#why the hell would you focus on calypso in a 10k essay that mentions her twice and even frames the OTHER VILLAINS in the same way

[theglassesgirl]

Hi you must be new here because I’ve answered this question to hell and back.

Refer to my FIRST ESSAY

Also refer to this tangential sibling with directly companions the above essay you responded to.

Having given the above assignments and assuming you take the time to actually read essasys relevant to her instead of essays about other people; Don’t take this as me targeting you specifically because this actually gives me a chance to speak on a strange phenomenon that happens in regards to Calypso who I hope I can stop having to refer back to honestly but here it goes

Why no one gives a shit about Calypso’s tragic backstory:

My problem w calypso discourse in general is the focus on her OVER her victim. That is insane to me. Even now, after reading an essay primarily about PENELOPE and how Odysseus’s label of a monster is not a moralistic failing, you have decided to write a brief blurb about *checks notes* how calypso is sympathetic, actually.

Which was not the fucking POINT of me speaking about EVERY SINGLE ANTAGONIST OF THE MUSICAL.

When we talk about Antinous we don’t even BEGIN to speak on why he is the way he is. His father sought asylum in Ithica and Ody granted it, you don’t think that directly affects why Antinous does what he does? Or does it not matter because he is presented as the ringleader on a gaggle of rapists.

I am proponent of language and what words we choose to use to get our point across. So I’m going to use yours respectfully

“She was imprisoned on an island as a child” when Aphrodite was born she was a grown ass woman, when Athena was born she was a grown ass woman, this infantilization of Calypso based on literal interpretation of the word “child” is baffling. Gods are born EXACTLY as they are! The verbiage you are actually looking for is “calypso was left on the Island almost as soon as she created” and it has a sort of different ring to it, doesn’t it?

So your argument isn’t about a LITERAL baby being abandoned on an island. This argument is rooted in fallacy meant to make people feel a certain way about an ACTUAL child when she never was a REAL infant, and I’m not surprised you probably don’t even realize it because here you are repeating it.

When gods are “born” they are (mostly) blank slates. MOST ALL OF THEM know what they are and who their role is meant to inform them to be.

Now, I can talk about poem Calypso if you like, but I have a feeling if I do, we’re going to go into a pointless argument that picks and chooses what facets of her precious backstory is relevant to her musical counterpart. Because it’s far less sympathetic in the poem!

So when I stick to her actual lyrics for this purpose she says “I was cast away when I was young / alone for one hundred years “

You can certainly make the argument that her isolation was purposeful, but you cannot pick and choose what parts of her ORIGINAL POEM backstory is absolute to her musical counterpart. That’s called cherry picking. What you have done here is arbitrarily picked up PERCY JACKSON’s explanation of her events, which have now permeated Google to the point that I beg you go to Jstor (they have essays for free) and actually read up scholarly sources on Calypso because I cannot have this same argument about her

Her imprisonment being unjust or being because of her family is NONSENSE! It’s flanderization! You are more than welcome to engage in fandom in a shallow way, but when you try to dress it as academic? I have a degree. We can exchange peer reviewed counter essays if you want, but don’t play in my kiddie pool and say you did your research.

Calypso in the MUSICAL has godly gravitas the same as Circe - she KNOWS she’s powerful, she presents herself as an immortal goddess who cannot be killed, and she is confident enough about her ability to immediately demand respect and belittle Odysseus.

“She never learned empathy and morality” which stands to reason why she is INCAPABLE of feeling empathy and morality. For seven years. She prioritizes her OWN feelings over that of her victim. Because all she knows is her SELF. That is called being incapable of empathy. Her situation makes her incapable of empathy. We said the same thing, but you like how you said it more, because it presents her as more sympathetic, but when one does CLOSE READING, (pls look it up)you can extrapolate multiple meanings from similar sentences!

We can infer that Hermes had time to argue with her what she did, but mostly, her apology is multifaceted

YOU can view it as her realizing what she did was bad because someone took 10 minutes to tell her, but twelve others can see it as manipulation.

This is called audience interpretation

And in my blog, we don’t present interpretation as fact. We share our views as what they are - matters of opinion! We explain why we see things a certain way based on the lyrics and animation, and when we refer to the original source poem, we DONT use it as an absolute when referring to the musical because it unfairly creates discourse like Calypso’s!

