#and with the whole context of hero cult

[pu-butt]

Besides the fact that the idea of an 'original myth' is absolute nonsense, it is also such a waste to look at mythology that way. I am working on my thesis on literary funerary epigrams on mythological figures (long story lol) and it requires me to do deep dives into the traditions surrounding dozens of mythological figures and i am in a constant state of physical distress in a bad way AND a good way. The bad way of course is related to deadlines and the stress of writing a thesis in general. But the good way is entirely connected to my reading about these dozens of versions of myths and their implications. It's probably not great for me long term, but with each word i read on Ajax's suicide or Niobe's petrification or the death of Medea's children my heart feels like it's choking and my legs can't stop shaking and my throat just itches to scream because all of it is just absolutely bonkers. If i had any energy left in me after this day of building up my case on Medea's children and Oedipus' sons only to have it all torn down by one (1) line of Euripides, i would write an actually coherent rant on why the fact that all these co-existing and contradicting versions of myths exist is the greatest thing about mythology. But alas, brain is dead, try again tomorrow i guess

#i feel like i might jump out of my skin #which is good and bad #medea is just driving me insane #she did it the corinthians did it it was an accident #ive never read euripides' medea so i was never that into her story bcs i just didnt know it very well #but man i get it now #boy do i get it #and with the whole context of hero cult #going absolutely bonkers over here #i wont be able to make any of it make sense with my epigram #and that is the point!!! #and it's like...it feels like a clue #like a lead #like it could have the most enormous implications on the development and popularity of the different strands of medea's story #if only we knew for sure when it was written and in what context #but we do not #it could be the key but we dont have the lock #losing it i tell you

[jedi-enthusiast]

Debunking the "The Jedi are Evil" Theory Made by The Film Theorists PT 1

Back when I was a little baby Star Wars fan and I had only ever watched "Star Wars: Rebels" and I didn't really have any opinions of my own--let alone informed opinions--I watched this video:

I had generally really liked the theories made on Film Theory and Game Theory, and I hadn't watched enough SW media to poke holes in this theory (or a more fitting metaphor would be "blowing a giant hole through it" because it's inaccurate), so needless to say my reaction could be summarized as-

"Wow, I can't believe how evil the Jedi were! No wonder Anakin killed them all!" - baby Jedi-Enthusiast, who didn't know any better and was very stupid and ill-informed.

But now that I'm a little older, I've actually watched almost all SW media, and I've actually figured out my own opinions (namely that I'm an Anakin hater and Pro-Jedi), I'm going to go through this entire video and debunk the whole thing and/or provide context to show that the Jedi are, in fact, the good guys and trying to make them out to be some "evil repressive cult" only makes you seem ignorant.

(and yes, most points will be made into their own posts, because some of these get really fucking long)

----------

Point One - George Lucas is Wrong About His Own Characters

One of the first things Matthew says in the video is this:

"I want to look back at these older movies and show that things have always been this way-" [always been morally grey, things not being cut and dry good/evil] "-in the series. That, despite George Lucas's not-so-subtle costume choices from the original movies and the blatant good versus evil storylines that all of these films purport to have, the heroes aren't always the heroes these stories make them out to be."

Now, it's very clear here that Matthew subscribes to the "death of the author" viewpoint of Star Wars, where the intention of the creators doesn't matter, so I'm primarily gonna argue my point without bringing up a bunch of Lucas quotes and commentaries, just so the playing field is even. However-

I do want to make it clear that Lucas is the creator and he had a very specific vision and purpose for the Jedi.

Lucas did not subscribe to the "morally grey heroes/villains" idea that's gotten so popular lately, the Jedi and Rebellion are meant to firmly be the good guys and the Sith/Separatists/Empire/etc. are meant to be the bad guys. There are no "if," "ands," or "buts."

The Jedi are good. Period.

(if they weren't then it'd be framed as a bad thing throughout the OT and every other post-prequels show/movie that the Jedi are still alive/coming back, but that's another thing)

#star wars #sw prequels #sw original trilogy #pro jedi #pro jedi council #pro jedi order #in defense of the jedi #in defense of the jedi council #anti anakin apologists #anti anakin skywalker

[wheelercurse]

Let’s put Mike’s monologue in context. And I don’t mean just its place in the story (that it happened thanks to Will) but look at the big picture. Its position in the whole season about truth and lies, but not in a black/white mindset. It’s more nuanced. 

It’s a season where characters sometimes lie, omit some truth, or are mistaken about what it’s the truth. They aren’t always completely honest for different reasons.

The season starts with a misleading scene. And we (the audience) will learn the truth of what happened when El does it too, who also was mistaken. She thought that she had caused the massacre. She had buried her memory thanks to her trauma. 

The following sequence is the narration of El’s letter. In this letter, El lies about her life in Lenora; she isn’t having a good time there. But also she said some things about her family that weren’t true, but she wasn’t lying about it. She just assumed things that weren’t true.: Joyce didn’t enjoy her new job,  Will wasn’t painting for a girl, and Jonathan wasn’t nervous because he was waiting for his acceptance letter. He has it already. 

So since the beginning, they’re telling us, “Watch out. Don’t take everything at face value.”

This season, our heroes sometimes lie, and our villains sometimes tell the truth. Or sometimes, the characters hide some truth. Even some characters gave long speeches where they were not completely honest. I already talked about one: El’s letter. But here are more examples:

Will’s speech in the van, when he’s describing his feelings as El’s. There’s some truth because the feelings are real but not from El.

Robin’s story about why she’s interested in Victor Creel. She started it with: “And I’ll tell you the truth, Anthony. These aren’t my clothes. I borrowed them because I wanted you to take us seriously. Because nobody takes girls seriously in this field.” it’s interesting because she’s telling the truth. Those clothes weren’t hers, and she used them so they could pass as students. Again there’s truth in there, but she’s also hiding something.

Steve’s speech to Nancy about his dream, which later he confesses was true, but he was omitting something. “It’s all true. But I left one part out. The most important part. You’re there.” 

Jason’s speech when he is sure that the Hellfire Club is a satanic cult. “I know what I saw. And I have come to accept an awful truth. These murders are ritualistic sacrifices.” He thinks he has discovered the truth but is mistaken. Again he wasn’t lying, but he was also not telling the truth.

