Today my therapist introduced me to a concept surrounding disability that she called "hLep".
Which is when you - in this case, you are a disabled person - ask someone for help ("I can't drink almond milk so can you get me some whole milk?", or "Please call Donna and ask her to pick up the car for me."), and they say yes, and then they do something that is not what you asked for but is what they think you should have asked for ("I know you said you wanted whole, but I got you skim milk because it's better for you!", "I didn't want to ruin Donna's day by asking her that, so I spent your money on an expensive towing service!") And then if you get annoyed at them for ignoring what you actually asked for - and often it has already happened repeatedly - they get angry because they "were just helping you! You should be grateful!!"
And my therapist pointed out that this is not "help", it's "hLep".
Sure, it looks like help; it kind of sounds like help too; and if it was adjusted just a little bit, it could be help. But it's not help. It's hLep.
At its best, it is patronizing and makes a person feel unvalued and un-listened-to. Always, it reinforces the false idea that disabled people can't be trusted with our own care. And at its worst, it results in disabled people losing our freedom and control over our lives, and also being unable to actually access what we need to survive.
So please, when a disabled person asks you for help on something, don't be a hLeper, be a helper! In other words: they know better than you what they need, and the best way you can honor the trust they've put in you is to believe that!
Also, I want to be very clear that the "getting angry at a disabled person's attempts to point out harmful behavior" part of this makes the whole thing WAY worse. Like it'd be one thing if my roommate bought me some passive-aggressive skim milk, but then they heard what I had to say, and they apologized and did better in the future - our relationship could bounce back from that. But it is very much another thing to have a crying shouting match with someone who is furious at you for saying something they did was ableist. Like, Christ, Jessica, remind me to never ask for your support ever again! You make me feel like if I asked you to call 911, you'd order a pizza because you know I'll feel better once I eat something!!
Edit: crediting my therapist by name with her permission - this term was coined by Nahime Aguirre Mtanous!
Edit again: I made an optional follow-up to this post after seeing the responses. Might help somebody. CW for me frankly talking about how dangerous hLep really is.
17K notes
·
View notes
As usual I read your tags always and so you said Apollo did not ask for resurrection of Asclepius and Hyacinthus so i just wanted to share this. About Asclepius death I read it on theoi.com, that earlier authors don't make him resurrect as a god but that's a later development mentioned only by Roman authors like Cicero, Hyginus and Ovid. But still Apollo has a role in Ovid's version
Ovid, Fasti 6. 735 ff (trans.Boyle) (Roman poetry C1st B.C. to C1st A.D.) : Clymenus [Haides] and Clotho resent the threads of life respun and death's royal rights diminished. Jove [Zeus] feared the precedent and aimed his thunderbolt at the man who employed excessive art. Phoebus [Apollon], you whined. He is a god; smile at your father, who, for your sake, undoes his prohibitions [i.e. when he obtains immortality for Asklepios].
So here it is actually because of Apollo the decision was taken to resurrect him as god. And with Hyacinthus, I don't think I've read about Artemis playing the primary role. I know in Sparta there was a picture of Artemis, Athena and Aphrodite carrying Hyacinthus and his sister to heaven.
This is not on theoi.com but I saw on Tumblr it's from Dionysiaca by Nonnus
Second, my lord Oiagros wove a winding lay, as the father of Orpheus who has the Muse his boon companion. Only a couple of verses he sang, a ditty of Phoibos, clearspoken in few words after some Amyclaian style: Apollo brought to life again his longhaired Hyacinthos: Staphylos will be made to live for aye by Dionysos.
So since he is singing inspired by amyclean stories it probably means in that place it was believed Apollo was the one to bring back his lover to life.
Apollo as god of order was very important so i think it shows how special these people (and admetus too) were to him that he decided to go against the order for them 🥺
ANON!! Shakes you like a bottle of ramune!! BELOVED ANON!!!!! I'm littering your face with kisses, I'm anointing you with olive oil and honey - you absolutely made my night with this because, not only did I get the pure serotonin shot of having someone interact with my tags (yippee, wahoo!!) I also got to have that wonderful feeling of "oh wow, have I misunderstood something that was integral to my understanding of this myth/figure this whole time or is this a case of interpretational differences?" which is imo vital for my aims and interests as someone who enjoys mythological content and literature.
I'll preface my response with this: Hyacinthus is by far the hardest of these to get accounts for because his revival itself, as you very astutely point out, is generally accounted for in painting/ritual format which muddies the waters on who interceded for what. I wasn't actually familiar with that passage from the Argonautica - and certainly didn't remember it so thank you very much for bringing it to my attention!
