#Clytemnestra wants revenge on her daughter's murderer | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

maxfieldparrishes · 2 years

Text

masterpost of boe name references/sources

I really wanted to make a post about the names of certain (and by certain I mean Wake, We Suffer, Crown Him with Many Crowns, and Unjust Hope) BoE members because I’m

a) a huge-ass nerd who loves doing research and

b) super fascinated by all Tazmuir’s references so here goes nothing lmao

(If we get any of the other names in full, I’ll add them here too!)

First on the docket: Griddle’s mom (has got it going on). Wake’s name has been pretty thoroughly “decrypted,” for lack of a better word, so I’m just going to compile it all here for funsies.

Awake Remembrance of These Valiant Dead Kia Hua Ko Te Pai Snap Back to Reality Oops There Goes Gravity

Awake Remembrance of These Valiant Dead

A reference to Shakespeare’s Henry V, Act I, Scene II. For context: in the scene, Henry demands to know if his claim to the French throne is legitimate. His advisors, the Bishops of Ely and Canterbury and 2 other nobles (Exeter and Westmoreland), state that it is, and encourage him to pursue war with France, reminding him of the glory of his ancestors, “the former lions of [his] blood” (I.II. sorry I don’t have line numbers!)

ELY

Awake remembrance of these valiant dead

And with your puissant arm renew their feats:

You are their heir; you sit upon their throne;

The blood and courage that renowned them

Runs in your veins; and my thrice-puissant liege

Is in the very May-morn of his youth,

Ripe for exploits and mighty enterprises.

EXETER

Your brother kings and monarchs of the earth

Do all expect that you should rouse yourself,

As did the former lions of your blood.

Kia Hua Ko Te Pai

A reference to Aotearoa’s (New Zealand’s) national anthem, in te reo (Maori), “E Ihowā Atua.” The line translates as “may/let goodness flourish.”

Snap Back to Reality Oops There Goes Gravity

you better LOSE YOURSELF IN THE MUSIC THE MOMENT YOU OWN IT YOU BETTER NEVER LET IT GO (OH)

Moving on! We Suffer under the cut (pun not intended but I’m sorry this is so text-heavy!)

We Suffer and We Suffer

(Likely) a reference to Robert Fagles’ translation of Aeschylus’s Agamemnon. The line, as Fagles translates it, is “but Justice turns the balance scales, sees that we suffer and we suffer and we learn” (250-1).

For context: A watchman waits for a signal confirming a Greek victory in Troy. He laments his boredom and the current state of Mycenae and the House of Atreus, and complains of Clytemnestra, Agamemnon’s wife, and her apparent lack of femininity: “She in whose woman's breast beats heart of man” (I.I.still no fucking line numbers!), not knowing of her plot to kill Agamemnon as he returns home from war, in revenge for his sacrifice of their daughter Iphigenia for favorable winds to sail for Troy. The chorus then enters, and praises the gods while catching everyone up on the story thus far, including Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia at the behest of Calchas, the seer.

(If interested in Iphigenia’s story, check out Iphigenia in Aulis by Euripides.)

It’s also worth keeping in mind that Agamemnon is the first play in a series of three by Aeschylus, the Oresteia, which details the murder of Agamemnon and its fallout, the downfall of the House of Atreus and the end of its curse, and thematically discusses questions of justice, retaliation, and revenge. Very apropos.

Note: the translation of this line, as far as I’ve dug (so not super far), seems to be specific to Fagles. Other translators of Agamemnon, such as Anne Carson and E.D.A Morshead translate it differently.

Anne Carson: “Justice tips her scales so that we learn by suffering” (I.I.179-180)

E.D.A Morshead: “This wage from justice' hand do sufferers earn / The future to discern ” (I.I.deep sigh)

Moving on!

Crown Him with Many Crowns

A reference to a Christian hymn of the same name, written by Matthew Bridges. Traditionally set to the tune of a song called “Diademata” (itself derived from the Greek word for “crown”) by English organist and composer Sir George Job Elvey (the song was apparently composed for the hymn), but arrangements have been updated in the recent past.

This one is tricky, because this song is Very John, so... perhaps Crown is the link between the upper echelons of the empire and BoE?

Much to think about. Next!

Some relevant verses:

Crown him with many crowns,

The Lamb upon his throne;

Hark! how the heavenly anthem drowns

All music but its own:

Awake, my soul, and sing

Of him who died for thee,

And hail him as thy matchless king

Through all eternity.

[...]

Crown him the Lord of peace!

Whose power a scepter sways,

From pole to pole,--that wars may cease,

Absorbed in prayer and praise:

his reign shall know no end,

And round his pierced feet

Fair flowers of paradise extend

Their fragrance ever sweet.

Crown him the Lord of years!

The Potentate of time,--

Creator of the rolling spheres,

Ineffably sublime!

Glassed in a sea of light,

Where everlasting waves

Reflect his throne,--the Infinite!

Who lives,--and loves--and saves.

[...]

Crown him with crowns of gold,

All nations great and small,

Crown him, ye martyred saints of old,

The Lamb once slain for all;

The Lamb once slain for them

Who bring their praises now,

As jewels for the diadem

That girds his sacred brow.

Crown him the Son of God

Before the worlds began,

And ye, who tread where He hath trod,

Crown him the Son of Man;

Who every grief hath known

That wrings the human breast,

And takes and bears them for His own,

That all in him may rest.

Crown him the Lord of light,

Who o'er a darkened world

In robes of glory infinite

His fiery flag unfurled.

And bore it raised on high,

In heaven--in earth--beneath,

To all the sign of victory

O'er Satan, sin, and death.

Crown him the Lord of life

Who triumphed o'er the grave,

And rose victorious in the strife

For those he came to save;

His glories now we sing

Who died, and rose on high.

Who died, eternal life to bring

And lives that death may die.

[...]

Unjust Hope

Te Whaea, according to my search, is te reo (Maori) for “the Mother,” but... I think more in the sense of a title than a relationship, in context?

A reference to the poem “The Ikons” by New Zealand poet James K. Baxter. The line is as follows:

“Hard, heavy, slow, dark,

Or so I find them, the hands of Te Whaea

Teaching me to die. Some lightness will come later

When the heart has lost its unjust hope

For special treatment.” [...] (1-5)

There is soup made in this poem

And a river used in good old TLT context! (the context is death btw)

On a meta note, James K. Baxter was raised as not practicing any particular faith, or so I understand, but was a devout Catholic in his later years. He was also passionate about Maori culture in New Zealand and heavily embraced it, likely most exposed to it by his wife Jacquie Sturm, who was Maori herself - however, his reputation is not spotless and his treatment of women (including Jacquie) has been heavily criticized.

That said, this poem... oof

h e l p

“[...] and the fist of longing

Punches my heart, until it is too dark to see” (21-22)

And that’s all I have so far! As more information comes out (or the book) I’ll update this post as needed!

Thanks for reading!

#the locked tomb #tlt #blood of eden #awake remembrance of these valiant dead #gideon the ninth #nona the ninth #harrow the ninth #boe #god help me i went OVERBOARD will anyone actually read this? idk man you tell me #also i am SO SORRY if these look weird on mobile - it would be best to view this post on a desktop lol #also - should i put this on ao3? just for fun/easier to update?

178 notes · View notes

girlfromenglishclass · 10 months

Note

Why do you think of Clytemnestra? I find her one of the most misunderstood characters because of comparisons between her and Penelope. She is worse because she cheated on Agamemnon and then killed him. Not many people seem to find the point of avenging their daughter Agamemnon sacrificed valid. As if she were supposed to be fine with it because her child's death served a great purpose and allowed Greeks to win. He cheated on her multiple times, he even had the nerve to bring Cassandra to his own home and expect Clytemnestra to welcome her. And she is the villain in this story. I've always preferred her over Penelope.

Oh I'm so glad that someone asked about my favorite Greek heroine ever. I'm a big Penelope fan, but this is a pro-women's violence account first.

Plagiarizing a bit from my Goodreads review, but: it's important to note here that the questions of "Was Agamemnon right to kill Iphigenia," "Was Clytemnestra right to kill Agamemnon," and "Was Orestes right to kill Clytemnestra" are all ENTIRELY separate questions. Each has its own considerations. Even if you concede that Agamemnon had no choice but to sacrifice his daughter, that doesn't change what his wife must do. A father kills a daughter, so this demands an answer, even if it is justified. Thus, a wife kills her husband, and this demands an answer, even if it is justified. The whole idea here is that once blood has been spilt, you can't just resolve things peaceably.

And the text absolutely supports this reading via the chorus saying “the father who breaks heaven’s law ruins his children [...] Evil begets evil." Which is the EXACT SAME LOGIC that Orestes uses to kill Clytemnestra in his own revenge. HE'S allowed to take vengeance, but she isn't. God forbid women do anything.

Orestes points out "For taking human life there is a payment that has to be paid." But he doesn't apply this logic to Clytemnestra's own killing. The chorus does make this connection, after describing Iphigenia's killing, "He takes what he wants - and he pays for it" implying that the payment is fate. The chorus even justifies it, "Evil for evil is justice. And justice is holy." So the point seems obvious; it's okay to do an evil thing as long as it is in exchange for an evil thing. But this logic just doesn't get to excuse Clytemnestra?? If she was wrong, so was everyone else.

Clytemnestra calls out this hypocrisy directly. As though on trial, she defends with "Why didn't you judge Agamemnon? He murdered his own daughter, my daughter [...] This man here was the criminal to be punished" implying that her actions are justified by the same logic as Orestes, the same logic as the chorus, evil for evil.

So to summarize, either everyone in this play is justified, or none of them are - because they’re all using the same excuse. And Aeschylus is not unconscious of this!! The play literally ends in a hung jury trial in which they can't decide who is justified.

History might have simplified Clytemnestra, but Aeschylus and the original audience saw her for the nuanced character she is.

#tagamemnon #Clytemnestra #all quoted from the Ted Hughes translation btw #The Orestia #can you believe there were no women in the original audience. fuck.

37 notes · View notes

callipraxia · 11 months

Text

An Observation

I'm reading a bunch of books about plot structure again, and one of them was specifically about breaking down plots to their basic elements in a way that lets you see how two works can have the same 'skeleton' while appearing wildly different. Looking at it from that angle, it occurred to me:

The stories of Demeter and Clytemnestra follow roughly the same plot - they just have different outcomes.

In the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, we get the story of Demeter and Persephone - the story that formed the basis of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Persephone is picking flowers when she is lured astray by one planted as a trap for her; once she tries to get it, Hades pops up from nowhere, yanks her onto his chariot, and goes off to the Underworld with her, having gotten permission from Zeus to forcibly marry her without consulting with Demeter, her mother. There's scholarly discussion about how this could be symbolic of the real grief experienced by ancient Greek mothers and daughters, who might well never see each other again after the daughter is married off, but in its own context - the lord of the Underworld claims the Maiden, plunging her mother into grief and anger, which turns into Demeter blighting the world until the other gods come to an accommodation with her which partially restores Persephone to her. Ultimately, however, Demeter is plunged back into mourning every half-year when Persephone must once more return to Hades, which results in winter for everyone else.

In the Oresteia, we open with Clytemnestra plotting murder; this is because, in the backstory, her husband Agamemnon tricked her into bringing their daughter Iphigeneia to him by pretending he has arranged an honorable marriage for the girl, only to sacrifice Iphigeneia to the goddess Artemis instead once he has her. Cue Clytemnestra plotting her revenge: she spends the whole Trojan War fantasizing about tricking Agamemnon into a position where she can kill him, just as he tricked her into putting Iphigeneia into a position to be sacrificed to Artemis. Fast-forward ten years; the Trojan War is over, Agamemnon comes home, Clytemnestra proceeds to get her revenge, and she and her boyfriend (who also wanted to avenge wrongs done to his family - specifically, he had some older siblings who met a rather gristly end at the hands of Agamemnon's already-deceased father) take over the government, with negative results for the polis, if we're to believe Electra in Libation-Bearers, anyway.

