#musical literary analysis

[averagecygnet-blog]

emma is the villain of tgwdlm

I need to talk about this oh my god

because it's told from the hive's perspective. paul is the protagonist because he is the one who resists them but must ultimately come to accept that they're right. emma is the one who must be beaten through force.

the difference between the hero and the villain is that the hero must change, while the villain cannot. (I'm not speaking in universals here, just generalizations of how the narrative structures work that tgwdlm uses in parody.) the hero and the villain both hold a belief that represents the thematic evil; by the end of the story, the hero must undergo apotheosis, which is to say, ultimate unity with the thematic good. once this is achieved, he can defeat the villain, who represents the thematic evil completely and is incapable of change.

to the hive, "good" is unquestioning conformity to the group's ideals, specifically, singing and dancing in sync with everybody else. "evil" is refusing to sing and dance along when, clearly, you want to.

paul is the perfect protagonist because he resists song and dance, but largely because it makes him uncomfortable. getting out of your comfort zone is necessary for change! it's a good thing to let yourself go through something uncomfortable in order to come out the other side better and stronger for it. (that much is true; however, sometimes discomfort is a legitimate sign that you should stay away from something.) paul has never really tried singing or dancing, and deep down, is afraid that if he tried it, he might like it. exactly the sort of person who can be converted and used as a shining example of the hive's righteousness.

emma must be the villain because her refusal to fall in line is a choice. she can sing, she can dance, she was in brigadoon in high school and she fuckin killed it, she is even taught a whole ass song with choreography by the hive on their first morning in hatchetfield (emma's comment about how they have to sing "all the time, apparently!" and zoey's implied presence at the theater when the meteor hit - because she was with sam, and sam was there - strongly suggests that nora and zoey were zombified all morning and she had no idea). it's stated by hidgens and suggested by nora and zoey that getting a human to sing/dance along with them is supposed to be a sort of mesmerizing tactic that the hive uses to start synchronizing a person to the hive mind, but emma refuses. she sings and she dances, just like they want, but she chooses to actively hate it the whole time, on principle. she can't be convinced; they have to swarm her, surround her on all sides. let it out is meant to win paul to their side; inevitable is just to gloat.

in the bar scene in hidgens' bunker, emma says that she must be the villain to paul's hero because she was in the musical that got him to hate musicals. on the one hand, she had it backwards; she's the villain because according to the hive, the all-encompassing narrative power, he's not supposed to hate musicals. on the other hand, she's kind of right: paul is the protagonist because he is the guy who didn't like musicals, while emma is the villain because she has the capacity to like musicals as well as experience in them, but has chosen to reject them.

who is the hero and who is the villain all depends on who is telling the story. and the hive is telling this story. don't forget that.

[sagaduwyrm]

So this new saga, besides causing us all psychological damage heretofore unheard of, has a really interesting narrative function. The Underworld Saga showed Odysseus making the decision the entire musical was leading up to, that is 'to become a monster'. The Thunder Saga shows the success and consequences of this decision.

Suffering, Different Beast, and Scylla take Odysseus past two opponents comparable to those who previously would have been devastating to him, but instead are stepping stones and tools. This is the benefit of making this decision.

Mutiny and Thunder Bringer are the consequences. Being a monster sets you apart, you can't have your cake/crew have eat/sacrifice them too. This is where Odysseus understands that he can't half-ass his decision and follows through.

These songs have other purposes of course. Suffering and it's reprisals suggest that Odysseus is suicidal, showing that he's less unaffected then he wants others to think. Different Beast really sets up Mutiny as the crew are initially glad that Odysseus has made the hard choice, before they realize what that means for them. Scylla's claim that they're the same is really poignant as she was also made into a monster by the gods, emphasizing the tragedy of it. Mutiny emphasizes how the blame and mistakes fall onto the crew and Eurylochus as well as Odysseus, and the breaking of their relationship. Thunder Bringer brings Zeus back to finish the character arc he first pushed Odysseus onto in The Horse and the Infant.

Overall this is really amazing, and I would consider it one of the most important Sagas yet.

