(Η Αριάδνη γνωρίζει τον Διόνυσο στη Νάξο)

Midterms, ya know I hate em.

Personal request from my babe @xxx-theartofsuicide-xxx - all nightmare, dream, and implied hallucinatory lines throughout Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024). 

Allison: Patrick, this is everybody. Everybody, this is Patrick.

Ben: Hey, Patrick.

Klaus: Hey, Patrick.

Diego: Hey, Patrick.

Vanya: Hi, Patrick.

Luther: I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Patrick, was it?

Iconic Golden Girls Things (as voted by you!)

#1: Picture it: Sicily... (28.3%)

In Greece, the 25th of March is a day of great religious and national importance. Along with the celebration of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, it is the Greek Independence Day, when is celebrated and commemorated the symbolic declaration in the monastery of Agia Lavra (Achaia,Peloponnesus) of the revolution against the Ottoman Turks, occupants of Greece. Thus began the Greek War of Independence (1821-1830),which would lead to the gradual liberation of Greece and the creation of the modern Greek state.

The countless heroic and tragic episodes of this long and bloody war,and  many of its extraordinary protagonists, have inspired through time many artists,both European and Greek, to create portraits, sprawling battle scenes and introspective historical works.

These are some of them.

Click on the works to see the title and artist.

This will be a series,and this is part 1.

Five: I married a mannequin.

*shows everyone a picture of Dolores*

Five: We don't need counseling.

Stop Treating Greek Mythology Like Just Another Fictional Franchise

I am honestly tired of seeing people lump Greek mythology into the same category as DC Comics, anime, or any other modern fictional universe. There’s this frustrating trend where people discuss figures like Odysseus or Achilles in the same breath as Batman or Goku, as if they’re just characters in a long-running franchise rather than deeply rooted cultural and literary icons from one of the most influential civilizations in history.

Yes, myths contain fantastical elements—gods turning into animals, heroes slaying monsters, mortals being punished or rewarded in ways that defy logic. But that does not mean Greek mythology is the same as a modern fantasy novel. These myths were part of an entire civilization’s identity. The ancient Greeks didn’t just tell these stories for entertainment; they used them to explain the world, explore human nature, justify traditions, and even shape their religious practices. The Odyssey isn’t just an adventurous tale about a guy struggling to get home—it’s a reflection of Greek values, an exploration of heroism, fate, and the gods' role in human life. When people treat it as nothing more than “fiction,” they erase the cultural weight it carried for the people who created it.

Greek mythology functioned in antiquity—these were their sacred stories, their way of making sense of the universe. And yet, people will still argue that the Odyssey is no different from a DC Elseworlds story, as if it was just an early attempt at serialized storytelling rather than a cornerstone of Western literature.

Part of the problem comes from how myths have been adapted in modern media. Hollywood and pop culture have turned Greek mythology into a shallow aesthetic, cherry-picking elements for the sake of spectacle while stripping away any historical or cultural depth. Movies like Clash of the Titans or games like God of War reimagine the myths in ways that make them feel like superhero stories—cool battles, flashy gods, exaggerated personalities. And while those adaptations can be fun, they’ve also contributed to this weird idea that Greek myths are just another IP (intellectual property) that anyone can rewrite however they want, without considering their original context.

This becomes especially frustrating when people defend radical reinterpretations of Greek mythology under the “it’s just fiction” excuse. No, Greek mythology is not just fiction! It’s cultural heritage. It’s part of history. It’s literature. It’s philosophy. If someone drastically rewrote a Shakespearean play and justified it by saying, “Well, it’s just an old story,” people would push back. If someone did the same to the Mahabharata or The Tale of Genji , there would be outrage. But when it happens to Greek myths? Suddenly, it’s “just fiction,” and any criticism is dismissed as overreacting.

I am not saying mythology should be untouchable. Reinterpretation and adaptation have always been a part of how these stories survive—Euripides retold myths differently from Homer, and Ovid gave his own spin on Greek legends in his Metamorphoses. The difference is that those ancient reinterpretations still respected the source material as cultural history, rather than treating it as some creative sandbox where anything goes. When people defend blatant inaccuracies in modern adaptations by saying, “It’s just a story, why does it matter?” they are ignoring the fact that these myths are a major link to an ancient civilization that shaped so much of what we call Western culture today.

Ultimately, Greek mythology deserves the same level of respect as any major historical and literary tradition. It’s not a superhero franchise. It’s not a random fantasy series. It’s the legacy of a civilization that continues to influence philosophy, literature, art, and even modern storytelling itself. So let’s stop treating it like disposable entertainment and start appreciating it for the depth, complexity, and significance it truly holds.