Agamemnon is, in a way, roughly analogous to Hades: a superior being (Zeus, Artemis) gives a powerful Figure From Greek Mythology (Hades, Agamemnon) permission to send a young woman to the Underworld, and in the process, her mother is tricked and bereaved. As a result, both Demeter and Clytemnestra go nuclear in their pursuit of revenge: Demeter inflicts massive crop damage, fully prepared to commit genocide upon humanity solely because the other gods enjoy receiving offerings from humans, and Clytemnestra breaks her marriage vows and then lures Agamemnon to his death. However, at that point, their stories diverge pretty sharply: even Zeus himself is apparently unable to force Demeter to come to Olympus or to allow anything to grow again against her will, and he is not able to prevent her from bringing winter back down upon the world every half-year whenever Persephone is re-removed from her due to the laws of godly physics as applied to pomegranates, because why not. Clytemnestra, however, is not a goddess - she is not even the child of a god or goddess, even though her own twin sister, Helen, is. Clytemnestra is a powerful woman...but just, at the end of the day, a human woman. Therefore, her revenge backfires onto her horribly: she who committed murder to avenge one of her daughters (Iphigeneia) is murdered by her son (Orestes) as part of a plot which included her surviving daughter (Electra). As a shade, she raises the Furies against Orestes, so that these ancient goddesses of vengeance drive him nearly mad...but because a greater power (Athena) can and does exert power (at one point, she threatens the Eumenides with Zeus's lightning-bolts, which she has access to, if they don't agree to her arbitration of the quarrel) over everyone else involved. Zeus could not curb Demeter, but his daughter can curb the Furies and bring them fully into line with the patriarchal system***.

There's stories in there. I know it. More than one. Just to sift them out and find something to do with them....

***For an interpretation of Oresteia which makes some sense out of the ending of Eumenides other than "lol, women unimportant and stupid," there's an interesting lecture by the Canadian classicist Ian Johnston, which can be viewed here: http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/lectures/oresteialecture.html

I quite like it, along with much of Professor Johnston's work, though it's still hard to come away without the impression that Aeschylus miiiiight have had Issues with women. However, this would hardly make Aeschylus the last writer whose skill (and point) was undermined by his prejudices.

17 notes · View notes

licncourt · 2 years

Note

Not really a question but you know this trope of the son, once he grows up, killing/hurting/taking revenge on his father for abusing the mom? (I can't think of examples right now but it is a thing, right.)

So Claudia killing Lestat to free her and Louis is sort of a sex swapped version of this, which I find really interesting. Also kind of plays into the idea of how Claudia views Louis as the weaker one, at least mentally.

(Sorry, you've unlocked a Classics Rant)

I agree with the general principle and it feels very Greek tragedy, like a twist on Clytemnestra's murder of Agamemnon. In Aeschylus's play Agamemnon, the titular king is murdered by his wife in revenge for his sacrifice of their daughter, Iphigenia.

Like Claudia, she bides her time, playing up her "love" and waiting for Agamemnon to become vulnerable (him in the bathtub, Lestat while feeding), before betraying and killing him. In doing so, she also takes the throne from him and publicly unites with the lover Agamemnon had kept her from embracing. I think the parallels are pretty obvious, just a shuffling of rolls from a wife killing her husband as revenge and elevating her lover to a daughter killing one parent as revenge and elevating the other.

There's also a possible connection in the Oresteia between Claudia and Electra. In this case, we end up with Louis as Agamemnon and Lestat as Clytemnestra. In the play, Electra helps kill Clytemnestra, her mother, in revenge for the murder of her father, Agamemnon. Through this lens, Claudia sees Lestat as Louis' metaphorical "killer" and she takes revenge on Lestat for dragging him into vampirism and keeping him (and her) from having a life.

The story of Salome from the Bible (or the Oscar Wilde play, if you prefer) is another comparison I like, though it's less beat for beat. Salome, daughter of Herod Antipas, was promised anything she wanted by a doting father. Knowing her mother's grudge against John the Baptist, she asks for his head on a silver platter and receives it.

If Claudia is Salome, she's acting on behalf of a beloved parent, the mother or Louis. In this case, I see Herod as more a representation of her own power via Lestat and John the Baptist as the reality of Lestat, a figure beloved by the public but a direct threat to the preferred parent. It's not a perfect one-to-one, but I like the comparison anyway.

As to the second thing you mentioned, it's interesting how Claudia almost...infantilizes Louis? It's such a strange dynamic given how Louis treats Claudia, like a doll in his words. He kind of indicates that he knows how Claudia feels about that, but I don't know if he understands to what extent. It goes back to the question of where Claudia’s genuine love for her father ends and the manipulation begins. Maybe she herself doesn't know.

I think that's really because of her lack of humanity. All she's ever known is how to get what she needs from others through manipulation, luring kind adults into her trap. In the same way, an adult Claudia knows she can't survive on her own, so she ensures that Louis is where she wants him, wrapped around her little finger. I do believe she has real love for him, as least to the point that she's capable of that kind of emotion (we see it in her breakdown after realizing how disgusted and angry Louis is by her murder of Lestat), but I don't think she's even capable of selfless love.

I think the movie does a great job of portraying and contrasting her moments of genuine connection with Louis with the times she's using his love for her to get something (or blending the two, like her plea for Madeline). The two aren't mutually exclusive, but I think the choice of Louis as her primary guardian was as much about his weakness for her as it was her hatred for Lestat. He's more like a pet to her than a parent by the end, and her love is almost condescending. Maybe she resents that she's so dependent on someone she doesn't seem to think very highly of.

I definitely believe if she thought Lestat's presence was a more viable option for her long term wellbeing, she would've tolerated him. Instead, he was an obstacle, a barrier keeping Louis from being fully hers and I think that motivated her almost as much as hatred or a desire for freedom. Louis is her best bet and also all she has in the world. As long as Louis is Lestat’s partner, he can't be dedicated 100% to being her father, she'll never be the sole influence on him like she feels she needs to be.

Anyway, Claudia is an amazing character and we should talk about her more.

#answered #vc #claudia #meta

38 notes · View notes

astraque · 3 years

Text

Alecto, Atreus, and Analogues: Parallels between The Oresteia and The Locked Tomb

Okay, so mostly I just wanted an excuse to write a title with a colon in it.

what it says on the tin

So, some backstory. The Atreus house is a pretty famous and very cursed Greek Family (think Agamemnon and Menelaus (of Iliad fame), Clytemnestra (of Tumblr Girlboss fame) and Orestes (of “It’s rotten work / Not to me, not if it’s you” fame) and Electra (not really famous, but beloved in my heart). It all started when the original member of the Atreus house, Tantalus, decided that it would be a super great idea to feed one of his sons to the gods. He wanted to test their omniscience. The gods, naturally, didn’t really like this and threw Tantalus into Tartarus and resurrected his son Pelops (who was missing a shoulder because Demeter wasn’t paying attention).

This original sin, as it were, passed down through Pelops’ descendants, and they kept doing terrible deeds and getting punished for them. Essentially, don’t do cannibalism guys, it will make everyone including the gods hate you and your children ! And, in the TLT universe, when we think of cannibalism what do we think of? Well, Ianthe being freaky, but besides that: Lyctorhood. John says “Ten thousand years since I’ve eaten another person”; Gideon’s “All I ever wanted you to do is eat me.” Lyctorhood really is the purest form of cannibalism.

Generations down, this family just keeps murdering each other -- and it seems like the cycle will never stop. During the events of the Oresteia Agamemnon is murdered by Clytemnestra (because Agamemnon sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia to sail the Greek fleet to war against Troy), so Orestes murders her. And, because of this terrible matricide, Orestes is pursued by the Furies throughout the events of the Oresteia. He has to flee his homeland and eventually ends up in Athens.

And a name of one of the Furies relentless pursuing him? Not identified in the Oresteia, but later by Vergil: Alecto (side note: her name means endless rage, which is just so...)

So I was a little torn here, because these Furies’ constant pursuit of someone who committed the sin of the Atreus house (murder and/or cannibalism) reminds me a lot of the Resurrection Beasts and the “indelible sin” John talks about them sensing.

But then I’m reminded of a very good theory -- that Alecto is a resurrection beast -- that of Earth.

How on earth does Orestes get this to stop? And how might this play into the events of AtN?

Basically, Athena holds a trial! They all go to Athens and Orestes begs forgiveness (something none of his ancestors did) and Athena puts Orestes on the stand and has a jury decide his fate. Eventually, he is acquitted after a tie. And those furies -- are transformed in the Eumenides (the kindly ones) and are worshipped as goddesses, no longer creatures of revenge, instead protectors of justice.

Now, The Locked Tomb is really a series that revolved around forgiveness. The aggressive Catholicism really shines through in this matter. Does Gideon forgive Harrow for her years of abuse? Does Harrow deserve that? Will the original Lyctors forgive John for what he did to them? Is he sorry? Will Coronabeth ever forgive Ianthe for not choosing her to be her cavalier? Will Harrow ever forgive Gideon for sacrificing herself? Not all of these are on the same level, but it just goes to show how much the concept of forgiveness and whether it’s deserved adds a lot of tension.

Muir I think even said in an interview that in AtN, people will not be getting their comeuppance. I think that aligns with the themes of the Oresteia and the fact that this cycle has to get broken through forgiveness, otherwise it will continue into perpetuity. I think a lot of us saw that interview and figured it was talking about Ianthe just being awful and never getting punished by the narrative for it, but I think there’s a pretty solid chance that it’s going to be about God.

We might have all our characters repent for their crimes, and be found not guilty.

And Alecto, an alleged monster we all love for her monstrosity, might just be transformed.

#the locked tomb meta #tlt #gideon the ninth spoilers #harrow the ninth spoilers #the locked tomb spoilers #gtn spoilers #htn spoilers #tlt spoilers #tlt meta #alecto the ninth #atn #atn theories #alecto the ninth theories #atn predictions #did this instead of my physics hw due tomorrow morning #and very much needs to be done #oh well #the locked tomb

101 notes · View notes

hynpos · 5 years

Text

In this story, Clytemnestra learns of her husband’s plan.

She sees the altar and knows it’s not for marriage. She breaks free, saves her daughter, steals the dagger. She screams “the gods want a sacrifice? I’ll give them one!” as she slices Agamemnon’s throat open. The wind ruffles her hair as his blood, and not the blood of Iphigenia, soaks into the ground.

She doesn’t care what happens next, as long as her daughter is safe.

The Greeks don’t care, as long as the wind is at their backs and they can sail for war.

Instead, Agamemnon lives. He kills and steals and takes women as war prizes. Clytemnestra looks out the window of her murdered daughter’s bedroom to the sea and rages any time a breeze picks up. She is all rage, these days, all rage and revenge and regret. She knows time doesn’t soothe wounds like hers.

So she waits, hones her grief like a weapon, and swears to the gods she will have her retribution.

