewhere in its depths, and sometimes it doesn't work at all. The wizard spends a lot of his time trying to track down the exact conditions that cause the failure.

The wizard is attempting to create a new spell that marries two older spells together, but while they were both written within the context of Zephyrus the Starweaver's foundational work, they each used a slightly different version, and untangling the collisions make a short project take months of work.

The wizard has grown too comfortable reusing old spells, and in particular, his teleportation spell keeps finding its components rearranged and remixed, its parts copied into a dozen different places in the spellbook. This is overall not actually a problem per se, but the party's rogue grows a bit concerned when the wizard's "drying spell" seems to just be a special case of teleportation where you teleport five feet to the left and leave the wetness behind.

A wizard is constantly fiddling with his spells, making minor tweaks and changes, getting them easier to cast, with better effects, adding bells and whistles. The "shelter for the night" spell includes a tea kettle that brings itself to a boil at dawn, which the wizard is inordinately pleased with. He reports on efficiency improvements to the indifference of anyone listening.

A different wizard immediately forgets all details of his spells after he's written them. He could not begin to tell you how any of it works, at least not without sitting down for a few hours or days to figure out how he set things up. The point is that it works, and once it does, the wizard can safely stop thinking about it.

Wizards enjoy each other's company, but you must be circumspect about spellwork. Having another wizard look through your spellbook makes you aware of every minor flaw, and you might not be able to answer questions about why a spell was written in a certain way, if you remember at all.

Wizards all have their own preferences as far as which scripts they write in, the formatting of their spellbook, its dimensions and material quality, and of course which famous wizards they've taken the most foundational knowledge from. The enlightened view is that all approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, but this has never stopped anyone from getting into a protracted argument.

Sometimes a wizard will sit down with an ancient tome attempting to find answers to a complicated problem, and finally find someone from across time who was trying to do the same thing, only for the final note to be "nevermind, fixed it".

[ambrosiagourmet]

I've been thinking about Laios' succubus lately. Mulling it over a bit.

Because I've seen these pages brought up a fair bit, but almost entirely in the context of shipping (on all sides, really). And I really want to understand what they are doing for the story beyond that.

When I went back to reread the scene and section, a few things caught my interest: the way Laios responds to both forms of his succubus, the themes of the volume the chapter is found in, and the other events of the chapter itself.

So let's dive into those three things, and what I think they say about the succubus scene's purpose.

Laios is never fully frozen by the succubus

So. If you compare Marcille and Chilchuck's reactions...

to Laios':

-

There is a difference. Sure, the basics may look the same once it turns into Scylla Marcille, but even then, it functions differently.

Chilchuck and Marcille are completely frozen once they catch sight of their succubus. Izutsumi, as well, isn't able to look away, and completely freezes up once her 'mom' starts talking to her. As Chilchuck describes, "just looking at them makes you unable to move."

And yet, Scylla Marcille has to actively convince Laios to comply. He even looks away from her at one point!

Laios accepts this succubus, but he is never actually helpless to it in the same way. Taken in? Convinced? Sure, at least enough to let things happen that he probably should question more than he does. But magically compelled? Not really. Not the same way as everyone else is. So that's interesting. But let's move on for now.

2. Volume 9 is all about drive and desire

I don't often look at chapters within the context of the volume they are included in, but I think there's some really fun things to be found with that perspective in mind.

For one, volume 9 starts with an exploration of what desire brought Laios to the dungeon:

And ends with a question of what desire brought Laios to the dungeon:

It's also very concerned in general with questions of why people do what they do. Why they are in the dungeon, why they are with the people they are with, why they stay, what they fight for.

In addition to Laios, we see it with Marcille...

Izutsumi

Kabru

and Mithrun

Hell, we even get it for the demon!

It's certainly not the only volume concerned with desires and motives, but it is particularly focused on these ideas.

The succubus scene fits quite well into the ongoing question about desires, especially Laios' desires. It is even placed at an interesting spot within the volume. The volume is six chapters long, and the scene takes place at the start of the 4th chapter. It's almost smack-dab in the middle.

With all this in mind, it is interesting that, with both versions of the succubus Marcille, it's not totally clear which parts of her Laios is rejecting.

The first version of Marcille looks human, but Laios attacks when he identifies her as a monster. The second Marcille looks like a monster, but he seems to believe that she is the real (human)(ish) person that he knows. So is he rejecting the monster at first, and then accepting the person? Or is he rejecting humanity and only interested in the monstrous?

Something to consider as we look at the next point...

3. the rest of the chapter is a seduction, too

This is one of those things that might not be apparent on a first reading, but is crystal clear on a revisit. We see the succubus try and charm Laios over 7 pages, and then see the Winged Lion do the same thing for the next 19.

