#interpretations

[princesssarisa]

In the past I've shared other people's musings about the different interpretations of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Namely, why Orpheus looks back at Eurydice, even though he knows it means he'll lose her forever. So many people seem to think they've found the one true explanation of the myth. But to me, the beauty of myths is that they have many possible meanings.

So I thought I would share a list of every interpretation I know, from every serious adaptation of the story and every analysis I've ever heard or read, of why Orpheus looks back.

One interpretation – advocated by Monteverdi's opera, for example – is that the backward glance represents excessive passion and a fatal lack of self-control. Orpheus loves Eurydice to such excess that he tries to defy the laws of nature by bringing her back from the dead, yet that very same passion dooms his quest fo fail, because he can't resist the temptation to look back at her.

He can also be seen as succumbing to that classic "tragic flaw" of hubris, excessive pride. Because his music and his love conquer the Underworld, it might be that he makes the mistake of thinking he's entirely above divine law, and fatally allows himself to break the one rule that Hades and Persephone set for him.

Then there are the versions where his flaw is his lack of faith, because he looks back out of doubt that Eurydice is really there. I think there are three possible interpretations of this scenario, which can each work alone or else co-exist with each other. From what I've read about Hadestown, it sounds as if it combines all three.

In one interpretation, he doubts Hades and Persephone's promise. Will they really give Eurydice back to him, or is it all a cruel trick? In this case, the message seems to be a warning to trust in the gods; if you doubt their blessings, you might lose them.

Another perspective is that he doubts Eurydice. Does she love him enough to follow him? In this case, the warning is that romantic love can't survive unless the lovers trust each other. I'm thinking of Moulin Rouge!, which is ostensibly based on the Orpheus myth, and which uses Christian's jealousy as its equivalent of Orpheus's fatal doubt and explicitly states "Where there is no trust, there is no love."

The third variation is that he doubts himself. Could his music really have the power to sway the Underworld? The message in this version would be that self-doubt can sabotage all our best efforts.

But all of the above interpretations revolve around the concept that Orpheus looks back because of a tragic flaw, which wasn't necessarily the view of Virgil, the earliest known recorder of the myth. Virgil wrote that Orpheus's backward glance was "A pardonable offense, if the spirits knew how to pardon."

In some versions, when the upper world comes into Orpheus's view, he thinks his journey is over. In this moment, he's so ecstatic and so eager to finally see Eurydice that he unthinkingly turns around an instant too soon, either just before he reaches the threshold or when he's already crossed it but Eurydice is still a few steps behind him. In this scenario, it isn't a personal flaw that makes him look back, but just a moment of passion-fueled carelessness, and the fact that it costs him Eurydice shows the pitilessness of the Underworld.

In other versions, concern for Eurydice makes him look back. Sometimes he looks back because the upward path is steep and rocky, and Eurydice is still limping from her snakebite, so he knows she must be struggling, in some versions he even hears her stumble, and he finally can't resist turning around to help her. Or more cruelly, in other versions – for example, in Gluck's opera – Eurydice doesn't know that Orpheus is forbidden to look back at her, and Orpheus is also forbidden to tell her. So she's distraught that her husband seems to be coldly ignoring her and begs him to look at her until he can't bear her anguish anymore.

These versions highlight the harshness of the Underworld's law, and Orpheus's failure to comply with it seems natural and even inevitable. The message here seems to be that death is pitiless and irreversible: a demigod hero might come close to conquering it, but through little or no fault of his own, he's bound to fail in the end.

Another interpretation I've read is that Orpheus's backward glance represents the nature of grief. We can't help but look back on our memories of our dead loved ones, even though it means feeling the pain of loss all over again.

Then there's the interpretation that Orpheus chooses his memory of Eurydice, represented by the backward glance, rather than a future with a living Eurydice. "The poet's choice," as Portrait of a Lady on Fire puts it. In this reading, Orpheus looks back because he realizes he would rather preserve his memory of their youthful, blissful love, just as it was when she died, than face a future of growing older, the difficulties of married life, and the possibility that their love will fade. That's the slightly more sympathetic version. In the version that makes Orpheus more egotistical, he prefers the idealized memory to the real woman because the memory is entirely his possession, in a way that a living wife with her own will could never be, and will never distract him from his music, but can only inspire it.

