oddyseye

[oddyseye]

Eurylochus; A pleasure to meet you, Prince. *proceeds to kiss his hand in reverence

Odysseus *experiencing his first-ever gay panic*

[oddyseye]

You are acting like Eurylochus defenders know nothing of the Odyssey or history...then proceed to know nothing about it either.

Odysseus was not even a king in the full monarchic sense. He was a basileus, a warlord or chief among equals, yeah, but stop trying to project medieval European kingship onto Mycenaean Greece like it’s the same damn thing. Ancient Greek “monarchies” weren’t your shiny crown-and-scepter fairy tale monarchies. Stop.

Don’t even get me started on your holier-than-thou tone about “things were different back then.” Yeah, they were. But that doesn’t mean you get to excuse everything Odysseus did like he’s a saintly king doing his duty. Also, accusing Eurylochus defenders of not knowing shit about ancient Greece just because they like the musical? LOL, as if liking a retelling erases your capacity for scholarship. Get outta here with that gatekeeping nonsense. Plenty of people know the text and enjoy adaptations. You don’t get to decide who’s a “real” fan based on their fandom tastes.

The post screams: “Don’t judge the past by modern standards!” and then immediately turns around and applies modern legal and political terms like “high treason” and “tyrant.” Pick a lane, fam. You can’t have it both ways. Either say “ancient Greece was totally different” and analyze it by their context or don’t complain when people call you out for shoehorning in modern bullshit.

And then, for the cherry on top, you get all mad at people for “imposing modern values” while simultaneously throwing modern terms like “high treason” and “tyrant” all over the place? Make up your damn mind. Spoiler alert: high treason as a formal crime did NOT EXIST in Homeric Greece. The whole concept of “high treason” is a much later political invention. Tyrant in ancient Greece originally meant a ruler who seized power, sometimes with popular support, sometimes not. It was not inherently evil or oppressive like our modern-day trash definition. And guess what? The office of dictator wasn’t even a Roman thing legally until way later, nothing like that existed in Homeric times. So saying “every King was a tyrant” (which is objectively untrue; look at King George III in history and King Nestor of Pylos in myth, or even fucking Zeus himself) to justify Odysseus’ actions is just twisting history to fit your narrative. The whole concept is anachronistic as hell.

If you want to talk about Odysseus as a “monster” or “tyrant,” at least be consistent. The guy is a flawed human hero shaped by a brutal, unforgiving world, not a cartoon villain or modern authoritarian. Homer’s audience wouldn’t have thought in “legal” or “human rights” terms, they saw kleos (glory), timē (honor), and hubris all tangled together.

Now for the real talk: The Odyssey has jack squat to do with Epic: The Musical. The musical is a retelling that is loosely based, often deliberately bending and twisting characters for drama and modern audiences. So if you’re out here defending the Odyssey like it’s the gospel truth for Epic fandom debates, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

And NO ONE—not a single soul—is out here defending the Odyssey crew as good guys or even decent people. The crew were a damn nightmare. Polites? A slut. Eurylochus in the original? Meh, kind of a coward but not a villain outright, just a bitch. But Epic’s Eurylochus? Man, that version is so justified in what he does. Don’t act like Eurylochus’s criticisms and fights in Epic are unfounded. That shit is legit from a character and story perspective.

So yeah, y’all need to stop conflating eras, legal systems, and storytelling versions just to defend or attack characters. It’s not a history test, it’s a fucking story.

Everyone on this post is FUCKING STUPID!!!

Yes, Odysseus killed six people but that was because they committed high treason against their King which is punishable by DEATH!!

"Oh but he was their captain at the time not their King" Just because he was their captain doesn't rule out the fact that he was their king. He is their king first and foremost no matter what.

We ain't monarchs but they were. The Odyssey takes place in ancient Greece which was ruled by monarchs.

Nobody is saying that they're pro-monarchy all of a sudden it's just that monarchy was a thing in ancient Greece and that's how things were back then.

They would have because that is a direct order from their King. They would might not have liked it, but they would have done it because their King told them too. That's how a monarchy works.