“And even in the face of all these facts, I think it is wrong how people refuse to understand Epic! Calypso and even demonize her, at the same time that these same people idolize and root for other characters who did even worse.”

WELCOME, to part of my unpublished follow up calypso essay! A preview for your perusal:

Part 6: “so then Why are Gods like Apollo and Zeus given slack for the things they do while Calypso is DEMONIZED?”

The Hellenistic gods aren’t exactly……known for their character consistently. We have newer “fans” of the pantheon who are SHOCKED to find that Hephaestus sexually assaulted Athena! When he’s usually portrayed fairly sympathetically in media and some myths like his origin. Which I find funny, as there are those who DO expect hundred year old gods to be completely unproblematic!

Even the Judeo-Christian God is something of a bastard, as all gods tend to be across the globe. Outside of actual real life religious truthers, fictional depictions of these gods are accessible to a far more wide array of audience. So keep in mind, that when I talk about the Greek gods, and all gods generally, i view them as purely fictional when I talk about them in media.

Anyway. The argument here appears to be that if fan favorites like Apollo can be jerk offs, why is babygirl Calypso treated unfairly?

Well there’s multiple reasons! Greek gods like Athena and Persephone and even Aphrodite are pretty much characters that change depending on the context and purpose of the myths they are in. They serve whatever purpose needed for the story to take place and the moral they need to impart. You get SOME absolutes, some defining traits they exhibit across regions they’re popular in. Hera is, after all, known primarily for being a wrathful god more than a motherly one. But even prolific researchers note time and time again when these gods are just OUT of character! Full stop! because it quite literally comes WITH the territory.

It’s why we’ll never get a definitive answer to MANY myths! Does Persephone and Aphrodite’s actions towards Adonis make them suck forever? Even tho they are constantly argued to be misunderstood victims? Why do we jump to call Poseidon a rapist when he also killed rapists, who mind you, were provoked into lust-filled mania because Aphrodite was mad?? Ares is everyone’s favorite god right now, but he also sucks and does a lot of shitty things - or is it that we treat rape as more unforgivable than literally everything else, and how does this belief help rape culture in the worst ways?

What is the sky was made of cotton candy?

There IS NO “real myth” - all myths are region based and depend entirely on the era, and what was meant to be extrapolated from these tales in the context they existed in. The gods, in this sense, are very much treated like public domain characters, repurposed constantly to suit the needs of whoever needs to say a thing.

You simply can’t do the same with Calypso.

She is - for lack of a better term - a Homer exclusive. An odyssey-only God. Her primary role and purpose is ENTIRELY connected to what she does to Odysseus. At least, as far as the musical is concerned. Therefore, it is FAR more reasonable to view her solely by her actions in the musical (and or poem, and sequel poems written by homers students)

So to insist that she should be treated as the larger pantheon gods asks others to ignore that she ISNT like the pantheon gods. She only really has ONE role and purpose, and comparatively, it makes sense to engage with her solely under those circumstances instead of how the gods are a grab bag of good and evil depending on who is using them for a particular take.

It also falls into whataboutism that bores me to tears. If you judge calypso what about judging xyz god - when, as stated in my previous essay - what you want is FOR CALYPSO to be treated like them. And you won’t ever get to this point if you digs in your heels and demand she be unconditionally loved BEFORE she is treated like a normal, every day problematic god! You are putting the cart before the horse!!

It would be FAR more productive to rephrase this argument as “Calypso is LIKE the other gods - awful in a lot of ways, but there’s still things about her that you can relate to.” Though it’s harder to find example because she has so LITTLE content to extrapolate compared to the far more prolific gods, it gets the point across better.

It’s entirely farcical when one comes across posts that state Hades, Apollo etc are rapists and “forgiven” while “calypso is demonized!” When the female gods are just as batshit half the time. It’s NOT simply a matter of misogyny and throwing whatever male names you have on hand while ignoring the other goddesses reeks of straw manning. Which is precisely why I mentioned the goddesses earlier.

I do NOT appreciate arguments that are so blatantly one-side and used in tantrum-like posts whining about a fictional character you are perfectly allowed to loved! It’s SUCH a disservice to fandom.

