His Father Is Away, And So Is His Mother, Even If She Rarely Leaves The Palace.

The Greek word used for this myth, the verb 'ἁρπάζω' also means to abduct, to snatch away, and it doesn't have a sexual connotation. Hades literally just steals Persephone. Meanwhile when, for example, Pausanias talks about Halirrhothios deflowering Alkippe, Ares' daughter, he specifically uses the word 'αἰσχύναντα' which means he dishonored her, disgraced her. So what I mean is, there is a difference between cases of rape as in assault, and the case of the 'rape' of Persephone, as in her abduction.

ngl i do enjoy the hades x Persophone idea, but i wish it reflected mythology more like Dread queen persophone is a damn kidnapping freak too.

The thing with Hades and Persephone is that these two are far from the perfectest, most pure, most ideal couple to ever exist. The beginning alone is disturbing, with Hades kidnapping, raping and then either tricking or straight-up forcing Persephone into remaining into the Underworld by giving her those pomegranate seeds. He also cheated on her with Minthe, so fidelity is not a strong point either.

What frustrates me though is that a lot people completely erase these aspects and try to create a version of the myth completely different from the ancient ones where the only similarities end up being the figures' names. I understand erasing the rape part, because even though back then marital rape wasn't considered a crime (and there are still parts of the world where it still isn't, unfortunately), the idea of having a woman starting to be fond or to love her rapist just because he treats her nicely is on itself deranging. But erasing the kidnapping or the infidelity only removes the complexity and the grey nuances of their relationship. Why, instead of claiming that Persephone willingly went with Hades or that Hades is the only faithful god, people would focus on the fact that she had just as much power and authority over the Underworld as him? Why, instead of demonizing Demeter, people would try to understand that having your daughter kidnapped and forcibly married off to someone is a disturbing scenario, and that her actions were completely justified?

On the "dread queen Persephone" part, I have to recognize that I despise the way people either portray Persephone as this innocent, naïve and oblivious flower girl, or as a cruel, merciless and completely terrifying queen.

Yes, she groomed Adonis (Pseudo-Apollodorus), brutally tortured Minthe before turning her into a plant (Starbo), inflicted Thebes woth a deadly plague (Antonius Liberalis) etc. etc. But she also realeased Sisyphus from the Underworld (Theognis), gave Orpheus a chance to rescue his wife (Diodorus Siculus), sent Alcestis back (Pseudo-Apollodorus), welcomed Heracles like a brother, allowed him to take Cerberus and to rescue Theseus and Pirithous (Diodorus Siculus) etc. etc. She had her own moments of cruelty, but compared to Aphrodite who made children lust over their parents or Dionysus who cursed mother to kill and devour their babies she is not as blood-thirsty and merciless as people like to give her credits for. What is ironic though is that people are perfectly capable to acknowledge that just because Hades ruled over the dead and ancient greeks were afraid to pronounce his name that doesn’t mean that he was evil, but somehow Persephone must be completely dreadful in order to be intersting.

Reducing either one of them two or their relationship to an aesthetic isn't just reductive, but also shallow, repetitive, uninteresting, uncreative and overall boring.

Stranger Things 4: a Review

So no hellcheer? *stomps on tv remote*

Alchemy & Dreams in Beetlejuice

Part 2

The more I reflect on the plot of Beetlejuice 2, the more I doubt that much of what happens in the film actually took place.

It's all written allegorically. Tim's work has always embodied Jungian themes such as archetypes and the shadow self, as well as his use of alchemy & numerology in the original Beetlejuice movie. For example, his use of the planet Saturn and its symbolism, as well as how he relates it back to Beetlejuice by having him wear several watches on his wrist, and freezing Adam & Wolf in time. "Sands of Time", "Saturn: the Father of Time".

You know how everyone who appears in your dreams is supposed to represent yourself?

