EDIT: DO NOT TAKE MY WORD AS THE 100% TRUTH!!

EDIT: DO NOT TAKE MY WORD AS THE 100% TRUTH!!

I took some classes and wrote a paper about ancient Greek culture, but I am in NO WAY an expert. Please read through the reblogs to see some good criticisms and discussion about this topic further. My point overall stands that you can't apply modern rules and standards to ancient stories, but my evidence is undoubtedly flawed!

I'm seeing everyone pointing out the possible issues with Epic the Musical's deviation from the original story of Circe and Odysseus, and as someone who's studied Ancient Greece/ancient Greek myths a bit, I wanted to say some stuff about it. This will be a bit of a long one, so apologies for my rambling!

Note that I'm not trying to shit on SA survivor's perspectives and (completely valid) arguments. I'm just trying to offer some context surrounding the original myth and how it fits (or rather, doesn't fit) with a modern audience. If I'm wrong with any of this, feel free to call me out! Criticize the shit out of me! I like learning about Greek culture and myths and would 100% love to hear other perspectives on this.

So, a few points about Ancient Greek myths to kind of explain the context around Circe and Odysseus:

Greek myths generally did not have good views/depictions of women. Women were almost always depicted as conniving, selfish, sexually insatiable creatures. To largely summarize the process within actual Greek society, women had three/four stages in their life: child, dangerous/wild virgin (after first menstruation), married woman (whose wildness was tamed by her husband), and then a "real" woman (a mother). There are a few deviations from the "evil" trope, the most prominent of which being Penelope herself—she's basically the ideal Greek wife, staying loyal to her husband for 20 years and all that.

Adultery only applied to women. Husbands cheating on their wives wasn't merely tolerated, but expected. Marital sex wasn't seen as enjoyable, rather something that had to be done for the sake of reproduction and continuing the bloodline/securing inheritance. Men cheated on their wives with various kinds of prostitutes, concubines, mistresses, etc, but sleeping with unmarried women (that weren't specifically prostitutes) or married women was looked down upon. Women didn't have this same standard. They could only sleep with their husbands, hell, their husbands were pretty much the only men they could even interact with (excluding family, obviously).

The original myth has Hermes very plainly lay out how Odysseus' confrontation with Circe will go: Odysseus will eat the moly, draw his sword at her, she'll proposition him, and Hermes directly tells Odysseus to accept. Basically a "sleep with her if you want your men to live" situation. (See this post for more specifics on this).

So, let's apply this to Epic: The Musical. Here's some reasons I think may explain the Circe myth being changed:

The Greek "women being evil" stereotype is... problematic. While I 100% understand that it's important to acknowledge male victims of SA, I don't think the original myth was focusing on Odysseus being a victim—I saw it more of an emphasis on Circe being a sexually selfish woman, as all Greek women were believed to be. Changing Circe to be less conniving and evil deviates from the concerning Greek stereotype.

The SA in the myth is not actually very clearly SA. Yes, with a modern perspective, it absolutely is sexual coercion, but for Greeks, not so much. It made sense to them that sex could be transactional. It's already been established that Epic, while still generally accurate to the original myth, does change things relating to morality/themes in order to better align with modern Western ideas (i.e. OG Odysseus not being as remorseful and merciful, as that was expected of a Greek hero, but Epic Odysseus having more empathy because that's more modernly heroic). If something from the original myth doesn't translate well into modern culture, then it's understandable to want to change or omit it.

In the case that the original Circe myth wasn't SA (I'm not saying one is more right than the other, I'm just covering all the bases), then it wouldn't even constitute as cheating. Like I described earlier, it was perfectly acceptable and expected for men to sleep with women that weren't their wives. Plus, being a goddess, she's already kinda exempt from being blamed if Odysseus slept with her—only women are ever really blamed for sleeping with (or being SAed by) gods, and even then, their husbands sometimes don't even give a shit. But modernly, we would not see it that way. To us, it's not societally acceptable for a married man to sleep with another woman (without his wife's consent, at least). While Ancient Greeks viewed Odysseus as a good (or at least okay) husband, a modern audience wouldn't. Making Odysseus loyal to Penelope and not sleeping with other women (assuming this wasn't SA, but again that's one interpretation) makes him the good, loyal, empathic, modernly heroic man that Epic is clearly aiming for. Repeating my last point: If something from the original myth doesn't translate well into modern culture, then it's understandable to want to change or omit it.