Why are some characters liked more than others? Hell, that’s a question older than Star Trek! If you don’t put in the work, if you don’t curate loving your fave in your own space and do nothing but complain that others don’t…🤷🏽‍♀️I don’t know what to tell you!

Part 9: At least Calypso is the LEAST shitty villain right?

You’re still framing your love of a character as a moralistic one, which is an utter waste of time that doesn’t interest me, because in the grand scheme of the story she inhabits - no one gives a shit. Not Odysseus, not Hermes, not Athena, not Zeus etc

Like with God Games, as I mentioned in my previous essay. Calypso is beholden TO Zeus, being the FATHER and god KING. She’s a lesser Island goddess, arguably in the same camp as Circe (but she at least has nymphs to care for) who absolutely has power over Odysseus, and refuses to let him go under HER jurisdiction (again pls read my essay) but she isn’t AS important or powerful as Hermes - the messenger GOD send to tell her Zeus’s decree.

Athena has to go over her head with Zeus because it is the ONLY sure fire way Odysseus will be released quickly. If she went down to fight Calypso on HER island? A mess! Ody is just her friend, she has no claim over him. Calypso is CONVINCED she is the hero in Odysseus’s story. Remember that Athena is the goddess of wisdom, she reasoned the quickest and easiest way to resolve this debacle was thru Zeus.

And yet, despite all this, calypsos primarily role is one of absolute authority and control over Odysseus. THATS what matters. No one in the story proper cares about her backstory. The animation portrays perfectly how she was spiraling, because in the face of greater power she IS insignificant, and tho Odysseus strategically tells her what she wants to hear in the precise moment he needs to in order to facilitate his escape - the minute he’s done doing so, his face is utterly disinterested in her pain. Because. Ultimately. It doesn’t matter to the story.

Her character is complex and nuanced, but her role is straightforward. In the same way that no matter what she does, Calypso is utterly unable to empathize with her victim due to her godliness, no matter how sad her backstory, the MAIN story treats it as little more than a footnote compared to the tragedy of what she did to Odysseus by keeping him captive. It’s callous, sure, but simply how the story is structured.

For those who don’t mind wandering into the source material, it’s the very reason that her fate is ultimately ambiguous. Like Circe, we don’t KNOW of calypso ever gets better. If she meets someone knew and is kinder. It’s all fantasy. Fanfic. For calypso in particular she simply remains in her island forever alone or in some renditions KILLS HERSELF.

There’s no redemption. You are welcome to invent one. But the fates of those who block Odysseus’s way home are all intentionally vague. The cyclops, Circe, calypso, even POSEIDON. There’s no epilogue that claims any of them will follow through to being better people. Because their feelings don’t matter. Odysseus’s feelings do.

So even in the context of the original poem and the musical - Calypso being “comparatively” more or less shitty is….meaningless

I need you to look into a mirror and repeat “Calypso is a villain and I love her, calypso is a villain and that’s okay, calypso is a villain whose victim is Odysseus and it doesn’t matter as long as I’m not making pointless arguments about her”

As I have said AD NASUEM in the original essay you chose to respond to; her being a MONSTER is not a moral condemnation - it is simply a thing she IS.

It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter how. She is IN THE SAME BOAT AS THE CYCLOPS - a scary ass god capable of ruining Odysseus’s life, centered on their own feelings, and dare I say w the same level of maturity. They are what they are.

Before speaking on Calypso I BEG that you stop, reassess, and try to rephrase ANY of what your about to say in a way that directly affects Odysseus - the same way EVERYONE talks about literally ALL THE OTHER ANTAGONISTS

The Ithaca Saga: What IS a Monster, how it’s presented, and when fictional S.A is integral to the plot.

So -

This was originally a response to @ / anniflamma which you can still find on my page unedited. But with the new discourse surrounding the suitors, I figured I could retool it as a standalone essay to express a topic I’ve been trying to pin down for a while now; What exactly does the mean when they call a character a monster? What do they do, do the reasons matter, and how does the subject of rape affect how the fandom consider some monsters more unforgivable than others? When IS rape in fiction “necessary” and why such questions defeat the purpose of exploratory creative works.