The Greater Grief; Clytemnestra

#greek mythology #clytemnestra #agamemnon #iphigenia #poetry #the iliad #words #mywords #ibuzoo #primordialnyx #reposting for better format

679 notes · View notes

thisiswhymomworries · 4 years

Note

If I may contribute to your statement about how much Agamemnon deserved death, it wasn’t just his daughters wedding day. He arranged for her to be married to Achilles so that she would be within convenient murder range. If I remember correctly, at least in Euripides’ telling of the events, even Achilles thought the whole thing was awful when he realized what was going on. So yeah, there is no telling of the story in which I feel bad for him.

oh yeah, you’re absolutely correct that Agamemnon totally set that up and arranged for her to be married solely to get her out of the house to be killed

and Achilles WAS like “hey what the fuck this is my wedding too--well. not anymore I guess >:/”

ALSO Agamemnon is the bitch who started the Biggest Dick Slap Fight with Achilles about the distribution of loot, which led to Achilles having his Big Sulk and refusing to fight, so Patroculus put on his armor and fought in his place--shout to him by the way!! he has the highest kill count in The Iliad, NOT Big Baby Achilles--and was therefore eventually killed by Hector

so the order of fuck ups is:

Agamemnon makes a stupid ass promise (to Artemis I believe) at the beginning of the war to sacrifice whatever he sees first when he arrives home

immediately sees his daughter, who ran out to welcome him first bc she loves him

realizes now he has to kill her otherwise the gods will be mad and he won’t be able to join / or will doom The War expedition

doesn’t just stay home!! like yeah, he made a regular human promise ala WWI alliances where if something happens to this other guy over here, then fucking everybody in their dog has to go to war over it, including him, but this is YOUR DAUGHTER my dude, just stay home

Decides to go ahead and kill his daughter, I guess!!

lies to his wife (Clytemnestra) and to Achilles (ally) that he’ll marry Daughter to Achilles before they go off to war

when Clytemnestra brings Daughter down to get married, he instead ties her to the alter / pyre and kills her while Achilles is like “whoaaa what the fuck”

all so he can go to this stupid war that again, Does Not Involve Him. he only promised that if Other Guy’s shit got fucked up (ie, his wife Helen getting abducted), then he’d help out but like,, Helen maybe wanted to go to Troy anyway and also still ultimately not his problem

yes breaking promises his a huge No-No but also so is literally all of these other fuck ups he does, so why not just do One (1) fuck up and also NOT kill your daughter\

Goes to war and tries his hardest to fuck THAT up too!!

so the whole point of killing his daughter is that he HAS to go help fight in this war and then when he gets there, he’s useless

coulda just stayed home, moron

he starts a Biggest Dick Slap Fight with Achilles--ACHILLES--over who gets the best loot by pulling that he technically has rank as a king or something but he didn’t do shit

Achilles Big Mad

so basically this guy made direct eye contact with the Greeks’ BESTEST most special warrior, lied to him, killed his would-be wife, snidely pulled rank, took away another woman he wanted (that’s the “loot”), and pretty much fucked her while loudly reminding The Best Warrior he ain’t shit

like,,, ?? the Greeks DID NOT need him there!!

Achilles--their best warrior--refuses to fight, Patroculus fights instead, gets killed, Achilles mourns for three days, they basically come This Fucking Close to losing the war--which has already stalled for ten years btw bc they can’t actually get inside Troy, so the “war” thus far is basically just glorified yelling “meet me in the fucking parking lot you bitch” and sometimes someone from Troy would in fact come out to fist fight someone in the parking lot, aka Hector vs Patroculus (RIP)

if Achilles hadn’t been sulking, maybe he would’ve won the fist fight vs Hector, and Troy would’ve surrendered after losing their leader

but that doesn’t happen so Odysseus does the horse thing to get the soldiers inside Troy and they sack it, but the point is that Agamemnon DIDN’T DO SHIT except make things worse

Comes back home and immediately insults the gods

Clytemnestra does kind of set him up for this by asking leading questions, but they’re so Babey Basic. like,, if a woman asks “hey do you think you’re better than the gods” just say no!!

there’s a red carpet, which is a huge honor for the gods alone, and it’s Super Super Obvious Clytemnestra is goading him into hubris but Agamemnon “Can’t Think Critically” the Daughter Killer is like “oh fuck yeah I’ll accept honors only reserved for the gods because I’m just as good as them DO YOU HEAR THAT GODS I, A MORTAL, AM LOUDLY PROCLAIMING HUBRIS WHILE SYMBOLICALLY STEPPING ON YOU GEE HOW COULD THIS GO WRONG”

didn’t seem to put any thought into how Clytemnestra, a woman, was supposed to hold onto the throne for him FOR TEN FUCKING YEARS but then when he comes back, he rolls up like “hey, honey what’s up with you? me?? oh yeah, I had fun killing our daughter, going to war, fucking other women. LOTS of other women, I even fucked Achilles’s woman. yeah, yeah, that’s just the kind of leader I am Babey!! but anyway, you’re going to give the throne back to me and let me start making decisions as king for the whole country after I killed your daughter, nearly cost us the war, and loudly insulted the gods, right? Right??”

Guess who just got MURDERED

yeah it’s the asshole who deserved it. like, the Agamemnon specifically makes sure to recount how he killed his daughter as she begged for her life and then flashes forward back to the present where he insults the gods, just to make sure we know he Really Really deserves it

not even by modern standards! the audience was at least supposed to understand the promise he made to Artemis was dumb and shitty, that regardless of whether he was “”forced to do it”” he did still kill his own child, AND he committed hubris

Clytemnestra even has a monologue about what the fuck else she’s supposed to do: there are no laws she can turn to, and as a woman, she’s not allowed to get revenge, so her only other option is to just hand the kingdom back over to this Moron and keep sucking his cock or whatever while pretending he didn’t murder her child

basically, if someone kills one of your family members, you are morally obligated to kill them

Agamemnon MUST get his shit wrecked due to hubris

Orestes (their son) has been off dicking around and sulking, and he doesn’t want to kill Agamemnon, and anyway, all he did was kill his sister! does that really count?? seriously though, does it? spoiler: the ultimate answer is No, killing women does not count as killing a person bc women are not people

this message brought to you by Athena (ironically)

also some shit about how women aren’t actually involved in motherhood or creating a child, so a mother isn’t really a parent, and that’s why Orestes gets to kill Clytemnestra via The Greek Obligation For Revenge

Clytemnestra decides Fuck That

she holds Agamemnon accountable and kills him as he must be killed in order to avenge the killing of their daughter

she tosses a net on him while he’s in the bathtub and stabs him a million times with a spear, while laughing maniacally and bathing in the rain of blood that spurts out

as is her parental RIGHT for avenging her daughter

except the problem is that she’s Not A Man, so she ““isn’t allowed”“ to kill a man

and also that the reason Agamemnon deserved to die is ultimately decided to be his hubris, because Women Are Not People so it was OK or whatever for him to kill his daughter bc that didn’t count

therefore Clytemnestra double wasn’t allowed to kill him / avenge her and should have sat around waiting for the gods to kill Agamemnon I guess, but there’s no indication any of them actually planned to do that

they just used her to do their dirty work, so if anyone in this story was fucked into a corner by the gods, it’s Clytemnestra, not Agamemnon

Orestes then has a big long story about killing Clytemnestra

like fuck his sister I guess?? he wasn’t doing shit about revenge and his moral duty to kill the killer of his family when she was sacrificed but now that his shit idiot dad got himself killed, nooow he’s all about His Moral Duty

so he kills his mom

and he’s kind of sad about it and worried that now he deserves to die too because he killed his mom, and it’s a super fucked up sin in Greek World to kill your parent

hence the deus ex machina--literally, how this trope got invented

they lowered an actor playing Athena from the rafters and had her proclaim that Women Aren’t People, so it was probably OK or whatever for Agamemnon to kill his daughter and since women have nothing to do with the creation of a child, and just hold that little sperm-baby inside them like a cup until it magically comes out with zero effort or risk to them, then Women Aren’t Parents so Orestes didn’t reeeally kill his parent

#greek mythology #ancient greek #ancient greek mythology #the agamemnon #clytemnestra #ask #anon #answered #mine

44 notes · View notes

marjanefan · 4 years

Text

The Riddle of the Sphinx as a Greek Tragedy

Warning – this essay includes spoilers (under the read more link)

It may be set in modern day Cambridge but in its referring to the story of the Sphinx of Thebes (and Oedipus) and its plot involving multiple revelations and betrayals, its exploration of revenge it deliberately calls back to the golden age of Greek tragedy, This is a point Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith have commented on in interview, particularly to explain the episode.

As mentioned, the main story from Greek mythology that the episode references is Oedipus, specifically his banishing the Sphinx from Thebes by answering her riddle. However, it also references elements from Sophocles play ‘Oedipus Tyrannus/Rex’ and other Greek tragedies both in plot elements and how the narrative unfolds.

Firstly it is important to note that there are some major differences between this episode and Greek tragedies. For example there is no chorus commenting on the action and we see all the major action happen in front of us rather than key events happening off stage which then are relayed by a messenger, amongst other things (However it could be argued the crossword itself acts as a Greek chorus commenting on the action and as the messenger as it will tell others what has transpired between Squires and 'Nina')

However, there are a great number of ways in which this episode very accurately reproduces the practices of ancient Greek drama.

In Greek tragedy we usually see dialogues between two characters (Sophocles introduced a third actor, but we usually only see two characters interact in his and Euripides plays). We only see dialogue between Squires and Nina/Charlotte then Squires and Tyler. There are often long passages of exposition and monologues which are also echoed in this episode with Nina, Squires and Tyler all getting opportunities to explain what is happening.

The Riddle of the Sphinx (like many episodes of Inside No.9) conforms to the three Aristotelian unities for drama set out in in The Poetics. It has unity of action (it concerns Squires confrontation with Nina/Charlotte and Tyler with no subplots), unity of time (it occurs in real time over a half hour) and unity of place (Squire’s office). Indeed, almost two third of the episodes of Inside No.9 in the first four series also conform to these three unities.

The plot could be said to conform to three-episode structure of Greek tragedy with Squires and Nina/Charlotte’s initial interactions about crosswords being the first episode, Nina/Charlotte revealing her true motives being the second episode and Tyler’s arrival being the third episode. The Poetics also set out that a discovery should occur within a play and this certainly happens in The Riddle of the Sphinx!

The referencing of the myth of Oedipus in the story must be deliberate with Squires involvement with the death of his two children and sexual assault on a young woman who turns out to be his daughter echoing Oedipus unknowingly killing his father Laius and marrying his mother Jocasta.

Squire’s real crime like most characters in Greek tragedy is his ‘Hubris’ (ὑβρῐ́ς). This goes beyond our concept of pride or arrogance (both of which Squires is more than guilty of). In Greek Tragedy it is almost a form of blasphemy (certainly in the plays of Sophocles and Aeschylus) in that it is a form of disrespect for the gods and fate. Oedipus may be infamous for (unknowingly) killing his father Laius and marrying his mother Jocasta. But in Greek myth, this is not his actual crime. His and his parents were informed separately by oracles that Oedipus is fated to kill his father and marry his mother. They both take action to try and avoid this, but these actions only ensure that they occur. More pertinently it is flaws in all three’s personalities that allow these events to pass. All three act rashly or impulsively when told about the prophecy (Laius and Jocasta command baby Oedipus to be left to die, Oedipus runs away from his adopted parents). In spite of the prophecy Oedipus and Laius get into a violent argument when they encounter each other which leads to Laius’s death. So both had tempers that leads them to have violent arguments with apparently random strangers they encounter. Jocasta marries Oedipus almost immediately when he arrives in Thebes as a hero for having vanquished the sphinx even though she has only recently been widowed and he is quite literally young enough to be her son (despite the prophecy).

The plot of Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus Tyrannus/Oedipus Rex ‘occurs years into Oedipus’ rule of Thebes and concerns the eventual revelation of his actions. Throughout the play Oedipus behaves in high handed and arrogant manner toward all those around him, such as the sear Tiresias, in investigating the cause of the plague that has befallen Thebes and the circumstances of the death of Laius. He refuses to heed warnings of what he might uncover or that he may himself be the cause of the plague. This exacerbates his horror when his actions are eventually revealed. Jocasta kills herself offstage (hanging herself – with her scarf, rather like Simon had done) and Oedipus blinds himself.

It could be argued that Squires has his fate foretold him in Tyler apparently warning him that Nina/Charlotte plans to kill him. In trying to avoid this fate and not exploring why Nina/Charlotte wants him dead or Tyler’s motivation for telling him, he ensures his eventual death and that of his daughter.

Squires thinks he can outwit ‘Nina’ and that he will not be called to account for his behaviour toward others who have less power than him (Simon in the crossword quiz, the other young female undergraduates he presumably sexually assaulted). He refuses to show sympathy for those who have suffered because of his arrogance. In the end one of his victims, Tyler, will call him to account in the most horrendous manner possible.

Jacob Tyler in many ways acts in the role of the avenging god that we see frequently appear at Euripides’ tragedies (such as Dionysus in the Bacchae). These gods often reveal at the end of Euripides plays to the central figure the full consequences of their action and punish them accordingly. Tyler’s actions bring around the downfall of Squires and he exposes Squires hubris in his treatment of others. He could also be said to act as a Deus Ex Machina (a trope especially associated with Euripides) in supplying Squires with the bullet to kill himself with. However, these figures are frequently shown to be petulant and deeply cruel in Euripides’ dramas (particularly in plays such as The Bacchae and Hippolytus). Tyler is shown to be similarly cruel and petulant with no compassion toward Squires or even Nina/Charlotte who he raised as his daughter.