[heartwrrm]

it's immediately clear that both the creature and victor find some of their greatest comforts in nature and that's one of the key features that connects them and proves they're not so different from each other, but i've also noticed that they tend to admire different TYPES of nature

victor tends to amaze at "the high and snowy mountains [...] immense glaciers [...] the rumbling thunder of the falling avalanche [...] the supreme and magnificent mont blonc" (65), typically finding the most comfort in the "savage and enduring scenes" (64) which tend to be colder and rougher yet unchanging; while the creature found that his "chief delights were the sight of the flowers, the birds, and all the gay apparel of summer" (94). there is probably something to be said about the creature's affinity for spring and summer, the seasons of rebirth, of NATURAL and beautiful life, a direct contrast to his unnatural, coldly scientific, "wretched" rebirth that he abhors so much

i was discussing this idea with a friend, who added that victor finding solace in the frozen and dead beauty of wintery environments, a typically less-favoured season, could reflect how victor often refuses himself the typical joys of life. throughout the novel, he struggles with his self-worth because of the guilt induced by his creation of the creature and the deaths that then followed, and the only reason he even desires peace and comfort is because he knows he needs to present himself that way to his family in order for them to be happy ("i [...] wished that peace would revisit my mind only that i might afford them consolation and happiness" [62]). i built on her idea by noting how the creature acknowledged that he "required kindness and sympathy; but [he] did not believe [him]self unworthy of it" (94), a completely contrasting stance from victor, who finds himself undeserving of the many comforts offered to him by his family

furthermore, it seems that victor finds beauty in glory & majesty ("[the scenery] spoke of a power mighty as Omnipotence--and i ceased to fear, or to bend before any being less almighty than that which had created and ruled the elements" [64]), while the creature finds beauty in warmth & growth. both characters seem to find what they desire(d) in the versions of the natural world that they admire most

to reference what i said in the beginning about the connections between victor and the creature, this observation only contributes to my understanding that victor and the creature are incredibly similar, and many of their identical traits involve a rejection or a reversal of the other; they both ardently wish for each other's destruction, they both ruined each other, they're the reason that the other is simultaneously a victim and a villain in their own sense, they both hate themselves but for reversed reasons (victor hates himself for what he's done rather than what he is, while the creature hates himself for what he is more than what he's done), and now this--they both find solace in nature, just opposing kinds. like father, like son

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Taylor Swift: The Lyric Thief- Evermore Edition.

Do y'all know about this?

Swift's lyric "How's one to know/ I'd meet you where the spirit meets the bone" ("Ivy" 2020).

Great, interesting lyric from Swift's own mind, right? WRONG.

Originally, it came from a poem called "Compassion" written by Miller Williams in 1997.

Here is the poem:

Have compassion for everyone you meet, even if they don’t want it. What seems conceit, bad manners, or cynicism is always a sign of things no ears have heard, no eyes have seen. You do not know what wars are going on down there where the spirit meets the bone. (Williams, 1997)

It's later used as an album title "Down Where the Spirit Meets the Bone" that Miller William's daughter, Lucinda Williams, published in 2014.

She also used the line, that her father ORGINALLY wrote, in a song tribute to him called "Compassion" on that same 2014 album.

Can we please stop pretending Swift is a genius? When, in fact, all of her most "intelligent" and "powerful" lyrics are lines outright taken from other works in literary, and musical, canon.

She's just a derivative fraud who wants all of her fans to think she's the one coming up with all these ideas.

She stole the line from a woman who used it as a tribute to her dying Father- the original author- who is now passed.

Not only did Swift rip the line out of a tribute album written to the original writer- but she also put the line in a dumb song that romanticizes cheating. She writes, "dare to sit a watch what we'll become/ and drink my husband's wine" ("Ivy" 2020). Clearly, the whole song is about a woman who is cheating on her husband.

The original intention of the line itself is about having compassion for other people, while taking care to have humility and resist the allure of cynicism. It's a poem about caring for your fellow man- and resisting despair in life. Arguably, it is also a poem about mental health issues and respecting those who may struggle. Swift twists the line to describe meeting a clandestine hookup and cheating on her husband.

Not only did she yank the line right out of someone else’s work, with no credit given to the original intention of the line or the original author- but she also made it about such a selfish, sick, thing to do- cheating on a spouse.

The original intention of the line was so kind and empathetic. She ruined it with her endorsement of cavalier attitudes towards moral corruption :(

[distracted-obsessions]

Ok, so I've been seeing some discourse around Odysseus and Eurylochus about who is the bad guy.