In this post we will discuss all the major antagonists of the Epic Musical, Penelope’s agency, the label of Monster and the types of moralizing one might do when faced with uncomfortable subjects in fiction and how to prevent these feelings from blinding is about what a story is trying to say.

For those who read my original response; there’s new content to read here and posts that will be referred to, if you’d like to give it another gander!

Thank you,

Let’s begin;

I think making the threat of rape explicit was very much needed, actually.

It’s come to my attention that there are people here and on tiktok who are so uncomfortable with the subject matter in this CENTURIES old tale that they’re both refusing to accept that it plays an important part in the original poem and musical, AND are bizarrely insisting that Jorge should have magically done away with it to make more palatable.

This is beyond juvenile - it’s a clear sign of media illiteracy.

What, if I may ask, do you think it means when you say that the suitors are going to force Penelope to choose one of them to marry.

You may respond that they want to take over Ithaca. That they want to be king. But take a moment to consider what forcing a woman to marry one of them will entail. I wonder if you think that one can divorce the idea of sexual violence in this plot.

It would be…unfathomably difficult to do so. Because you CANT. There is an implicit threat of Penelope’s will breaking and having to have unwilling and reluctant sex with any one of them in the event she just gave up and picked one.

This isn’t a storyline that depicts Penelope of being willing to marry any of the suitors. She is WAITING for her husband’s return. Even if he doesn’t, she doesn’t WANT to marry someone else. Her consent is being violated by the very merit of them being in her palace, eating her food, and threatening her son.

They’re doing ALL OF THIS in order to bend her will in the HOPES of raping her as a bonus to becoming king of Ithaca.

My contention is the use of “unnecessary” when it comes to this trope in media - though themes of rape can be uncomfortable, to call them unnecessary HAVE to meet certain criteria. Which this specific instance doesn’t.

By observing various responses, it’s clear that the threat of rape went completely over many’s head in this instance of the story. So I very must appreciate Jorge making it SO clear that it’s upsetting.

This part of the odyssey, and the musical, is very much about Penelope suffering under the threat of assault for YEARS. In the same way Odysseus was (a thing I touched upon in my calypso essay, in terms of his ambiguous situation in the musical) - it’s a parallel that works as both Antinous and Calypso were introduced (regardless on your personal interpretation of what Calypso did or did not do, but that’s neither here nor there).

It has taken an emotional and psychological toll of either spouse. And the kicker is that neither of them are freed of this situation on their own - they are both rescued by outside forces. Athena/Hermes helps free Odysseus; Athena/Odysseus will help free Penelope.

The looming threat of rape is SO necessary that it helps the catharsis factor we feel toward PENELOPE’s story - it’s nothing to do w Odysseus who by now is a force of nature as big as Poseidon, his actions happen TO her, and it’s up to her to decide (per “would you love me” ) what she feels about that. She can very well reject him! She’s suffered under male violence for YEARS. Odysseus’s violence and those of the suitors toward her are basis enough for the comparison.

Do all men, including her husband, become violent? Does she want to put up with that? We know from her song snippets that she is NOT a woman that simply succumbs to the Rape Rescue trope as suggested by ignorant consumers of media - and I call it ignorance and consumerism because there’s a clear lack of engaging with the material in an intuitive way. It’s just blind consumption - as if one bites into a burger and find a pickle, which you personally don’t like, and having it removed - you can’t treat ART that way .

Penelope is a very intuitive and emotionally intelligent queen. Stop infantilizing her. Her own husband suggests that like the suitors, his actions make him just as bad as they are and presents his hope as being understanding if she rejects him on those grounds. But those ARENT her grounds. She has full autonomy and can make a distinction FOR HERSELF whether she considers her husband equal to the monsters who have harmed her.

So let’s talk about the “Monster” label as it is presented on the entire musical.

Some have erroneously suggested that Odysseus has been given an out to commit cruel and ruthless deeds with out “good justification” - he does it for his family,, after all!

Which is a misunderstanding of everything every antagonist of each saga has done.

Let’s start with the Troy Saga: Odysseus has killed a BABY. He made the choice to put his family over this child. Everything he has done and lost would be for literally NOTHING if he hadn’t, as even if he had killed the suitors and regained everything - the GODS themselves would make sure that child would come to an aged Odysseus and slaughter him, Penelope, Telemachus and his entire kingdom when he came of age.