Much like the succubus, it offers the mingling of monsters and humans. Much like the succubus, it offers belonging.

(and this is the point where I absolutely must also link this post by fumifooms on the succubus, which has some great ideas on how the scene is informed by Laios' trauma and desire for acceptance!!!)

But, back to the point. The Winged Lion wants to feed on Laios just as much as the succubus did, and it uses similar strategies to try and make that happen. Though this chapter isn't really the turning point for the next Lord of the Dungeon (it is Marcille who will, eventually, become the Lion's next victim), it certainly behaves like it is.

Laios is convinced. The succubus gets its meal. By the end of the volume, the reader begins to understand how concerning his desires are. Together, it is all very good at building up that sense of dread and pending disaster, as we see exactly how and why Laios might just fall into the Lion's open arms and bring about the end of the world.

-

So that's the three things I noticed. But there's still something I want to touch on by looking at the way these observations overlap, and what they reveal, together.

As I said, by the end of the volume, you can feel the tension growing. Just as Kabru and Mithrun do, you look back for an answer to the questions that have been built, chapter by chapter: why is Laios here? Where will his loyalties fall? This chapter, and scene, seem to prove the inevitable truth: he will choose the monster, of course. He will choose the seductive, easy power of the Winged Lion.

But the details of what actually happens tell different story: one in which the Lion is wrong.

First, as a reminder - even in Scylla Marcille mode, the succubus never fully entrances Laios. It convinces him, but it doesn't have him completely under its thrall.

Similarly, in the dream, the Lion does convince Laios to embrace the world he is offering. But even within that dream, Laios continues to ask questions that will be vital to him later. It is because of those questions that Laios comes to a new understanding about Thistle.

And it's this realization that he cites later as part of his reason for refusing the Lion's offer.

He is thinking through things the entire time, just like he continues to question the succubus even after it turns into Scylla Marcille.

Laios also expresses an interesting reason for why he wants to see the future of this world. He's not just invested because it would mean people liking what he likes, or him getting to spend time with monsters. The thought that comes immediately before his acceptance is about what he wants for monsters and people.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this statement - "we're living beings that share the same world, but all we can do is keep killing each other" - can apply to the various humans races just as much as it does to humans and monsters. The thing he is thinking about here isn't just a matter of his personal daydreams. It's an idea that underpins every conflict in the story.

Laios caring about how people as well as monsters in this manner is something that the Lion gets wrong every time. Even at the end, he still frames Laios' desires entirely around hating people and loving monsters.

The Lion has heard him express an opinion about the future of the world! It happened right there in the dream, right in front of him! He just didn't take it seriously, and didn't view it through any lens other than "Laios likes monsters more".

He's convinced that he understands how to get to Laios. Maybe the Lion can't truly see everything, or maybe his vision into everyone's deepest desires has made it hard for him to realize how much choice still matters. That people can, and do, choose which desires to act on, and how to act on them.

Whatever the case, he's wrong about Laios, and the story shows us this over and over again.

After all, look at how the succubus interaction plays out:

A monster uses Marcille to appeal to Laios...

He realizes that something about the situation is wrong, and rejects her.

It changes strategies, and makes new offer: to turn him into a monster.

It also assures him that his friends are, or will be, taken care of.

He accepts. Or rather, allows the monster to have its way with him.

But Laios is not as helpless as he initially appears, and what the Lion thinks is a successful seduction also contains the seed of an idea that will allow Laios to later resist him.

We even get to see Izutsumi playing a similar role in both instances, as the one person fully able to take action in the face to the illusion.

The story lays out what is going happen, and then explicitly tells us that the demon and the succubus are thematically related.

The chapter performs a great sleight of hand here - everything about it seems to indicate that Laios is doomed give in to the option to have his deepest desires realized. But if you look closer, it also contains the evidence that he won't. There's a lot more going on for him.

Yes, he still falls for obvious tricks. He is still extremely into monsters, and he still doesn't feel like he fits in with other people. He may, deep down, crave to surrender to the monstrous - to let it absorb him. But he questions more than he seems to. He considers more than people realize. He cares so much more than anyone gives him credit for.

And I think this is part of why we see the succubus called back to so many times, especially with the wolf head addition to his Monster Form, which he specifically added due to his encounter with the Scylla Marcille.

This all stays with Laios. It doesn't just foreshadow the path of the story, it is fundamental to how and why he walks that path. It's not about him choosing monsters, and it's not about him choosing people. It's about how he considers both, and cares about both.

And it's about the forces that think they already know his answer. Mithrun and Kabru. The Winged Lion. The succubus.

It's about how they are wrong.