That said, what I've come to understand, both about Hyacinthus and about Asclepius is that in the accounts of their deaths, Apollo's position is startlingly clear.
For Hyacinthus, it is established time and again that Apollo would have sacrificed everything for him - his status, his power, his very own immortality and divinity. Ovid writes that Apollo would have installed him as a god if only he had the time:
(Ovid. Metamorphoses. Book X. trans. Johnston)
Many other writers too speak of how Apollo abandoned his lyre and his seat at Delphi to spend his days with Hyacinthus, but they also all agree that when it came to his death - he was powerless. Ovid gives that graphic account of Apollo's desperation as he tries all his healing arts to save him to no avail:
(Ovid, Metamorphoses Book X. Apollo me boy, methinks him dead. trans Johnston)
Bion, in one of his fragments, writes that Apollo was "dumb" upon seeing Hyacinthus' agony:
(Bion, The Bucolic Poets. Fragment XI. trans Edmonds)
Even Nonnus in the Dionysiaca speaks constantly of Apollo's helplessness in the face of Hyacinthus' fate where he writes that the god still shivers if a westward wind blows upon an iris:
and when Zephyros breathed through the flowery garden, Apollo turned a quick eye upon his young darling, his yearning never satisfied; if he saw the plant beaten by the breezes, he remembered the quoit, and trembled for fear the wind, so jealous once about the boy, might hate him even in a leaf...
(Nonnus, Dionysiaca, Book 3. trans Rouse)
And the point here is just that - Apollo, at least as far as I've read, cannot avert someone's death. He simply can't. Once they're already dead - once Fate has cut their string - all Apollo's power is gone and he can do nothing no matter how much he wants to. And this is, as far as I know, supported with the accounts of Asclepius as well!
Since you specifically brought up Ovid's account, I'll also stick only to Ovid's account but in Metamorphoses when we get Ovid's version of Coronis' demise, he writes that Apollo intensely and immediately regrets slaughtering Coronis. He regrets it so intensely that he, like he does with Hyacinthus, does his best to resuscitate her:
(Ovid, Metamorphoses Book Two. Apollo's regret)
And like Hyacinthus, when it becomes clear that what has happened cannot be undone, Apollo wails:
(Ovid, Metamorphoses Book Two. Apollo wept.)
Unlike his mother, Asclepius in her womb had not yet died and so, with the last of Apollo's strength, he does manage, at least, to save him.
(Ovid, Metamorphoses Book Two. Apollo puts the 'tearing out' in Asclepius.)
But it goes further than even that because Ocyrhoe, Chiron's daughter, a prophetess who unduly gained the ability to directly proclaim the secrets of the Fates, upon seeing the baby Asclepius, immediately prophesies his glory, his inevitable death and then his fated ascension:
(Ovid. Metamorphoses, Book Two. Ocyrhoe's prophecy. trans Johnston)
Before she too succumbs to her hubris and is transformed by the Fates into a horse so she can no longer speak secrets that aren't hers to share.
These things ultimately are important because it establishes two very important things: 1) Apollo can't do anything in the face of the ultimate Fate of mortals, which is, of course, death and 2) even when Apollo is Actively Devastated, regretful, yearning, mournful, guilty or some unholy combination of all of the above, when someone is dead, he accepts that they are gone. Even if he is devastated by it, even if he'll cry all the rest of his days about it - if they're dead? Apollo lets them go. In Fasti, when Zeus brings Asclepius back, he does not say Apollo asked him to - Zeus, or well, in this case Jove, brings Asclepius back because he wants Apollo to stop being mad at him.
(Ovid, Fasti VI. Apollo please come home your father misses you. trans. A.S Kline)
Even Boyle's translation which you used above in your findings hints that Zeus made Asclepius a god because he wanted Apollo to stop grieving. (i.e 'smile at your father', 'for your sake [he] undoes his prohibitions')
And like, Apollo was deeply upset by Asclepius' death - apart from killing the Cyclops in anger, in book 4 of the Argonautica, Apollonius writes that the Celts believe the stream of Eridanus to be the tears Apollo shed over the death of Asclepius when he left for Hyperborea after being chastised by Zeus for killing his Cyclops:
But the Celts have attached this story to them, that these are the tears of Leto's son, Apollo, that are borne along by the eddies, the countless tears that he shed aforetime when he came to the sacred race of the Hyperboreans and left shining heaven at the chiding of his father, being in wrath concerning his son whom divine Coronis bare in bright Lacereia at the mouth of Amyrus.