Odysseus STARTS as a monster. We have been rooting for the man who laid Troy and its children asunder. As such, the label of a monster is NOT so much a morally subjective label - it simply a thing that IS. Or rather. It is what ALL the antagonists ARE, but it’s hardly a condemnation of any of them.

(Peep that one of the first lines Ody says refers back to in the Vengeance Saga is what he did to Troy - he STILL views his actions over there as unforgivable, so not even HE will ever see himself otherwise, the problem was that he felt so guilty over it that he became a detriment (a different kind of monster) to his friends and family when they were all guilty of the same thing and trying to get home.)

ALL of the antagonists have a “good reason” to kill ALL the soldiers (who again, have looted and slaughtered the Trojans) Odysseus and his close friends included. Whether your AGREE is almost irrelevant…because the story itself proposes that it’s irrelevant.

The next saga introduces the cyclops: his motivation is primarily that his FRIENDS the sheep have been slaughtered. You can argue in the scope of things, you can’t empathize with this but it’s his good reason. He’s the son of a god, and these sheep are all he has. His friends, who matter to him as much as Polites does to Ody, are being taken and slain, he is being drugged, attacked and maimed. VERY much was Ody goes through in the final saga. And even so.

The Cyclops is antagonistic to the party, he’s a monster who feels justified killing to avenge his killed sheep. A monster is a thing he IS.

As Poseidon’s son, he asks his father to kill the 600 men who have ransacked his home and beat on him. He doesn’t view his father as being wrong for this. In the same ways Ody and Telemachus don’t waste any time addressing the slain suitors later on. Poseidon is a monster of a god - it’s just a thing he is. Not even being stabbed 100 times is enough to repay the harm he’s done - to most everyone, not just Ody, but we are not asked to quantify that. Just live with it.

Circe has killed NUMEROUS men over the years. HER “good reason” is that something bad happened to her nymphs when she let a stranger in her islands. She doesn’t even promise that she WONT kill in the future - her song ends w the suggestion that the world may continue to need her to puppeteer! Because she does not exist to be “redeemed” - she is somewhat more reasonable and capable of empathy than even the likes Athena, who being a greater and more powerful god, does not have the one on one affection to her follows as Circe does. She’s a monster! It’s a label, a thing she IS.

So here we begin to ask; is it LOVE that gives people the capacity to do monstrous things? Because the cyclops loved his sheep friends, Poseidon loves his son, Circe loves her nymphs.

And by now you’re saying now wait a minute didn’t the Underworld Saga go over this? Why yes it did! And Odysseus decides to “become the monster” - he already IS one by the standards of the cyclops, Poseidon, Troy - they all see him as a monstrous being. But he accepts that, after being one in Troy, he held back and ruined the lives of his men, making him a monster to THEM. His “good reason” for being so!

He attempts very hard to be the General he was in Troy and prioritize them going home, sparing no sympathy towards his enemies - but in the Thunder Saga we see the gods further push him to be completely self-serving like they are. The sun gods cows are harmed, he sends Zeus in relation - his “good reason” being his friend were personally harmed.

Odysseus’s “good reason” is ultimately decided to be the same good reason he had to slaughter the Trojans - to get back home to his wife and son.

Like with the Cyclops sheep, Circe’s nymphs, The Sun gods cows, and Poseidons son, WE are shocked and made to feel some type of way about Odyseuss’s reasoning. Surely HIS personal suffering shouldn’t cost the lives of “innocent” men…but it does! It surely does.

He is a monster. It’s just a thing he IS.

Now, Odysseus spends the next seven years under the thumb of ANOTHER monster. And through calypso own reasoning, despite her tragic backstory, her “good reason” she IS a monster. She’s incapable of understanding why she wasn’t reciprocated. Incapable of empathizing with a human because as a god who has spent eternity alone, it stands to reason she, like all the other monsters mentioned before, prioritizes HER personal suffering over everyone else’s. In some versions she either kills herself or does spend the rest of eternity alone. She’s a monster. This is a thing she IS.

Now what the HELL does all this have to do with the suitors?