[maskspurpose]

I think this misses the point of why people consistently point out to stick to the list of BDS targets & disrespectful of their years of successful activism and the exact reason WHY it's a targetted boycott rather than a large sweeping list. A boycott is a political and economic strategy (and the economic boycott isn't the only thing the BDS does! Check out bdsmovement.net for their other campaigns!)

The reason people consistently call back to this list is because it's one made by an international activist group. Boycotts organized on twitter may feel like they have a huge impact because they got a couple thousand retweets but that number is barely a drop in the bucket. It also imo moves attention away from some of the more important targets of the BDS economic boycott like Israeli produce.

Starbucks is a special case because their boycott was called independently by Starbucks Union (and was iirc was in the planning stages already but the schedule on it got accelerated).

People aren't pointing to this list because they are "cowards" or "pathetic losers" they do so because to reach our political goals and create a force with actual economic pressure it's very obviously for the best to do so organized through unions or groups like BDS. I will confidently say most people rallying behind this boycott are also refusing support for companies like Disney and Amazon but they are pressure and not boycott targets for a very specific reason, namely that they are essentially monopolies that can be hard to avoid. Targetted campaigns do exist for them as well but they more often concern specific products (e.g. the next captain america movie for having a character in it that represents apartheid israel),

I HEAVILY recommend reading the BDS site [link here] to understand why people are doing their best to call attention to it specifically.

I agree that we should collectively do our best to focus our attention as consumers on doing the best we can to minimize harm but the reality is that under capitalism and colonialism the impact of any boycott is going to be limited. Organizing through larger groups like BDS doesn't just point our attention to international campaigns it can also serve as a way to organize locally for protests and direct action.

i honestly think people who are hellbent on people only sticking to boycotting 6 companies are pathetic losers and just feel threatened at the idea of having to stop eating mcdonald's and drinking starbucks. they want to justify their right to never challenge their relationship with consumerism without having to say it outloud.

they never shut up about how it's "impossible to boycott every company that supports Israel just stick to the BDS list", you don't want to cancel your Disney plus subscription nor do you want to stop eating pringles or drinking coca cola so you're going to portray those who want to boycott the 6 companies and more as people destroying the meaning of the cause

tweet 1: "CAN Y'ALL STOP SPREADING THESE LONG ASS LISTS OF ALL THESE COMPANIES IT LITERALLY DOES NOT HELP. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LISTEN TO THE BDS AND DO WHAT THEY SAY."

tweet 2: "yall are failing this boycott thing badly I'm not sorry. the BDS gave us a small followable list that shows companies that are 100% possible to boycott and then yall started adding brands that either create very essential needs or are literally impossible to boycott"

like I can assure you, there will always be brands that do not support Israel and are producing the same essential needs you need. the same thing goes for electronics, you can buy electronics second hand without having to continue to fund the exploitation of those in DR Congo....

[hedgehog-moss]

Last spring my neighbour asked if I could let Pirlouit mow the grass around his barn from time to time, which Pirou was happy to do at first but if I left him there several days in a row he got pretty sad about being alone (lots of wistful, melancholy braying). So this year when my donkey was hired for this job again, I went for a different formula: for the past few weeks I've been bringing all the animals to the neighbour's barn for an hour of landscaping services now and then at apéritif time.

The fence is extremely not Pampe-proof so I have to have my apéritif while sitting on the road in a strategic position from which I can toss a stick in her direction if she tries to escape, but other than that I've been really enjoying this peaceful evening ritual, just sitting there reading and watching the animals while feeling like I'm doing my neighbour a favour. Pirlouit doesn't get all the grass to himself anymore but I've learnt that he prefers to be rich in friends than in food.

You'll notice that Merricat is present in every photo, looking alert. She too has been hired, but for the thankless job of Thought Police. She may look like she's just napping on the warm asphalt with not a care in the world...

... but she is working! Keeping an eye on the llamas, always.

I've discovered that in a specific context my three cats can act as precogs and warn me of Pampe's future crimes. My theory is that they developed this skill because of Poldine, who loves cats. Any cat who enters the pasture will soon be noticed and (lovingly) chased by Poldine, who wants kisses. Cats not only do not want llama kisses, they don't differentiate between individual llamas. They are all potential kissers. So even if it looks like she's all relaxed, Merricat is constantly monitoring where the llamas are and what they seem to be planning. If we are on the other side of a fence and Pampe approaches it a bit too slyly, Merricat will jump to her feet, ready to flee (and I will toss one of my anti-Pampe sticks, and say NON.)

Merricat and I are a very good team! We've foiled several of Pampe's plots, but we need to be on the road for Merricat to remain wary (if we were in the pen Pampe's escape attempts would involve getting away from us and the cat wouldn't care.) Cars are rare so it's okay (plus it's so quiet you can always hear them coming), and on the few occasions when someone showed up and asked why I was having apéritif on the road, I pointed at Pampe and they were like, "Ah! Didn't see her here. Good luck!"