Jacob’s first name may be an allusion to Jacobean tragedy. Many Jacobean tragedies (also known as revenge dramas) were every bit as bloody and revenge driven as many Greek tragedies and undoubtably this was another influence on Pemberton and Shearsmith.

Professor Squires middle name Hector (revealed only at the end of the episode) may be another allusion to Greek myth. In the Iliad Hector was the Trojan warrior who kills Achilles’ companion Patroclus in battle. This evokes the wrath of Achilles (the stated theme of the Iliad) who in turn kills Hector.

One of the main themes of the Iliad and many Greek tragedies is ‘honour’ and its maintenance. Characters such a Medea are shown to go to extreme lengths when they perceive themselves as being dishonoured. Squires is determined to maintain his honour as a Crossword specialist over a young man even if it means cheating and abusing his position of power. Tyler feels he has lost his honour both by Squires cuckolding him and his resulting withdrawal from his promising academic career. Both men have an unhealthy preoccupation with their standing in the eyes of others and with being successful. Honour and excelling is linked to identity and power in Greek myth and is seen as almost conferring a form of immortality. The maintenance of honour becomes a deadly matter. Tyler can only see one way of restoring his lost honour- by avenging himself upon Squires and robbing him of his honour by exposing him to shame.

Nina/Charlotte has some interesting comparisons with two figures from Greek tragedy in Electra and Antigone. Electra and her brother Orestes’s killing of their mother Clytemnestra and stepfather Aegisthus in revenge for the murder of their father Agamemnon was the theme of plays by both Euripides and Sophocles (and the Oresteia). In Euripides’ play Electra’s desire for vengeance is met but she is then beset by guilt and regret. It is also worth notig that at least in Euripides plays Clytemnestra's killing of Agamemnon was in large part motivated by his apparent sacrifice of their daughter Iphigenia)

But Nina/Charlotte also has some parallels with Antigone, Oedipus’s daughter (who is herself the subject of a play by Sophocles). Antigone ensures her brother Polynices is given a proper burial after her uncle Creon expressly forbids anyone doing this. She is caught and punished by being entombed alive. Like Antigone, Nina/Charlotte is concerned with doing what she perceives as right by her dead brother. Her fate of being left completely paralysed while dying a slow death could be said to echo Antigone’s fate.

Alexandra Roach gives a powerful performance as Nina/Charlotte showing her fierce determination to avenge her brother and later her horror as the extent of Tyler’s betrayal become evident (all the more so as the character is completely paralysed – but her eyes speak volumes). She has been betrayed by both her ‘fathers’ (particularly Tyler) and her life has been lost as collateral in their power game. This echoes both Electra and Antigone having little power as women in their stories, a reflection of the highly patriarchal nature of ancient Athenian society.

There was always a clear moral purpose to Catharsis for the of any Greek tragedy. These were collective experiences whih deliberately explored religious and moral questions for the audience. To this end each play needed an act of ‘Catharsis’ (fear and pity) which Aristotle wrote was so critical to a successful drama. We get this act of catharsis. Squires is confronted with his role in the death of his two children (and the fact he assaulted his own daughter). Steve Pemberton manages to make Squires a pitiable character in the final moments of the episode. We see Squires is genuinely distraught at what he has done to Nina/Charlotte as he cradles her in her final moments. We pity Squires as a man who inadvertently destroyed the family he could have had if he had been more honest, less arrogant and less lecherous. We are also left with feelings of fear that people like Tyler are so ruthless in their quest for revenge and that our own misdeeds. The gunshot at the end resolves the action and ironically both Squires and the audience are released from the tension of the events of the episode.

The Riddle of the Sphinx may at first be nasty fun but as with much of Inside No.9 there is a moral message. Both Squires and Tyler behave in a toxic and entitled way which no one in the audience is supposed to admire. Squires may be physically destroyed by the end of the episode but Tyler is destroyed morally. Nina/Charlotte is so warped by a desire for revenge she is consumed (quite literally!) by it. All this in a story apparently about crosswords

#inside no.9 #Reece Shearsmith #Steve pemberton #Alexandra Roach #Riddle of the sphinx #Oedipus #Euripides #sophocles

14 notes · View notes

kashuan · 5 years

Note

Do you think Clytemnestra was justified in killing Agamemnon?

I’ve been asked this a few times and I feel like it’s a difficult question to answer, to say the least. There are a lot of ways you could, such as:1) It’s irrelevant to try and answer because it’s not the point of this series of stories. We’re shown how eye for an eye justice completely FAILS in this house (Atreus gets revenge on Thyestes, Thyestes gets revenge on Atreus, Aegisthus gets revenge on Agamemnon, Orestes gets revenge on Aegisthus, Orestes is doomed to be Goddamn Miserable– there is never a ‘good end’ after anyone’s revenge) and though Clytemnestra’s intention may have been to end this very cycle of violence that plagues this house through killing Agamemnon, that obviously didn’t work. So from an overall plot/moral of the story standpoint, no? I guess? 2) If not in a overall story sense, is it justified to the reader at least? Dunno, depends how you look at it. Do you take stock in Euripides’ whackass, nonsensical canon (mentioned nowhere else ever) that Agamemnon violently killed Clytemnestra’s first family? Then I guess okay, you can say he had it coming. Given that he had absolutely zero reason to do that, and babies were involved, not sure what reader would miss the scum (see: why there’s no mixed feelings about King ‘I made my nephews into a soup for my bro just for the drama of it all’ Atreus’ murder)However, if we disregard that left-field one liner (as every other text does when talking about Clytemnestra’s reason), then there’s just the murder of Iphigenia to focus on. So then how does the reader interpret Agamemnon’s actions in IoA? Some people seem to come away thinking he just threw her on the altar, cut her throat and was merrily off to Troy on the same day without so much as a second thought spared (These people can not read. Some of them are even published authors. I am deeply sad.) Other readers have said: “I don’t care that he was Conflicted and Sad, he could have just like, Walked Away, you know,” which, as I’ve said in other posts, is a fallacy (there’s plenty of essays to be found on jstor on the subject). If either of these interpretations were correct, then again, I guess? you could feel his murder was justified. Yet I don’t think they are, so…. I won’t get into details here since I’ve written about it before, but his choices were more likely: (kill daughter) or (have an angry mob kill daughter and harm rest of family) or (have an angry god do both A and B and possibly smite the rest of the army as well by association). There never was a Walk Away And Everything’s All Right option. At least, not that his character would have good reason to believe. IoA is a tragedy not because it’s sad that an innocent girl dies to an Evil Man, but because of the utter hopelessness of the situation from all angles. I’ve seen some people who say that Artemis would have just let Agamemnon off the hook if he refused, and it was just a Test all along, but uh, have you read any stories with Artemis/Apollo? Very vindictive gods. The sacrifice was not just to appeal to her for favorable winds, but to apologize for unknowingly killing her sacred deer. He was already locked in to owing her repayment. Can’t just skip out on that. For more on why not to piss off this particular pair, and the bad results which follow if you think their commands can just be ignored, refer to: book 1, the iliadAnyway, getting back to the point, if Agamemnon did in fact have no better choice, if his hand was forced, and the whole catalyst for Clytemnestra’s decision is based on this, does it seem morally justified? I really don’t know. Does she have every reason to hate him all the same, sure. As a mother consumed by her grief, can we understand why she does what she does? Yes! Does his character deserve to get a free pass after the fact that it was likely his own greed in the first place that set off this series of events? Absolutely not. But I’ve never read his death as being 100% Deserved And Justified, open and shut case, either, for the reason stated above. Final verdict: It’s Complicated.3) Is the reader given indication that it was Justified after the fact? The stories of Electra and Orestes are always what throw me off especially when it comes to how we’re ‘meant’ to interpret Agamemnon’s death. Their lives end up essentially ruined after their father dies, they end up emotionally abused and neglected by the mother. Conversely, both of them are also shown to be unreasonably extreme in some points in their stories, but this also seems author dependent, and, at least for me, never pushes their characters so far to outright be interpreted as The Bad Guys (aight, except for the end of Euripides’ Orestes where Ore just goes absolutely apeshit and decides to commit arson, kidnapping and murder all at once, but…like..Euripides, man. We’ve been over this.) It always has struck an odd chord with me that the character whose whole motive is to avenge her daughter, treats her remaining children so poorly, which leaves me unable to read her as the unproblematic Justified heroine that some others do (spoilers: nearly everyone in this family is heavily flawed, and yet I would still like all of them to live). My point is, I feel like if we, the readers, were supposed to feel Clytemnestra’s choice had been the “right” one, we would either be shown a brighter future after Agamemnon’s death, or at least, Electra and Orestes’ stories likely wouldn’t cast them as such sympathetic characters opposite hers. That isn’t to say these things convey it was the ‘wrong’ choice either, necessarily, but rather that is ambiguous and pinning one of those black and white terms on it is impossible.Having said all that, I want to conclude that this is all obviously based on my own opinion alongside that I’ve put a lot of hours into researching the ins and outs of this particular series of stories. I’m not claiming I’m giving the one correct answer here. Literature can be interpreted many ways, colored by our own preferences and opinions. But I was asked for my own personal take, so there you go :^)

#thanks for sending me possibly the most loaded question you could ask on the blue hellsite #in conclusion: knife cat.jpg #one day ducky will post his good end oresteia fic and the light will be seen by all #i forgot some points here i'm sure... there's just so many #for anyone who's interested in the extended cut #send me your address so I can visit you and explain to you my passions #addictivechaos

84 notes · View notes

brigdh · 7 years

Text

Reading Wednesday

Bears in the Streets: Three Journeys Across a Changing Russia by Lisa Dickey. A sort-of travel book by an American woman who speaks Russian. In 1995 she spent several months traveling across Russia as part of one of the very first real-time updating travel blogs; she did the same journey in 2005, then for the Washington Post; and now she's done it again in 2015, this time as the basis for this book. Each time she meets the same people (well, mostly: some have died, moved away, or simply don't want to talk to her again) and tries to assess how their lives have changed over the last ten or twenty years. I call it a "sort-of" travel book because it's not meant to be a guide for tourists or to convey the physical experience of her journey. Rather it's an attempt to explain the culture and people of Russia to her audience of Westerners, since they believe – as least according to several of her encounters – that Russia is full of "bears in the streets". Dickey visits a wide variety of people: lighthouse keepers in Vladivostok, a rabbi in Birobidzhan (capital of the Jewish Autonomous Region), farmers in Buryatia who trace their history back to Genghis Khan, scientists studying Lake Baikal, a gay man in Novosibirsk, an excessively wealthy family in Chelyabinsk near the Ural mountains, the mother of a soldier in Kazan, a rap star in Moscow, and a 98-year-old woman in St Petersburg, old enough to remember the last tsar, among others. The selection is a bit random, but they all end up having interesting stories or perspectives, and Dickey's writing is warm, funny, and friendly. A recurring theme is Dickey worrying about telling these off-and-on friends of hers about her life: back in America, she's married to another woman. However, each time she ends up coming out, she finds acceptance and nonchalance. My one critique of the book is that I wanted more about politics. Well, look at the news any day for the last year; of course I did. I know the American perspective, but I would have liked to hear something about the "average Russian" (as much as such a thing exists) view. But she actively avoids discussing anything remotely political; the few times someone else brings it up, she changes the topic as soon as possible. And I understand wanting to avoid fights! Whether out of fear because she's alone, respect because she's a guest, or just kindness because no one likes hurt feelings, it is completely relatable to focus on what you have in common instead of on disagreements. And yet I was just so curious and over and over again Dickey refuses to go there. Besides all of that, her trip was in 2015 – it's not her fault, but in some ways that already seems so outdated in terms of American/Russian politics. Ah, well. It's still a very enjoyable book, if a bit shallower than I wanted it to be. I read this as an ARC via NetGalley. House of Names by Colm Toibin. A retelling of the Greek myth of the House of Atreus: Agamemnon, heading off to fight the Trojan War, sacrifices his daughter to gain the favor of the gods. His wife Clytemnestra is understandably not happy about this, and upon Agamemnon's (eventual) return home, she murders him with the assistance of her new lover. However their other children, Orestes and Electra, decide to get revenge for their father, and Clytemnestra is murdered in her turn. Toibin deviates little from this traditional plot; what value his retelling does have is supposedly in the language and psychological realism of the characters. Unfortunately neither worked for me. The writing is distancing, meandering, and flatly reactive. Orestes and Electra in particular are oddly passive; they spend most of the book having no idea of the politics or history around them, and their attempts to gain power or knowledge are halfhearted at best. Orestes explicitly prefers the life of an unknown farmer to that of the son of a king. Most of the actual action is kept offstage, and we're left with endless pages of characters remembering what happened, or planning for what will happen next, but never actually doing anything. It ends up feeling fanficcy – which is not a criticism I normally apply to retellings! But this really does read like a long series of cut scenes: we already know the plot, so here's some prettily written navel-gazing to fill the inbetweens. It's hard to imagine how anyone could take a story with such powerful themes of revenge and justice and guilt and familial entanglements and turn it into something boring and apathetic, but Toibin managed it. It's Greek myth with all the characters turned into phlegmatic Hamlets – not a great idea. I love retellings, but they need to add something to the original: perhaps give it a new twist, or simply be a very well-done version of a favorite story. House of Names doesn't qualify. Your time would be better spent with any of the ancient Greek versions. I read this as an ARC via NetGalley.