Odysseus started the musical a MONSTER. He’s worn different hats, but it is what he IS. It’s a label, not a moral critique.

ALL of the antagonists of every saga have a “good reason” NONE of them are ruthless for ruthlessness sake! It’s immaterial whether you agree with them or not, but to understand them for what they are.

Odysseus is the antagonist of the ithica saga, md while the suitors are the antagonist to him and his family, we see their fate form THEIR POV

The suitors could not have been depicted as “rude youthful men” like Telemachus. That Odysseus killing them should be shocking - a frightening condemnation of everything he’s done and became. But I ask once again - in what world are the suitors not implicitly set up as monsters?

Because again. They aren’t being rude for rudeness’s sake! They aren’t JUST eating Penelope’s food and sleeping in HER house. Them threatening Telemachus, as you propose, isn’t “enough” of a reason because they didn’t wake up one day beefing w this boy. Everything they do is for the express purpose of sexual violence towards the Queen of Ithaca, who upon assaulting, will make it so any one of them will be King.

You can’t separate the one from the other. You get a nonsense scenario. The whole REASON they’re there in the first place.

Even if you create a fanfic where 108 men wake up one day and raid the palace to slaughter the royal family with no intent of sexually assaulting either (because remember Telemachus is also the subject of Hold Em Down) and then fight amongst themselves to be the next king, but then isn’t that STILL a “good reason” for Odysseus to slaughter them?

Now I hear what you may be asking: but if all the monsters of the sagas, Odysseus included, have a “good reason” even though we might not agree with it, what kind of monsters does that make the suitors? Surely and clearly THEY aren’t doing what they’re doing for noble reasons.

I consider them akin to the 600 men who died under their captains command.

Because, as stated before. Odysseus views his actions in a Troy as his start of monstrosity. He did all that to finish the war and do back home. He ruined the lives of all Trojans.

So did his soldiers.

The only moment in time (even in the deleted songs) that the bulk of them repent about the war is in terms that it left them without food.

But glasses! They were just following orders!

Which is what one of the suitors suggest in song 38. Their serpents head is dead, THEY were just going with Antinous’ flow, they are innocent.

Like the 600 soldiers, the 108 suitors sacked a home that wasn’t theirs and harmed a wife and child - does them being the queen and prince pale in comparison to the hundreds of wives and children slain in Troy? Homer is a genius to ask us to see these parallels for what it is.

The suitors ARE monsters. That is simply what all 108 of them are. In the context of the story itself, their intent is to break Penelope’s will, commit martial rape, and become king of Ithaca. They aren’t there for kicks, they aren’t ignorant boys, they’re socially accepted adults abusing the hospitality rule with an express purpose.

So a GROUP of monsters are slaughtered by ANOTHER monster, and though in this instance we can argue it’s morally justifiable, it doesn’t take away from Odysseus’s fear of being rejected by his family. He has ruined the lives of the Trojans, his men, AND multiple gods! To get to this point. He IS a monster. And the story asks US, through Penelope, if he is still worth loving.

Seeing Penelope as merely his reward is so backwards and bizarre. It’s very clear that bad faith interpretations of her are based on objectifying her erroneously, when the narrative presents her as a fully developed character.

In the story both in the poem and the musical that the suitors ARE NOT her guests. She is being sequestered against her will.

In what world could the suitors be “just” murderers and not….very clearly rapists? It’s BUILT into their motivation. You would have to change the very FOUNDATION of the Ithaca plot line and Penelope herself??? To say nothing of Telemachus’s role!

What’s the proposal here? That Penelope invited these suitors? That’s she’s actively looking for a replacement husband? Okay, again, that changes literally SO MUCH of the story, but wouldn’t that put Telemachus in a position where he too has to change? Does he resent his mother for doing this? Is he helping his dad out of spite or because he wants him back? How are we meant to view Penelope in this radically new and hip Epic the Musical? Is she savvy and in her right to choose a new boo? Okay…okay, so then….you want Odysseus to be the only one unchanged and go axe crazy because….hes jealous? He kills these upstanding men….curtain call. That’s all folks!

Absurdity at its finest. You throw Penelope’s agency out the window. Her weaving and unweaving her loom is meaningless or simply doesn’t happen. Or maybe it’s that she wakes up one day and goes hey yknow what I WILL consider marrying one of these guys with no sense of dread and fear. Oh wait Oddy has killed then all! Never mind me feeling unsafe a week ago, he’s done a Bad.