"Hedgehog-moss, you're exaggerating. Pampe can't be that—"

She is! She is. And she always seems to notice when Merricat is on a bathroom break and I'm absorbed in a book.

There was one evening though, when she got distracted by a fascinating new idea. I don't claim to know what's going on in this llama's head (except when she's looking at a fence, then it's easy) but as you can see, once I brought the animals to the barn Poldine started eating flowers, Pirlouit started eating grass, and Pampe started eating the wall.

After a moment she slowly circled the barn, then stopped and lay down right next to it, settling down in a comfortable position but with focused ears and her head still turned towards the wall. It was suspicious behaviour, but on the other hand she now looked so uninterested in the road that I decided to take a risk and run home to bring back some dinner—and she didn't move while I was away! I even brought Pandolf, who is usually banned from these soirées because he would disturb my Merricat alarm system. He was happy to be finally included.

It's unclear if Pampe was eating the wall, talking to the wall, or carefully examining various parts of the wall as Step 1 of 27 of a complex plan only she understands, but she stuck close to the barn all evening instead of lying in wait by the fence so I was able to have a picnic in the grass rather than on the road, which felt more bucolic. I know that "Pampérigouste has a new, mysterious project" is a worrying sentence but at this early stage (feasibility study) it felt to me and Merricat like a little holiday!

[mask131]

The truth about Medusa and her rape... Mythology breakdown time!

With the recent release of the Percy Jackson television series, Tumblr is bursting with mythological posts, and the apparition of Medusa the Gorgon has been the object of numerous talks throughout this website… Including more and more spreading of misinformation, and more debates about what is the “true” version of Medusa’s backstory.

Already let us make that clear: the idea that Medusa was actually “blessed” or “gifted” by Athena her petrifying gaze/snake-hair curse is to my knowledge not at all part of the Antique world. I still do not know exactly where this comes from, but I am aware of no Greek or Roman texts that talked about this – so it seems definitively a modern invention. After all, the figure of Medusa and her entire myth has been taken part, reinterpreted and modified by numerous modern women, feminist activist, feminist movements or artists engaged in the topic of women’s life and social conditions – most notably Medusa becoming the “symbol of raped women’ wrath and fury”. It is an interesting reading and a fascinating update of the ancient texts, and it is a worthy take on its own time and context – but today we are not talking about the posterity, reinvention and continuity of Medusa as a myth and a symbol. I want to clarify some points about the ACTUAL myth or legend of Medusa – the original tale, as told by the Greeks and then by the Romans.

Most specifically the question: Was Medusa raped?

Step 1: Yes, but no.

The backstory of Medusa you will find very often today, ranging from mythology manuals (vulgarization manuals of course) to Youtube videos, goes as such: Medusa was a priestess of Athena who got raped by Poseidon while in Athena’s temple, and as a result of this, Athena punished Medusa by turning her into the monstrous Gorgon.

Some will go even further claiming Athena’s “curse” wasn’t a punishment but a “gift” or blessing – and again, I don’t know where this comes from and nobody seems to be able to give me any reliable source for that, so… Let’s put this out of there.

Now this backstory – famous and popular enough to get into Riodan’s book series for example – is partially true. There are some elements here very wrong – and by wrong I do mean wrong.

The story of Medusa being raped and turned into a monster due to being raped does indeed exist, and it is the most famous and widespread of all the Medusa stories, the one people remembered for the longest time and wrote and illustrated the most about. Hence why Medusa became in the 20th century this very important cultural symbol tied to rape and the abuse of women and victim-blaming. HOWEVER – the origin of this story is Ovid’s Metamorphoses, from the first century CE or so. Ovid? A Roman poet writing for Roman people. “Metamorphoses”? One of the two fundamental works of Roman literature and one of the two main texts of Roman mythology, alongside Virgil’s Aeneid. This is a purely Roman story belonging to the Roman culture – and not the Greek one. The story of Medusa’s rape does not have Greek precedents to my knowledge, Ovid introduced the element of rape – which is no surprise given Ovid turned half of the romances of Greek mythology into rapes. Note that, on top of all this, Ovid wasn’t even writing for religious purposes, nor was his text an actual mythological effort – he wrote it with pure literary intentions at heart. It is just a piece of poetry and literature taking inspiration from the legends of the Greek world, not some sort of sacred text.