(Link to DW for easier commenting)

#books #book reviews #lisa dickey #colm tóibín #netgalley

1 note · View note

margridarnauds · 7 years

Note

Berenice, Bianca, Elektra

(Finally getting around to this, woohoo!)

Full Name: Berenice. Gotta love the Greeks for keeping it simple. I have a vague idea that her name might have been something else at some point, but it’s always just “Berenice” or “Berenice of Alexandria” when I’m talking about her. (Funny story, though: The inspiration for her character came from my first Webkinz named Beatrice, so you could count that as an alternative name, I guess. Now read the rest of this entry with that knowledge. Go on, imagine a Webkinz doing all of this.)Gender and Sexuality: Female/Possibly straight (All her love interests have been men, but I also take a Sims approach to sexuality with my OCs so…)Pronouns:She/Her. Ethnicity/Species: About a quarter Persian, three quarters Macedonian. She’d probably be white passing by modern standards, but, considering the way things worked in her time, I’m not sold on her being considered fully “white” by ancient ones. Birthplace and Birthdate: Alexandria, sometime around 38 BCE. Guilty Pleasures: She’s a full blown Epicurean; she doesn’t have guilty pleasures. The closest thing I can think of is her affair with Bran, but that’s because (1) He’s a barbarian, (2) She was married at the time, and (3) He has *history* with her people, so it was more worry than guilt. She was perfectly happy to tap that; she just wasn’t sure about the fallout. Phobias: Deathly afraid of heights. Is also paranoid over assassination attempts, though, considering her track record, I’d say it’s not so much paranoia as taking the right precautionary procedures. What They Would Be Famous For: She’s one of the most influential, intelligent, and glamorous women of her time, and that makes her both famous and infamous. To her allies, she’s The High Queen and so is held onto this kind of pedestal as the daughter of a respected king who’s kept them from further civil wars since her accession and, later, as a symbol for their cultural continuity even after defeat, as well as a noted patron of the arts and natural philosophy. To her enemies, well… They put every single negative stereotype of women, particularly “Eastern women” onto her, making her into some oversexualized, decadent, vain sociopath who regularly twirls her mustache as she gleefully celebrates the downfall of civilization. (I lean more towards her being a little of both.) Either way, she’s an absolute icon as a ruler, for better or worse. What They Would Get Arrested For: Multiple counts of murder, including murder of at least one minor, treason, and, considering the time period, adultery. That one would actually probably be more likely to have serious consequences than the other two. OC You Ship Them With: Bran. I also lowkey ship her with Eleanor, and if Marcus weren’t so aggressively ace, I’d probably go with it. OC Most Likely To Murder Them: Well, Elektra and Theron certainly gave it their best try, with John Hawtrey and Emma continuing the grand tradition of father-daughter pairs trying to kill her. In the present, Diane is probably her biggest threat, but I don’t think she would really kill her because, on some level, she admires her too much and doesn’t see how much of a threat Berenice is even when she’s been stripped of most of her power. Favorite Movie/Book Genre: She loves tragedies with her favorite, naturally, being Agamemnon. (She’s particularly fond of the ending and might or might not have commissioned at least one writer to write fix-it fic for Clytemnestra’s fate.) I also like to think that, in the modern AU, she has a soft spot for the Sword and Sandal films, the more cringe inducing the better. Yes, including (especially?) “Alexander.” Least Favorite Movie/Book Cliche: Hates black and white morality, especially when it comes to female rulers and how they’re perceived. Like, she knows she’s a monster, she owns up to it, but she’s tired of insipidly sweet princesses triumphing over evil queens. Her take on power struggles like that is that, while they’re inevitable (she killed most of her father’s and her husband’s concubines and children to keep her own power,) they involve the princess transforming into the evil queen, not defeating her. “Virtue rewarded” narratives just don’t appeal. Talents and/or Powers: Very intelligent, witty, and manipulative. She can effortlessly go from one mode to another, adapting her mannerisms to each one. Like all of her people, she has an expanded lifespan, as well as the ability to switch between her animal form and her human one. (Though the animal form is little used by her considering it’s also very conspicuous.) Oh, and she knows, like nine languages. Why Someone Might Love Them: In a time when women aren’t expected to rule in their own rights, she managed to seize power. She has a policy of religious and cultural tolerance, appointing the best people for a given position instead of strictly keeping to Macedonian or even Hellenistic in general citizens. Despite her claims that she’s gone cold over the years, she still obviously has a spot spot for her old childhood companions, showing more of her true self in their presence than she does around almost anyone else. Why Someone Might Hate Them: She’s absolutely ruthless in the measures she takes to keep her power. She’s literally killed babies and betrayed the love of her life to the tender mercies of their enemies. Like, come on. If you’re not ready for that kind of darkness in a character, particularly one who, at least as of this moment, has had no serious repercussions (ie death) for it , that could be jarring. I do think she’s troubled by it in her own way, especially the latter one which completely broke her for a while, but, at the same time…the girl’s dark. I’ve tried to not tone down what royal women of this time did to survive, for better or worse. I’d understand hating her 100%. How They Change: The first half of her character arc (losing her father and brother, taking her revenge out on Theron for their murders, the civil wars that resulted from not having a clear line of succession, marrying her uncle to ensure that she wasn’t swept away by the power struggles, participating in the murder of her half-siblings, having to marry Theron’s nephew, saying goodbye to her childhood friend and protector, throwing Bran to the wolves, and then orchestrating the murders of her husband, his other wives and concubines, and his children by them) is about her essentially having to lose touch with her human connections in order to survive. The second half of it (saving her old childhood friend, helping Eleanor in her rebellion against her brother, devoting a considerable amount of time to Bran’s recovery even when she thinks that he’s never going to forgive her for it, offering Ada a place at her court so that Atria will be happy and then protecting her when her past comes to haunt her, deciding against taking power from Eleanor despite it potentially playing to her advantage) is showing a possible restoration of those connections and the possibility of changing how things are done. I don’t think she’ll ever get a full redemption, because I’m not sure there can be a full redemption for all she’s done, but she gets the closest thing to it that I can imagine. Why You Love Them: She’s basically my love letter to the great Hellenistic queens, specifically Olympias and Cleopatra VII, with traces of the others threading their way throughout her backstory and characterization. It’s an absolute thrill bringing the best and worst of that time to the fray and getting to write someone as complex as her from the beginning of her character development to the end. She’s the kind of female character I’ve always latched myself onto, the ones who have grand schemes and ambitions and who manipulate and scheme their way into fulfilling them (I’ll give you a hint: The first female character I can remember loving was Anck-su-Namun from “The Mummy,” the second was Cleopatra, the third was probably Morgan le Fay) and I finally have the chance to have her run free and do her own thing without having to tragically die at the end. She also makes such a fantastic foil to Eleanor, with Eleanor ultimately deciding not to go down the path Berenice went down despite being exposed to similar traumas, though I don’t think I ever want to see them set up in a traditional protagonist-antagonist way. I prefer the two of them bouncing off each other, one the older, more Machiavellian queen, the other the more humanistic queen, with both kind of drawing closer to each other by the end.

I just…really love Ber as a character, okay? She’s probably one of my all-time favorites.

Full Name: Bianca CostaGender and Sexuality: Female, demisexual. Pronouns: She/Her. Ethnicity/Species: White/HumanBirthplace and Birthdate: Since they’ve been magicked off to another world by the Fae, time and dates don’t work the same, but going off of the 1580 starting point, she was born sometime around May 1, 1616 in the New Papal States. (Essentially, where all the Catholic colonists clustered together to get away from the Protestant colonists and the new pope was selected, according to them, by divine revelation.)Guilty Pleasures: SweetsPhobias: ThunderWhat They Would Be Famous For: She’d probably be right up there with Anne Boleyn and Marie Antoinette on the list of popular tragic queens, though, considering she didn’t die, she’d probably be best remembered as Eleanor’s mother. What They Would Get Arrested For: Adultery and treason. OC You Ship Them With: Duncan, happiness. OC Most Likely To Murder Them: Diane. Like with the Ber/Elektra example, she’s certainly tried enough times. Favorite Movie/Book Genre: The old Chivalric Romances are her jam, especially Amadis of Gaul and Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart. She’s not particularly fond of Tristan and Iseult, though. Least Favorite Movie/Book Cliche: Romanticized abuse in any form, especially when it’s claimed by the writers to be “just part of the times.” I can see her viewing session of a *certain* time traveling romance being put on hold shortly after beginning, with her needing Dunc to hold her and reassure her for an hour or so afterwards (at least) that she’s safe with him and he’d never treat her like that. Talents and/or Powers: No real powers that I know of; I’ve toyed with giving her an interest in alchemy, but that comes a little too close to Atria’s whole “natural philosophy” shtick and even though I’m all for more female characters in STEM-like (okay, as close as you can get in Early Modern England) concentrations and even though historically, there were a number of women involved in alchemy, I just don’t feel it as much. I still like the idea of her as an expert horsewoman and hawker, so there is that. I especially like the hawking, as then you have the whole symbolism angle + historical accuracy and that makes me feel good about myself so yeah. In some ways, I think I’m still waiting for her to “click” with me as a character. Why Someone Might Love Them: Like her daughter, she has a great amount of spirit, though, also like her daughter, she’s very subdued in showing it. Years with Giles have only made it worse, but she still keeps fighting for her daughter, despite everything. I often tie a lot of Eleanor into her more distant ancestors, with that whole “Heroic Lineage” thing often coming up, but I think that a good portion of her strength comes directly from her mother. Why Someone Might Hate Them: I can see people hating her for having an affair, despite Giles being explicitly abusive, especially since that affair brought a child into that kind of situation. She and her husband’s illegitimate daughter, Cat, do not get along, and sometimes she can be overly sharp with her as a sort of revenge by proxy. We’re not looking at Snape levels of spite here, but she is supposed to be the adult despite the horrible circumstances both of them find themselves in. How They Change: She started off as this very spirited young woman, optimistic, innocent, and absolutely sure that people were as they appeared. She fully believed Giles when he presented the image of the perfect prince to her, only for him to turn on her after their marriage. Now, that spirit’s mostly gone; she’s more or less sedate. Her faith in humanity is certainly gone, her faith in society even more so as she’s watched them turn a blind eye to what their king’s been doing for the better part of two decades. Duncan, who had helped sustain her in the early years of her marriage, is distant out of fear of the consequences for her if Giles found out. She’s basically become lost from herself after all this time and, with Diane’s treatment of her daughter, it only gets worse from there as her anxiety and guilt preys on her. Like with Ber, I would like to build her up from this point, I would like to see her start to recover and learn to trust again, I’d like to see her relationship with her daughter grow after Eleanor learns the truth of her parentage, I’d like her to forgive herself, I’d like to see her start a new family with Duncan. I’m not sure how much of that I can do, considering I’m feeling a strong tug towards a bittersweet ending for them, probably in the vein of the old Chivalric Romances since so much of their relationship’s already been inspired by them, but I also have a hard time giving any of my ships a bad ending, particularly not the ones like this where both parties have already been through Hell to be together. Why You Love Them: I like that she’s not a perfect mother or a perfect person, that she makes mistakes, that she snaps at her husband’s daughter at times, that she’s catty with his mistress. I don’t like writing paragons, I don’t like writing models of ideal femininity, and she’s certainly not. Writing an abuse victim from a historical angle is very complicated and it’s something that I try to be sensitive about,and it’s one that I’ve tried to take in as realistic a direction as I can, so that is interesting to take on as a challenge. Sobering, depressing, but also interesting, especially dealing with her after Giles’s death when she’s nominally free and trying to rebuild. She’s also a religious minority (Catholic) in a very Protestant country, and seeing how she deals with that is interesting to deal with.