Applying modern perspectives on Ancient Greek society and mythology isn't worth it. Like, we all joke about Ancient Greece being super gay, but they didn't actually like gay men. Homosexuality was literally only acceptable when it was between a young man and a prepubescent boy (it was called pederasty if you want to know more) or between women (they only considered penetrative sex to be 'real' sex so they didn't really care what women did with other women). Y'know the Hades and Persephone story? Like, the original one with the kidnapping? Yeah, that was normal. The myth of Demeter and Persephone is tragic, yes, but it was so normal that wedding ceremonies often included references/recreations of it! Girls got married off ASAP after their first menstruation to men of at least 30 years old. We don't tolerate that shit today (for the most part, at least)! But it was normal in Ancient Greece. Applying modern rules and standards to ancient culture just does not work.

Anyways, I'll shut up now! I'm gonna go keep listening to The Circe Saga lmao

Okay okay but consider possible batfam fic idea:  

so Bruce is in an emergency justice league meeting that got called but because its taking place at night he has a comm on in his ear playing at a low volume because all of the batfam are out on patrol around gotham covering his patrol route for him and because you know B is a paranoid, overprotective fucker he just to make sure everything is going smoothly for his kids but he doesn’t plan on actually letting them know he’s tapped into their network because he can already hear the lecture from Dick about trusting them to take care of the city.  

So he’s listening to them quietly while also paying attention to Clark talking about some alien diplomacy issue and his kids are YAPPING away about the stupidest shit to one another cause they don’t have B telling them off for ‘unprofessional unnecessary chatter while on patrol’ and  you’re getting a mix of all the dynamics between them all and the longer the meeting is going on the more B’s eye is just TWITCHING because his Dad senses are just going hay wire and he is just here like ‘I cannot say anything in front of the league because they cannot know I have children cause I'm Batman and I work alone blah blah blah’, usual brooding, but Damian and Tim are squabbling with one another about a rescue that took place an hour ago and Dick is challenging Jason to a parkour contest and Steph is challenging the Riddler to a riddle off with riddles she made up and have no answer just to piss him off and his dad sense is just like an alarm going off and then he just cant take it anymore cause Duke (pretend he’s on nightshift to make up for the man down or smth idk shh) says something like ‘I'm going to do my book report in the morning Richard leave me be’ even though Bruce KNOWS he isn't going to do it in the morning, this has happened before they have an AGREEMENT, a CONTRACT god damn it but they don't know Bruce is listening to the comms Duke just goes something like “its fine B won't even find out!” and Bruce just LOSES it there and then and just presses his comm and goes “NO. No, stfu all of you I am taking charge here” and he just starts going off on them all for the different things they were whining about like

“No Signal, go and do your damn book report right now you are not going to be doing it in the morning you always say you will and you never wake up early enough to get it done so then you end up speed doing it in the car while nearly stress crying and I am cannot deal with that while running on 49 hours of no sleep so go and do it right this damn minute. I am TIRED, I am tired boy go. GO. I love you, goodnight.” 

“N go and unload the damn dishwasher. I asked you four. FOUR days ago to do it and A is not coming home until next week please I am begging you I have been drinking my coffee out of bowls and a straw for days now. Thank you, I love you goodnight.”  

“Red Robin. Put the coffee down. No- I know its in your hand I can feel it. I can feel it in my BONES child you cannot hide from me, down. Now. Good. Get a piece of fruit and go to bed. No I don't give a fuck if- no. I don't care if the pentagon has laughably easy security to bypass right now it has been over 72 hours since you closed your eyes I WILL call A I will, I’ll do it right now. I’m calling him right now- good okay goodnight. I’m sending Dick to check on you to make sure you’re actually sleep. I love you too goodnight”  

“Robin I know you're there. Damn right go to bed, Titus can go with you yes you don't have to ask every night baby its going to be the same answer, I love you goodnight.” 

