No, Rick, It's Not

I like the idea of Ariadne meeting her mother in law. After Semele gets resurrected and becomes immortal, there's no doubt of them meeting together.

Imagine Semele spending time with her son she never got to hold as a baby, now being all grown up, married and with kids. She would love to spend time filling the gaps of their lost time.

She would love to help Ariadne with becoming a mother, nursing her kids and talking about their past lives when they were mortals. How Ariadne would feel more close to her, than she did with her actual mother.

How Dionysus would often stand there and admire the two most important women of his life being in the same room as him, happy and well.

Guess who read tua

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

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

Did you even read what I wrote? Here are some screenshots straight from the Riordan wiki and the books:

'the books aren’t fucking saying the locations moved' I don't know how to break it to you but IT IS LITERALLY what the books ARE saying.

did you even read them?

In Greek mythology and tradition, places like the Labyrinth, the seat of the Gods, the seat of the Titans, the entrances to the Underworld exist in real geographical locations. We ARE talking about locations, and it's asinine for an author to think that he can just 'move' these places to the US (or anywhere in the world really) and call it a day. Let's take Mountain Olympus for example. The home of the Gods is on Olympus in Greece. The geographical placement of the Gods' home holds cultural significance that Riordan completely ignored. I'd say he ignored it deliberately. Olympus is the home of the Gods AND the mountain. It makes NO SENSE to move the home of the Gods to the Empire State Building. It makes NO SENSE to move the Labyrinth from Crete to "under some building in America".

And there is no reason for the Greek Gods and heroes to leave Greece behind other than the fact that Riordan did not care for the country whose mythology he is exploiting to sell his books.

This passage below is supposed to be from Percy's point of view but it is also Riordan's POV while he was writing his books:

'I was feeling pretty proud of myself' I bet you were, Rick. Imperialist minds usually do.

no, Rick, it's not

Like what do you mean Mount Olympus is the Empire State Building?? Last time I ckecked, Mount Olympus is a MOUNTAIN and it's in GREECE. 'Many of the locations of Greek mythology have also moved with Mount Olympus and can be found all over America'????? These are locations, not furniture!

Greece is a country that still exists, by the way, so why exactly would the Greek Gods (Greek, Rick, Greek) abandon it? Why would they leave their homeland?? Every time I remember that passage where Chiron is like "haha, Percy, western civilization is a liViNg fORce and it started in Greece" and "ohh it's a fire and the Gods follow wherever the flame is brightest uwu" I just- it's so stupid, it makes me want to pull my hair out. How on Earth did Riordan think that was okay to write? Did he really think it was valid justification for basically disconnecting the Greek gods and Greek culture from Greece and Greek people?

You know what this 'justification' reminds me of? This. They're both part of the same narrative.

Not even the camp- the goddamn camp for children whose parents are Greek Gods- is set in Greece. Riordan just made a US-flavored cake and sprinkled some Greek Mythology on top. Delicious.

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.

YES 👏

if you think the greek gods were tyrants who made mortals suffer then you 👏 don't 👏 get👏 it 👏

"In ancient Greece, mortals suffer under the tyranny of the gods—forced to sacrifice the food they depend on, their worldly possessions and even each other at the whims of the Twelve" STOP 👏 BEING 👏 SO 👏 FUCKING 👏 BORING 👏

"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.

00.07