THANK YOU for asking about Elektra. When I first put her up there, I wasn’t sure about much besides maybe 1-2 traits. She was a dead backstory character, a little roadblock in Ber’s character development. Now, it looks like we’re together for the long haul. That being said, I kept in all my old remarks + added in some new ones in parentheses as my way of marking the character development.

Full Name: Elektra (See above about the Greeks and naming and how convenient it makes my life.)Gender and Sexuality: Straight, though, like with Ber, the Sims Rule of Sexual Orientation applies. (HaHahahahaHAA no. Girl’s either bi, pan, or lesbian, with her marriages being a way of keeping power. That was so cute that I used to think she was an evil straight girl.)Pronouns: She/HerEthnicity/Species: White/Shapeshifter. Birthplace and Birthdate: Athens, September 12, sometime around 37-39 BCE. Guilty Pleasures: I like to think that, for all the crap she gives Berenice about drinking unmixed wine *like a barbarian*, she indulges from time to time herself. Berenice knows, of course, and is endlessly entertained by it. Phobias: Honestly, I wasn’t sure about this one, but I think she’s afraid of being abandoned. Like, her father was never a particularly good parent to her, though he sometimes threw her a gift or two, her mother didn’t care for her, and then her father abandoned her mother for a girl her own age. Which is far from the worst thing he did. And I think she takes a lot of that with her in her revenge quest; it’s like she feels that if she can avenge his death, she’ll have the love she’s always wanted and she’ll be able to move on. What They Would Be Famous For: She is, unfortunately, the Cleopatra Eurydice to Berenice’s Olympias, so she is going to remembered either as (a) one of the poor, innocent victims of The Bad Queen or (b) as a necessary roadblock, the “other woman” that got in the way of Ber being happy and who had to be removed. None of these stereotypes are true, she wasn’t innocent but Ber and Arion would never have been happy together even in an Elektra-less world. Her marriage to Arion just sealed Ber’s disgust for him, as she considered it to be a personal betrayal that he married the daughter of the man who killed her father. What They Would Get Arrested For: I mean, attempted murder? She and Ber would probably have to share a cell. OC You Ship Them With: I don’t know, she’s only with Arion, who’s the closest thing she has to a love interest, for the power and to hurt Ber. (Don’t worry, I figured it out.) I suppose I could ship her and Ber in the right AU. (Incidentally, I’m still down for this.)

Her and Khensa would be an interesting enemies-to-lovers ship, with Khensa being so absolutely devoted to Ber’s success as a queen, Elektra being devoted to tearing Ber down, and both of them having unresolved issues with their fathers’ murders. (Yes, there is a theme here and I’m aware of it. Some people work out their daddy issues by long talks and a lot of therapy, I work it out by inflicting a bunch of dead and/or useless fathers on my characters so they can suffer too.) There could be a lot of great opportunities for hatesex there, and, in a fluffier AU, the possibility for them to work out their issues. When Ber finds out, she’s completely speechless, at first thinking that this is a prank Khensa’s pulling on her and, after Khensa assures her that she’s 100% serious, she probably faints. It takes her an additional three days to process the information, even longer to accept it, and she never fully trusts Elektra, but she realizes the value of having her as a potential partner in Khensa’s spying operations, especially given her own relationship with Bran. (And because Khensa’s too valuable to alienate by ordering the relationship terminated or by having Elektra assassinated, especially since her usual hitwoman’s the one with hearteyes.) The two of them then proceed to pretend to hate each other’s guts during the day so that potential rebels would be drawn to Elektra while making out behind every pillar they can find at night.

Ah, if only things had been different.

(Note:This is actually what made me change my mind about her, but it’s so hilarious in hindsight that I’m keeping it all as-is. Khensa x Elektra [Khelektra? Elensa?] is 100% canon. And still angsty because why not.)

OC Most Likely To Murder Them: Ber murdering her is (Not!) canon at this point. Alas, poor Elektra. I didn’t know you well and I didn’t particularly like you until having to fill out this meme, but that was a harsh one. (Well, safe to say that’s been scrambled, though Ber’s still the most likely. I mean, it wasn’t for lack of trying.)Favorite Movie/Book Genre: Like Ber, Tragedies. Unfortunately, unlike Ber, who recognizes her role and adapts and learns from it, she refuses to see herself as anything other than the hero in her given story. (Which is why we have characteeeeeeer develoooooopment. And necromancy.)Least Favorite Movie/Book Cliche: I think “If you kill him you’ll be just like him” has to be near the top. From her point of view, she could never sink as low as Ber has and would bristle at the suggestion that she already has. (Still agree with this.)Talents and/or Powers: She’s a very accomplished witch, having taken up the dark arts recently. As such, she has command over a vast array of powers with the proper ritual, including raising ghosts to do her will. (Believe me, this comes in handy. And is also part of the New!Elektra, in case anyone cares about chronology here.) Why Someone Might Love Them: In another story, she could have been the heroine looking for revenge for her father’s death against an evil queen who puts on a facade to fool those around her and kills her enemies mercilessly. Unfortunately for her, she wound up in the wrong story, the evil queen was just as much a victim as she was, and her father was the reason she started off on that path to begin with. The fact that she was (not!) murdered while she was pregnant only adds to the tragedy, as well as the fact that, unlike with her father, there’s no one left to avenge her. There’s something tragic about it, really. Why Someone Might Hate Them: I never intended for Elektra to be a sympathetic character, so I’d actually be more surprised by people liking her than not. She absolutely refused to listen to the evidence of her father’s guilt, even when it was absolutely conclusive. After she finally accepts that he was a serial killer, she defaults to saying that “It was just whores,” denying his role in the deaths of Ber’s father and brothers and refusing to believe that her father was completely, utterly evil. I actually understand her on this one to some extent (no one wants to believe the man they loved and trusted is a monster + cultural norms regarding prostitutes and their status coming into play,) but I can still see her being labelled “the stupid bitch,” especially given that she made the vital mistake in her final scene of gloating to Ber over her pregnancy. In her defense on that one, she had no way of knowing that Ber’d had an abortion a short while before and the whole situation with Bran (I mean, she knew about it, but she didn’t realize the extent of the mushy feelings involved) and so Ber being unstable enough to just stab her right there wasn’t something she’d calculated in. As I mentioned above, I can also see people misblaming her for the failed marriage between Ber and Arion, with people probably labeling her a homewrecker or a whore (while probably ignoring that Bran is also a homewrecker by those standards), when the crux of the conflict between the two women isn’t over Arion; it’s over power and the cycle of revenge. (Elektra’s father murdered Ber’s father, Ber killed her father, and so now the two of them aren’t going to be happy until all traces of the other are wiped off the face of the Earth.) The fact that they also happened to share a a husband and that he happened to prefer Elektra was just a bonus.

(Now, with me deciding to have her survive Ber’s little stabbing spree and get a redemption arc, there’s a new set of problems developing, as in any case of redemption. Like, both Ber and Elektra have a casualty count at this point, and any talk of “redemption” is always going to be a polarizing thing.)

How They Change: I think that Elektra’s development is running counter to Ber’s, so that while Ber’s slowly gaining her humanity back, Elektra’s slowly losing it. The measures she takes to get rid of Ber become even more desperate, until she’d probably be willing to kill herself if it could hurt Ber in any way. (Surprise, surprise, now I have her isolating herself from society/separating herself from the figures in her past as being her victory while Ber’s is re-integrating herself/reconciling with the figures in her past, so good call Past!Me)Why You Love Them: There are very few characters who I can say were decent adversaries for Ber and, even though Elektra ultimately lost, she at least gave Ber a run for her money. On some level, I think she more or less becomes the standard that Ber compares later enemies to (”Elektra wouldn’t have done this”). As much as I love Ber, I also love anyone who’s capable of slapping her into the next stage of character development.

(Also, in the present, the fact that she grows and learns and is able to somewhat reconcile with Ber after everything both of them have done to each other (and team up together to defeat the loser on Ber’s throne) is really cool to see, especially since this is all on her. It’s not really on me; I’d been happy to leave her lying in a puddle of her own blood in a marble room. So, props to her for making me realize what I was missing out on.

Oh, and she’s a witch. Like, writing a historically accurate Greek witch is everything I ever wanted but didn’t know I needed.)

#long post #and i do mean long #oc shenanigans #ajax-daughter-of-telamon #i bet you forgot you ever asked me this #which is cool considering it gave me time to think #miscarriage tw #abortion tw #abuse tw #berenice #elektra #bianca

2 notes · View notes

barbievigilante · 6 years

Text

Title: Myth of the Week: Clytemnestra Author: Madeline Miller

After Medea, Queen Clytemnestra is probably the most notorious woman in Greek mythology. She is also one of the most magnetic, mesmerizing in her fierce determination to kill the man who killed her daughter. That this man happens to be her husband, and that she chooses to dispatch him in his bath-tub with an ax, makes her a storyteller’s lurid dream.

Though there are countless depictions of Clytemnestra in ancient and modern works alike, the most enduring has been that in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon. His Clytemnestra is bloody, bold and resolute, a proud lioness, fiercely protective of her children. After the murder, she does not try to hide or run, but strides victoriously before her people, gore-stained ax in hand, declaring that justice has been served.

Clytemnestra was born into a mythological epicenter. Her father was King Tyndareus of Sparta and her mother Queen Leda—the same who was later impregnated by Zeus, in the form of a swan. A potent family: Helen was her half-sister, Penelope her cousin, and the semi-divine duo Castor and Polydeuces her brothers. She married a man with a similarly powerful lineage, Agamemnon of House Atreus, King of Mycenae.

Division between Clytemnestra and her husband began with the Trojan War. Agamemnon and Menelaus’ fleet, set to sail for Troy, was stuck at harbor, with no wind to carry it. A priest revealed that the goddess Artemis was angry and Agamemnon could appease her by sacrificing his daughter, Iphigenia. The ambitious king agreed. By the time word reached Clytemnestra, the girl was dead and Agamemnon had already sailed.

Clytemnestra isn’t the only woman in Greek mythology to lose a child. Queen Hecuba was eventually driven mad with grief and transformed into a dog, and Niobe cried so much for her lost children the gods took pity and made her a rock. But only Clytemnestra chooses retaliation over grief. And this is what makes her such a fascinating and scandalous figure in the ancient world–she is a woman who takes upon herself the traditionally masculine role of avenger, meter out of justice, judge of who should live, and who must die.

For the ten years Agamemnon was away at Troy, Clytemnestra plotted her revenge. She found a partner and lover in Aegisthos, a long-lost cousin of Agamemnon, back for his own vengeance: Agamemnon’s father had killed his brothers. (I’ll save the dysfunctional and murderous history of the House of Atreus for another day, but parricide, incest and cannibalism abound.) The two planned to rule the kingdom together, after Agamemnon’s death. Sexually faithless, deceitful, murderous: Clytemnestra is the incarnation of ancient anxieties about women and power.