Max’s letter to Billy. She’s not lying per se, but she’s saying all this like she’s suffering because she missed him. But that wasn’t the whole truth like Vecna told her. She was suffering from guilt for being relieved and happy that her abuser had died.

I’m not saying that all the speeches weren’t completely honest, but most were. One that was honest was Max’s when she admitted to Vecna that she wanted Billy to die. “You were just telling the truth.”

She completed her arc, and someone could say that Mike also completed his and told El that he loved her, but that would mean that his arc was about saying ily to his girlfriend, which brings me to another important point. In this season character’s inner conflicts were about learning, accepting or hiding some truth:

El has to learn the truth about the massacre and herself. She isn’t a monster (or a superhero)

Will was hiding his feelings for Mike.

Max has a hard time dealing with his guilt about the truth: She wanted Billy to die.

Jonathan lied about his acceptance letter because he didn’t want Nancy to throw away her dream.

Nancy also pretends everything is fine with Jonathan until she admits to Robin that she is worried about their relationship status.

So it’s not far-fetched to think that Mike’s arc was related to some truth that he was hiding or didn’t accept, especially when we had Will telling him this: “Sometimes I think it’s just scary to open up like that. To say how you really feel. Especially to people you care about the most. Because what if they don’t like the truth?” and Mike nodding in a close-up.

What would it be the truth that he was hiding that he was in love with El? In that case, she would like it. That’s exactly what she wanted to hear when he couldn’t say it.

Some people would say, “well, the truth he was hiding was about his insecurities.” I would think they’re right, but:

They didn’t talk about their insecurities in a proper conversation.

It would be a good character development if we don’t have Will literally encouraging him to talk.

He didn’t use the truth motif when talking about his insecurities.

This brings us to another point.

First, when Mike told El his insecurities about how he was scared of losing her, and one day, she realized that she didn’t need him anymore, so it would hurt more. I don’t think he was lying. Mike is scared of losing people he loves, and he probably would have a hard time saying it because when he loses them, it hurts more. And you will say you’re contradicting yourself. But no, I think he wasn’t saying the whole truth like some characters because there were other reasons why he wasn’t saying ily.

Ok, now back to my point. The use of the motif. Mike used this word in three different scenes, and the curious thing is that his last statement contradicts the first two:

“Listen, the truth is, the last year has been weird, you know […] it’s Hawkins. It is not the same without you”

“But the truth is, when I stumbled on her in the woods, she just needed someone. It’s not fate. It’s not destiny. It’s just simple dumb luck.”

“But the truth is, El, I don’t know how to live without you. I feel like my life started that day we found you in the woods [….] And I knew right then and there, in that moment that I loved you.”

He was telling Will how weird his time in Hawkins had been without him. And then practically said the same thing to El but tried to paint it more romantic. He also said to Will that his meeting with El was dumb luck, and he only knew that she needed someone. But in his monologue, he described that meeting as love at first sight. Also, how could his life have started that day when he was looking for his missing friend, the one whose town isn’t the same without him? So he was lying.

I think deep down Mike knew that he was lying, but he also kept lying to himself about his true feelings. But that’s an analysis for another day.

My point is that Mike wasn’t completely honest in his monologue. There were truth in his monologue, but not everything was true.

#byler #Byler analysis #not really an analysis or well yes it is #but it’s also my thoughts about this season

[linka-from-captain-planet]

that minthara and florrick update was NUTS. Minthara using her sources to see if Florrick ever slept with Ulder is EXACTLY the kind of unhinged, territorial behavior I love her for tbh. If you need an excuse to ramble about them, I would love to know how you picture this whole thing between them starting!

YES because the thing about Minthara is that she's operating on nuclear Menzoberranzan levels of intensity 24/7. Writing her subjective narration is very fun because she's so intelligent and cunning, but her perception of things is just slightly skewed from the reality of Baldurian life. That's the realization she starts to have toward the end, that she's playing this hardcore game of 4D chess basically just against herself, while Florrick is only like... having a nice evening banging her work frenemy (which is unhinged, just not nearly on the same level).

I only briefly mentioned in the fic what context I think this thing could have started in, but I'm obviously insane about this ship, so I'll take any excuse to expand! Wall of text incoming though...

Since the story is told from Minthara's POV, I wanted to go over what she sees in Florrick that would attract her, since Minthara's not easy to impress and doesn't waste her time with just anyone. And what she sees is... a lot of herself actually. She sees a powerful woman on a noble quest, driven by her unshakeable values, who falls into the clutches of the Absolute (albeit in a very different way) and almost loses herself, only to be saved and find herself again. I think that would earn Florrick just enough of Minthara's respect to earn her attention... and maybe a bit of a connection, too.

(This is also a saved but unromanced Minthara, passed over by the person who gave her back her life... still yearning for the affection and connection that is her deepest desire and her biggest weakness...)

Fast forward a bit and the Netherbrain is defeated, the Cult of Absolute is no more, people are cheering in the streets... All I'm saying is that *I* would be a little frisky. If I'm Minthara, I'm reaching for someone perhaps not in the tight-knit group of heroes I don't really feel a part of, but perhaps someone who's also on the edge of them, someone who's earned a bit of respect. If I'm Florrick... maybe she doesn't know that Minthara was the one who ordered the raid on Waukeen's Rest yet, or maybe she's temporarily willing to forgive it because Minthara, at the end of the day, did help save her beloved city and her beloved duke.

(Or maybe she's just a wood elf* and, opposite of Minthara, her attitude toward sexuality is pretty relaxed and she doesn't feel the need to justify her desire or make partners 'earn' it. It's just sex, not a big deal....

*not confirmed in canon and possibly refuted by her stats, but always real to ME bc of the fun flavors it adds to her characterization overall as a stern, urbane bureaucrat)

So anyway they bang once, expecting that to be the end of it.

But Minthara can't go home. There are no gods left for her. She's a traitor unto Lolth, and she knows exactly what her greatest adversary (her mom) is capable of. She could skulk in the shadows of the shadows, find fellow outcasts, build a rebel force... but maybe she bides her time, first, in Baldur's Gate. Maybe she sees an apple ripe for picking in the chaos and the rebuilding. No matter what she does, she needs resources, and she's just been given a key to the market.

You know Ulder and Florrick give what remains of Gortash's yes-men the boot on day 1 plus a lot of patriars and whatever are already dead, so there are plenty of openings among the ranks of the leadership, and who better to fill it than a renowned hero? Not in any official capacity at first (I imagine her just being a menace in a town hall for a while), but once she proves her mettle as a shrewd leader, she quickly earns her way into the council.