It all paints a very clear picture to me. Apollo did not ask for either of them to be brought back. Though bringing them back certainly pleased and delighted him, they are actions of other gods who are moved by Apollo's grief and mourning and seek to mollify him. Him not asking doesn't mean he didn't want them back which I think is a very important distinction by the by, but it simply means that Apollo knows the natural order of things and, even if it hurts, he isn't going to press his luck about it.
Which, of course, brings us to Admetus. And I'm really not going to overcomplicate this, Admetus is different because, very vitally, Admetus is not dead. Apollo can't do a thing once Fate has been carried out and Death has claimed a mortal but you know what he absolutely can do? Bargain like hell with the Fates before that point of inevitability. And that's what he does, ultimately for Admetus and Alcestis. He sought to prolong Admetus' life, not revive him from death or absolve him from death altogether and even after getting the Fates drunk, he's still only able to organise a sacrifice - a life for a life - something completely contingent on whether some other mortal would be willing to die in Admetus' place and not at all controllable by Apollo's own power.
All of these things, I think come back to that point you made - that Apollo's place as a god of order is very important and therefore these people are very special to him if it means he's willing to go against that order but, I also wish to challenge that opinion if you'd let me. Apollo's place as a god of order is very important and therefore, I would argue, that it is even more important that it is shown that he does not break the divine order, especially for the people that mean the most to him. The original context of my comments which started this conversation were on this lovely, lovely post by @hyacinthusmemorial which contemplated upon Asclepius from the perspective of an Emergency Medical personnel and included, in their tags, the very poignant lines "there's something about Apollo letting go when Asclepius couldn't that eats my heart away" and "you do what you can, you do your best, but you don't ever reach too far" and I think that's perfectly embodied with the Apollo-Asclepius dichotomy. Apollo grieves. He wails, he cries, he does his best each and every time to save that which is precious to him but he does not curse their nature, he does not resent that they are human and ultimately, he accepts that that which is mortal must inevitably die. There is nothing that so saliently proves that those who uphold rules are also their most staunch followers - if Apollo wants to delight in his place as Fate's mouthpiece, he cannot undo Fate. And, if even the god of healing and order himself cannot undo death, what right does Asclepius, mortal as he is, talented as he is, have to disrespect it?
The beauty of these stories isn't that Apollo loved them enough to bring them back. The beauty is that Apollo loved them enough to let them go.
51 notes
·
View notes
Seen quite a few people comment how they believe it's more likely the Dragodile Divorce happened due to ideological differences rather than because Dragon was too straight to stay with Crocodile, and. Like I did suggest that (or at least tried to) in my Crocodad Giga Thesis (really I should've been more clear about it in my essay so I wouldn't be writing this now lol), but like yes, Dragon and Crocodile absolutely have drastically different beliefs on How One Overthrows The World Government. And that absolutely could have contributed to the two separating and/or Crocodile deciding to go his own way instead of becoming a proper Revolutionary
Because like, as I tried to imply in the essay (but failed to deliver); if Crocodile's goal had always been to get Pluton so he could just nuke Marijoa off the face of the earth by himself and end it all in one go, then Crocodile and his way of thinking could work as this, like... contrasting opposite to how Dragon believes things should be done.
Some fans (unfairly imo) call Dragon a "fraud" because over the past 20+ years he has only attacked Marijoa and the WG directly just once, and even when he did, instead of doing something to stop their corrupt reign for good... the Revs destroyed... the Tenryuubito's... food storage..? Like. Sure, that'll bother them for a little while, get their panties in a good twist etc, but in the end they're just going to demand more tributes and more free food. The Revolutionary Army may be successfully inspiring more people and more countries to rebel against the World Government's corrupt rule, but the Tenryuubito are still in power and will continue to be in power for a long time.
And that's kind of how Crocodile would greatly complement Dragon within the narrative. Dragon being arguably "too soft" with his slow, methodical way of overthrowing the WG, while Crocodile would just kill them all without mercy, even if it meant hurting innocent people in the process. The two would act as the opposite sides of the same coin, the different extremes of the same spectrum. Crocodile would become like a response to the complaints people have against Dragon.
And yeah, the two having such wildly different ideological views could VERY EASILY contribute to a divorce, for sure.
My thing is that... If (and this is an if) Crocodile is meant to go a character arc and grow as a person, if we're meant to see him as a sympathetic character at all and maybe even feel bad for him... It'll be much harder to write that if the Dragodile Divorce happened only because of the two having ideological differences.
Like who's going to feel bad for Crocodile if the two got divorced because Crocodile wanted to mass murder people and Dragon wasn't okay with it? That's not a tragedy, that's not a situation where we as the readers would feel for Crocodile and want to root for him. That's not something that would give a character unprocessed emotional trauma to heal from and overcome. He'd just be a villian who'd need to have his beliefs changed.
