Hello! I apologize if im bothering, and wish you all the best in upcoming year! I wanted to ask, do you perhaps have some suggestions for modern plays ( written in last 20 or so years) inspired by greek tragedies (either serving as motifs or beibg retellings), particularly Oresteia? I am asking because I see lots and lits of literary retellings, but with few exceptions, rarely dramas. Thank you anyway, sorry for bothering, and have great holidays!
hi!!! i can think of a few but but because i'm more of a roman epic person the list is mostly plays i've actually seen. i think literary retellings are probably easier to find people talking about online because like. they aren't performed and so there's not the access barrier of needing to Go And See The Performance. and then also there are plays where you then can't get hold of the script! i'm also assuming you're interested in plays that aren't just translations / close adaptations of tragedies, because those are a lot easier to find and also like. more common?
here are some plays that i have either read or seen that fit your criteria and also fuck immensely:
the burial at thebes: a version of sophocles' antigone - seamus heaney
antigone the musical - marina mccready (does cool things w genre; version of antigone that has made me feel the most genuine sympathy for creon)
the cure at troy: a version of sophocles' philoctetes - seamus heaney (this isn't quite within the last 20 years but you may be interested anyway!)
phaedra's love - sarah kane (also a bit older but it's sooo good. although it is maybe more senecan tragedy than greek tragedy?)
phaedra - simon stone (based on euripides' hippolytus but also the plays by seneca and racine. but also it isn't any of them. but also it IS)
oresteia - robert icke (maybe my favourite play of all time ever) (robert icke has also done a version of oedipus but it was in dutch and i don't think it's possible to get the script?)
girl on an altar - marina carr (inspired by the oresteia but. not. also very cool in that it incorporates a Lot of iphigenia at aulis and yet iphigenia never appears. and then the whole play is about her)
also! if you aren't aware of the archive of performances of greek and roman drama productions database you might also want to rummage around in there! like i am Aware of things like a recent musical version of medea / iphigenia in splott but they are almost certainly in that extremely filterable database :D
also also clutuals pspspspsps if you have any particularly cool additions to this list. hi. hello.
412 notes
·
View notes
Van der Linde Isaac - "CoS is actually a western" is such a concept ever since i saw somebody pointing that out i kept thinking about it
i rant about the redesign a bit:
so i went ahead and redesigned him to fit the rdr2 setting entirely, i cant give him a full on wolf arm, so i gave him burn scars on his face, that he hides all the time with a scarf or a bandana. hat in the back to replace the hoodie's shape. he is most comfortable using the rolling block rifle plus a knife. he would probably play a lot of five finger fillet.
plus, he gets his arm blown off at one point (not from finger fillet!! i swear), probably during the saint denis robbery, then dies during the guarma chapter, bc there is no way he would survive longer than that
also i cant have him choose sides at chapter 6 when i know he has blind loyalty
141 notes
·
View notes
hello :) could you maybe explain a little bit how dan wootton blackmailed louis?
ugh sorry for taking a while to get to this. The problem is I feel like the only two ways to answer this are by spending a week and a half of full time labor sifting through old posts and evidence to get every detail right and lay out an airtight case, or to halfass something very serious, and so I felt a little stuck. So since I can't seem to find a good halfway point, apologies but here is the half assed version, if you want to get into it more I invite you to do your own deep dive or talk to other people, but here's how I remember things.
Louis has almost never on video explicitly said things about Larry not being real and/or anything negative about fans and their theories (mostly the opposite), up until the last couple years when he obviously decided to make a major change he didn't talk about Freddie much at all let alone saying he was his kid, honestly not that much about Eleanor even; except for in two major interviews with Dan Wootton, each of which lined up with a serious traumatic Tomlinson family event that they managed to keep out of the tabloids until the very end (Jay's illness and Fizzy's struggles with substance abuse). After the fact of those events a lot of small things that didn't make sense at the time came together to look very much like Louis traded those interviews (and those answers) for having his family's private matters kept private. Story trading of this kind is a publicly known real thing that happens, and there were various clues that suggested he was being leaned on about those stories to lend legitimacy to the idea that it was something that happened in these cases. Given what we know about Dan Wootton and how he operates even before the recent flood of information and even more now, I think it's more than likely that he has been holding the threat of outing Louis (as he has done to many other public figures) over his head for over a decade, and has used his family's tragic struggles to get Louis to dance like a fucking puppet for him and I will REJOICE at his downfall when it comes whether it is now or 20 years from now... because someday it will, he has made too many enemies to stay above it forever
291 notes
·
View notes
i hope this doesn't sound like a silly or weird thing to send you, but i'm autistic and have long thought of nico and a handful of other riordanverse characters as autistic and i love your posts about why nico in particular seems intentionally autistic-coded. but i've been thinking, if rick did intend for any of his characters to be autistic, why wouldn't he say so outside of the text at least? i can't think of a good reason why not, when he goes out of his way to be explicit about so many other characters' various marginalized identities and has confirmed things like reyna being asexual outside of the original text. so it gives me this nagging sort of doubt that maybe rick just made nico come off as so extremely autistic coded by accident, somehow. if it wasn't an accident i do kind of wish he'd say so because there's next to zero explicitly stated autistic representation in, like, any media so it'd be nice to have here even if not strictly necessary. either way though, like i said, i love your posts and i agree with you 100% about autistic nico! some others i like to think are autistic are annabeth and leo.
(Most of this is gonna be kind of a tangential ramble to your point and i apologize in advance just bear with me)
This actually touches upon something I've been meaning to do a write-up on recently, which is: depending on the coding, that is our explicit statement. In most coding, actually, that's kind of the point. (Also something something Death of the Author.)