Second big point: The legend I summarized above? It isn’t even the story Ovid wrote, since there are a lot of elements that do not come from Ovid’s retelling of the story (book fourth of the Metamorphoses). For example Ovid never said Medusa was a priestess of Athena – all he said was that she was raped in the temple of Athena. I shouldn’t even be writing Athena since again, this is a Roman text: we are speaking of Minerva here, and of Neptune, not of Athena or Poseidon. Similarly, Minerva’s curse did not involve the petrifying gaze – rather all Ovid wrote about was that Minerva turned Medusa’s hair into snakes, to “punish” her because her hair were very beautiful, and it was what made her have many suitors (none of which she wanted to marry apparently), and it is also implied it is what made Neptune fall in love (or rather fall in lust) with her. I guess it is from this detail that the reading of “Athena’s curse was a gift” comes from – even though this story also clearly does victim-blaming of rape here.

But what is very fascinating is that… we are not definitively sure Neptune raped Medusa in Ovid’s retelling. For sure, the terms used by Ovid in his fourth book of Metamorphoses are clear: this was an action of violating, sexually assaulting, of soiling and corrupting, we are talking about rape. But Ovid refers several other times to Medusa in his other books, sometimes adding details the fourth-book stories does not have (the sixth book for examples evokes how Neptune turned into a bird to seduce Medusa, which is completely absent from the fourth book’s retelling of Medusa’ curse). And in all those other mentions, the terms to designate the relationship between Medusa and Neptune are more ambiguous, evoking seduction and romance rather than physical or sexual assault. (It does not help that Ovid has an habit of constantly confusing consensual and non-consensual sex in his poems, meaning that a rape in one book can turn into a romance in another, or reversal)

But the latter fact makes more sense when you recall that the rape element was invented and added by Ovid. Before, yes Poseidon and Medusa loved each other, but it was a pure romance, or at least a consensual one-night. Heck, if we go back to the oldest records of the love between Poseidon and Medusa, back in Hesiod’s Theogony, we have descriptions of the two of them laying together in a beautiful, flowery meadow – a stereotypical scene of pastoral romances – with no mention of any brutality or violence of any sort. As a result, it makes sense the original “romantic” story would still “leak” or cast a shadow over Ovid’s reinvented and slightly-confused tale.

Step 2: So… no rape?

Well, if we go by Greek texts, no, apparently Medusa was not raped in Greek mythology, and only became a rape victim through Ovid.

The Ancient Greek texts all record Poseidon and Medusa sleeping with each other and having children, but no mention of rape. And the whole “curse of Athena” thing is not present in the oldest records – no temple of Athena soiling, no angry Athena cursing a poor girl… “No curse?” you say “But then how did Medusa got turned into a Gorgon”? Answer: she did not. She was born like that.

As I said before, the oldest record of Medusa’s romance but also of her family comes from Hesiod’s Theogony (Hesiod being one of the two “founding authors” of Greek mythology, alongside Homer – Homer did wrote several times about Medusa, but only as a disembodied head and as a monster already dead, so we don’t have any information about her life). And what do we learn? That Medusa is part of a set of three sisters known as the Gorgons – because oh yes, Ovid did not mention Medusa’s sister now did he? How did Medusa’s sisters ALSO got snake-hair or petrifying-gaze if only Medusa was cursed for sleeping with Neptune? Ovid does not give us any answer because again, it is an “adaptational plot hole”, and the people that try to adapt Ovid’s story have to deal with the slight problem of Stheno and Euryale needing to share their sister’s curse despite seemingly not being involved in the whole Neptune business. Anyway, back to the Greek text.

So, you have those three Gorgon sisters, and Medusa is said to be mortal while her sisters are not. Why is it such a big deal? Because Medusa wasn’t originally some random human or priestess. Oh no! Who were the Gorgons’ parents? Phorcys and Keto/Ceto, aka two sea-gods. Not just two sea-gods – two sea-gods of the ancient, primordial generation of sea-gods, the one that predated Poseidon, and that were cousins to the Titans, the sea-gods born of Gaia mating with Pontos.

So the Gorgons were “divine” of nature – and this is why Medusa being a mortal was considered to be a MASSIVE problem and handicap for her, an abnormal thing for the daughter of two deities. But let’s dig a bit further… Who were Phorcys and Ceto? Long story short: in Greek mythology, they were considered to be sea-equivalents of Typhon and Gaia. They were the parents of many monsters and many sea-horrors: Keto/Ceto herself had her name attributed and equated with any very large creature (like whales) or any terrifying monster (like dragons) from the sea. The Gorgons themselves was a trio of monsters, but their sisters, that directly act as their double in the myth of Perseus? The Graiai – the monstrous trio of old women sharing one eye and one tooth. Hesiod also drops the fact that Ladon (the dragon that guarded the golden apples of the Hesperids), and Echidna (the snake-woman that mated with Typhon and became known as the “mother of monsters”) were also children of Phorcys and Ceto, while other authors will add other monster-related characters such as Scylla (of Charybdis and Scylla fame), the sirens, or Thoosa (the mother of Polyphemus the cyclop). Medusa herself is technically a “mother of monsters” since she birthed both Pegasus the flying horse and Chrysaor, a giant. So here is something very important to get: Medusa, and the Gorgons, were part of a family of monsters. Couple that with the absence of any mention of curses in these ancient texts, and everything is clear.