Then there are the modern feminist interpretations, also alluded to in Portrait of a Lady on Fire but seen in several female-authored adaptations of the myth too, where Eurydice provokes Orpheus into looking back because she wants to stay in the Underworld. The viewpoint kinder to Orpheus is that Eurydice also wants to preserve their love just as it was, youthful, passionate, and blissful, rather than subject it to the ravages of time and the hardships of life. The variation less sympathetic to Orpheus is that Euyridice was at peace in death, in some versions she drank from the river Lethe and doesn't even remember Orpheus, his attempt to take her back is selfish, and she prefers to be her own free woman than be bound to him forever and literally only live for his sake.

With that interpretation in mind, I'm surprised I've never read yet another variation. I can imagine a version where, as Orpheus walks up the path toward the living world, he realizes he's being selfish: Eurydice was happy and at peace in the Elysian Fields, she doesn't even remember him because she drank from Lethe, and she's only following him now because Hades and Persephone have forced her to do so. So he finally looks back out of selfless love, to let her go. Maybe I should write this retelling myself.

Are any of these interpretations – or any others – the "true" or "definitive" reason why Orpheus looks back? I don't think so at all. The fact that they all exist and can all ring true says something valuable about the nature of mythology.

[mysticdragon3md3]

I like to think that one of the reasons Ballister forgave Ambrosius, was that Ballister realized that he had turned on Nimona, in the same way that Ambrosius had turned on him. Despite everything they'd been through together, Ballister still turned on Nimona. I think after realizing how easily he had done that, it would have been easier to understand how Ambrosius could have equally been filled with doubt towards him, despite everything that they had been through together. It would've been easier to have some understanding for Ambrosius and maybe want to give him a second chance, in the same way Ballister wished for a second chance with Nimona.

[goldammerchen]

it is in fact possible to have more than one interpretation of a character, and more than one interpretation about the interpersonal relationships between different characters

[philosophybits]

There are no facts, only interpretations.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Notebooks (1886-1887)

[ireallyneedaintrestinglife]

Things I took from the FNAF movie that are probably relevant to the game lore (might add to later)

Vanessa is more than likely a stand-in for Elizabeth. Given she is the daughter of William Afton in the movie. MatPat was probably right in that one game theory video. Why am I not surprised?!?

Piggy backing off that last one I can only assume that this means Gregory is indeed the rebuilt version of the crying child but honestly that one's a bit more of a stretch

Mike Afton= Mike Schmidt

Crying child more than likely died first. Given Garret gets taken before Abby is even born.

Please be aware these are just my interpretations of what I saw and I could be dead wrong but this is what I got from my first watch through of the movie. Please feel free to add your own to the list and I'm always down to talk FNAF lol

[undertalebabbleblog]

Fellverse Collars

Okay… here we go! This was one of the first rants I ever made that was actually useful somewhere along the way instead of just being what it was… a rant to my closest of close people who GET the fandom (AKA: the only person willing to listen to me and put up with my crap at that time in the morning and still talked to me the day after despite the previous 5+ hours I’d been asking at them. When they are still willing to respond to your messages 4h later- 9am -you KNOW they’re a keeper) So I figured here is as good a place and time to start as any…

[Especially considering I was TODAY years old when they let me know that discord chats have a SEARCH function… anyone else been spamming the ‘page up’ button for hours like your life depended on it? HANDS UP ✋]

SO without further ado~

I bring to you my explanation of the meanings of collars in the different fellverses! [This will be heavily based in the UTMV if you hadn’t guessed - focusing on underfell; Edge and Red, and fellswap; Black (or interchangeably Razz) and Mutt]

So CONTEXT- I was brought into this rant by a question from a friend asking me to explain fell universe collars to them (obviously), since they’re mentioned quite a bit throughout the fandom where the fellverses are concerned, but the variation between the meanings really confused them, and its not like they really had a solid definition to depend and lean on for info on it because the concept was mainly based in fannon. So they came to me. Because I apparently give off the vibe of knowing this. Good thing I ACTUALLY had an answer lol

BASICALLY~~~

In the simplest of terms, quickest way I could put it, and perhaps one of the most obvious of facts: The collars are a sign of ownership.