Astrid = Lydia

"The images of alchemy are the most complete expression of individuation as a process, and they are therefore a valuable aid to understanding the symbolism of dreams." - Carl Jung

Astrid wears a silver dress, Lydia wears a red dress. In alchemy, (something Jung believed was a method to understand the psyche within our dreams) silver needs to be purified by red. Combined, these colours symbolise the union of spirit and matter, or the balance of opposing forces, essential for the completion of the alchemical process. So we have Astrid and Lydia symbolising the spiritual (silver/mercury) and the material (red/sulfur). This is why Lydia watches Astrid at the end of the dream getting married and having a baby. She is watching her dream representation living out her material desires.

They completed the alchemical process by fixing their relationship (forgiving yourself).

Astrid is so similar to Lydia, even storming off on her bike when Rory proposed. Rory also pushes Lydia to do the Ghost House show when we know that exploiting the dead is very OOC for her. If Astrid is Lydia, then Rory must represent her teenage feelings towards her parents. Her father married Delia who teen Lydia couldn't stand, and they both forced Lydia to move with them and adjust to their lifestyle.

Astrid and Lydia reconciling is Lydia reconciling with her past self. Through silver and red, spirit and matter, this is the completion of the alchemical process. Why did they put Delia in a purple dress alongside these two, when purple in alchemy symbolises the transmutation outcome? They could have chosen any colours, but the ones chosen just so happen to correspond with the story. Silver is spirit, Red is matter, Purple is the merging of spirit & matter, resulting in "enlightenment". You say Beetlejuice's name three times because in alchemy it's the number of completion (sulfur, mercury, salt).

And I must repeat myself: there is no clear indication of where Astrid's dream sequence begins. The sequence at the end seems to start after Lydia looks at the Maitlands' model with the lights as stars above her. Lydia is looking down at the town (the material realm), while her head is in the stars (the spiritual realm).

The whole Beetlejuice franchise is about alchemy, because Betelgeuse himself is an alchemist. He is the Trickster/Magician archetype, who is able to manipulate reality and able to traverse between the living and the dead, also known as rebirth.

Betelgeuse = Lydia's Masculine Self

Alchemical texts were concerned with achieving the coniunctio oppositorum (the union of opposites). This process is also known as "The Marriage of Opposites" or "Chemical Wedding". Whose marriage/wedding was important to the plot in both movies?

Delia finds her masculine self (Charles) thanks to Betelgeuse at the Soul Train. The Soul Train is the ferry which carries souls along the River Styx. It's the main river in the underworld that separates the living and the dead.

"The living and the dead; can they co-exist?" - Lydia Deetz

So, Lydia was watching Astrid (her dream self) get married and have the Beetlebaby. Everything Astrid goes through is a mixture of Lydia's fears and desires. Lydia's teen self feared that Betelgeuse was using Lydia as a way to have access to the living realm, and we know this because of Astrid's experience with Jeremy. However, by this logic, it also means Lydia desires marriage and a baby with Betelgeuse. Unfortunately, Lydia is in the material realm, while her masculine self is in the spiritual realm.

Canonically speaking, since we know Lydia loves horror films, dreaming of giallo movies aligns much better with her character than ignoring her ability to speak to the dead.

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1947).

So she used Ovid but not really, just like she used Homer but not really Book Review for Circe | Thought Candy

What Odyssey did this person read

Because I highly suspect that Miller did not read the Odyssey aasdfgfdsdfghgfd

Oh no she actually mentioned using Ovid, Shakespeare's Ulysses, and other sources in an interview.

Oh neat..

However Ovid does not depict Circe being assaulted in his work thankfully. Her stories center around her unrequited love, jealousy, and the consequences of her powerful magic. The focus is on her role as a sorceress who transforms others, not as a victim.

That's a main difference that Miller has been making in her works is the useless plot device of using women's suffering and trauma for shock value.

Like miller you are ruining the source material and the image of those old poets.