Hold on a sec

"all in all the Hellenic Republic as we know it today is a very recent concept in the large scheme of theings"

I hope you're talking about the Hellenic Republic as in the nation-state (and even then, it's not that recent), and not the people.

Because Greeks, as in, the people, didn't appear 200 years ago, nor did we conjure up an ethnic identity the moment we became a nation-state (200 years ago). We've held and preserved our ethnic identity for thousands of years. We've been Greeks for thousands of years.

"And is not a race because people of different backgrounds can have the Greek citizenship"

First of all, let's not confuse 'nationality' with 'ethnicity'. What you're talking about here is Nationality Law, which is a thing in a lot of countries, not exclusively in Greece.

Let's say I, a Greek person, became a Nigerian citizen through naturalisation. And someone decided to make a movie/show about the Yoruba deities. By your logic, some of the gods in this movie/show could very well look like me, a Greek person, or a Swedish person who is a Nigerian citizen, or a Chinese person who is a Nigerian citizen, and so on and so on.

Do you see the problem?

"And it's not the same as whitewashing"

Excuse me, your logic here; this wrong thing (whitewashing) has been happening for a while, therefore we will fight it by also doing the wrong thing (casting/designing other characters inaccurately).

How is that going to help anyone? Two wrongs don't make a right.

You say "there's not a finite amount of representation" but then you essentially say misrepresention is fine as long as it's at the expense of specific groups of people.

Your US-centric concept of race doesn't apply to every other region in the world.

When you force 'fake' diversity unto Greek mythology, not only are you erasing Greeks as an ethnic group, you're also ignoring mythologies from other cultures and of other ethnic groups, in the process.

And I find it tactless of you to police what we look like and what kind of representation befits us, in stories taken straight from our culture.

"But let's humor them for a moment"

I'd advise you not to make assumptions for a country and a people (and a culture) you're clearly not familiar with.

Once again I saw people complaining about making Greek mythology things with people who have dark skin, because they aren't "ethnically Greek". But they actually mean "racially Greek" because Ethnicity is not just skin color, it also refers to a shared culture, customs, traditions etc etc, but I digress

And before annoying people on tumblr start sending me hate messages accusing me of being racist against Greek people (again lol) for saying that is not bad for something Greek mythology related to have a couple of Dark skinned characters out of the majority light skinned characters (coughHadescough) allow me to explain

Now, Greek isn't actually a race, all in all the Hellenic Republic as we know it today is a very recent concept in the large scheme of theings. And is not a race because people of different backgrounds can have the Greek citizenship

But let's humor them for a moment

I went to Google images to search for the average Greek person and these are the results:

Now, we see here the so called "ethnically correct" way to look Greek

Light olive skin, dark hair and brown eyes

The way Greeks look, right?

Well

Surprise assholes, they are all Mexicans JAJAJAJA

And what does that mean? Are Mexicans stealing the Greek look? Are those people in Mexico stealing representation by looking like that? Wait, it's all Mexico? Always has been

No, but seriously. What does that means?

It means that Light olive skin, dark hair and brown eyes... It's a pretty common look everywhere

Yeah, even in South Africa you're going to find people looking like that

Now, mind you, not all Mexicans look like that, there are Indigenous people, Afro Mexicans, wHite Mexicans, Chinese Mexicans, etc etc

And I'm sure there are people in the Hellenic Republic that look different, with lighter skin, with darker skin, you know the drill

But that's the thing, you can't assign just one right way to look to a country, if you start assigning a race to a nationality you're on your way to create an ethnostate (which is bad mind you)

And people who complain about dark people taking away representation from them. Honey; Representation is not something that has a finite amount, if you don't like how some people make Patroclus dark skinned, you can always make your own version or support an artist that makes a representation you like instead of complaining about people who make him "not ethnically correct"

(Mind you, making Patroclus wHite isn't bad and has been done before)

Besides, making something culturally accurate about Greek culture doesn't have anything to do with race, as culture doesn't equal race

Like if somebody made something about Mexico and put Afro Mexicans or Chinese Mexicans in there, it's not taking anything away from me, because there's not a finite amount of representation

And it's not the same as whitewashing, as people complain about whitewashing because there are already A LOT of things with white people in it, and plus, complaining about whitewashing does next to nothing, as it's still happening (like how in the most recent adaptation of wuthering heights they choose a white actor for a character that's implied to be Romani)

BTW, I lied, in the picture above, two people are Greek actually and 2 are mexican (allegedly, I just found the pictures on Google, so who know where they're from really, they could be from anywhere lmao)

"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.

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