Obviously, this flings her back into Florrick's orbit.

Florrick wasn't born yesterday, and she also probably has a 1000-page dossier on Minthara's various war crimes drafted on day 1. She knows what Minthara is up to. Her faith in the city and Ulder's leadership is unshakeable; she does not really find Minthara to be a threat... but perhaps she takes it upon herself to monitor the situation anyway.

And that's where things get a little messy, because they're simultaneously allies and adversaries day-to-day, and they once went through something pretty extraordinary together, and they've already had sex. These are both women who aren't happy unless they're in at least a bit over their head, unless they're being challenged, and having a bit of excitement in their day that is otherwise just endless squabbling, Florrick trying to keep the city on the righteous path so it doesn't fall into corruption yet again, Minthara trying to snatch power bit by bit...

Well I just think they'd have a lot to fuck about, basically.

And considering that Minthara is a known feelings-catcher... while Florrick's love is reserved for Baldur's Gate and Ulder** even though she shares her body with Minthara... there's a lot to feels about, as well.

**I'm on the fence headcanon-wise if I want Florrick to actually be somewhat in love with Ulder and simply at peace with it not being mutual/sexual, or if she's simply a very devoted friend and Minthara's jealousy is irrational.

Anyway this is possibly more than you bargained for but thanks for the opportunity to ramble :)

#minthara/florrick #my beloved crackship #asks #minthara #counsellor florrick

[jess-the-vampire]

the person who didn't understand why AUs exist...even the idea that belos is no longer interesting once the evil is erased is like?? not true at all. did they forget there is a PERSON, a whole-ass personality with a backstory before the Emperor Belos element? That he's interesting as a villain BECAUSE of how his personality and backstory informs his evil deeds. XD it's why I love your AU so much. He still feels like Philip/Belos, just in a different context. It's cool to see.

honestly for me it's kinda fun cause i wouldn't call him like a "Good person" in the au, in fact it's kinda valid most people in the au don't like him.

Like he's not evil, but he's not some morally good person either, and i at least find it fun to play with.

I describe him in the au more as someone conflicted with his actions and handling it in fairly unhealthy ways that break him down and is slowly going through recovery and healing. I mean his character is rooted in religious trauma and he grew up in basically a cult? so i find exploring that and how it affects him interesting.

i feel removing any and all his flaws would just make him basically a different character, it makes more sense to take his existing flaws and implement it in his new role.

And like hey, people always gotta keep this in mind, i made this au before s2, like before any of his worst crimes were actually known to us.

I had to build around the show basically, things changed as it went, the stuff the show did with belos kinda gave me a rough task to work with.

like this au wasn't made AFTER HM or something, after the grimwalker and brother stuff, i had this idea awhile back and goofed around with it and it more or less just kinda evolved?

it started off as me just being like "How about a villain/hero swap au cause of the parallels I'm spotting?" and people just fell in love with it.

all i can say is, i did my best with what i was given, and hey, if it made philip a more interesting character for me to play around with how his behavior hurts those around him but also his strong desire for companionship and his abandonment issues.

Then i am glad i could show what makes him so compelling for others by trying new things with him.

if he was really generic, i probably wouldn't bother, but i find the drama with him and caleb and his behavior and actions interesting. So it's kinda fun to take that in a new light by putting it in the focus of a swap au where he is hated and outcasted by witch society.

#my art #the owl house #toh #a reverse of feathers and mud au #a reverse of feathers and mud #areverseoffeathersandmudau #emperor belos #philip wittebane

[utilitycaster]

A lot of people who try to analyze religion in Exandria need to watch the Adventuring Academy episode where Brennan and Matt talked about worldbuilding, specifically when Matt said “In a game like dungeons and dragons, or a lot of role playing games where ultimately part of the game is to overcome villains and rise up and become a hero, there has to be some level of universal antagonism… there is a pure and defined entity or force that is evil, it may not be realistic to some stories out there, but that’s [how it works in DND].”

This is true, and it's really interesting to watch this happen because Matt will make a huge, unambiguous evil like Lucien or the Vanguard, or Brennan will do so with Asmodeus and people will do everything they can to try to come up with reasons to woobify them or argue why they're justified...but I haven't seen this happen in most of the D20 seasons, and I think it's because the villains in most D20 seasons have been things that reinforce people's beliefs, namely, capitalism and abuse of religious power. And to be clear, capitalism and abuse of religious power fucking suck, but it's telling that people assume the villain is capitalism in places where that doesn't apply on a wide scale, or in some cases, exist (EXU Calamity, Neverafter); or that the Ruby Vanguard or Tomb Takers, both of which have pretty much every single hallmark of a cult but just aren't affiliated with the main pantheon, are actually the good guys.

Incidentally: this is like, quite literally how people get sucked into cults. One of the leading cult researchers in the world, Janja Lalich, is a survivor of a now dissolved explicitly leftist/anti-capitalist cult. Abuses of power, which is, ultimately, what both Brennan and Matt lean on as their Universal Antagonist traits, rely on confirming people's existing biases and exploiting them - even if those biases are broadly good! This is in fact why I can get so fucking adamant about what is mostly silly fandom shit, because I do, on some level, look at some takes that completely lack critical thinking and am like oh you'd 100% buy into all kinds of dangerous patterns of thought if someone packaged it nicely; even something as stupid as the Caleb Werewolf Theory relied on circumstantial evidence and false information that you could easily verify was false. And it's annoying but mostly harmless in the context of fandom, but it always makes me wonder - does this person do this with political posts on social media?

Anyway getting back to the main point, I think watching/listening to Brennan commentary on Adventuring Academy is generally a really good idea because he is a very smart guy with a philosophy degree and has a strong grasp of the genres in which he works as well as TTRPGs as a storytelling medium, and talks to other people who also have a good understanding of the morality of fantasy stories. And if you listen to this, you will in fact get that the basis of evil in these stories is not something as specific as "capitalism" or "religion"; it's quite literally as basic as "exploiting other people simply because that is an option available to you and you don't care about them." And obviously that's the whole basis of capitalism, and it's a serious problem that exists within organized religion, but like...not to repeat myself from this weekend but I keep thinking about the "Suvi without the imperialism" and it's like...she is a 20 year old woman whose parents died for a cause and we have had ONE episode with her as an adult. We know nothing about the Empire except that it's an empire and it is at war. Like, can you look at imperialism and understand why it's bad? Can you separate the concept of imperalism - which, to be clear, is based on power structures - from say, your 21st century understanding of empires in the real world? Or do you see the word Empire and go "Bad Thing" without any capacity to analyze because that's how you end up looking at two flawed things in a story (well, if we're lucky; see the middle paragraph) and deciding one is perfect and correct for no reason other than because it opposes the thing you think is worse. And Brennan is REALLY good at skewering that, and Matt is REALLY good at portraying multiple complicated and flawed perspectives, but you do have to like, use your brain slightly.