11-year-old me: *ugly sobbing* SearCH FOR YOUR LOVE

I had an epiphany

about Shrek 2.

And its groundbreaking character-development-foreshadowing.

We all remember ‘Accidentally in love’, the opening song, where our newlywed protagonists are having the time of their lives

There’s this lyric in the first verse:

How much longer will it take to cure this? Just to cure it, 'cause I can't ignore it if it's love (love) Makes me wanna turn around and face me

HMMMMM WHERE HAVE I HEARD THAT 

OH I KNOW

Much later in the movie, when Shrek has turned human and is returning to the castle, determined to change for the woman he loves, and ‘Changes’ plays in the background

AND WE HEAR THIS:

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes                                                                                      Turn and face the strange

AND THIS (although this verse isn’t in the movie but it’s still IN THE SONG):

Every time I thought I'd got it made It seemed the taste was not so sweet So I turned myself to face me But I've never caught a glimpse

I'm thinking of doing a babes week this spring/summer

Everyone is welcome to participate!

The prompts we've got this far are

- Mirror

- Cemetery

- Favorite holiday

- Rock

- Beach

Suggestions are appreciated 🌞

"Greece sort of owns the Parthenon Marbles"

Sort of? SORT OF?

On July 5th 2024, yet another discussion about the Parthenon Marbles took place, at the British Museum. I never expect much anymore when it comes to this subject. Every time there's some kind of update on this ongoing debate, somehow my frustration reaches a new level. Because for every sensible debater, there will always be someone like 'classicist' Mary Beard.

According to Mary Beard, Greece only 'sort of' owns the Parthenon Marbles. "These are objects which are international, they belong to humanity, not to one particular bit of it", she said on July 5th.

Obviously I resent the entitlement in those words, the audacity to undermine the ethnic value of another country's heritage. The Marbles are international, you say? They don't belong to "one particular bit" of humanity? But if it hadn't been for that "one particular bit" of humanity, there wouldn't have been any Marbles to speak of. As a Greek person, I find it downright insulting of her, a British person, to say the Marbles don't belong to the "one particular bit" of humanity that birthed them.

How about we have a little laugh? Mary Beard said that the Parthenon Marbles are like a "child in a messy divorce case".

That's a wild simile. And by 'wild' I mean 'stupid'.

I'm calling it stupid because 'child of a divorce case' makes it sound like the Greeks and the Britons built the Parthenon together.

I know, of course, that Beard didn't make this simile out of stupidity. By comparing this debate to a child custody battle, she's insinuating the Marbles belong to the UK as much as they do to Greece, and that this is merely a matter of compromise. She knows exactly what she's doing, as a trustee of the British Museum.

On Twitter, she will 'educate' the public about what the Marbles should be called, in what feels like an attempt to justify naming the Marbles after the man who looted them. Whether you refer to the marbles removed from the Parthenon exclusively, or the 'less famous' stolen treasures, one thing is for certain; Elgin was a thief, and no amount of quirky 'pedantry' by Mary Beard is going to change that.

Lord Elgin was responsible for literally ripping pieces off of an ancient building, ignoring its cultural significance to Greek people. Make no mistake; he didn't find the Marbles on the ground, deserted and unappreciated by the Greeks. He RIPPED THEM OFF. Violently.

However, Mary autocorrect-to-the-rescue Beard will come to his defense, and tell you that when Elgin coveted the Marbles, the Parthenon was already in "a very sorry state". She went as far as to claim that "there is doubt at all he saved his sculpture from worse damage". All this is in a BBC archived piece written by Beard in 2011, in which she supposedly looks at both sides of the argument, yet it still felt one-sided when I read it.

So...he saved the Marbles from damage...by violently ripping them off the edifice? Gotcha.

We need to remember, everyone; the goal here is to make the BM Trustees and Elgin's ghost feel good about themselves.

"I want to see those marbles shared I think realistically, more generously with Greece", she said, on July 5th.