Odysseus is the bad guy because he gave his name, rank, and serial number to the Cyclops.

Eurylochus is the bad guy because he opened the wind bag.

Odysseus is the bad guy because he sacrificed 6 men.

Eurylochus is the bad guy because he killed the cow.

And I think a lot of you are missing the point.

Is Odysseus giving his name to the Cyclops, not knowing that would bring down the wrath of Poseidon, any worse then Eurylochus opening the wind bag, not knowing it would take them to Poseidon or vice versa? They didn't know it would end badly. They were both warned by someone they trusted that it would end badly if they took that course of action and they did it anyway.

Is Odysseus knowingly sacrificing 6 men to Scylla any worse than Eurylochus knowingly killing the sun god's cow? They both knew it would end in death. The only difference between these two actions is that Odysseus was trying to survive and Eurylochus couldn't live any longer.

Is Odysseus telling Eurylochus to light the 6 torches really any worse then Eurylochus telling Odysseus that he must carry all the blame or vice versa?

Neither of them are the bad guy. And if one of them is, then they both are. Then everyone, Circe, the Cyclops, Poseidon, everyone, is the bad guy too.

This is not a black and white story. There is no good guy, there is no bad guy, there is no clear answer. All it is is protagonists and antagonists and people pitted against each other in the desperate attempt to survive. Those stories are sad and not common in our current culture but this is one of them. Most of life isn't a black and white story and being able to understand that, both in fiction and reality, is important for every relationship, moral, and ideal you will ever have.

[that-ari-blogger]

Galinda's True Colours

One key theme in Wicked is superficiality. The world of Oz is a place where honest conversation is difficult to come by. Almost everyone is pretending to be something, or believe something, or have something, all to get what they want.

Popular approaches this theme with the subtlety of a hyperactive wrecking ball and gives a musical monologue about how this world works, and why.

Because Galinda has been portrayed as ditsy up to this point, with a bit of the self-serving schemer archetype thrown in for flavour. But here, we see just how intelligent she is. Galinda has caught on to how the world works, and understands what buttons to push.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD (Wicked)

The first element to be brought under examination is Wicked's love for subverting expectations. By this, I mean that certain mindsets in the world have stereotypes associated with them, take idealism and cynicism for example.

From what I have observed, when a writer wants to use one of these archetypes, they will probably draw on a few common ideas. The former is usually portrayed as stary-eyed and naive, or unflinchingly positive. Cynicism meanwhile has a certain sarcasm to it. A cynic might feature a permanent scowl and a dry remark as a kneejerk reaction to anything.

In short, Cynics are usually written to be villains who are overcome by hopeful heroes, or to be heroes who are proven right by a world where hope is meaningless. Idealists on the other hand are either heroes who make the world a better place by sheer force of goodness, or naive fools who the world breaks down.

Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions are mostly more developed characters in their own right, so the label of "a cynic" doesn't really fit them. Batman is an idealist (when he's written properly).

What is fascinating about Wicked is how the characters are presented. Elphaba is introduced as cynical, she fits the archetype to a tea. But after a musical number, her character swaps entirely. She keeps the sarcasm, but the hopefulness becomes a driving force that goes against the stereotype.

Galinda is... introduced as a bit of a ditz. She's got an ego, she gets what she wants all of the time, she has a well-known family. She's the generic rich kid, essentially. Fiyero gets the same treatment.

For the record, By Galinda, I mean young Glinda, and I am treating them as separate entities until they meet back up.

Anyway, when Galinda starts singing, her real worldview becomes clear. It's possible to argue that it wasn't particularly hidden to begin with, but in Popular, she bludgeons you over the head with it.

"Celebrated heads of state Or 'specially great communicators Did they have brains or knowledge? Don't make me laugh! They were popular! Please, it's all about popular! It's not about aptitude It's the way you're viewed"

As much as I despise it, Galinda is kinda right here.

In 1964, Henry Littlefield published an essay in the American Quarterly titled The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism in which he gave some opinions on a theoretical metaphor inherent in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz book (if you don't want to read it, TedEd has a video discussing it and its legacy). He claimed that it was an inherently political book about the time Baum wrote it.