Think of underfell’s resident skele bros (Most commonly known as Edge and Red throughout the fandom), Edge literally OWNS red.

This could be interpreted in a whole bunch of different ways, but it all boils down to Red being practically either a pet or just straight up property to Edge.

It’s there to send a message. If someone were to hurt red it would be the equivalent of property damage… Or kicking his puppy… It lets people KNOW that if they mess with Red, Edge is going to get, understandably, pissed. It’s a protective measure.

When it comes to fellswap the underlying theme of ownership is the same, but it’s the context that differs. While Edge has his status, it is mainly his formidable battle and trapping prowess and infamy that makes the collar an effective safety measure. When it comes to fellswap the protection the collar offers is more of a proof of subjugation and the rising of said ‘owners’ status.

In fellswap Mutt was was viewed as a fierce foe, whom of which the majority of the underground were terrified of, knowing him and his brother Black by the name of ‘the queens guard dogs’. Having Black collar Mutt raises Blacks own infamy and labels him as some untouchable higher power, despite the lowness of his HP, which ordinarily would spell death for a monster of his world.

Their world is one in which family ties mean next to nothing in the grand scheme of things, they were merely a weak point to exploit. The chink in their armour. It was either that of a form of unsteady alliance with trust in which you’d trust the other to turn on you in a heart beat when push comes to shove.

The collaring is the closest they could come to showing they could care. The only form of tie that holds meaning and makes you stronger. Someone that people wouldn’t want to mess with.

Although that is mainly interpretation based off of the way the fandom flows, while underfell is a little more reliably set fellswap if most DEFINITELY more of a concept than a set idea.

If you needed this cleared up hope it did that for you!

If you didnt… hope you at least found it either entertaining or informative enough to be worth the time spent reading this!

[lilyginnyblackv2]

🙄🙄🙄

I’m not going to watch this video, because it will probably get my blood pressure rising. Could this title just be clickbait or ragebait? Possibly, but based on the comments I saw, probably not.

I bet it is filled with:

1. An inaccurate definition of what queerbait actually is.

2. A lack of understanding of past anime that have queerbaited (Getbackers, Saiyuki, Princess Princess, etc.) and a lack of anime that have existed in more nuanced and subtle queer spaces (Nabari no Ou - written by an actual x-gender, asexual mangaka, Tiger & Bunny, Samurai Flamenco (from my understanding), and possibly the anime series called Pet (I only watched like the first 3 episodes or so of this one). 

3. A straight or gay reading without a single glance at more nuanced queer interpretation of the pair (aka an aspec or queerplatonic reading).

Based on the comments (and the tagged sections of the video), it seems that there was a mention of how the female characters were treated in the series, but I wonder if there was any analysis on how which female characters were treated in what ways, how those female characters engaged within Japanese society, and what messages the series might be saying about Japanese society as a whole, and about the world of men (the hitman business Rei and Kazuki were apart of) vs. the world of women (the childcare business Rei and Kazuki enter into). 

Working three jobs now, I don’t have the time or energy to watch this video right now, but if anyone else does, please let me know if this is an accurate interpretation or not. I’ll update the post if need be. 

But, this is such a stale and broken take on the series and it saddens me that basically one of the only videos I’ve seen on this series, going actually in-depth on it, from someone with a decently sized platform is going with such a bland and honestly straight up wrong take (the series isn’t queerbait, since it was never ever promoted or advertised in a way to make you ship Kazuki and Rei). A show having queer subtext or a queer reading to it =/= queerbait, which is a specific marketing based term.