I wonder how Mary Beard would feel if one day a random person broke into her house and told her; "I planned to keep this place for myself, but you know what? Let's share it! I want to be generous to you."

Does she think she sounds like the bigger person? Does she think the British Museum is doing Greece a favor by entertaining the idea of sharing the Greek Marbles? How progressive!

How hypocritical.

She continued "I would like to see again the Parthenon marbles being ambassadors for a particular sort of Hellenic classical culture in which both Greece and the United Kingdom, and many other countries in the world, share; they can do their job not just in Athens or London- what about Beijing?"

What about Beijing, Mary? You reeeaaally don't want the Marbles to return to Greece, do you? If you could, I have a feeling you would personally deliver the Marbles to Mars. After all, the Marbles can be interplanetary.

I jump back and forth to her 2011 piece, where she asks; "Who owns great works of art? Do monuments such as the Parthenon belong to the whole world?" and "Are they the possession of those who live in the place where they were first made? Or are they the possession of everyone? The likelyhood is that we will be debating these issues for many years to come." Well, quite frankly, if we keep debating this for many years to come, it will due to the BM Trustees' own denial of reality. The questions Beard asks are easy to answer. Too easy, in fact.

In the same 2011 piece, Beard ponders the meaning of Cultural Property, of ownership. She points out how everyone can appreciate the works of Shakespeare and Mozart, and how things get sticky when it comes to the global appreciation of a tangible work of art such as the Marbles. The answer to this conundrum is obvious, if one looks at the matter objectively; the Greek Marbles belong in Greece, in the museum close to the Parthenon from which they were wrongfully torn from, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Elgin and his entourage hadn't taken them as souvenirs. The truth is that there is no real need for a debate, the BM trustees just keep dancing around the topic. They will harp on the complexity of this so-called debate because they don't like the idea of letting the Marbles return to Greece.

There's this childish insistence in the British Museum's reasoning, to keep associating the Parthenon Marbles with the UK much more than with Greece. I feel this stems from something that can be traced back to Elgin and his own avarice; a strange need to latch on to a part of a culture that was never theirs to begin with.

The insistence to connect the Marbles to the UK is the undertone to the 'child in a divorce case' comparison. It's what ultimately makes Beard's argument fall apart, and brings the hypocrisy to light. She said the Marbles don't belong to Greece, they belong to humanity. They're international, she said. And I ask; where was that sentiment before Greece called the British Museum out? Before we asked for the return of the Marbles? Before Melina Mercouri, Greek Minister of Culture, started fighting for them? If this matter had never been raised, would you ever care about your British Museum becoming "the world's greatest lending library", Mary?

What Mary Beard wants you to hear is; Why should Greece have the Marbles, when the whole world should have them?

What Mary Beard actually means is; If the UK can't keep them, then no one can.

Especially not Greece. The BM Trustees are adamant about that.

Which brings us back to the ridiculous "child in a messy divorce case" phrasing. A simile that doesn't apply in this situation and makes no sense, unless Beard imagined the BM as the delusional party who has convinced themselves this child is theirs even though there's no relation between them. But that would be too much self-awareness to expect from this academic.

You wanna compare the Parthenon Marbles to a child, Mary? Okay, but it's not a child 'in a messy divorce case'. This is a child that was abducted from its own home. It's a hostage situation, Mary. The British Museum is keeping a child hostage.

Greece wants her child back.

And as for cultural 'ambassadors', the British are free to send their own, instead of playing around with OUR cultural heritage.

(Η Αριάδνη γνωρίζει τον Διόνυσο στη Νάξο)

Διόνυσος: Διόνυσος. Για σένα, Νιόνιος

Αριάδνη: ?????

Every time i see dionysus misspelled as dionysis my spirit gets transported to a different reality where some random greek guy has become a widely known blorbo. Dionysis from my polykatoitikia.