The sparkly new world looks even better if you put on tinted glasses, and only works if you understand that the wizard's power is empty, so Littlefield proposed.

Scholars since have praised, debated, and debunked Littlefield's essay. Pointing out the fact that this is pattern recognition with hindsight, in the same way that you can look to the stars and see a goat.

Essentially, there is an argument for The Wonderful Wizard of Oz being political, and there is an argument (most famously made by its Baum himself) that it is just a children's book.

Wicked is a satire, and not a children's book, so it gets away with some heavy insinuation, but to avoid landmines and a lack of knowledge on my own part, I am going to talk exclusively about how this affects the land of Oz itself, rather than its implications for the real world. Please don't argue in the replies.

So, Galinda's hypothesis here is that the leaders of Oz do not get to where they are because of any actual skill, but rather because they were well liked by either the people, or their superiors. She gets proven right about this throughout the musical. Madam Morrible moves up in the world by presenting Elphaba to the wizard, the Wizard gained power by giving Oz a common enemy, and Galinda and Fiyero themselves gain status seemingly out of nowhere.

In Oz, it doesn't matter what you know, but who you know, and who knows you.

In the show that I watched, Galinda was played by Courtney Monsma, who knocked this number out of the park. Galinda is an incredibly cynical character, but Monsma played her with what I can only describe as "manic pixie energy", which circles back to Wicked's idea of superficiality.

Because the ditzy pantomime of Galinda present in What is this Feeling and half of Dancing Through Life is nothing compared to the madness that is Popular. This is a character who knows exactly how to toss her hair to get what she wants, who knows how to make people think she is something she isn't.

Monsma played a character who was well aware that perception would get her further in life than intelligence, and was having fun with that confidence. But she is actually clever, Galinda has picked up on this fact that everyone else has just accepted subconciously, but now she can explain it.

This song feels like a hyper fixation rant. The frantic obsession was a mere outlet for the excitement of finally being able to speak to this worldview head on to someone who she respects and knows will actually understand her. This song feels like Galinda and Elphaba are on emotional and intellectual equal footing.

This song is also part of my case for Wicked as a queer musical that only works as a story because the romance doesn't. As in, this is a story about a romance that could have been, and that romance reads as queer to me. I will get more into it next week, but for now, I will say this:

This song doesn't matter, and that's exactly why it does matter.

This is the moment when Elphaba and Galinda connect, and share. This is Galinda trying to give back for the wand and make up for her previous behaviour to make Elphaba less of an outcast. But she has already done that.

The moment at the end of Dancing Through Life when Elphaba and Galinda share the spotlight, when Galinda makes herself look like a fool to match Elphaba, when she lets the outcast lead, and the rest of the room goes along with it. That moment is when the romance is kicked off, that is the moment when she starts making amends. That is the moment when she starts to make Elphaba less of a social pariah.

That dance renders Popular superfluous, or at least it does on paper. In reality, this song is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the foreshadowing department, even more so than What is this Feeling, in my most humble of opinions.

Popular happens because Galinda is right about so much in her world, but wrong about the most important thing. Brains and knowledge are irrelevant in Oz, perception is powerful, but empathy rules them all.

Galinda gives this big show of how amazing she is for helping people. Look at her, she's so good. But, Elphaba doesn't care about that, and Galinda does. The romance doesn't work in the end because Galinda realises too late that in the big scheme of things, superficiality is nowhere near as fulfilling as connection. That's why her romance with Fiyero breaks off, and its why her romance with Elphaba is doomed. She only realises this when both options are off the table.

The romance between Elphaba and Galinda breaks apart, but it can only do that because it was there to begin with. You can't tear down nothing.

You could read the relationship as entirely platonic, a friendship that breaks down. But art is subjective, and to me, the romance makes this story so much more compelling.

Final Thoughts

Popular is a popular song in the fanbase. It's an absolute bop, but it's also one of the simplest numbers in the entire production. The set is two beds, there is no fancy dancing, just one character sitting still and the other jumping around like she's on springs. The set doesn't change, there are no extra characters, nothing.

This song doesn't let anything distract from the character drama that is going on in centre stage, so that the audience can take in what is actually being said and done.