Originally Medusa was not a woman cursed to become a monster: she was born a monster, part of a group of monster siblings, birthed by monster-creating deities, and she belonged to the world of the “primordial abominations from the sea”, and the pre-Olympian threats, the remnants of the primordial chaos. It is no surprise that the Gorgons were said to live at the edge of the very known world, in the last patch of land before the end of the universe – in the most inhuman, primitive and liminal area possible. They were full-on monsters!

Now you might ask why Poseidon would sleep with a horrible monster, especially when you recall that the Greeks loved to depict the Gorgons as truly bizarre and grotesque. It wasn’t just snake-hair and petrifying gaze: they had boar tusks, and metallic claws, and bloated eyes, and a long tongue that constantly hanged down their bearded chin, and very large heads – some very old depictions even show her with a female centaur body! In fact, the ancient texts imply that it wasn’t so much the Gorgon’s gaze or eyes that had the power to turn people into stone – but that rather the Gorgon was just so hideous and so terrifying to look at people froze in terror – and then literally turned into stone out of fear and disgust. We are talking Lovecraftian level of eldritch horror here. So why would Poseidon, an Olympian god, sleep with one of these horrors? Well… If you know your Poseidon it wouldn’t surprise you too much because Poseidon had a thing for monsters. As a sort of “dark double” of Zeus, whereas Zeus fell in love with beautiful princesses and noble queens and birthed great gods and brave heroes, Poseidon was more about getting freaky with all sorts of unusual and bizarre goddesses, and giving birth to bandits and monsters. A good chunk of the villains of Greek mythology were born out of Poseidon’s loins: Polyphemus, Antaios, Orion, Charybdis, the Aloads… And even his most benevolent offspring has freaky stuff about it – Proteus the shapeshifter or Triton half-man half-fish… So yes, Poseidon sleeping with an abominable Gorgon is not so much out of character.

Step 3: The missing link

Now that we established what Medusa started out as, and what she ended up as… We need to evoke the evolution from point Hesiod to point Ovid, because while people summarized the Medusa debate as “Sea-born monster VS raped and punished woman”, there is a third element needed to understand this whole situation…

Yes Ovid did invent the rape. But he did not invent the idea that Medusa had been cursed by Athena.

The “gorgoneion” – the visual and artistic motif of the Gorgon’s head – was, as I said, a grotesque and monstrous face used to invoke fright into the enemies or to repel any vile influence or wicked spirit by the principle of “What’s the best way to repel bad stuff? Badder stuff”. Your Gorgon was your gargoyle, with all the hideous traits I described before – represented in front (unlike all the other side-portraits of gods and heroes), with the face being very large and flat, a big tongue out of a tusked-mouth, snake-hair, bulging crazy eyes, sometimes a beard or scales… Pure monster. But then… from the fifth century BCE to the second century BCE we see a slow evolution of the “gorgoneion” in art. Slowly the grotesque elements disappear, and the Gorgon’s face becomes… a regular, human face. Even more: it even becomes a pretty woman’s face! But with snakes instead of hair. As such, the idea that Medusa was a gorgeous woman who just had snakes and cursed-eyes DOES come from Ancient Greece – and existed well before Ovid wrote his rape story.

But what was the reason behind this change?

Well, we have to look at the Roman era again. Ovid’s tale of Medusa being cursed for her rape at the hands of Neptune had to rival with another record collected by a Greek author Apollodorus, or Pseudo-Apollodorus, in his Bibliotheca. In this collection of Greek myths, Apollodorus writes that indeed, Medusa was cursed by Athena to have her beautiful hair that seduced everybody be turned into snakes… But it wasn’t because of any rape or forbidden romance, no. It was just because Medusa was a very vain woman who liked to brag about her beauty and hair – and had the foolish idea of saying her hair looked better than Athena’s. (If you recall tales such as Arachne’s or the Judgement of Paris, you will know that despite Athena being wise and clever, one of her main flaws is her vanity).