I feel like an interpretation like this one is missing out on the whole point of the series, as well as on various other messages and themes it is trying to tell. And if this is just a ragebait or clickbait style title, then that’s frustrating too, because it instantly turns me off from actually watching this video and what it might have to say and tell about Buddy Daddies as a series.

[oddlittlestories]

Also just wanted to give a little bit of meta context to my whole “it’s a bleak take to genuinely read House and Wilson as having sex the whole time.”

1. I still think happiness is possible for them, in every possible interpretation. This is not too dark a hole to climb out of.

2. I chose “they were not having sex” in HH:Reprise because I am more personally invested in the themes that come out of that interpretation.

3. Personally, taking the queercoded bits and valuing them over “strictly textual canon” is valid. First off, “gay gay gay gay gay + [shoehorned in cisheteronormarivity so we can keep the gay but delete this ignore it it’s not for real]” has been a method of both queer reads and queer writing for probably all time. Secondly, the writers themselves retconned and had inaccuracies constantly. Why should we treat their original narrative as more immutable than they did?

4. Three goes for House x Wilson and Cuddy x House x Wilson

[randomreasonstolive]

Reason to Live #9232

  Hearing to a new song and getting different meanings from it each time you listen.– Guest Submission

(Please don't add negative comments to these posts.)

[ohtheblooming]

Astro Observations: Cancer

I love Cancer placements so much. I sometimes want to take out my beating heart and give it to them to show how much they keep me alive. I'm so thankful they're here too.

They're also (Sun/Moon/Rising) so beautiful, like whenever I see someone with Cancer in their big three, I'm like Wow.

I feel like pop Astrology really likes hyping up Leos/Libras/Taureans for their beauty but they forget Cancer is ruled by the MOON!! HELLO!

It’s like when the moon is out, you TRY to take a photo but you just can’t capture its full beauty. I can spot them pretty quickly because they look like the Moon? They have Moon-like features… ie. round face, glowing skin. I LOVE THEM!!!!

Those with Cancer Sun/Moon/Rising all hold the same characteristics.

Family-oriented to the point where a lot of their main issues stem from family (like most people, but with them, it’s like it’s part of their identity forever because they put so much energy into their family; finding family elsewhere is a big priority for them)

What’s up with Cancer moons loving Kirby? LMAO. Oh wait, I know why… because they absorb everyone’s emotions and take it as their own… yeah… let’s not do that

All Cancers I know also seem to be particularly close with one of their siblings, especially if the sibling is younger!

Overall, very sweet and beautiful and they also love cooking/baking

[princesssarisa]

There seems to be a pendulum-swing going on in how people view the myth of Hades and Persephone.

The way I learned the myth in my childhood, and I assume the way most of us did, Hades was the villain. Persephone was happy aboveground with her mother, and just as miserable down in the Underworld as Demeter was to lose her. She was tricked into eating the pomegranate seeds, not knowing that they would bind her to Hades, and the ending was bittersweet, as she happily reunited with her mother for part of every year, but for the rest of the year was forced to go back to her loveless marriage in the bleak Underworld.

This was the standard version of the myth I was taught.

But then, in more recent years, a backlash rose against portraying Hades as evil. I suspect it really took off after 1997, in response to his villainous portrayal in Disney's Hercules. People argued that the ancient Greeks didn't view Hades as evil, they worshipped him like all the other gods, and that modern portrayals of an evil Hades tend to conflate him too much with the Christian Satan. They extended this argument to the story of Persephone too, pointing out that Hades truly loved Persephone, that he had her father Zeus's permission to marry her, that by all accounts he was the most faithful husband of all the gods, and that Persephone gained power in the Underworld: she became its revered queen.

There was also a feminist push to give Persephone more "agency" and avoid ending the story with her remaining unhappily married to her kidnapper.

This led to the rise of retellings that romanticized Hades and Persephone's marriage. They emphasized that Hades's love was true, portrayed Persephone as genuinely falling in love with him and coming into her own power through their marriage, and portrayed her as choosing to eat the pomegranate seeds because she wanted to stay. It also became popular for these retellings to vilify Demeter, portraying her as a controlling, possessive mother who needed to learn to let Persephone grow up and leave the nest.