“Hood and Spoiler stop trying to goad rogues into fighting each other and go home. Hood will you- thank you. Goodnight I love you both....no S I will not ask Ivy if she’ll make you real life lil shop of horrors plant to leave at your ex’s house please stop asking. Goodnight.”   

"C are you- I love you too."

And he just lets out this enormous, patented Dad sigh and looks up after a few moments and realizes the entire justice league is just watching him absolutely GOBSMACKED because oh my god how long has this been going on for?? because like what the fuck this was cold, calculated, ‘they think he's actually a robot’ Batman, who just all of a sudden just went BOOM father mode is activated, this is a patriARCH, you know? Daddy bats alright. And he's just like, his facial expression doesn't so much as twitch but a light blush just appears on his entire face and then Clark is just like HEART EYES and Hal is just like HEARTEYES (??!!) and Barry is suddenly having a sexuality crisis because what the fuck is this, and Diana is just like, speechless but in love and he just mumbles after a few moments “...you can continue your speech Clark I apologize for my lapse in professionalism” and Hal is just like “NAH MOTHERFUCKER YOU ARE NOT BREEZING PAST THAT WHAT THE FUCK SPOOKY??” and then the entire situation just devolves in chaos.  

It’s pretty much canon that England would leave America for long stretches of time during his childhood (like in that Davie strip), but I’d like to imagine that he hired teachers and caretakers or nannies to actually raise America while he was gone most of the time.

Of course, because America ages a lot slower than a human, those nannies would get old and retire or die, and then England would have to replace them like goldfish.

Eventually America would get old enough to understand the concept of death, and England would start to get a bit careless about it, like:

England: America, where is that nanny I hired? I haven’t seen her since I’ve arrived.

America(physically around 13y/o): …England, she died like 2 years ago. You forgot to hire a new one.

England: ah.

I keep seeing references to anxiety disorders being widely accepted and destigmatized (family members telling me "everyone has anxiety sometimes, so people are understanding of it," and online discussions about other conditions with phrases like "as opposed to destigmatized conditions like anxiety") and I genuinely want to know wtf everyone is talking about.

Explain why people laugh or get angry when someone stutters a lot or is so anxious they can't talk at all, especially in professional/academic environments.

Explain why people get freaked out and sometimes call security when someone is crying and shaking and can't explain themselves during a panic attack in public.

Explain why "too nervous to order food in a restaurant" and similar comments are always used as insults online.

Explain why so many teachers don't allow mental health days for anxiety or let students leave the classroom during panic attacks.

Explain why people get so uncomfortable around the topic of anxiety medication and antidepressants.

Explain why people are always weirded out by, if not outright hostile towards, people with psychiatric service dogs, communication cards, or other aids for their anxiety.

Explain why people with anxiety are laughed off and ignored when they try to advocate for their needs or set boundaries.

Explain why people are considered selfish if they're too anxious to verbally say "excuse me" or thank people for holding the door open.

Explain why people joke about hair loss even though it can often result from stress related to anxiety.

Explain why people act like it's a major burden to make a person with anxiety feel safe in an activity.

Anxiety may not be as stigmatized as other conditions, but that doesn't mean people aren't still ableist towards people with anxiety. They only accept it if it's hidden well enough that they don't have to look at it. And when they do have to look at it, all of their "acceptance" and "mental health matters <3" fly out the window.

The only reason you think anxiety is "widely accepted" is because your idea of anxiety is "someone who is mildly introverted and has a softish voice but is otherwise completely normal."

Trivialized isn't the same as accepted.