You may have noticed a recent trend across media of characters saying things directly rather than expressing them in a natural way, and often this includes incredibly stilted dialogue of characters explaining things in very politically correct, wikipedia-esque descriptions and terminology that make absolutely no sense for the characters' personalities or mannerisms. This is born out of the idea that if something is not stated in explicit terms, no amount of evidence below an outright direct exact statement will ever count - if two characters of the same gender have an explicit kiss and wedding on-screen, it doesn't matter because they never said the word "gay," etc etc.
In PJO, prior to more recent books, we get plenty of examples of characters explaining parts of their identities without direct statements. Percy never needs to say in outright terms that he has PTSD from Gabe - and it doesn't make sense that he would! He's 12! He's never been diagnosed for that. He probably doesn't even know what PTSD is really. But we, the audience, know without a doubt he has PTSD, because it is clearly expressed to us. That is coding. Tyson is coded as having down syndrome. Nico is coded as being autistic. It doesn't make sense for Nico to turn to the camera and explain that he's autistic and what that means, because he definitely never got diagnosed for it and probably doesn't know what that means cause the diagnosis literally did not exist when he was growing up - and heck, autism terminology was still kind of getting sorted out back in 2007 when TTC was published, so it's unlikely we could have feasibly gotten any exact terminology wink-wink-nudge-nudges short of something like how Percy outright mentions other students called Tyson the r-slur in Sea of Monsters. And in fact we see that same exact style of coding with Nico later on in the series. Nico never turns to the camera and says word-for-word "I am gay, I am mlm, here's me wearing my exact pride flags" (until TOA/TSATS, which... did the exact thing i mentioned about characters speaking like theyre trying to get a good grade in therapy, or giving a powerpoint presentation). But it is never unclear that HoO is telling us outright that Nico is gay. It's not just hinted at. It's there, in your face. But entirely because no one ever outright says "gay" specifically it's technically still only coding. We know he's gay, we know the characters have trauma/ptsd, etc etc. We don't need it spelled out - that's just kind of condescending. It's like if you said describing a character with "eyes like moss" means they were "green-eye coded."
Nico being autistic-coded isn't hidden. It's not a secret. It's very overt. If you know what autism looks like, well, yeah, there he is. Even if you only know very vague 2007 media presentation of autism, Nico in TTC is easily recognizable enough as autistic because that's the point. Tyson is easily recognizable as being coded as having down syndrome and it's very clearly very intentional! It's just never spoon-fed in exact terms to the reader because it's not necessary! You've already been told the information necessary to tell you what is up with this character, so just plainly going "oh they're [x] in exact terms" is very much telling-not-showing and feels redundant. And while there are places for that kind of thing, most of the time it's very unnecessary. Sometimes coding is subtle, sometimes it's obvious, and yeah there are times where writers code characters unintentionally, but the textual evidence is there, and that's the whole point.
And that's what Death of the Author is about - it doesn't matter what the author intended at the end of the day, because if it's in the text it's in the text. You can look at author intent to try and figure out what that text means, but the text is the text. A Separate Peace is a very classic example - author John Knowles denies there being homosexual subtext, and meanwhile one of the protagonists living in 1942 puts on a pink shirt while saying he doesn't mind of people think of him as gay. What the author says after the fact doesn't matter - if it's there, it's there. So Rick saying anything outside of the books is completely irrelevant. And Rick talks about this a lot - he actively tells people that his statements outside of the books are just his own thoughts, but what's in the books is what's in the books, and if the text supports it then that's all the evidence you need.
Nico specifically is a case where yeah, he's clearly autistic-coded. It's very obvious and very obviously intentional when he's younger, and as the books progress it remains a background trait of his but is still notable (except for when it gets forgotten in TOA/TSATS like everything else, including the adhd/dyslexia, but i digress). It's a clear pattern within the first few books that Rick is intentionally including. It doesn't make sense, especially for the year the book was published, for the reader to be directly told in explicit terminology that Nico is autistic, because the reader is already being told that Nico is autistic.
And yeah, Rick doesn't mention Nico being autistic-coded outside of the text, but he also doesn't mention Tyson being coded as having down syndrome. He also said one time that Percy doesn't have PTSD at all, which is very incorrect starting from book 1. Again, Death of the Author. Whatever Rick says outside of the books does not matter, because he already said it in the books. And there's plenty of other stuff in the books that Rick doesn't touch upon, particularly relating to character identity - did you know Leo is Native? Sammy mentions that the Valdez family is Native in Son of Neptune but we don't get any specifics and then it's like never brought up again anywhere. That happens all the time in the series - and outside of the series - Rick can't possibly address every single point to confirm/deny everything from the books. That's what analysis is for! And that's why my blog exists 👍
73 notes
·
View notes
my other favorite aspect of being into wtnv in 2024 and onwards is that there’s a decade plus of fandom content to go through and a decade plus of ideas and people being changed by the series to experience. it’s generally pretty rare to have that kind that kind of experience with something that was popularized in the zenith of the internet becoming centralized, when people were moving from places like MySpace, geo cities and personal websites to formats like tumblr (and for wtnv’s earlier history, deviantart). (The only other fandom I can recall with a property still updating that would fit this bill is homestuck btw) it’s a transient experience of enjoying someone else’s ghosts, of a childhood/teenagehood/young adulthood you never got to experience and history you never saw for yourself but felt enough for it to mean something now. it’s the raw, unfiltered joy of what is almost nostalgia for something you never cared about until very, very recently, and realizing “oh my god the podcast is actually really good on top of it”
43 notes
·
View notes