#answered #Anonymous #i'm having flashbacks to when people were like The Dynasty (theocracy ruled by the same person for a millennium) is perfect no notes #simply bc the dwendalian empire was ALSO bad #cr tag #long post

[underrated-lovers-of-apollo-poll]

Round 1: Poll 1

*Please Read*

I advise everyone to read each contestant's story to get a well-rounded understanding of each entry. I urge you to not just vote for the one "you know best". I have everyone's stories/reasons why they should win under the cut.

Propaganda:

Melia

What's The Love Story?

A little context of Ancient Greek culture is needed real quick.

In Ancient Greece, women were considered the “property” of their father, eldest brother, or husband. In the case of Melia, her myth says that Apollo kidnapped her - which brings the question of why was she submitted if it’s kidnapping?

Well. Remember the whole “women are property of dad/brother/husband” thing? While reading her myth, it sounds a lot like Melia ran away with Apollo — without her father, Oceanus’s, permission. Meaning, technically Apollo did “kidnap” her, since he didn’t get Oceanus’s “permission” to do so. Melia’s story is like that of Cyrene’s — texts say that Apollo also kidnapped Cyrene, but in reality she eloped with him without her dad’s say-so.

Melia and Apollo were eventually found in Thebes by her brother. When he couldn’t get her back, her brother set fire to Apollo’s temple, and Apollo shot him in response.

Melia also became a major cult figure in Thebes! And he basically made her one of The Most Important Deities in Thebes!

Why Should They Win?

Apollo malewifed her just like he malewifed Cyrene :)

Kids?

One for sure! Tenerus was a hero of Thebes and a prophet. Other accounts also list Ismenus (a river god) as her and Apollo’s son, but others also list him as another brother of hers so… *shrugs* who knows?

Terpsichore

What's The Love Story?

Terpsichore is one of the Nine Muses, and all of them have dated Apollo at one point - as a matter of fact, they probably all still are :D She and Apollo probably dance together a lot and learn new dances as they pop up!

Why Should They Win?

Poly rights

#round 1 #melia #terpsichore #let the games begin >:) #greek mythology #tagamemnon #the trials of apollo

[the-paper-monkey]

Except the full redemption from tom point what according to you is the main difference between tomarry and taco ?

The main difference is that one of them is a crack ship and the other one isn't.

Jokes, but actually it is true. Harry and Voldemort are the hero and villain, protagonist and antagonist, etc. Not only are they enemies, they're fated enemies. Harry carries around a piece of Voldemort's soul in his head for seventeen years; Voldemort spends seven years fixated on killing Harry; Harry learns everything he can about Tom Riddle; Voldemort killed Harry's parents (hot 🥵) etc. etc.

Draco holds a very different role in the narrative. Instead of hero or villain, he is very much positioned as a representation of pureblood wizards as a whole—their bigotry, privilege, cruelty and elitism. He's the youngest Death Eater, sure, and perhaps the only Death Eater of his generation, but recruiting teenagers is hardly a new game for Voldemort and in this case has more to do with Voldemort's anger at Lucius than with Draco himself.

Despite Tom and Draco both being Slytherins with similar views on Muggles, they're far closer to polar opposites than Tom and Harry. Tom was raised in poverty by Muggles in a group home with no knowledge of his magic; Draco was a coddled wealthy only child raised by magical people with little if any exposure to Muggles. Draco grew up in a sprawling manor home in Wiltshire, Tom grew up in the most populated city in England (country mouse, city mouse 🐭).

Harry and Tom start from similar positions and diverge. Draco comes in on the opposite side of the map to both of them. He's far closer to what Tom wants to be than who he was born as. Harry can bring counterarguments to the table that Tom can't dismiss because Harry has also seen some of the worst Muggles have to offer and yet still has no hate for them. Draco, raised in his safe, sheltered, Muggle-free home can never raise any sort of ethical argument that Tom will respect because he has no lived experience.

However, these similar upbringings might actually stifle Tom and Harry in a relationship. Harry doesn't experience unconditional love (that he remembers) till the age of eleven. Tom never experiences it. They're both majorly emotionally stunted and dating each other would not help that 😂. Maybe this is part of the appeal, but it's certainly going to be difference between Taco and Tomarry. I can see Harry as the 'heart' of his relationship with Tom, but only in an ethical sense, not an emotional one. Just... go read the Madam Puddifoot date scene with Cho.

Side note, there's also an interesting indirect-grooming element to Taco which I noticed the first time I wrote the ship. Harry has grown up in a world where he didn't even hear Voldemort's name till he was eleven years old. In contrast, Draco grew up at the heart of the cult. Draco might have tolerance for Tom's behaviour or share views with him not because of his nature or even normal pureblood attitudes, but because all of his family and friends' parents are Death Eaters. Imagine the mindfuck of every adult male role model in your life carrying the Dark Mark. I think it adds a fascinating dimension to their relationship in a time travel context.

#one of them is a crackship and the other one is taco 😎 #asks #anon #ham tacos #another difference is that u can write canon compliant dracomort but not harrymort #this is kind of incoherent sorry #tomdraco #tomarry

[deadindays]

The Only Place Some Experienced Freedom in Ancient Greece - or, the Cult of Dionysus

The term cult in a classical context does not have the same meaning as it does today. While the whole of the Greek World had the same general beliefs and faith in a range of gods, special or more specific worship varied from city to city. The focus of these cults ranged from perhaps a specific myth, to a mythical hero, or even sometimes a real individual. Most cults might have been out in the open with many city residents being members, but others were exclusive and secretive.

Unfortunately, like most things at this time, many cult practices were reserved for the more elite classes. Elite being non-slave males that had citizenship. One of the biggest exceptions to this rule was the Cult of Dionysus.