When Agamemnon returned, bringing as his slave the Trojan princess Cassandra, Clytemnestra welcomed him warmly and led him to the fateful bath. In some versions of the story it is Aegisthos actually wielding the ax, and in others it is Clytemnestra. I prefer the latter—I think after all those years, she’d want to do the swinging herself. Afterwards, whether from jealousy, adrenaline or a neatening of accounts, she murdered Cassandra as well.

For me, this is one of the most poignant details of the story, and the most damning to Clytemnestra. Cassandra has lived a wretched life: condemned to foresee the destruction of her family and city, but unable to stop it from happening, then dragged from the ruins of her city, violated and handed over to Agamemnon as a prize concubine. I have always wished at this moment for Clytemnestra to pause, and recognize that Cassandra was more ally then enemy—surely she must have hated Agamemnon as much as Clytemnestra did. But reflection and empathy aren’t the queen’s strengths. Cassandra is an intruder, and must die.

The cycle of blood does not stop there. Orestes, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra’s son, is bound by honor to avenge his father. Urged on by his sister, Electra (of the infamous ‘Electra complex’), he kills both Aegisthos and his mother. From the underworld, the ghost of Clytemnestra sends furies to torment her son, enraged that he would choose his father’s cause over hers. Even death, it seems, cannot contain her.

In the end, how much sympathy we have for this powerful queen hinges significantly upon how we judge her husband. The king has many offenses of his own, beyond sacrificing his daughter: cowardice, greed, rape, reckless endangerment of his army, and the destruction of a city. In my opinion? I think Agamemnon had it coming. And, given all the slave-girls he terrorizes during the Trojan War, I can’t help but find it poetic justice that it’s a woman who does the deed.

#words #favourite

1 note · View note

fictionchronicler-blog · 7 years

Text

Villain Moms!

Destroying Children’s Happiness Since Ancient Greece

NOTE: None of the illustrations or gifs belong to me.

Let's take two fairy tales, shall we? Seems innocent enough. We'll do Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel. Both about kids in the woods who meet strangers who intend on eating them. Great fare for kids, right? Bruno Bettleheim did this in his book The Uses of Enchantment, but I'm going to make his point shorter—what is the best part of Little Red Riding Hood?

“When she gets in there and confuses her granny with a wolf in drag.”

Crude, but correct. Everyone LOVES the “what big teeth you have” reveal. There is an element of fun to the Wolf. He's enjoyable...as he's preying on a small child. Kids lean forward and start smiling when Red enters the house and isn't quite sure of what she's seeing. It's naughty fun that ultimately gets punished anyway, so why not indulge a little?

Now, what is the best part of Hansel and Gretel?

“........when Gretel shoves the Witch into the oven?”

“Of all the days I lent my gun to the witch two forests over.”

Yeah, kids cheer when the Witch meets her demise. Meeting her is not fun; it's scary. The kids realizing the stranger with candy is luring them into a trap isn't fun; Hansel's shoved in a cage to be fattened up while Gretel is freakin' enslaved! Look at the painting, for goodness sake! The candy exterior looks more and more like human heads as you get closer to the Witch! Human heads!

“What's your point? You've told us over and over again fairy tales are darker than people think.”

Yes, but what's the real difference between the villains here? The Wolf uses trickery and seduction (of a kind) to get what he wants, but we find him charming and fun to the point that a small part of us wants him to win. The Witch uses trickery and seduction (of a gluttonous kind) to get what she wants and we are relieved when the old lady is burned alive in her own oven. I submit to you my thesis—women are scarier than men, and therefore, the scariest woman of all is your mother.

Fiction is full of horrible parents, fathers and mothers, but there is something about the latter that truly makes us afraid rather than thrilled. Why?

DISCLAIMER: There will be spoilers.

Pioneers of Evil

Medea: I’ve been working on this one-liner all day! (clears throat) Now YOU clean up that mess!

In the Greek play Medea, the eponymous character is a witch from a far-off land who helped Jason and the Argonauts obtain the Golden Fleece. It was a Happily Ever After moment when she left her crazy family and went off with a hero right up there with Theseus and Perseus. The playwright Euripides, though, decided there wasn't enough angst and fan-fictioned a sequel where Jason leaves Medea to marry a princess. Medea's idea of punishing Jason? Killing their two sons. Heinous, yes, but she's portrayed as a tragic figure, kind of like a female King Lear.

There is an assumption that parents are predisposed to love their children above all else, but sadly, this just isn't true. In 70% of cases where a child is killed by one of his/her parents, it's the mother. Neglect was the main type of abuse in 66% of cases involving a female caregiver vs. 36% of cases involving a male caregiver. However, it's important to note that women still spend way more time with kids than men do, and when a man is charged with violence against a child, it's very likely the woman in the household is charged, too, not to mention that in cases of murder/suicides in the same household, males are the perpetrators 90% of the time.

Depressing subject matter today.

So is there a precedent for bad moms getting more attention than bad dads? Well, in classic literature, right before the Trojan War started, the Greek king Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to the gods in hopes they would give him fair winds on the way to Troy. His wife, Clytemnestra, was understandably outraged, and when her husband came home from war, she and her lover killed him. But Clytemnestra is remembered not for being an avenging mother, but for being a cheating wife and a scheming queen who is pursued by Orestes in another play to avenge his father's death. Ah, Greek mythology—the only soap opera people will think you're smart for following.

“Can't you talk about something a little lighter?”

Okay. Let's talk about Snow White.

“Shit.”

“I thought they kept you around to keep this place clean?”

In the first edition of the Brothers Grimm collection, the Evil Queen is Snow White's mother, not a stepmother. Jealous of her daughter's youth and beauty, she takes her out to pick flowers and abandons her there. From that point on, the tale is all about the Queen having the determination of the Terminator in that she tries to kill Snow with a really tightly laced corset, a poisoned comb, and then a poisoned apple. This queen also didn't have a magic mirror, but talks with the sun itself about who the fairest is, and suns don't lie. The Grimms censored the peasant stories they collected, though, and decided by the next edition that it would be “better” if this was a stepmother going after Snow White and she outsourced the first murder attempt to a Huntsman who would ultimately chicken out.

We'll get to stepmothers later, but isn't it telling that we remember the female fairy tale villains more than the male ones? The stories in the Grimms' Children's and Household Tales have more than their fair share of bad dads, ones who gamble with their daughters' lives (and sometimes their souls), ones who are so financially irresponsible their sons are left with no inheritance, ones who imprison their kids in towers, and even ones that want to bed their own daughter. But we remember the scary moms the most.

“Who's telling these stories???”

Well, moms. And grandmas. The Grimms didn't invent these stories; women did, peasant women who had a ton of work to do and had to 1.) make sure their kids didn't go into the woods, and 2.) make sure their kids appreciated them so they would do what they were told and, again, wouldn't go into the woods. In this time, mothers dying was common. Dads remarrying was common. These stories where a mother is absent sent a subtle message to the listeners that a woman's life was hard. Elderly women were valued even less because they were past childbearing years, so all those stories where a seemingly inconsequential old beggar woman turns out to be a powerful fairy or benevolent fairy godmother? Self-promotion. When kids are running for their lives in the woods and find a gingerbread house in the middle of nowhere, maybe the kid listening to the story starts to feel a little sorry for these kids, huh? These poor, abandoned little idiots who didn't have a mother to tell them this is definitely not a good idea, huh?

So we definitely pay more attention to the evil mothers because they terrify us and moms know and exploit this. Hmm.

When Stepmothers Ruin Lives

Eat your heart out, Maleficent.

Beetlejuice, Labyrinth, Enchanted, Sleepy Hollow, The Parent Trap, Double Indemnity, The Ramayana, and even The Tale of Genji, the world's oldest surviving book, all have evil stepmothers in them. The oldest ballads from England are crawling with them, and the Hansel and Gretel story actually has one, the woodcutter's wife (sometimes the biological mother) whose idea of saving money is to leave the kids to die in the woods.

By far, the most famous wicked stepmother would have to be Cinderella's, in every incarnation of the story. The Disney version makes it a point to tell us that the father has died, leaving a very young Cinderella in the care of a woman whose “true nature was revealed—cold, cruel, and bitterly jealous of Cinderella's charm and beauty.” But many versions don't tell us the father's fate; he's just that unimportant to this story about one woman oppressing another.

No matter what personality your main character has or what they go through, most protagonists have to strike out on their own and become independent, self-actualized people, and it's a lot easier to do that if there isn't much tying them to home and childhood. As fairy tales moved up the social ladder into the salons, so did the role of a stepmother. A peasant man might remarry for love, and a stepmother's role would be to continue having children and raise the ones that are already there. So whether they loved her or hated her, the stepmother was a big part of the kids' lives. An aristocratic stepmother, however, might spend more time as a wife and being the lady of the house than being a nurturer, so it would be easier for the kids to hate her and see her as something a little more demonic. In “The Juniper Tree,” the stepmother straight-up DECAPITATES her stepson and pins the blame on her own daughter. The Russian fairy tale “Vasilissa the Beautiful” has a girl in such dreadful Cinderella circumstances that she is sent by her stepmother to Baba Yaga, an old Russian bogeyman sort. The tale “Brother and Sister” has siblings fleeing their abusive witch of a stepmother who turns the boy into a deer and almost succeeds in killing the sister.

Do stepmothers have it out for their stepchildren? As of 2011, 4 out of 10 Americans have at least one step-relative. However, stepfathers are more likely to be violent toward the kids than stepmothers. Kids are more likely to be killed by non-family members than by their stepmothers. The most common “motives” for these adults killing their children are anger/revenge (40%) and substance abuse (36%), which seems to indicate that these are heat-of-the-moment crimes of passion rather than some calculating sociopath moving in and eliminating the kids so they can have Dad all to themselves or something like that. The supposed “Cinderella Effect,” which claimed that children with a step-relative were about 40 times more likely to be murdered, has a lot of attributing factors and there may have been some biases with the studies.

“Are the toys further down in the chest, Stepmother? To the side of this painted target?”

So it seems that a relatively non-violent member of a family is singled out, creating a disproportionate number of stories where the stepmother is almost always the bad guy, but the stepfather only sometimes is. Well, this does kind of make sense. The stories, while dark, were cautionary tales to be told to children, and children usually spend more time with their mothers/stepmothers/grandmothers than the male members of the family, so yeah, spending the day with the crazy woman trying to kill them would be scarier than spending an hour in the evening with the crazy guy who only might want to kill them.

When the Bad Moms Run Amok

Literature was racking up the evil mother/stepmother points, reveling in evil, scary women who were charged with looking after children. Jane Eyre starts the book out living with her aunt who verbally and physically abuses her, but spoils her two biological daughters. James of Giant Peach fame lives with two evil aunts. Harry Potter's mother figure is abusive and neglectful to him, as is Fanny Price's guardian, and even Shakespeare has gotten in on the act with Tamora in Titus Andronicus.

In most of these stories, we see the mother from the perspective of a child. Neil Gaiman's Coraline is one of the most blatant examples and one of the most realistic ones. In his story, neither Coraline nor her mother are perfect. Coraline has bratty tendencies, and her mother can be distant and overworked. Mrs. Jones in the film doesn't smile all that much, can be a bit snarky, and since she's in a neck brace after a car accident, she's not always in that great a mood.

She's a bit short with her daughter, but she is doing her best, and the movie (gentler with the characters than the book) implies that it isn't always this way, just when her parents are approaching deadlines. However, this deadline is right at the time they have moved, so Coraline feels especially uprooted. Without going into too many details, Coraline discovers a world parallel to hers where she has “Other Mother,” a mother who is consistently sweet, pleasant, cooks for her, plays games with her, and gives her whatever she wants.

She has chickens for hands! Run for your lives!

Those of you who are genre-savvy may be able to see where this is going, but Coraline has a unique distinction of being a story that frightens adults more than kids. Adults often find its imagery and story details disturbing, but it strikes a nerve with younger readers/viewers and everyone gets creeped out. Win-win.

But Coraline also has issues with her father, who is also overworked. Charlie Jones may be a little friendlier than his wife, but Gaiman describes him as one of those dads who thinks by embarrassing their kids that he's being cool and the voice actor describes him as a guy who would swerve to avoid slipping on a banana peel only to fall into a manhole. A bit bumbling, doesn't cook all that well, and is apparently so busy he can't even shave. But Other Father, well.......without giving anything away, Other Mother is the one you need to watch out for.