What does Odysseus becoming a "monster" have to do with anything? And Odysseus became a "monster" to get them home, but then they betrayed him just because Eurylochus just told them to. Odysseus becoming a "monster" doesn't make him a tyrant because he wasn't actually a bad King, he just made bad decisions sometimes. Also literally every King in ancient Greece was a tyrant.

I'm like 90% sure that Eruy defenders don't even know about ancient Greece or the actual Odyssey at all and are just fans of the musical. Because they say stuff like this even though what they're saying is so incorrect.

Guess what epic fans ancient Greece and the Odyssey aren't actually like the musical. The musical is just a retelling of, it's not actually accurate and people shouldn't learn about the Odyssey from it.

Also it was a king and his men who just came back from a 10-year war trying to get home, not just Odysseus trying to get home, while yes Odysseus was the only one to get home, it wasn't like he purposely sacrificed all of his men (except for Scylla). In fact, with the sirens Odysseus willingly sacrificed his own safety for the crew's safety.

When he sacrificed them it was within reason or it was because a monster or God killed them. And even then in the actual Odyssey Poseidon never killed most of the crew. They died because they killed helix's cow and Zeus killed them because of it. Poseidon never killed any of them, he just kept blowing them off course to keep them from going home.

Most of what happened in the Odyssey was the crew's fault. They got themselves turned into animals. They got themselves stranded because they opened the wind bag. They are the ones who killed Helios' cows and induced Zeus' wrath.

While yes, the Cyclops cave was Odysseus's fault, almost nothing else was.

And yes, he did sacrifice six men to scylla, but that was because they committed high treason against their King.

I'm not saying I blame just Eurylochus, I blame the whole crew. I'm also not saying that Odysseus was not to blame, because he was in some aspects, and I do blame him for the things he did do. But y'all epic fans need to stop blaming just Odysseus. They all were in the wrong.

And you Eurylochus defenders need to stop talking about things that happened in ancient Greece/Odyssey as if they were happening in modern day, when they're not. Things were different then than they are now.

[oddyseye]

Oh I see. We've entered the phase of the conversation where someone tries to pretend Hamilton's "flaws" are equivalent to Burr's total lack of a moral spine. Fucking adorable. You tried, sweetheart, but your take is still dead on arrival.

First of all, don't you dare try to pull the "Hamilton wanted to stage a coup!!" card like you found some dark, edgy secret no one else knows about. Newsflash: everyone knows about Newburgh. And you clearly missed the entire damn point. Hamilton wasn't trying to overthrow the government, he was trying to stop mutiny and get soldiers PAID after being dragged through hell for independence. That's not shady. That's literally being one of the only grown-ass men in the room. If anything, he stopped the country from crumbling into chaos before it even got off the ground. But sure, let's act like he was just stroking his ego. Clown behavior.

Yeah, Hamilton pushed for a different method of choosing electors in New York...through the legislature, not some shady-ass back alley plan. This wasn't about Hamilton being a tyrant. This was about keeping literal opportunists like Burr from gaining power through backdoor games. Y'all are out here clutching pearls like Hamilton nuked the Constitution with his pen, when the man was trying to preserve the only functioning fucking system of order the country had.

Also: "Hamilton tried to force Congress to listen to him"—dude, that was literally his JOB. What do you want him to do, write them a poem? Bake them muffins? He was the Treasury Secretary, the guy keeping the entire economy from falling flat on its ass. And I'm sorry, but if that takes a little yelling and strong-arming, GOOD. That's leadership. That's conviction. That's not floating around like Burr with a vague smile and zero commitment.

You said Burr had "principles"? WHERE? Name ONE policy, one belief, one stand he actually took that wasn't just convenient in the moment. Even when he advocated for women to have the right to vote, he did it once, it failed, and he never did anything remotely feminist ever again (except fuck a few dozen women and cheat on his wives multiple times). So go on, I'll wait. You're saying Burr was misunderstood like he was some shy little bookworm in the corner who just needed a hug. Get real. The man was out here playing both sides like it was fucking poker night. He pretended to be a Democratic-Republican to win votes, and he never aligned fully with Jeffersonian values. He claimed moderation, but never backed it up with consistent action. He ran for VP and immediately started back-channeling to become president when the votes came in tight. If that's "principled", then I'm a damn unicorn.