Dionysus, also known as Bacchus or Liber, represented freedom and liberation for those who had none. These brief moments of worship and frenzy allowed the unmentionable parts of the Greek World to experiment with empowerment for what was most likely the only time in their lives.

This cult has text evidence dating all the way to the Mycenaean Era (1750-1050 BCE) and lasted for centuries up until the times of the Romans. It was uniquely open to women, slaves, outlaws, and non-citizens. There, they lost themselves to wine, hallucinogenics, and chaos in larger organized festivals and small secret meetings.

The largest of these gatherings was an annually held celebration in the city of Dionysia. Every March, everyone was invited to partake in this festival, where officials even allowed foreigners in and released prisoners and slaves for this exclusive event.

There were drinking contests, theater shows (Dionysus was also the god of theater), and sacred ceremonies all performed for the same cause.

As Rome caught onto the cult and its practices, their own version started appearing. Now by around 200 BCE, women hosted female exclusive gatherings called the bacchanalia (Pretty irrelevant, but a pretty good song that has the same theme). Eventually, men were allowed in and this growing group met up 5 times per month.

Unfortunately, the Roman government began to feel threatened by these gatherings and banned any practice within Italy with the threat of severe consequences. Regardless, the cult lived on for long after this.

Anyway, the Cult of Dionysus goes to show that even in the most exclusive, misogynist, and classist societies, the human desire for freedom and liberation prevails - even if they need to meet in secret. In another post in the future, I might go into more detail about the initiation rites and what exactly happened during these celebrations.

#I know im a pretty poor writer #i just like to talk lol #greek mythology #greek gods #dionysus #ancient greece

[deathlessathanasia]

"Interestingly, the diction of Homeric Greek preserves the unexpected formula posis Hērēs (“husband of Hera”) for Zeus, which leaves the impression that Hera is the more important of the two partners. With respect to the religion of everyday social exchange, she was undoubtedly more important to the people in the Argolid peninsula. It was Hera, not Zeus, with whom they interacted most, and on whom they depended for prosperity and victory. Homer repeatedly makes Hera and the other gods acknowledge the overwhelming power of Zeus, yet cultic arrangements in Greek cities did not reflect his supreme status in myth. Instead, nearly the opposite was the case: although all honored him, relatively few poleis made Zeus their patron deity. His early cults were typically situated in remote rural mountaintops and valleys, and he was also worshiped in domestic contexts. The supreme power of Zeus was recognized at Olympia and Nemea, two Peloponnesian sanctuaries which served during the Geometric period as regional gathering places. In the Argolid itself, however, there is little early evidence for the worship of Zeus in his own right. Instead, he seems to have been regarded as the “husband of Hera”: lead plaques depicting Hera and Zeus as a divine couple have been found in three of her eastern Peloponnesian sanctuaries.

This state of affairs created a logical conflict between the mythic, Panhellenic understanding of Zeus as ruler of all the gods and the cultic situation in the Argolid, where the preeminent deity was Hera. Homer and his predecessors were not men of Argos or Mycenae, and they were more concerned with the narrative than the devotional impact of epic song. They responded to the discrepancy between myth and cult by fashioning a theology: Hera, the ferocious partisan of the invading Greeks, comes into constant conflict with Zeus, who sees the bigger picture because he is responsible for the cosmos as a whole. Time and time again, Zeus must bully his deceitful, headstrong wife into submission. He threatens to flog her (Hom. Il. 15.16–33), and reminds her how he once hung her from the sky, her feet weighted with anvils, as punishment for her persecution of Herakles. Homer’s portrait of Hera as a disobedient, shrewish wife is a poetic construct fashioned in the service of Panhellenic epic, which insists on the primacy of Zeus. Epic depicts the gods as members of an Olympian family with Zeus as a patriarchal husband, a narrative strategy which requires that Hera, like Shakespeare’s formidable Katharina, be tamed. The Zeus of the Iliad, however, meets with considerably less success than Petruchio in subduing his wife. Even after the death of Hektor, her anger against the Trojans remains undiminished. The unyielding character of Hera in epic is a product of Homeric artistry, but it also reflects certain characteristics of regional “great goddesses,” such as Argive Hera and Spartan Orthia, who were by turns nurturing and bloodthirsty. …

The comic elements in Homer’s portrait of Hera do not obscure her special relationship to the Greeks at Troy, and especially to Achilles. The goddess’s divine anger seems to fuel the corresponding mortal wrath of Achilles. At Patroklos’ funeral, Zeus comments: You got your way, ox-eyed Lady Hera; You have provoked swift-footed Achilles. Truly, the long-haired Achaians sprang from you. (Hom. Il. 357–9) Homer’s portrait of Hera as a fierce patroness, even a foremother, of Achaian warriors has its origins in her most important regional cult. In the Argolid, Hera seems to have been associated from very early times with the concept of the hero, etymologically, in myth and in worship. Afamous and puzzling example is her intimate yet antagonistic relationship with Herakles, the demigod of Tiryns who undertook his labors as a result of her machinations. Hera and Herakles entertained a mutual hostility, yet the name of this native son of Argolis seems to mean “Glory of Hera.” …

Next we turn to Hera’s annual festival at the Argive Heraion. The Heraion was a regional cult center, in Classical times under the control of Argos (its earlier status is debated). Although most literary sources on the festival are late, they mention a procession led by shield-bearing youths, girls in white dresses, women’s dances, a ritual involving the presentation of a robe to the goddess, and a footrace, again by young men in arms. A shield was the prize in Hera’s games. The legend of Kleobis and Biton illustrates Argive piety toward the goddess: There was a festival of Hera among the Argives, and it was absolutely necessary for their mother to be brought to the temple by a team of oxen. But the oxen had not returned from the fields, and because they were out of time, the youths took the yoke upon their own shoulders. They drew the wagon, with their mother riding on it, and covered forty-five stades to reach the temple.(Hdt. 1.31.2) At the peak of their youth and strength, the brothers lay down in the sanctuary and never woke again, this glorious end being recognized as the reward of Hera. Characteristic is the test of strength which exacts a cruel price from the goddess’s male worshipers. In this story, the two strong youths are assimilated to the fine, unblemished cattle, who became pleasing gifts to the goddess in the festival’s climactic sacrifice.