The fact that nations are, in essence, spirits that can take huge amounts of physical and mental punishment and still spring back into shape like humanoid slinkies. The fact that being in their presence screws with time and that the longer they are around an individual, the more that person's ageing and sense of time becomes distorted. The fact that humans can not mentally cope with such things and - if spending long enough with a nation - they can and will be driven to madness. The fact that nations choose spirits or animals as their companions instead, as animals do not have the mental faculties to worry about the implications of a slowed growth and immortality. The fact that nations have their own language that they are born knowing but them learning another nation's language is a genuine act of friendship.

The fact that nationhood is inherently alienating from the very people of their land. They are made of humans, but by design cannot be around them. The fact that all they really have is each other, and yet one of their primary functions is to be an arm of the military. The fact that we see over and over and over again nations bemoaning what a lonely life they lead, and how many of them turn to increasingly desperate or extreme measures to have some form of companionship. The fact that titles of siblings or children are entirely artificial, but they accept those titles for the feeling of belonging to the point where even acts of war can not separate some of those ties.

...Nationhood sucks. Is what I am saying.

Lore Olympus: a story of wasted potentials

Hello, everyone.

I want to talk about Lore Olympus and I would like to focus on a few elements of it, in order to prove my main point: that this story had a great idea, but a very poor execution.

Brief introduction: Lore Olympus is a webcomic you can read on Webtoon. It’s supposed to be a modern retelling of the classic myth of Hades and Persephone, but this version includes a lot more gods/heroes and figures from the Greek pantheon.

I know, I know. It seems extremely cool, right? And it should be! But if it was, I wouldn’t write a post called “a story of wasted potentials”: I would’ve called it “great comic, read it”.

And one post isn’t even remotely enough! I planned three posts, to properly explain why this story is such a waste of potential. Just think what a disappointment it is.

But before starting, let me clarify a couple things:

* I do not believe in sterile criticism. If I don't like something, I want to explain why I don't like it and show examples. You may agree or disagree with my points, I am not forcing you to think I am right: you have your own mind and you can think by yourself.

* I do not know everything, so if you think my points are not right, please tell me and explain your reasons properly and logically. Opinions may depend on many things, but logic and common sense are neutral and universally accepted.

* I don't give a damn about Rachel Smythe's bank account. I'm not her accountant, so I don't care about her money/fame/whatever. All I care about is if she's a good writer or not. And she’s not.

* I am talking about a story, not insulting your mother. Do not take my words as a personal attack. We all enjoy bad stuff, I like it too and saw a lot of people tearing apart the stuff I liked with their bare hands. And I thank them for that, because they helped me see past the rose-tinted glasses of a fan and notice the flaws. Thanks to them, I developed my critical thinking. And now I can still enjoy the bad stuff, even while pointing out why it’s bad.

* I will use all sorts of language and talk about all sorts of themes, so read at your own risk.

_______________________________

A sterile retelling

As said before, Lore Olympus is a retelling of the myth of Hades and Persephone adapted for modern times.

Retellings are always intriguing: you know the source material, so you want to see how the author re-shaped it, what concepts will be more prominent, how will the characters change, how and if the setting changes too. There are a lot of things to work on and the final product can be more comical than the original, more tragic, or more dramatic: it's up to the author to choose the direction their work should take.

However, there's one thing that should never change, in every retelling, and it's the essence of the source material.

Why are Greek myths still so important and loved to this day? Because the gods are extremely human. They have strengths and weaknesses, just like all of us. They fall prey to human emotions like love, happiness, jealousy, anger, hate and sadness. They plan revenge and forgive each other. They make mistakes and repent for their actions. There is no completely good or evil god.

So if you reduce the Greek gods to just "good" and "bad" guys, you're already making a huge mistake. Have you ever met someone who is entirely "good" or "bad" in real life? The world is full of nuances and shades of gray, so flattening them isn't good for your story. On the contrary, it proves how much of an inexperienced writer you are.

Therefore, this story isn't bad because “it's a retelling”. It's bad because the writing is boring and childish, there is no real plot and the characters are flattened to adapt to the stereotypical roles of “good guys”/”bad guys”.