“Wait a minute,” you are going to tell me, “The Bibliotheca was created in the second century CE! Well after Greece became part of the Roman Empire, and after Ovid’s Metamorphoses became a huge success! It isn’t a true Greek myth, it is just Ovid’s tale being projected here…” And people did agree for a time… Until it was discovered, in the scholias placed around the texts of Apollonios of Rhodes, that an author of the fifth century BCE named Pherecyde HAD recorded in his time a version of Medusa’s legend where she had been cursed into becoming an ugly monster as punishment for her vanity. We apparently do not have the original text of Pherecyde, but the many scholias referring to this lost piece are very clear about this. This means that the story that Apollodorus recorded isn’t a “novelty”, but rather the latest record of an older tradition going back to the fifth century BCE… THE SAME CENTURY THAT THE GORGONEION STARTED LOSING THEIR GROTESQUE, and that the face of Medusa started becoming more human in art.

[EDIT: I also forgot to add that this evolution of Medusa is also proved by strange literary elements, such as Pindar's mention in a poem of his (around 490 BCE) of "fair-cheeked Medusa". A description which seems strange given how Medusa used to be depicted as the epitome of ugliness... But that makes sense if the "cursed beauty" version of the myth had been going around at the time!]

And thus it is all connected and explained. Ovid did invent the rape yes – but he did not invent the idea of Athena cursing Medusa. It pre-existed as the most “recent” and dominating legend in Ancient Greece, having overshadowed by Ovid’s time the oldest Hesiodic records of Medusa being born a monster. So what Ovid did wasn’t completely create a new story out of nowhere, but twist the Greek traditions of Athena cursing Medusa and Medusa having a relationship with Poseidon, so that the two legends would form one and same story. And this explains in retrospect why Ovid focuses so much on describing Medusa’s beautiful hair, and why Ovid’s Minerva would think turning her hair into snake would be a “punishment fit for the crime”: these are leftovers of the Greek tale where Medusa was punished for her boasting and her vanity.

CONCLUSION

Here is the simplified chronology of how Medusa’s evolution went.

A) Primitive Greek myths, Hesiodic tradition: Born a monster out of a family of sea-monsters and monstrous immortals. Is a grotesque, gargoylesque, eldritch abomination. Athena has only an indirect conflict with her, due to being Perseus’ “fairy godmother”. Has a lovely romance with Poseidon.

B) Slow evolution throughout Classical Greece and further: Medusa becomes a beautiful, human-looking girl that was cursed to have snake for hair and petrifying eyes, instead of being a Lovecraftian horror people could not gaze upon. Her conflict with Athena becomes direct, as it is Athena that cursed her due to being offended by her vain boasting. Her punishment is for her vanity and arrogant comparison to the goddess.

C) Ovid comes in: Medusa’s romance with Poseidon becomes a rape, and she is now punished for having been raped inside Athena’s temple.

[As a final note, I want to insist upon the fact that the story of Medusa being raped is not less "worthy" than any other version of the myth. Due to its enormous popularity, how it shaped the figure of Medusa throughout the centuries, and how it still survives today and echoes current-day problems, to try to deny the valid place of this story in the world of myths and legends would be foolish. HOWEVER it is important to place back things in their context, to recognize that it is not the ONLY tale of Medusa, that it was NOT part of Greek mythology, but rather of Roman legends - and let us all always remember this time Poseidon slept with a Lovecraftian horror because my guy is kinky.]

EDIT:

For illustration, I will place here visuals showing how the Ancient art evolved alongside Medusa's story.

Before the 5th century BCE: Medusa is a full-on monster

From the 5th century to the 2nd century BCE: A slow evolution as Medusa goes from a full-on monster to a human turned into a monster. As a result the two depictions of the grotesque and beautiful gorgoneion coexist.

Post 2nd century BCE: Medusa is now a human with snake hair, and just that

[were--ralph]

why exactly do you dislike generative art so much? i know its been misused by some folks, but like, why blame a tool because it gets used by shitty people? Why not just... blame the people who are shitty? I mean this in genuinely good faith, you seem like a pretty nice guy normally, but i guess it just makes me confused how... severe? your reactions are sometimes to it. There's a lot of nuance to conversation about it, and by folks a lot smarter than I (I suggest checking out the Are We Art Yet or "AWAY" group! They've got a lot on their page about the ethical use of Image generation software by individuals, and it really helped explain some things I was confused about). I know on my end, it made me think about why I personally was so reactive about Who was allowed to make art and How/Why. Again, all this in good faith, and I'm not asking you to like, Explain yourself or anything- If you just read this and decide to delete it instead of answering, all good! I just hope maybe you'll look into *why* some people advocate for generative software as strongly as they do, and listen to what they have to say about things -🦜

if Ai genuinely generated its own content I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, however what Ai currently does is scrape other people's art, collect it, and then build something based off of others stolen works without crediting them. It's like. stealing other peoples art, mashing it together, then saying "this is mine i can not only profit of it but i can use it to cut costs in other industries.

this is more evident by people not "making" art but instead using prompts. Its like going to McDonalds and saying "Burger. Big, Juicy, etc, etc" then instead of a worker making the burger it uses an algorithm to build a burger based off of several restaurant's recepies.

example

the left is AI art, the right is one of the artists (Lindong) who it pulled the art style from. it's literally mass producing someone's artstyle by taking their art then using an algorithm to rebuild it in any context. this is even more apparent when you see ai art also tries to recreate artists watermarks and generally blends them together making it unintelligible.