Hera governed the welfare of cattle herds, the most important index of wealth, as well as the maturation of adolescent boys into warriors, and girls into wives and mothers. Terracotta figurines from the Heraion show the goddess in her maternal role as nurturer of youths (kourotrophos), holding a child in her lap. The prominence of cattle in the Argive Hera cult is reflected in a Homeric epithet for the goddess, “ox-eyed” (boōpis). … In the Argive peninsula, then, Hera gave prosperity, progeny and military victory, each equally crucial to the welfare of the community. This picture of a goddess who oversaw the most fundamental needs of her people contrasts with that in most other parts of the Greek world, where Hera received far less attention. Homer’s testimony of her three favored cities suggests an early cult at Sparta, but she was not a major goddess in the Classical city. Again, if our data were confined strictly to evidence from Athens, we would conclude that Hera was a minor goddess, significant mainly for her role as Zeus’ bride, which was celebrated in a festival known as the Hieros Gamos (Sacred Marriage), an auspicious time for weddings."

- Understanding Greek Religion by Jennifer Larson

#hera #hera argeia #argolid #the iliad

[assiraphales]

It's enjoyable to see your TLOU posts, but in regards to the finale, I feel like we were really meant to root for Joel? Like we're already primed by... the whole series... to root for Joel and Ellie over the pretty nebulous goal of 'saving the world', which isn't something that feels real to an audience compared to 'save this character you've just spent 9 hours with'. We don't get Ellies perspective at all in the hospital, it's almost comical how bad your knowledge of medicine must be to even consider any of the fireflies idea plausible. I feel like the scales of this 'complicated choice' are weighed so hard in Joels favour, like the writers at no stage ever thought he's in the wrong - until he lies to Ellie - so they can't pull off an effective reasoning or plot on the side of the fireflies. And I see all these polls and posts but is anyone actually arguing FOR the fireflies? I don't see that anywhere, not even in reviews, bc at every point the storytelling and narrative push us towards Joels choice as the right one. All of this defensiveness around agreeing with Joel feels so weird to me.

I was not involved in any discussion surrounding the game, but discourse around the morality of joel's decisions has been a point of debate since it came out. I think that because of the complexity and depth of the character we were allowed to see during the series (along with writing that displayed how unorganized the fireflies are) the audience is largely on joel's side. BUT I promise you I am not arguing against invisible comments -- there are people genuinely are against joel. i've already blocked a few particularly nasty ones. its mostly "joel doomed the world" bc some people think the cure would have worked (despite context clues in the show). this also goes hand in hand with tlou 2. not to mention the joel's voice actor troy baker compared joel to david (cannibal cult leader) and said they both think they are heroes in their own story (but implied they are both actually villains). so there is a lot of room for contention

#also discourse is fun for me I could go on for days #hope that helps #asks #the last of us #tlou

[the-sparrow-sings]

REGARDING THE CORRUPTION POST-- YOU GET IT!!!!!! YES THAT'S EXACTLY IT

AHH THANK YOU FOR MESSAGING ME ABOUT IT!! I WAS GOING TO MAKE A POST DELVING DEEPER INTO IT BUT I GOT DISTRACTED

Okay so these are my tags for those who haven’t seen them on @floating-goblin-art ‘s beautiful post about Reaver hiding horns under his hat(link added for those who haven’t seen the art I’m referring to)

But yeah context given, I need to Brain Dump about this after doing a little more thinking, because it makes SENSE!!

There are a LOT of characters who should have more evidence of corruption in Fable 2 with how easy it is for Sparrow’s appearance to change (admittedly it’s hard to necessarily say who has hero blood, and it IS possible that the whole horns thing was meant to just be an Archon blood thing, but there are characters who we go up against that in my opinion most likely have Hero Blood—like Dash, the Bandit who claims to be “The Fastest Man Alive”, and the Cult Leader who you can kill to protect Oakfield)

However, if we assume that Morality in Fable (2, at least) is NOT judged by an otherworldly being, but the values of an individual and their lifestyle personally, it would make more sense that they don’t end up sprouting horns or glowing cracks in their skin even when the narrative clearly shows them as villainous. Sparrow on the other hand, we know grew up on stories of Heroism that Rose made up for them until her death, and that they FINISHED growing up under Theresa’s guidance and training for the explicit purpose of getting vengeance upon Lucian. The specific types of things that raise CORRUPTION(not Evil) in Fable 2 relate VERY well to the base of Sparrow as they’re shown in game and that fascinates me.

It’s been a while since I’ve played, but if I remember correctly the biggest “Corrupting” influences in Fable 2 are 1: Rich Foods and Alcohol, and 2: Raising Rent Prices. The rent prices specifically are a betrayal of who Sparrow was as a child—they grew up on the streets before Theresa took them in, to raise the rent and further impoverish families is not only a shitty thing to do, but it’s SPECIFICALLY shitty from the perspective of Sparrow’s childhood. The food is fascinating as well, because when I first played the game I thought “Well this is kind of fucked up” from the perspective of disordered eating, but I don’t think it’s ACTUALLY about the Food and Alcohol itself—this may be a reach, but I suspect that the reason cooked foods(and alcohol in general) raise corruption is that they represent slowing down to enjoy life, as opposed to remaining staunchly devoted to The Mission™️ and avenging Rose.

Theresa reminds us throughout the narrative that Sparrow has a PURPOSE. I suspect that betrayals of that purpose are what cause corruption, since I don’t think we get any corruption when we perform Evil acts in The Spire.

As far as Reaver goes, he as a character REPRESENTS the things that are Corruption for Sparrow, and yet he’s beautiful(narratively speaking, regardless of personal opinion, though I obviously agree. ALSO it’s fascinating that Sparrow gains Evil but no corruption for carrying out the sacrifice on the girl in the Shadow Court). This makes sense because Reaver himself feels no remorse for the drinking and the killing and the hedonistic enjoyment of his life—he feels guilt over Oakvale, but that was centuries ago, and he hadn’t known the cost when he made his deal. In truth, I actually think failing to ENJOY his long life would be corruption to Reaver, because if he’s not enjoying his life than everyone he ever knew in Oakvale died in vain.