_______________________________

We’ve all been influenced by Christianity

This will probably be shocking for people who never read the Greek myths, but the Greek gods are not supposed to be role models.

Unlike Jesus, whose life and actions serve as a perfect teaching of what people should/shouldn’t do, Zeus’ actions (or any other Greek god’s for that matter) are not. Greeks didn’t look at Zeus and thought: “Ah yes, this is exactly what we should do: go around and fuck everything”.

Myths and gods are not supposed to teach you to distinguish between good and bad: they are explanations for things the Greeks didn’t know how to explain otherwise (like the change of seasons) or retellings of ancient events people transmitted orally that got mixed with legends/additions over time (like Hercules’ adventures).

Sure, some positive aspects/people get rewarded and some negative aspects/people get punished in these stories. But this is more due to “facing the consequences of a certain behavior”, rather than praise/judgment of it based on the Christian concepts of “right” and “wrong”. Also because there are cases like Medusa’s myth, in which she literally gets raped by Poseidon in Athena’s temple and yet, Athena punishes her. Does that mean Athena is a negative goddess? The same goddess who also represents wisdom, intelligence and protects women’s arts? Can you better understand now when I say Greek goods are not entirely good/bad and even less moral teachers?

The thing is: Greek gods are like us. They are good and bad. They are assholes, but also kind and generous. They use humans for their own needs and, at the same time, protect them from dangers. They are powerful and powerless. And, let me repeat that, they are not moral examples to follow.

If you want a moral example for your story, do not use Greek gods. Use Jesus: Jesus is great for retellings. I mean, he’s a pacifist who wanted everyone to be equal, he treated women kindly in a world that saw them as females only, he literally wreaked havoc and whipped merchants who were mistreating a sacred place, he respected the State and wanted it separated from religion (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's”). And despite his talking about peace and kindness and not being a dick and loving each other no matter what/who they are, he scared the authorities so much they had to stop him and even today people keep misinterpreting his messages as “respect this kind of people only”, “wars are allowed” and “yes yes religion needs a shit ton of money”.

_______________________________

Straights everywhere

Lore Olympus would not have been very appreciated in ancient Greece. Not just because it’s full of clichès and the gods make no sense (we will talk about them in the next posts, don’t worry), but also because everyone is boringly straight.

Greek gods loved everything and everyone. Straight wasn’t the norm, bisexual was: the gods had tons of male and female lovers and no problem switching from one gender to the other, as long as they felt love/attraction/whatever.

And let’s not forget that the Greek myths are full of trans people too. And hermaphrodites. And asexuals. In other words, there was everything for everyone. And if there wasn’t a specific myth about that specific kind of love, then rest assured that Aphrodite protects all kinds of love.

So, how did Rachel Smythe show this variety in her retelling?

By making everyone boringly straight. Zeus has female lovers only, Apollo has nothing because he’s a loser and we get a lesbian kiss between two goddesses who were considered (mostly) asexual. Oh and let’s not forget that, according to Mrs. Smythe, the TGOEM was basically a cover for lesbians… so asexuals do not exist, I suppose.

But okay, maybe Mrs. Smythe didn’t feel at ease by writing more different sexualities besides heterosexual. That’s okay too, that’s her sensibility and I would never insult her for that. But in that case, please allow me to ask:

why write a story and use the Greek gods, notoriously known for their multifaceted sexuality?

why focus so much on the sexual aspect of these characters?

It’s as if Mrs. Smythe read the Greek myths and all she saw were romance and sex. Sure, they are part of those myths too, but if you have never read any Greek myth, do yourself a favor and read them: you will find that most of the time romance isn’t the focus at all. Even in the myth of Hades and Persephone, the main focus isn’t the romance: the main focus is Demeter's grief and how the agreement between her and Hades led to the change of seasons. The story is the focus, not the romance between the protagonists.

And no, despite what you think, the fact Hades and Persephone are uncle and niece isn’t important either.

But since I mentioned it, let’s talk about incest too.