Crazy.

It’s just…not going to end up making Penelope look like a well written female character if Jorge has done what you wanted! THAT would make her a mindless prop. You seem to think she is one, and that’s not the case. Historically, in fact!

She is a whole person in the poem and musical whether you understand it or not. You would have to argue so thoroughly why she sucks and let me assure you - there are entire DISSERTATIONs on why you’d be incorrect.

So, no.

No, you CANT take away the rape in Penelope’s storyline. It matters ALOT. It’s the ROOT of the matter! Could old school vegetales make something up that’s more to your sensibilities? Maybe at its peak but god, I couldn’t possibly come up with a draft that could reflect that. I won’t even try.

The rape aspect of the Ithica Saga isn’t unnecessary - it’s INTEGRAL to the plot. It can make you uncomfortable, but it’s BUILT into the royal family’s suffering whether it’s explicit or not! And it SHOULD be explicit! Because you seem to think because it usually isn’t, that the rape aspect isn’t there!

I cannot imagine coming to this kind of conclusion.

They are not random men going on a siege of the palace one day - you cannot “sanitize” the SUITORS because by the very merit of them calling each other THE SUITORS there is an implicit threat of sexual violence. Because Penelope doesn’t WANT suitors. She rejects them. They’re already violating her consent.

How the FUCK to do you censor the rape when it’s in every action they take? And I know what you’re saying: but didn’t Jorge censor the rape aspect that both Circe and Calypso commit towards him?

Further reading: suggests that ALLUDING to it is not the same as censoring, that it still FITS the PURPOSE of these characters in regards to Odysseus’s suffering under them. That after ambiguity, it is NECESSARY to make the rape aspect CLEAR in order to create both catharsis and MEANING at the end of the narrative. The THEME is still respected and present, it is not REMOVED. Please consider reading the linked follow up that answers this question.

In short.

It’s truly a matter of using one’s goddamn head when it comes to view fictional depictions of rape as “necessary” - because though some depictions can be presented BADLY, to suggest they should not EXISTS lends itself to rape culture. It silences the voices of victims. Its representation denied. Don’t talk about it, don’t even suggest it, because rape is bad.

It’s an action that happens to people. It’s a crime in civilized society. It’s a physical and psychological trauma that has always been. It happens daily, in fact. Though epic the musical is a source of entertainment for you, it doesnt exist solely for that purpose.

When Homer included it within his original oral story, he did so as a storyteller trying to get his audience to philosophize, not simply have fun.

I think we’ve come to some abysmal conclusion that men can’t write about these topics when we have historical evidence of at least one man knowing what the hell he’s talking about. And Jorge has done a phenomenal job even when he hadn’t depicted blatantly.

If you’re uncomfortable to the point of not wanting to see it at all, that is entirely on you, art and creative works allow us to explore these topics safely. Whether it’s from the POV of the assailant or one of the victims commenting on it, fiction is one of the only places we can talk about it and learn about ourselves in a way it doesn’t harm real people.

I don’t even want to BEGIN discussing all the losers who are still harassing Antinous fans or people who genuinely enjoy his song despite/BECAUSE of the subject matter. Its purpose in the story matters more than you policing how it’s presented and how it’s consumed. No amount of people enjoying themselves will take away the foundational POINT of the character and song. It’s perfect the way it is.

Like with the chaos that calypso discourse wrought, you cannot control how people treat a NOT REAL CHARACTER or the songs they sing - if it bothers you that one type of fictional villian is treated one way or another, it is on you to find likeminded people instead of going into others faces and pretending to be a self-righteous prick. You can throw whatever buzzwords you want, the CONTEXT these characters live in has nothing to do with how others want to play with them. If you don’t understand the difference between the two instances, fandom is certainly not for you and will not be changed to suit your sensibilities.

To end this post, I want to thank those who further asked me questions and bounced ideas off with me, and wow, what a phenomenal ending to a grandiose musical. I hope I can see it live, animated, streamed, developed into a game etc whatever form it takes now that the concept albums are published

Thank you all for engaging w my work💖