So no. I'm not here for this "both sides were flawed" neutral-ass revisionist crap. Burr wasn't a victim. He wasn't a martyr. He was a man who let ambition rot whatever spine he had left. And Hamilton might've been abrasive, proud, even reckless, but he gave a damn about the republic. And he was right to call Burr out. Every. Damn. Time.

Get back to me when you've got actual historical analysis, not vibes and TikTok takes.

Now, about “The Election of 1800”. Part VIII of HOW LMM VILIFIED BURR FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS ALWAYS DONE YOU BASTARDS

Now, “The Election of 1800” obviously combines two different elections and mucks around with the timeline, but you kinda gotta do that to history to some extent to get a clean story that you can tell to a naive audience in one evening with some bangin’ tracks. The simplification, however, is done in such a way that it makes Burr look worse and Hamilton look better. Burr did “openly campaign”, but in 1800 it was to get out the Democratic-Republican vote to defeat the Federalists; it wasn’t for himself specifically. Meanwhile, the mucking around with the timeline makes Hamilton look like a grieving father reluctantly dragged out of retirement, but in 1800 Philip was still alive and Hamilton was never reluctant to make his opinions known.

Mostly I haven’t been looking at all the ways that LMM, egged on by Chernow, glorifies Hamilton, but here that starts to become directly detrimental to Burr.

“Yo! The people are asking to hear my voice!” NO THEY REALLY WEREN’T. Hamilton was not a sad, gentle man who just wanted to be left in peace uptown. He was an embittered leader of a political party in decline who wanted to destroy his personal political rival. Nobody asked him to write letter after letter to members of Congress denigrating Burr and telling them to vote for Jefferson. He wanted to.

And note that he didn’t just “promote” Jefferson. He wrote long tirades accusing Burr of naked ambition, partiality to France, bankruptcy (ironic since his own financial situation was no better) and of leaving the Revolutionary Army at a bad time. He was, frankly, vicious.

This is mysteriously missing from the musical. As is the fact that the House of Representatives went through THIRTY-SIX contingent ballots - one state, one vote - to try to break the tie. During that process Burr actually had the slight edge in terms of actual individual ballots. (The states divided 8:6 with two tied, but Burr got a significant minority of the individual ballots in the states that went to Jefferson).

Real history: Jefferson discovered that his moderate running mate was arguably more popular than he was. An unelected meddler with a grudge wrote frenzied tirades against his rival to break the deadlock.

Musical history: Burr ran directly against Jefferson. A respected father-of-the-country type figure was consulted, and advised what was best for the country - possibly despite his own personal feelings.

Even though LMM hasn’t actually set out to disparage Burr - FOR ONCE - the way he has simplified the story and elided Hamilton’s flaws has had the effect of, oh yes, trampling a decent man underfoot yet again.

I am tired, Lin. So very tired.

[oddyseye]

Oh this ISN'T okay. @helendefensesquad hold me.

« I'm an awful coward, Antigone. »

« So am I. But what has that to do with it? »

[oddyseye]

First off, this post tries to play the “Burr didn’t do shit wrong” card and “Hamilton was a shady, bitter old man who just wanted to destroy Burr for fun”, and honestly, that’s some seriously revisionist, weak-ass apologism.

Hamilton wasn’t just some petty grudge-holder, he was a principled man, a visionary with sharp political instincts and the guts to call out a fuckboy when he saw one.

Burr wasn’t the victim here, he was the slippery opportunist who never quite earned anyone’s trust, least of all Hamilton’s.

Let’s get this straight: Burr’s “open campaigning” in 1800? Bullshit. He wasn’t out there rallying the Democratic-Republican vote to “defeat the Federalists” like some altruistic hero. No, Burr was scheming to get himself into power, just like any slick politician.

And what’s with this “he was just moderate”? Moderate my ass. Burr was the definition of vacillating and slippery. He danced around every issue, refused to take a solid stance, and that earned him the nickname “the grey man” because he was basically political smoke with no substance.

Hamilton, for all his faults (and there were many), was laser-focused. Yes, he was bitter about the political decline of the Federalists, no surprise there. But more importantly, he was right to fear Burr. Burr was the kind of guy who would stab you in the back with a smile and a handshake. The guy literally killed Hamilton in a duel only a few years later, so don’t pretend this was some cute political rivalry.