_______________________________

Incest with extra steps

Rachel Smythe changed a lot of relationships in her story. She said she wanted to avoid incest, apparently: the result was that she ended up writing incest with extra steps (which is way worse) or weirdly sexual relationships between people who, according to the Greek myths, are related but have no sexual relationship at all. And, maybe that’s just me, but this makes me a lot more aware of incest, than the actual myths.

Also because, if you read even one story from the Greek myth, I can assure you that incest is the last thing you will focus on. As it was for romance, the focus of the story is the story, the metaphor, the characters. Not how they are related.

But I can hear your question: okay, so if the focus was the story, then why incest was mentioned everywhere? Well, I found this pretty cool article that talks specifically about incest and ancient times. You can read it fully if want, but I would like to quote this paragraph that I think resumes pretty well why incest isn’t so important in myths:

“The incest prevalent among the gods must have set an interesting precedent in the ancient world when it came to family relationships. We must bear in mind, however, that the classical deities were not the models of morality and goodness that we associate with the word ‘god’ now. Instead, they were each independent characters with their own strengths and, more importantly, their own vices. An ancient Greek or Roman would not aim to emulate the actions or behavior of the gods in their own lives! It is nonetheless interesting to consider how the sexual deviance of these divine figures may have influenced the classical perception of incest.”

And these paragraphs which explain why incest was so common back then:

“Apparently, the ancient Greeks and Romans were not content to limit their fascination with incest to the realm of mythology, literature and drama. Laws from the two major city-states of Athens and Sparta indicate that Greeks were legally permitted to marry their own siblings, while in Rome, it was not uncommon for uncles to marry nieces, which was legalized after the Emperor Claudius married his brother’s daughter, Agrippina.  It is important to remember, however, that just because incest was not prohibited by law, and even allowed in some cases, this does not mean that it was widely practiced or socially acceptable. In general, marriage in the ancient world was looked upon as a private affair between two families, and was often used to negotiate, forge alliances and gain power. Consequently, the state did not interfere directly in the arrangements, and was even willing to overlook certain incestum unions.”

Incest was common in myths because it was part of ancient life. And by adding it in the stories, the goal was not to teach people “Please, incest with your family members”, but to show another part of human life. As said before: greek myths were not examples to follow, but a way to explain (or just show) parts of life, nature and the world. Even small parts, not widely practiced by everyone (but still well known) like incest.

It’s pretty clear Mrs. Smythe knows nothing of this. She probably did zero research for her story, aside from a bunch of names of less famous gods/mythical characters and less-known trivia to add to make it look like she did her homework.

And I don't kow you, but I think this is insulting toward the original material, which is way more modern, complex and original than the supposed “modern retelling”.

_______________________________

Characters overload

This is a very common problem and mostly depends on how inexperienced the author is: if they are young or have never written anything, they tend to add as many things as possible to make their world “full of stuff”, “alive” and “vibrant”. And so we have schools and works and places and a shit ton of characters and chapters dedicated to the backstories of these characters and the plot is put on stand-by to talk about a ton of other, unrelated stuff.

The same thing happens in Lore Olympus, especially in the first two parts. While reading, I kept asking myself why there were so many characters and so much stuff: lack of experience? No previous planning? A simple love for money? I don’t really know.

What I know is that this problem could’ve been easily solved by not adding all this unnecessary stuff. This story is a retelling of Hades and Persephone: the point of the whole thing is the story between them, so the focus should be on them, not on everyone around them.

And if there are other characters, their involvement should make sense for the plot. What was the point of Daphne? What did she add to the story? And Aphrodite and Hephaestus? Aside from a little contribution to the story, they did nothing. Same for Athena, who is just a cardboard. And what about the guys Persephone met in school? And what about the whole school?

The only characters who have a real purpose in this story are Hades, Persephone, Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Minthe and Kronos. Seven characters. The others are all cardboard figurines who pretend to be important while doing marginal shit or are nothing more than plot devices. As a result, we have a ton of people who are never fleshed out and the main characters are not fully fleshed out either, because Rachel Smythe spent too much time exploring all other characters, instead of focusing on the main ones.