Next week, I am taking a look at I'm Not That Girl, and I will being going all in on the queer reading of this musical. Although, that is a heterosexual love song, right? How could that be queer? I have thoughts, so stick around if that interests you.

Previous - Next

(Images were sourced from this video)

[smilerri]

many thoughts about epic: the musical...

i am once again in the middle of essay writing but plautus is boring and my friend introduced me to this album so u already know I binged the entire thing

(quick warning for spoilers of homer's odyssey? if that's necessary?? man idk whatever)

first thoughts naturally concerned odysseus. i have hated this man with a burning passion ever since I started studying classics - i think he is irredeemably selfish, a liar masquerading as a 'resourceful hero,' and basically just a twat all around. that being said, i respect that epic is not an exact replica. in fact, i like that about it!

readings of odysseus as a loving husband and father, and a man who cares deeply for his crew and fellow warriors is one i would love to see reflected in the source text (though i admit i have only read two different translations so far, so this is subject to change depending on translators choice!), if only because it would be so so refreshing. and epic does that extremely well! i find epic's odysseus to be far more likeable, insofar as he is fueled not by greed for glory (kleos for the nerds out there) but rather the desire to return to his wife and son. (I personally would argue that, while homer's odysseus is indeed fueled by a desire for homecoming (nostos), it is not for the sake of penelope and telemachus, but rather concern over the security of his status and position within the household (oikos))

i also very much enjoy that the love he holds for his family is not an inherently positive trait. in the aeneid, and often in myth, it is achilles' son, neoptolemus/pyrrhus who kills the son of hector and andromache, astyanax by throwing him from the walls of troy - less common, it is odysseus (which i did not know until i googled it just now oops). homer's odysseus does not reject the gods. he is beloved by some, hated by others - he receives their boons and curses as they come. he revels in the attention of the divine, no matter positive or negative, for it is proof of his kleos. epic's odysseus is so much more... human. he doesn't vie for glory that reaches the skies. if anything, he rues it. in the horse and the infant he supplicates himself to (who i assume is) zeus - which is such a loaded act i am genuinely struggling to think of how to articulate it, but boy am I gonna try my darndest.

the act of supplication and guest-friendship (xenia) is a very key theme within the odyssey, and to a point in the iliad also - essentially, if a traveller were to arrive at your doorstep, you were obliged to let them in and provide food, drink, and lodgings to that traveller, no questions asked. in return (because reciprocity is VERY important in homer especially), the guest would provide entertainment, tales of their travels, etc, and would be respectful of their host. the patron of these travellers was zeus. any violation of these terms, on part of the guest or host, would be met with divine scorn. for odysseus to supplicate himself to zeus is therefore meta as hell, but I would instead bring attention to the echoing lyric "hes bringing you down to your knees." 'he,' assumedly, is astyanax. his father, hector, is dead; as is his grandfather, priam, and all of priam's other sons. at this point, one could assume that it is astyanax who is ruling troy, who is now the host of the city that odysseus, a traveller from another land, has entered and ransacked. zeus' 'prophecy' of astyanax growing old and seeking revenge (reciprocity! homeric greece had a 'revenge culture' - essentially 'an eye for an eye' as well as 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours,' though not always so clear-cut), therefore, would be odysseus' punishment for violating the terms of xenia.

supplication, however, is not limited to guest-friendship alone. for example, in odyssey 22, when odysseus slaughters the suitors occupying his home (is that spoilers?), their priest leodes supplicates himself at odysseus' feet, begging to be spared. odysseus takes his head from his neck in an instant. odysseus' kneeling before astyanax, therefore, is no simple act between a guest and his host - perhaps he is begging the infant for mercy, for forgiveness, or perhaps he is positioning himself for punishment; in killing astyanax, odysseus accepts his own death. perhaps this means his fate (which, in case of homeric epic, refers to the time and manner of one's death), or perhaps it is a part of him that has died. in just a man, odysseus asks "when does a man become a monster?" his killing astyanax prevents the boy from ever becoming a man, and spares him from a life fueled only by revenge and the need to regain his glorious birthright, and it turns him into a monster. just as he says he would, he trades in the world where he is 'just a man' for a world where he is a cruel beast, all for sake of his family.