That makes me think that in Fable 3 (which has no corruption mechanic, but I’m getting more into Lore territory than actual mechanics) Reaver HAS failed to enjoy himself. Reaver’s betrayed the man he’s spent CENTURIES as by trying to erase all history of his Piracy. This is my opinion, but Reaver in Fable 2 seemed much more ALIVE and overall pleased with life than he does in Fable 3. In Fable 2, we saw that most people Reaver rubbed shoulders with were other Pirate types and in general grittier people, where as in Fable 3 he’s surrounded by rich idiots (and also Balverines, but these Balverines are also very likely rich idiots)

This may just be the unrepentant Spreaver shipper in me—but I do feel as though it may have something to do with Sparrow’s death. I have a hard time wondering what else could have been significant enough to have him suddenly and brutally erase his history as Pirate King.

#asktag #fable 2 #fable2 #fable reaver #fable 3 #fable 2 reaver #fable 3 reaver

[themattress]

Unpopular Opinion Re:Danganronpa

I recently noticed this in my replay of Danganronpa V3 - Angie Yonaga is framed as a villain by the game’s narrative, while Maki Harukawa is framed as a hero (”the hero” if you are to believe Shuichi, which I absolutely don’t). But when looking at things objectively, what exactly did Angie do wrong? Yes, she manipulated other students into joining her Atua cult, which was unsettling to behold. But not only does Angie clearly sincerely believe in Atua, her cult (er, “student council”) was dedicated to non-violence and the prevention of murder. Her talks of blood sacrifice were all in the context of just a small blood donation, willingly given. Her destruction of the Flashback Light was beneficial since the Flashback Lights were implanting false memories into the students so that they can act according to a script. Her insistence of accepting a life in the academy rather than trying to escape to the outside world was correct since it would mess up Team Danganronpa’s whole show, and the outside world held no place for the students anyway. And beyond her childish “Atua will curse you!” lines which had no actual risks, she didn’t threaten anyone or force anyone to do anything. Add in her Free Time events and you get the picture of a kind girl with pure intentions who fumbles due to her sheltered and isolated upbringing. Even Maki herself comments on it, saying Angie can do cruel things innocently - not knowing they’re cruel, or else she wouldn’t ever do them.

So it’s more than a little annoying to have the narrative frame Angie in such a bad light, while at the same time sweeping virtually everything negative about Maki under the rug. This girl kills for a living, is constantly threatening people with her “Do you want to die?” catchphrase, sometimes physically assaults people, lies and conceals things even in life-or-death situations, played an indirect role in Ryoma’s death with the express hope that he would die, ultimately goes behind her friends’ back to murder Kokichi and when it backfires tries to sacrifice them all in order to fulfill her “revenge” on Kokichi rather than accept responsibility for what she did, and even after all that still keeps her “murder is the only option and I must have my revenge” mindset toward the Mastermind even when it plays right into their hands. And yet the writing dwells on none of it, she is never called out for it and forced to develop as a result like she naturally should, and gets to even be lauded as “the hero” in spite of it. 

I like Maki in the virtual board game spin-offs, but in V3 proper, I honestly would not have minded if she joined Kokichi underneath that hydraulic press. Angie was the real ”hero”.

#Dangan Ronpa #Maki Harukawa #Angie Yonaga #Unpopular Opinions #Comparison #Defense #Bad Writing #The Scrappy #Creator's Pet #Anti-V3 #Anti-Kazutaka Kodaka #Anti-Maki Harukawa

[pyrphoros-library]

Vocab post: Cthonic

The word cthonic comes from the word “kthon” meaning earth or soil. Cthonic is a descriptive word for things relating to the underworld and is used mainly in context of Cthonic deities, cthonic rituals, cthonic cults, etc. It is often used as the antithesis of Ouranic but that is not entirely true.

Cthonic and Ouranic are not two sides of the same coins and do not cleanly differentiate types of deities and forms of worship but instead demonstrate a cultic spectrum. Cthonic not only refers to the underworld but that related to the earth and agriculture, deities such as: Persephone, Demeter, Hermes and even Zeus has got cthonic epithets.

Cthonic cult differs majorly from Ouranic cults from their sacrifices, rituals and prayer format. Cthonic sacrifices was defined as black or dark-skinned animals, and worshippers didn’t consume their sacrifices but instead offered in whole and burnt it and destroyed the offering. Sacrifices were performed in a pit in the ground or on a low altar in the direction to which cthonic deities reside. Incense was not used in cthonic worship due to the smoke rising to the sky rather than sticking to the ground. Honey was also preferable to wine in cthonic worship.

Historians argue as to if cthonic is a historically accurate term with some historians, like van Straten, arguing that there is no historical evidence for the term cthonic. Others say that the term is no longer useful as modern definitions have strayed from historical definitions.

Written by @sapphicsarrisae

Vocab list

Afterlife

Agos

Amplakia

Asebeia

Attic

Chthonic

Cosmogony

Cosmology

Cult

Daemons

Dreams

Dyssebeia

Einalic, Oceanic

Enages

Epithets

Eudaimonia

Euphemia

Eusebeia

Festivals

Funerals and Mourning

Gates

Gnosis

Hagneia

Hagnos

Hamartia

Hearth

Hero

Hesiodic

Hierai Bibloi

Hieroi Logoi

Hieros Homeric

Hosios

Hubris

Hyperborea

Katharmos

Katharos

Kharis

Libation

Life Cycle Rituals

Lyma

Lyssa

Magic

Mantikē,

Manteis

Miaino

Miaros

Miasma

Moria

Mysaros

Mysos

Mystery Cults

Mythology

Nesoi

Nympholepsy, Nympholepts

Nymphs

Oaths

Olympus

Oracles

Orphic

Ouranic

Ourea

Palace

Panhellenism

Phasma

Phren,Phrenes

Potamoi

Prayer

Priests

Protection

Protogenoi

Reconstructionsim

Regionality

Restless Dead

Revivalism

Ritual

Rustic

Sacred Sacrifice and offerings sanctuaries,

Sophrosyne

SPG

Supplicants

Temples

Theoi

Titans

Underworld

UPG

Vows

VPG

Working

Worship

Xenia

#hellenism #cthonic #hades deity #persephone deity #ancient greek religion #ancient history #greek cults #hellenic polytheism

[automatanura]

Theming & Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3 definitely feels like one of those once in a (console) generation games that creates new heights for the medium, like Mass Effect, Dragon Age: Origins, and the original Baldur's Gates before it. I loved it, I'm on my second and a half playthrough, but in loving it I need to give my full opinion on the game's story, especially the ending.

Warning: Massive Spoilers Below. Everything is Fair Game.