And about those “long tirades” Hamilton wrote? Yeah, he called Burr out on ambition, instability, and questionable loyalties because that’s exactly who Burr was. It’s not slander when it’s backed by facts. HAMILTON HAD RECEIPTS FOR EVERYTHING HE WROTE, even for the Reynolds Pamphlet! Burr was financially unstable, opportunistic, and couldn’t be trusted with the country’s future.

Lin-Manuel didn’t “vilify” Burr just for fun and he, in fact, spent a shit ton of time making him more likeable than he ever actually was! Let us not forget that this man, just like Jefferson, slept with his slaves! Burr’s legacy is shitty because he was shady AF. The musical simplified history—of course it did, it’s theater, not a documentary—but it doesn’t suddenly mean Burr was the good guy and Hamilton was the bad guy.

Yes, Philip was alive during the 1800 election. Hamilton’s fierce involvement wasn’t about grieving a dead son, it was about his unyielding commitment to the Federalist cause. He was not some man dragged out of retirement reluctantly; he was engaged, active, and unapologetically vocal. And he damn well had every right to be, his vision for America was at stake.

Burr was a man with no clear convictions. He was a political chameleon who’d say whatever the hell was necessary to stay in power. Unlike Jefferson, who at least had some philosophical backbone, Burr danced around real issues like a scared little bitch. Hamilton recognized that and was right to warn the country against a president with no discernible principles.

And that whole “people weren’t asking to hear Hamilton’s voice” line? Come on. Yes, they did not ask him directly, but Hamilton was one of the most influential political thinkers of the era and the kind of figure people did want to hear. Why? Because he wasn’t just blabbering, he was shaping policy and strategy. If you think people didn’t want him involved in the 1800 election, you clearly don’t understand the stakes or Hamilton’s stature.

When people try to defend Burr by throwing vague “he was just misunderstood” crap at you, the real question is: What the hell did Burr actually do before 1800? What policies did he champion? What kind of vision did he have for the country?

The answer?

Fucking nothing.

Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Burr was like that one guy in class who always had an opinion when it was convenient but couldn’t actually pick a side if his life depended on it.

I swear, I literally can’t talk about Burr’s policies or what he’d be like as president, because he had no fucking policies. The man was a political ghost floating around, never committing, never taking a stand on anything that really mattered. And that’s exactly what made him dangerous. Not some villainous caricature, but a walking, talking vacuum of principles. Hamilton was spot-on when he ripped Burr apart. He called him dangerous because he stood for nothing. And that’s not some personal grudge, it’s a fundamental truth about leadership. A man with no convictions can be swayed by whoever whispers the loudest, whoever offers the best deal. That’s a nightmare for any democracy. You don’t want a president who’s just “chasing what he wants” without any guiding values, morals, or beliefs.

Burr was the walking embodiment of political emptiness. A slick, spineless hustler who proved that standing for nothing means falling for anything, and that’s exactly why he deserved to lose.

Now, about “The Election of 1800”. Part VIII of HOW LMM VILIFIED BURR FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS ALWAYS DONE YOU BASTARDS

Now, “The Election of 1800” obviously combines two different elections and mucks around with the timeline, but you kinda gotta do that to history to some extent to get a clean story that you can tell to a naive audience in one evening with some bangin’ tracks. The simplification, however, is done in such a way that it makes Burr look worse and Hamilton look better. Burr did “openly campaign”, but in 1800 it was to get out the Democratic-Republican vote to defeat the Federalists; it wasn’t for himself specifically. Meanwhile, the mucking around with the timeline makes Hamilton look like a grieving father reluctantly dragged out of retirement, but in 1800 Philip was still alive and Hamilton was never reluctant to make his opinions known.

Mostly I haven’t been looking at all the ways that LMM, egged on by Chernow, glorifies Hamilton, but here that starts to become directly detrimental to Burr.

“Yo! The people are asking to hear my voice!” NO THEY REALLY WEREN’T. Hamilton was not a sad, gentle man who just wanted to be left in peace uptown. He was an embittered leader of a political party in decline who wanted to destroy his personal political rival. Nobody asked him to write letter after letter to members of Congress denigrating Burr and telling them to vote for Jefferson. He wanted to.