But now there's backlash against those retellings. People are pointing out the ugly implications of romanticizing a kidnapping and forced marriage and victim-blaming the kidnapped girl's distraught mother. They're arguing that the story was always meant as a tragedy with Demeter as the heroine and Hades as the villain. That it reflects the forced separation of mothers and daughters through arranged marriage in ancient Greek culture, and/or that it's about death and the loss of a loved one, and of course that it explains the seasons and why part of the year is bleak, cold, and infertile.

Are any of these interpretations the one true meaning of the myth? I doubt it. But it's interesting to see the pendulum swing.

[mysticdragon3md3]

Remember when the fandom had a big discussion about Ballister holding his sword by the blade? And we all wondered how he could touch the lighted part of it, if it presumedly was some kind of cauterizing-laser part of the sword?

Well, if holding a European broadsword by the blade is as common a fighting technique, as this video explains, then it's possible that the Knights were all given gloves that could cancel or were impervious to the "laser" part of their swords. It would be reasonable to issue every Knight, specially protective gloves as part of their standard equipment. That way, the Institute wouldn't have to limit the types of sword-fighting styles that they could be taught.

Though I still like everyone else's idea of the swords having an on/off switch for the cauterizing-laser panel. That still makes sense to have an extra safety, even with specially protective gloves. Especially when a sword is not in use.

[scrappycam]

When Benjamin Franklin said,

"Some people die at 25 we just burry them at 75"

And when Elio's father from call me by your name tells him that,

"We have less to offer Everytime we start new"

"To feel nothing so as to feel anything, what a waste"

And when Conan grey said,

"we are the helpless, selfish, one of a kind Millennium kids, that all wanna die Walking in the street with no light inside our eyes"

And I don't know , I just somehow find a common essence in all of these lines. Just like everyone has different interpretations of what they see,hear,read and write. I have mine too.

I sometimes, while washing my hands in the sink after having a dinner conversation with my mom, think to myself that, how did I start wearing out since I had turned 15, how did this world manage to ask a lot from such little soul of mine, and along with that grief , I carry these uncontrollable screams in my chest , all of them wailing in vulnerability so my mom could hear them , see that I beg on my knees for her to know that I'm more than just the forced laughs I make. I notice how my head always turns down , when all these screams just never reach any of them and I slowly start to notice that maybe I hide them all good. And I keep worrying about if this is me at such young age and it's a few years to be 25 now , would I someday be really buried before even turning 25, would I ever have a little life inside me and would I ever be able to silence all the chaos that goes on behind my sealed lips.

And the way I feel that this is not just me. I know a million other souls sitting in different bodies have the same kinda experience. And I keep telling myself that "we all experience the same things just in different bodies" and the way I always use this as a comeback to console myself whenever I have a debate in my head about how cruel this world has become. I think at some point of time we all have felt this emptiness whenever we have met new people , and we sometimes explain it as , "people just don't get you nowadays , nobody wants to hear you". And I feel that the only reason everybody keeps talking about themselves is that maybe they too have felt this unbearable emptiness in the people they have tried to console and maybe it's us, maybe sometimes we are those empty people, but the thing is we are too trying to find people who can fill the voids in us. And I feel how we are all so tired of all this that it's so true that "we have less to offer Everytime we start new".

-k.

[raffaellopalandri]

What Makes Us One of a Kind?

Daily writing promptWhich aspects do you think makes a person unique?View all responses So, what truly makes a person unique? To me, it’s the beautiful ensemble woven from the different threads of our holistic being. It is the unique way the fusion of a body, mind, and soul live together in every being, each of such vital threads shaping the unique picture that is us. Photography by Raffaello…

[garglyswoof]

He was your first love, I intend to be your last (sappy)

He was your first love, I intend to be your last (arrogant)

He was your first love, I intend to be your last (manipulative)

He was your first love, I intend to be your last (why did you give us this gem of a line and then fuck everything else up)

[eleiyaumei]

Rambling about aro, ace, aroace, demi Sesshōmaru

romantic attraction =/= sexual attraction, aromanticism =/= asexuality

For most people, their romantic identity matches their sexual identity (e.g. aroace, gay, straight, bi) but that doesn’t mean that they are the same. Alloromantic asexual people and aromantic allosexual people might be the best examples for this but it’s also possible to be heterosexual and panromantic.