Where as, if The Divorce was caused by Dragon and Crocodile no longer being compatible due to Dragon being straight while Crocodile transed his gender... Even in the most respectful of scenarios that is a heartbreaking situation, a painful thing to go through. That is a tragedy without bad guys, a story where you could feel bad for Crocodile and want to root for him. That is a situation that would give him trauma to heal from.
And that's kind of why I so strongly believe in Crocodile's transition being a more important, contributing factor in The Divorce.
Again, this does absolutely depend on what Crocodile's actual role in the story is going to be and whether or not he's even meant to go through a character arc at all. Like if he's not going to be that important and if he isn't meant to go through an arc then sure, Crocodile's transition doesn't have to matter one fucking bit.
But if he is meant to go through an arc, if we are meant to feel bad for him and find outselves rooting for him eventually... From a writing perspective, that'll be far easier to do if we can find ourselves sympathizing with him even just a little bit.
Also like. Yes, you can have queer characters who are just queer for the sake of being queer, their queerness does not have to be an important aspect in them or a huge plotpoint in their story at all. Crocodile could be queer just for the sake of being queer. Because that's what it's like being queer, you just are what you are.
At the same time, from a writing perspective. What would even be the point of making him queer if it didn't matter to his character at all and have an impact on his character?
Also while Crocodile and Dragon clearly have very different beliefs on how the WG should be dealt with right now, we don't really know when Crocodile came to his beliefs. Like for all we know Crocodile could've formed his worldview years after the divorce. Hell, based on the way he spoke to Vivi about her ideals, and how we know he spent over a decade in utter emotional solitude, his current worldview could have been partially born from resentment towards Dragon (and his ideals) that's been simmering away over the years.
All of this to say; yes I think the two's beliefs could have been a contributing factor in The Divorce, but from a writing perspective (and based on the direction I personally want to see the story go), I find it far more likely if Crocodile's transition was the main cause, one way or another.
60 notes
·
View notes
thoughts about the new rey movie and people’s reactions to the announcement
i was gonna reblog a post about this and just slide my opinion in the tags but it’s getting to be an essay so i think it warrants its own post
i’m not trying to attack anybody with this but this has been rampant since the announcement and i have thoughts:
i understand and share in the opinion that ben solo is a wasted character and that he (and TROS and the sequel trilogy in general) was severely mishandled, and i would not be sorry to see more of him. adam was one of the best things about this new trilogy. i was hardly a star wars fan until the day i went to see TFA on opening day. that experience was something i’ll never forget and i fell in love with kylo/ben and rey from the second they both appeared on screen during their respective intros. without them i don’t think i would enjoy SW the way i do now.
i’m so happy for daisy to have this new opportunity to continue rey’s story. She deserves it.
And before you chime in--yes, Ben deserves for his story to be continued, too. No one’s ever really gone, and all that. if he comes back i will be screaming on the way to the theaters with the rest of you.
but i have seen so many people state outright since the announcement that they refuse to watch the movie if ben isn’t coming back.
i understand that sentiment, i do--none of us want to get burned again TROS-style. we want to see the dyad together and alive and happy. we want lucasfilms to get a friggin grip and just--DO BETTER.
and remember, this is my opinion, but it rubs me the wrong way when people say they won’t watch the movie without ben (and i’ve seen it said over and over and over both here and on instagram) because it’s sort of implying that rey has no value without ben, like she is not interesting enough on her own.
now i don’t actually believe that’s what people mean when they say that (at least, not everybody) but that’s the feeling i get from it. i love rey and ben equally and so i’ll take any new content with them in it, even if they aren’t together. will it hurt? will it be bittersweet? yeah. but imagine if the new rey movie gets a really low turnout and then disney execs look at the numbers and go ‘hmm--let’s not do that again’ and then a new possible trilogy is cancelled or any chance we get of maybe a dyad reunion is also gone. bc we all know the mouse listens to money above all.
i love rey. i think she’s a great character who has just as much potential as ben and i can’t wait to see what she can do in a film where she’s top billing (until they throw in a mark hamill cameo because we all know he’ll be in it to some degree) but my point still stands. and daisy is a great actress who brought such depth to rey that i’m so excited to see her return and i can’t wait to see her as rey again.
do i still have a tiny bit of hope that it will be better this time and that ben will return? yes. i’m not gonna lie about it. this clown makeup is tattooed on. but it’s a cautious hope and i’m trying not to feed too much into it, because the reality is that it’s rey who’s back and i love her so i’m going to support her because i think she’s interesting and compelling on her own, just as she was in TFA before she ever met Kylo/Ben.
18 notes
·
View notes