Many mothers feel that they do less than their own mothers did, many stay-at-home mothers feeling pressure to be good mothers because they feel that's all they have to contribute, going so far as to feel guilty for asking their husbands for help with chores. Most men today, on the other hand, feel they do more than their fathers did, and don't have the same intensity of inadequacy feelings that mothers do. The amount of negative emotions women feel increases after they have children, especially in the years when the children are under 3. It's all very selective, too. When you ask a mom if she likes spending time with her kids, she says yes, remembering fun activities like playing at a park with them or reading books to them. But when asked to recall their day, the moms remember all the time spent getting the kids to do this or that, breaking up the fights, yelling to get things done, and disciplining when the children disobey.

“All this sounds normal.”

It is. But we're conditioned to feel that it isn't.

To be absolutely fair, Barbara Billingsley said she wore pearls to hide a shadow created by the hollow of her neck, and her high heels were to appear taller than the actors playing her sons as they grew older. And who WOULDN’T want what’s in this pitcher?

Leave it to Beaver's June Cleaver is usually held up as the ideal mother, up at the crack of dawn making a hot breakfast for her family every day, vacuuming and doing dishes in pearls, and having a house so spotless it looked like a prop man came in and cleaned between scenes. However, she was often snarky and witty, told her sexist boys that girls have just as much ambition as boys do, and was always wise to Eddie Haskell. Her relationship with Ward is also more nuanced than pop culture believes. The two of them traded good-natured barbs, discussed parenting like partners, and when she deferred to him for disciplinary actions, it was usually so she would look like the nicer parent.

But unfortunately, the show was about creating an image. What people took away was that this woman didn't have interesting story lines like her kids did, and she wasn't as prominent an authority figure in their lives as their father was. The house WAS spotless all the time, whether the prop man did it or not. She WAS up early doing chores in fancy dresses and made it look easy, and we're taught at a young age that these chores are supposed to be fun. I'm all for making work fun and kids learning young that work has to get done whether you like it or not, but you don't see toy washing machines marketed toward little boys all that much. We are bombarded with images of moms doing housework HAPPILY and all conflicts with kids being resolved QUICKLY and rather PAINLESSLY.

Today's mother get bombarded with images of super, idealistic parenting, too. The internet and social media have photos of DIY projects that create more storage in kids' rooms, art and cooking projects you can do with your kids for cheap-but-meaningful quality time. We are one click away from looking at summarized studies that tell you how much screen time your kids should have, how much time outdoors they should spend (but with sunscreen, anti-bacterial wipes, and bottled water handy at ALL times), what you should and shouldn't say when a pet or Grandma dies, etc. When in the past, moms had their moms and the occasional parenting book, we have advice EVERYWHERE, so the pressure to succeed is heightened, but the definition of success has expanded. What do you mean your kid isn't an athletic, musically inclined, chess expert who reads Proust and is in the above-average math class and spends Saturdays volunteering at a soup kitchen? Don't you want them to have high self-esteem?

Bad Moms Make Better Protagonists

We tend to forget Scarlett O’Hara is a mom.

I know, right? How did we forget that?

We usually find stories where characters don't get along more interesting than ones where they do. In the book, Scarlett has three kids by three different fathers—Wade by Charles Hamilton, Ella by Frank Kennedy, and Bonnie by Rhett. And she's terrible to all of them. Not because she has postpartum depression or anything like that. She's just not interested in them. Wade is so neglected it's easy to forget he's in the book at all, and Ella may or may not be a victim of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome as all we're really told about her is that she's ugly. Bonnie's rather doted upon, but Rhett spoils her rotten, perhaps to compensate. Anyway, they suffer for their bad parenting when Bonnie dies and Scarlett is pretty distraught. Not anywhere near Rhett's suicidal level, but distraught. Like a grieving mother would be. The movie probably thought Scarlett would be more sympathetic if Bonnie was her only child, what with that Hays Code demanding bad behavior be punished, and bad mothering is bad behavior.

It's even easier to forget that Daisy Buchannon from The Great Gatsby and Emma Bovary from Madame Bovary are mothers because they're just so inattentive. Their kids just don't show up on their radar.

Alfred Hitchcock managed to create a protagonist/antagonist out of a mother that was already dead when he directed Psycho. No small feat. There are previous films where his characters had severe mother issues like Strangers on a Train, and even Cary Grant's mom in North by Northwest is kind of awful (and only like 6 years older than him), but Psycho brought mommy issues to the forefront in the form of Norman Bates, a mild-mannered, sweet guy who has the burden of caring for an invalid mother and a dying motel business all by himself.

Norman: Ignore the eerie mist and creepy house on the hill. I ate the last guest, so I'm too full to eat you! Ha ha, this is a joke I have made. Welcome to the Bates Motel!

I may be the only critical movie watcher who likes the psychologist's summing up scene near the end of the movie. Most find it stops the movie dead and takes away from the atmosphere, but I don't think it's that bad. For one, it clarifies that the Mother personality Norman has is kind of his own problem. Yeah, it's hinted that Mother was pretty bad, but all we have to go on is Norman's perspective. The psychologist says that while Norman was jealous and clingy of his mother, he also believed she was jealous of him. That's why “she” kills women he takes sexual interest in. It shuts down the idea that Mother was a complete monster and Norman was a nice guy. That's only partly true. It also differentiates between one of Norman's personalities being female and your garden variety transvestite, making it a point to say that Norman is not getting any sexual kicks out of wearing his mother's clothes, and that the men who do aren't typically violent or dangerous in any way. The real Mother may have been abusive and a master manipulator (“I'm not even going to swat that fly”), but Norman's perception of her that hasn't changed since he was a child makes her larger than life, an almost supernatural villain whose sole purpose is to make life difficult for her son.

Never mind the fact that Norman himself killed her because she had a boyfriend.

The bad mother isn't usually just a part of back story. She is usually an active player in the present-time plot of a story. Margaret White in Carrie, for example, is sort of responsible for the entire plot as it's implied that Carrie wouldn't have developed her powers if she hadn't suffered her mother's abuse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12wHDwNXBL0 --Behold, the day Carrie got her first period.

Religious maniacs as villains weren't anything new when Stephen King wrote the story, and I'll be very quick to point out that King doesn't seem to put that much thought into his characters (an alcoholic from Maine who has problems! Genius!), but Margaret is one of his better crafted ones, and director Brian DePalma knew exactly how to make the most of the late Piper Laurie's acting abilities. We meet her as a reasonably pretty, pleasant woman except that it's the 70s and she's wearing something that looks more like a witch's cape. She has scenes where she does neutral-to-positive things with Carrie like share a piece of cake with her, and she seems protective of her in not wanting her to go to the prom....only shouting that everyone will laugh at her and calling her breasts “dirty pillows” may not be the best way to go about things. I'm not going to lie: her very vivid and explicit death at the end is very satisfying.

It's the blatant disregard for their children's mental health as well as physical that makes for some top-notch villains, like Eleanor Iselin from The Manchurian Candidate who is totally okay with her son being a brainwashed assassin and seems to harbor incestuous feelings for him.

“Tell me more about my randy younger days!”

Even sitcoms cash in on this frequently, softening the bad mother only to the point where she is slightly smothering. The overbearing mother can be both a villainous and sympathetic role to play, which is probably very rewarding for a talented actress. Take Doris Roberts' portrayal of Marie on Everybody Loves Raymond, a woman who has an obvious favorite child, has no sense of boundaries with either of her kids, constantly fights with her husband, and belittles her daughter-in-law whenever she gets the chance. But she can be surprisingly sympathetic, as the show explores when she has to deal with one son having a dangerous job, a history of an insensitive husband, and just the overall sorrows motherhood brings.

The Ultimate Scare Factor

Poor Joan just couldn’t NOT be insane ever.

In 1978, Christina Crawford wrote a tell-all about her adoptive mother, famed actress Joan Crawford...and almost single-handedly destroyed her reputation. Some found it to be revenge since Christina Crawford was cut out of her mother's will, whereas others believe every word of it. Bob Hope, Cesar Romero, Barbara Stanwyck, and even Crawford's first husband say they never saw anything that would lead them to believe the events in the tell-all were true, but Helen Hayes, June Allyson, Betty Hutton, and Christina's brother Christopher all have said they'd witnessed abusive behaviors. The movie based on the book, Mommy Dearest, is now seen as an unintentional comedy due to Faye Dunaway's performance, but Joan Crawford (and Faye Dunaway) were never looked at the same way again.

It may seem obvious now that a celebrity in the 50s wouldn't be all that he/she seemed, but this was the first expose of this kind, and it was considered pretty shocking. Here it is half a century later and the likes of Andrea Yates and Casey Anthony are household names. It still shocks us when a mother is bad to the point of murder. And it should.

That's why mothers as villains are more terrifying than fathers as villains—it's more shocking.

Motherhood is still romanticized and yet heavily scrutinized, which means moms have to walk a very thin line. A 2014 study looked at 125 articles by mental health professionals in scholarly journals and found that mothers were blamed for 72 different kinds of problems in their children, everything from bed-wetting to schizophrenia. People point out that women are still more likely to take kids to doctors and therapists more than men, so it's easier to blame the mother when something is wrong. You have a face. Most parenting books recommend mothers limit their time with their children to avoid smothering them and/or forgetting about their individual needs, but dads are encouraged to spend as much time as possible with their kids.

The result of this is that stressed mothers tend to withdraw even more from their children. We don't want to be the crazy murderous moms in fiction, so we avoid that. But let's learn from these bad moms. Were there common factors?

“Mental illness = Villainy.”

Well......yes. Film especially sees mental illness as its own villain cornucopia. But another one may be lack of a support system. Carrie's mother is all alone and seems to have a bad history with Carrie's father. Scarlett has a lot of people in her social circle, but she ends up being stuck taking care of most of them, and even the person at Tara she was closest to, Melanie, has a skewed idea of motherhood, believing every woman wants a baby and that babies make things better. On that note, a lot of men complain about the lack of paternity leave they receive when their children are born. I've talked about the difficulties women have, but that doesn't mean men have none. They are pressured to be breadwinners and spend more and more time with this new kid so they will be a better dad than their dad was.

Hell, even Mother Bates had no resources, the psychologist telling us that for years she and Norman lived like there was no one else in the world but the two of them. Maybe moms who are overprotective to the point of smothering have abandonment issues. Maybe moms who engage more in substance abuse than Dr. Seuss (I was wondering if I could fit that in somehow) are intensely overwhelmed. Maybe stressed-out moms who yell all the time don't have other adults to talk to and only have Pinterest to compare themselves to.

The good news is that a strong support system and a clear idea of what is normal can help. In virtually every article I looked up for this thing, the professionals made it clear that they've never met a perfect parent, mother or father. And it's pretty futile to try to be one even though you want to be.

Fiction is also finally looking at mothers as interesting characters in their own right, not automatically assigning them roles as either cipher or villain. All three of Once Upon a Time's female leads are mothers, Sarah Connor of Terminator fame has both positive and negative traits, and Modern Family's Claire and Gloria get to be as much a part of the comedy as the rest of their family. Anne Shirley in Anne of Green Gables finds a stern but devoted adoptive mother in Marilla Cuthbert. All these women have something going on other than just being a mom, whether they stay home or work or whether they are of our time or part of another world.

Harry Potter does find a mother figure in Molly Weasley, a witch with seven kids and a husband who apparently gets paid to figure out what a rubber duckie is when he could just go find some Muggles and talk to them like they're people. Anyway, she was just kind of that background snuggly character you knew your protagonist could cry to when things got tough, but when she took out Bellatrix Lestrange, there was some controversy. “How can a housewife beat a Deatheater?” The stereotype that mothers are meek, passive, soft, uninteresting women living vicariously through their children was prevalent. But Molly kicked Voldemort's Number 2's ass just the same, and we all owe her a parade for that. The way she holds the chaotic Weasley brood together is commendable enough, but when she told Sirius Black that Harry was like a son to her, all our hearts melted.

#meta

0 notes