(quick detour but i really like how odysseus' focus is primarily on penelope rather than telemachus. [insert deadbeat dad joke here], but in reality, he doesn't even know the boy. penelope he chose to marry and fall in love with - it's no question that he loves telemachus, but after ten years, it is only natural that he would miss his beautiful, tricky wife with more fervour than the child he never had the chance to love. it shows he is imperfect, even illogical - the son is the father's entire legacy. just as odysseus is 'son of laertes', so will telemachus be 'son of odysseus', the protector of his immortal heroic legacy. yet it is penelope whom odysseus yearns for.)

(another detour but "i'm just a man" is such a juicy lyric, because the entire message of homer's odyssey is that odysseus is not any man - he is a man that the muses deem worthy to inspire great poets to compose epic poems that persist through thousands of years and a million different voices - a hero. but epic's odysseus is not that hero. he is a man, trying to go home, craving comfort and the warmth of the hearth. these 'flaws' humanise him more than homer's odysseus could ever imagine.)

skipping over to polyphemus, odysseus violates xenia once again by killing polyphemus' sheep, albeit unwittingly. homer makes this violation very obvious - odysseus and crew eat polyphemus' cheese and wine while polyphemus tends to his sheep, knowing that the cave is obviously inhabited, and they even wait for polyphemus to return to ask for more. it is worth noting as well that, at this point, odysseus and crew are still jubilant about their victory, and unlike in epic, these 'detours' are purposeful, specifically so that odysseus can scope out the islands for anything of interest he can snatch and add to his spoils of war, adding to his kleos by means of physical wealth (timē) - which makes odysseus' offer of treasure to appease polyphemus all the more baffling in epic. this odysseus is a leader who prioritises the lives of his men over his own kleos, which makes the final lines - "you shall be the final man to die" // "what?" // "watch out!" - all the more heartbreaking. he wants to protect his men, so that they too may return to their families back on ithaca; the prospect of watching them die before his eyes after he already witnessed so many lose their lives in battle must be so utterly terrifying.

polyphemus is so excellently creepy as well! i loved him in the odyssey - this was where I really started to dislike odysseus, actually. he's a cyclops, obviously inhuman, yet he rears sheep and makes cheese and wine and weaves wicker baskets to keep them in, trying to play at humanity. i really did sympathise with him from the first time I read it. epic's polyphemus is similar, so very calm in his anger yet ruthless all the same, and demonstrates great restraint in comparison to his counterpart in the odyssey, who gets filthy drunk after mashing six men dead and allows odysseus+co. to fashion a stake with which to blind him. much of the violence against polyphemus, as well as the violation of xenia in homer's odyssey is 'excused' by the fact that polyphemus is a 'barbarian', to whom concepts of civilised people do not belong.

(very quick detour but polyphemus' first admonishment of odysseus - "you killed my sheep" up to "take from you like you took from me" - makes such heartbreaking parallels to astyanax's murder and the sack of troy. it almost provides a visualisation of the guilt that odysseus must still be battling. i would have loved to have been in his brain when he heard polyphemus say that.)

the mercy odysseus shows polyphemus is particularly interesting - homer's odysseus leaves him alive and tells him his name purely so that his name will spread and his kleos will grow. but epic's odysseus, despite his conviction to kill in survive and to avenge is fallen comrades in remember them, spares him. in part, this is to assure them an escape, so that the cyclops' giant body does not block their exit - but athena's interruption makes clear that this is not all. she criticises him, remarks "he is still a threat until he's dead." no doubt this calls back to zeus' warnings about astyanax, hence his refusal (or inability?) to commit to slaughter. for a homeric greek hero to allow a foe to live on after his allies had been slaughtered is a grave failure of reciprocity, casting shame on both the hero and their enemy. homer's odysseus escapes this with his reputation intact, since as a result polyphemus curses him to face poseidon's wrath - as I mentioned, for a hero, even negative attention from the gods is a good thing as it proves that their reputation/glory is known all over, even in olympus. but, as we have established, epic's odysseus cares not for kleos. the decision to tell polyphemus his name is entirely impulsive and irrational, grieving his comrades, hence athena's outrage.