As far as I know, alloromantic allosexual Sesshōmaru is the most common representation of him in fan works which makes sense because most people on the planet identify that way.

In regards to “proof” that Sesshōmaru might be one identity or another, in my judgement, there is none, neither in manga nor anime – not even in YH, which I do not include in this because for me, it is not canon. There are several instances where Sesshōmaru’s kind of feelings are ambiguous, especially in the case of Kagura, but none show explicitly that he feels romantic or sexual attraction to anyone. (If you disagree, feel free to let me know!)

So, in accordance with the “lack of proof on sexual and romantic attraction”, I interpret Sesshōmaru to be aroace. But this is influenced by me being ace and thinking in the pattern “asexual until proven allosexual”. Similarly, alloromantic allosexual people might think “allo/allo until proven otherwise” and see Sesshōmaru that way until he says something like “I am not interested in romance and/or sex” and that’s valid as well.

But 1) we can’t look inside his brain, heart or body and determine what he experiences

and 2) we as fans can headcanon him as whatever identity we like.

(I personally separate interpretation from headcanon for interpretation to mean “something that can be supported by the text” and for headcanon to mean “whatever someone imagines – whether supported by the text or not”.)

Interpreting or HCing Sesshōmaru as demisexual and/or demiromantic seems to be the best compromise for a lot of people, allo and aro-/ace-specs alike. Like, he ‘is’ asexual/aromantic until he forms a deep bond with someone and he then ‘becomes’ allo.

Demisexual/-romantic people, please tell me what you think of that wording because I’m not a fan of it. It reminds me of things allo people tell a-spec people, the whole “You just have to find the right person”, or of what supporters of Purity Culture want people to be like: Abstaining from sex, sexual thoughts, fantasies etc. until you marry and then having sex regularly to reproduce, pleasing your partner etc.

I’m also not fond of the wording of the common definition of demisexuality/-romanticism: “Experiencing sexual/romantic attraction after developing a strong emotional bond with someone” because it can make it seem like you automatically experience these attractions once you formed said bond when I don’t think that’s the case for most demi people.

I prefer the definition that I heard from a demi person (Christi Kerr), in the vein of “rarely experiencing sexual/romantic attraction and when you do, it’s towards someone you developed a strong emotional bond with”. [Source]

Demisexuality and -romanticism aren’t experienced in a monolithic way. Some might develop sexual/romantic attraction to every person they bond with emotionally, some might predict a possibility that they will develop attraction once they get close to a specific person and some might get close to people (with the hope/assumption that they’ll develop attraction) only to realize that they still don’t feel attraction towards them.

(As an asexual person who only experiences sexual attraction towards 1 fictional character, I’m pretty jealous of the first two groups. Like, “It’s THAT easy for you guys? GREAT. Wish that were me.” But I know that no experience is “easy”, people can still deal with unreciprocated feelings/attraction, fleeting attraction, and many other struggles.)

What worries me about people HCing Sesshomaru as demisexual/-romantic is the potential that some allo people only use that HC to fetishize/project their own fantasies onto the real identities of demisexuality/-romanticism. Like, they might accept the aro/ace parts only because he does experience attraction towards them/their OC(s)/the person(s) they’re shipping him with (and attraction is kinda a must-have in romance/smut works) and because it gives them a sense of relationship security, fewer reasons to get jealous towards people he’s interacting with.

But I have to be fair and acknowledge that people can separate fact from fiction and can see their fantasies as such. Though, I must admit, I’m pretty pessimistic about that since the spectrums of asexuality and aromanticism are not common knowledge and a lot of misconceptions are roaming about...