What would I have done instead? Add a few surrounding characters who help move the plot forward and leave the rest as background characters or, even better, remove them completely from the story.

For example, why having Hephaestus, Aetna, Eros and Psyche, when Artemis can do everything they did, find out about Apollo's actions and defy him? This way:

Artemis would have more time to be fleshed out and become an interesting character

it would make more sense for the story that Persephone’s supposed bestie tries to help her/gets her back

it would make the story cleaner and smoother and the world less “crowded” with useless characters

it would add additional drama, because there's not a random character fighting Apollo, but his own sister

But nope, Artemis did some stuff and disappeared. Maybe she will pop up again in the future, maybe she won’t, but does that change the story? Not at all. Do I care if she pops up again? Not at all. I don’t care about her, just like I don’t care about any of these characters. They have the potential to be interesting, to be multifaceted, to make me care. But I don’t. I can’t. I don’t have enough time to care, because there are other things happening and other more important characters showing up and they’re not fleshed out nor interesting - and the story is going in a weird direction, like, wasn’t this supposed to be a love story?

But we will talk about it in the next post about Lore Olympus, which will be focused on the three characters who derailed the story from “romance” to “defeating evil villains”: Zeus, Apollo and especially Cronus. Oh, I have a lot to say about Cronus.

_______________________________

In conclusion

Lore Olympus isn’t a bad story: it’s a disappointing one. It could’ve been a great rewrite, it could’ve been interesting and modern. It ended up being much older than the original myth.

And yes, I know it’s not over yet, but since we’re in the third act and we’re approaching the end (or at least what I hope it’s the end), I doubt it would suddenly change and become the modern, wonderful story it could’ve been. If it does, I would be the first to admit that… but I just doubt it.

This failure is even more disappointing for me, because I grew up with Greek myths. When I was a child, my father read me these stories. They’re the reason why I started reading too: because after a couple of stories, my father always fell asleep, but I still wanted to hear more - and, if he fell asleep mid-story, I wanted to know how it ended. So, while he was napping, I took the book and read these stories by myself. First just one, then a couple, then I moved to other books, then reading became my passion and I'm still an avid reader today.

So Lore Olympus offends me as a reader, because it insults my intelligence with a childish plot and does not focus on the real important parts of a myth, but on the most trivial ones. It pretends to be modern, feminist and innovative, but it does not understand the original material from which it takes inspiration. It does not make me feel anything for the characters, while I still remember fondly parts of these myths I read as a child, after more than 20 years.

And this is just what the “reader” part of me feels. Wait until the “writer” part of me talks. (spoiler: it's not what you think)

See you soon with the second part <3

Next post ->

(How about a coffee? ☕)

_______________________________

TAGLIST:

@royalprinceroman @mudpuddlenl@allmycrushesaredead @aquatedia@whatishappeningrightnow  @effortiswhatmatters @bella-in-a-bag  @doydoune @forever-third-wheeling​ @payte @hypnossanders​  @idontreallyknow24​  @imcrushedbyarainbowoffical​ @patton-cake​  @hereissananxiousmess​  @purplebronzeandblue​  @cynicalandsarcastic​ ​@lost-in-thought-20​ @andtheyreonfire​ 

@riseofthewerewolf​ @rosesandlove44​​  @chewy-rubies @groaaaaan​ @arya-skywalker  @csi-baker-street-babes @queen-of-all-things-snuggly @reesiereads

@dracayd-universe​ @starlightnyx​ @stubbornness-and-spite​ @averykedavra @joyrose-fandomer @mihaela-tbg @igonnatalknothing

@thatoneloudowl  @grayson-22  @softangryfuckingdepressed @theotherella  @boopypastaissalty @nevenastark @varthandiveturinn @roses-bubbles @cuter-on-the-inside  @coldbookworm  @snixxxsmythe @charmingcritter  @analogical-mess @emphasis-on-the-oopsie @selfdestructivecat @yangwalkerao3 @the3rddenialist