And note that he didn’t just “promote” Jefferson. He wrote long tirades accusing Burr of naked ambition, partiality to France, bankruptcy (ironic since his own financial situation was no better) and of leaving the Revolutionary Army at a bad time. He was, frankly, vicious.

This is mysteriously missing from the musical. As is the fact that the House of Representatives went through THIRTY-SIX contingent ballots - one state, one vote - to try to break the tie. During that process Burr actually had the slight edge in terms of actual individual ballots. (The states divided 8:6 with two tied, but Burr got a significant minority of the individual ballots in the states that went to Jefferson).

Real history: Jefferson discovered that his moderate running mate was arguably more popular than he was. An unelected meddler with a grudge wrote frenzied tirades against his rival to break the deadlock.

Musical history: Burr ran directly against Jefferson. A respected father-of-the-country type figure was consulted, and advised what was best for the country - possibly despite his own personal feelings.

Even though LMM hasn’t actually set out to disparage Burr - FOR ONCE - the way he has simplified the story and elided Hamilton’s flaws has had the effect of, oh yes, trampling a decent man underfoot yet again.

I am tired, Lin. So very tired.

[oddyseye]

Hello Hamburr nation

[oddyseye]

Let’s say this together..

LORE OLYMPUS IS APESHIT! It’s offensive to Greek culture and the gods themselves. Plus the artwork is awful.

[oddyseye]

Rushed Soulmate EuryOdy Au I made a while ago and never posted

[oddyseye]

.. And They💔?

[oddyseye]

Happy pride month to Ganymede, the original “he’s so pretty it’s a problem.”

Zeus saw a cute boy, turned into an eagle, and said mine.

Ganymede got eternal life, a god sugar daddy, and a job.

Mythology is wild.

[oddyseye]

you're not a real greek mythology fan if you hate zeus send tweet

[oddyseye]

so girlboss Medea truthers are even fucking weirder than I thought…

rereading the Argonautica and I’m very struck by how dubcon both of Jason’s relationships were ;-; like it’s more obviously coercive with Medea where his choices are literally get her help and in doing so marry her, or die and fail his mission. that’s it. not exactly a whole lot of wiggle room

but also with Hypsipyle?? he gets with her under false pretenses, she actively lies to him about what happened on Lemnos before the Argonauts got there. also something so horrifying about Jason walking through Lemnos with his eyes downcast,, he’s the object of desire for many, and in incredible danger throughout. like, he’s basically giving his body to Hypsipyle in exchange for their lives, because the Lemnian women were going to attack and kill the Argonauts before Hypsipyle said no because they needed to repopulate.

I don’t even think I need to talk about the power imbalance between Jason and Medea,,, she’s a powerful sorceress and literally the granddaughter of the sun and he’s just Some Kid with two mortal parents and a boat. and no way Jason doesn’t know this, he explicitly tells her he is at her complete mercy

and she basically again demands his body for her help ;-; which he has no choice but to give

also general PSA Jason did not cheat on her, he divorced her. he sent her away from his house, they were no longer living together, that counts as divorce in ancient law. also I wouldn’t care even if he was, he’s got no obligation to the relationship he was forced to be in.

so…yeah Jason in Euripides’ Medea is incredibly real. can’t blame the guy from wanting to get away from his forced marriage and children as soon as he can, once he has the power he never had in this relationship. and even then he still offers to keep her and their kids from the abuse in the palace, getting all the royal benefits from the joining of his house with the crown’s.

Jason they will never make me hate you free my boy

[oddyseye]

People being upset over MW's publisher posting JimCurly shitpost is actually so funny

[oddyseye]

That line cracked my ribs open the first time I heard it.

That’s not even a line actually. That’s a diagnosis.

10/10. No notes. Only tears.

“i imagine death so much it feels like a memory” will never not be a hard line

[oddyseye]

My dearest Eurylochus 😔

Other ver.

Pure color and w/o words and the colors I used!

[oddyseye]

Today I present: my attempts at trying to understand Paris' phrygian cap from greek pottery, for science.

[oddyseye]

sorry but the sheer begging, desperate, terrified way Eurylochus says “Captain, please!” in Remember Them has me on my knees

give him to me I’ll take so much better care of him then Homer or Jorge