As a work, Baldur's Gate 3 feels conflicted in its theming, especially the farther you get into Act 3. This is understandable, as Larian tries to connect three mostly unrelated concepts in Faerûn (the illithid / githyanki conflict, the Dead Three, and the Nine Hells) into a unified whole, sprinkling other bits of Realmslore in to bridge the thematic gaps. In a lot of ways, it works. The Steel Watchers as a product of Gortash's dealings with the Hells, for instance, is inspired, and taps into tropes of hellfire, industry, and fiendish invention, which are then tied to the necromancy and brainomancy of the other parts of the cult of the Absolute.

However, other parts feel disjointed, such as the role of Bhaal. While it makes sense as a continuation of the previous games, and within the context of the Dark Urge, the player doesn't really see a way in which the Bhaalists benefit the plan, especially since they don't show up until the conspiracy starts to fall apart in Act III. The presence of the Zhentarim in Act I lays the thematic groundwork for Bane, as the undead in Act II do for Myrkul, but anything linked to Bhaal is conspicuously absent (again, unless you're the Urge)

The biggest thing which struck to me is the tone of the "good" ending, which mismatches everything else before. I'm already not a fan of "end of the world/universe" conflicts, and prefer things much more localized, but even as you save the world and everyone cheers, what's sorely missing is the acknowledgment of loss and sacrifice present throughout the rest of the narrative. If there's one question I think the story asks, it's "How far are you willing to go to be free?"

We see this conflict in pretty much all the Origin characters, even before the slavery implied by the tadpoling. Lae'zel has to contend with Vlaakith's tyranny, losing her place in her society if she doesn't submit. Wyll is stuck in a fiendish contract, Astarion and Karlach were soldiers/toys in the grasps of their respective masters, Shadowheart is tied so tightly to Shar that she's lost most of herself, and Gale is eventually charged to end his life in the service of Mystra. The Dark Urge, for their part, is bound by both blood and psyche to their father.

And then we have the tadpole, for which the game lets you go to tremendous lengths to rid yourself, with no success.

While everyone cheered, I had:

Inserted multiple alien parasites into my brain to gain the power to survive

Read a book of forbidden knowledge which fundamentally changed me

Made a deal with hag

Killed the Nightsong (because the game doesn't really let you know that keeping her alive still ends Ketheric's immortality)

Doomed everyone at Last Light (including a hero of Baldur's Gate)

Let my lover kill her parents to avoid angering a goddess

Attempt a prison break, which left half the prisoners dead

Advised Astarion to kill thousands of people (including children) in order to avoid the even worse disaster of their liberty

Sold my body to a fiend to gain the means to my own freedom

Allowed my friend to lose her body and soul in order to defeat our enemy

And probably other things I forgot (not to mention the ways loss, sacrifice, and freedom play out among the non-party NPCs)

And so if you take the non-evil ending, the narrative feels…oblivious, to say the least, of the costs, which I expect are still there, even in an ultra-good run (which mine was not).

The game has plenty, plenty going for it (the encounters are interesting, the characters are generally well-written and expressive, and the game lets you interact with it in so many ways. I think it's because of this, that some of the disjunctions in narrative and theming feel so apparent.

#baldur's gate #baldur's gate 3 #baldur's gate spoilers #critique #bg3 spoilers #baldur's gate 3 spoilers #media review

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | Exterminator 2 (Buntzman, 1984)

The premise and poster guarantee a baseline of enjoyment, and I can report that I didn’t mind sitting through the hour and a half runtime. Listen, I’m a man of simple pleasures, and you have the guy showing up with a flamethrower like in the poster and setting bad guys on fire with some regularity, I will not find the movie entirely unsatisfying. And unlike a lot of movies with a cool poster that might mislead you with respect to the contents of the actual film, this very much delivers on that front. If I’m filing a consumer report, I will not be lodging a complaint regarding false advertising.

I’d seen the first movie years ago and while I’m hazy on specific story details, the overall grimy ambience has lingered in my memory. This is nowhere near as sleazy on the whole. There are certainly exploitative elements, but the tone is much more cartoonish and the violence lacks the pungent charge of the original. The result is not unlike the transition from Death Wish II to Death Wish 3, trading grime for camp, although it never reaches the heights of the latter movie, which turns a city block into a war zone. (There’s also a similar use of Chekhov’s machine gun, although this movie does it with less gusto.) This is most evident with the depiction of the villains, who look more like music video extras than authentic street toughs or scumbags, and the leader of whom, played by Mario Van Peebles, is dressed like Vernon Wells from The Road Warrior. This is not a documentarian portrait of vigilantism by any means. Something was in the air generally, as you could see action movies transition to varying degrees of excess during those years, evident not just in the Death Wish movies but things like the Rambo and Max Max franchises as well. Something was definitely in the air at Cannon Films, which produced this movie and was in the habit of chasing trends no matter how ill-advised. It’s the only explanation for why this movie stops in the middle for a scene where the hero’s girlfriend joins some breakdancers in the park while electro blares on the soundtrack. I’m not complaining. If I can make a second case in favour of this movie, it’s that is serves as the movie you put on when you don’t know which Cannon Films production you want to watch.

All that being said, while I don’t think Death Wish 3 is the best directed movie, you can appreciate the conviction with which it lays waste to its villains and their environment, and the qualities that Charles Bronson brings to such material. Even if he’s less than fully committed, there’s an understatement, an implied capacity for violence, that makes him permeate a certain repugnant aura that makes him compelling in these contexts. This is a guy you do not want to fuck with. In contrast, I don’t think Robert Ginty has the same presence, although I think the issue is less his performance than the way he’s directed. No, he’s not the most charismatic actor, but there’s something curious about the way the movie seems to undermine him at every turn, cutting away anytime he’s been on screen for more than a few seconds, even if it’s in the middle of a dialogue scene. I understand the movie underwent extensive reshoots (and many of the violent scenes were added thusly), but the results onscreen are baffling. You even see it being done to Van Peebles, who is trying to give the kind of juicy, teeth gnashing performance that turn movies like this into cult favourites, yet is rarely afforded the grandeur he deserves. It’s a shame, because he certainly is magnetic.

So yeah, not great, but it’s not like Death Wish 3 has breakdancing or Breakin’ has gang members being flamethrowered, so maybe this is worth a look with low enough expectations.

#film #movie review #exterminator 2 #mark buntzman