Aside from that theres a lot of other ethical problems with it including generating pretty awful content, including but not limited to cp. It also uses a lot of processing power and apparently water? I haven't caught up on the newer developements i've been depressed about it tbh

Then aside from those, studios are leaning towards Ai generation to replace having to pay people. I've seen professional voice actors complain on twitter that they haven't gotten as much work since ai voice generation started, artists are being cut down and replaced by ai art then having the remaining artists fix any errors in the ai art.

Even beyond those things are the potential for misinformation. Here's an experiment: Which of these two are ai generated?

ready?

These two are both entirely ai generated. I have no idea if they're real people, but in a few months you could ai generate a Biden sex scandal, you could generate politics in whatever situation you want, you can generate popular streamers nude, whatever. and worse yet is ai generated video is already being developed and it doesn't look bad.

I posted on this already but as of right now it only needs one clear frame of a body and it can generate motion. yeah there are issues but it's been like two years since ai development started being taken seriously and we've gotten to this point already. within another two years it'll be close to perfected. There was even tests done with tiktokers and it works. it just fucking works.

There is genuinely not one upside to ai art. at all. it's theft, it's harming peoples lives, its harming the environment, its cutting jobs back and hurting the economy, it's invading peoples privacy, its making pedophilia accessible, and more. it's a plague and there's no vaccine for it. And all because people don't want to take a year to learn anatomy.

[ihavenomouthandimustmouth]

It seems like a lot of the anti-transmasculinity/transandrophobia discourse revolves around the ideas that either this does not occur, does not occur in real life, or is just transmascs viewing criticisms of transmisogynistic transmascs as oppression, so here’s a story.

I live with some other people around my age, and I stopped using my deadname with them earlier this year. it hasn’t been that long, about 3 months, but generally, they use my correct name with an occasional mistake, usually followed up by a correction. one of them, however, just cannot seem to stop deadnaming me, often without correcting afterwards. when they do notice they’ve gotten it wrong, it’s usually followed up by a big thing about how they don’t know why they’re so bad at it or blaming it on being drunk if they’re drunk, but often not an apology.

an additional piece of this—my partner, who is a trans woman, changed the name they use around the same time, but this person almost always gets her name right. this person knows me a bit better/longer than they do her, but not that much better/longer, and generally, when I am around them, my partner is also there. (adding a cut here because this is gonna be long)

I talked with my therapist about this at my last session. I was seeking advice on how to handle it, but I also spent a lot of time just complaining and running through different incidences of this happening. I ended up telling her about some of the weird things this person said to me when I first started socially transitioning, including them saying that they were sad when I came out because they (direct quote) “didn’t want to stop seeing me as a genderless elf” (???!?) (I had previously identified as nonbinary and used any pronouns) and followed that up by saying that they hated men, which they then followed up by saying “not trans men though” (which like okay but then why bring that up in this conversation).

In talking my therapist, I circled back to the deadnaming issue and said that I thought this person was doing this to me and not my partner because my partner is more feminine than I am masculine (in social behavior and the way we look as two people that have not started medically transitioning). my therapist pushed back on this and said that, based on all the things I said, it seemed more like this person just didn’t want to see me as a man.

this blew my mind a little because I, a transmasculine person who spends way too much time on trans and transmasc internet, did not put the situation in this context while my therapist, a cis woman who is supportive but not super aware of the trans experience, did. it made a lot of sense though, and fit into the context of my other experiences and interactions with this person.

this person is a nonbinary person who has never identified as or been seen as a man. they are supportive of trans people generally and of their rights. they are also someone who believes that woman are inherently better than men. this generally doesn’t have much of an impact on the cis men we live with—for them, this more comes as being around for jokes that might make them a little uncomfortable, but doesn’t stop them from being seen as men. for me, this means I have to deal with the fact that this person doesn’t want to see me as a man and deadnames me accordingly, seemingly because they see me transitioning as a loss.

my point here is that when transmasculine people say that there are issues they face specifically related to them being transmasculine, that’s not a lie or a hypothetical. there is a stark contrast between the way this person treats my transfem partner and myself (and, after talking with someone who’s lived here with this person for longer, other transmasculine people who have lived in the house). they are supportive of trans people as a group, but not of transmasculinity, and I have to deal with the consequences.