the relationship between athena and odysseus is founded entirely on the principles they share, described in warrior of the mind (if anyone can lmk whereabouts this song fits in the timeline I will be so grateful, I'm stupid unfortunately :/). they value wisdom, reason, and rationality over brute strength and bloodlust. epic's athena becomes odysseus' patron goddess with the goal to "make a greater tomorrow" and "change the world" - aspirations that are entirely foreign to any homeric god. gods in homer do not care about the wellbeing of humans unless they are directly related to them, and they certainly don't care about the wellness of humanity as a whole. humans are toys and tools of the gods. the amount that athena cares for odysseus, even in the odyssey, is unusual, demonstrative of how much she cares for him, yet epic makes their comradery more obvious, even going as far as to (tentatively) call them friends. my goodbye frames athena's anger as disappointment at an experiment failed - calling back to warrior of the mind, where she claims to have "designed" him - but odysseus' replies to her makes clear that it is far more personal. perhaps, to her, odysseus acting so irrationally is even a betrayal; odysseus is abandoning the principles of reason they both once held and thus is forsaking all that they once shared and that she, as the goddess of wisdom, stands for.

ive always considered athena to be a very interesting goddess. she is a patron of both war, which in homer is only carried out by men, and weaving, the traditional work of women within the household - her very nature is a contradiction of masculine and feminine. although it is ares who is considered the 'black sheep' of the olympians for his brutality in war, epic's portrayal of athena through odysseus' lens paints her as lonely and ostracised - "since you claim you're so much wiser // why's your life spent all alone? // you're alone." It is clear that odysseus here does not view her as his patron at all, rather as a friend - and to that she takes offence, because she is a goddess, eternal and all-powerful. she does not need friendship or comradery; those are mortal concerns alone. personally, I see epic's athena as incredibly insecure. she cuts odysseus off because she cannot bare that a mortal has been able to read her so clearly, to see all the ugly parts of herself that she keeps hidden to retain the facade of the perfect goddess. she knows the paradox within herself - warrior and woman, immortal and alone - and rues that odysseus was able to see it as well. the cruellest part, the most ironic, is that his being able to figure out the true, imperfect nature of a god shows that he has not abandoned the path of the warrior of the mind. in fact, his wisdom extends beyond mortality into the realm of the divine. but athena is blinded by her anger and insecurity, and she says her goodbyes. she disappears from there, only to appear again to try to warn odysseus of his crew opening the bag of winds given to him by aeolus in keep your friends close, once again demonstrating her care for him, despite her anger.

the amount that odysseus cares for his crew is demonstrated time and again throughout the album, yet in the end, he still slowly loses their trust. aeolus' winds are the first sign. his crew betrays his orders upon the first whisper on the wind that he might be keeping treasure from them. the next sign, in puppeteer, is eurylochus' confession upon arrival to aeaea (circe's island), which odysseus brushes off, much as he brushed off eurylochus' concerns in luck runs out. then, in a matter of moments, 600 men are reduced to forty by the wrath of poseidon - which in itself is a significant change. while odysseus in epic is explicitly blamed for failing to kill polyphemus, homer's odysseus takes no responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of his men. it happens when they arrive at telepylos, which, unbeknownst to them, is home to the laestrygonians, a race of cannibalistic giants. odysseus, apparently sensing something off (who tf does he think he is, spiderman?), allows his entire fleet to enter the bay of telepylos while his ship alone remains outside - and when those ships are attacked and trapped, he alone takes his single ship and escapes, allowing twelve ships of men to be ripped apart and eaten by cannibals. an act which he shows no remorse for.

in my interpretation of homer's odyssey, it is this slowly slipping trust that eventually leads to his men ignoring his warnings and feasting on the cows of helios which leads to the deaths of all his remaining crew, including eurylochus and polites (spoilers? idk). so, once epic: the musical catches up to book 12 of the odyssey you WILL be seeing me again I hope ur excited.

there is definitely more i could say here, especially about the circe saga bcs ohhh my god I love circe and I love this circe especially (a female character with actual motive other than being a victim? homer could never) but unfortunately I'm running out of steam and I do in fact have 3 essays due this month (help) so I will probably return to this later !! hopefully its readable bcs I'm not going back to edit any of this ;)

[raining-anonymously]

thinking about these interactions in the 1988 film:

Lydia: I wanna be dead too. Barbara: NO!

Lydia: I wanna get in [to the Netherworld]. Betelgeuse: …why?

and then in the musical you’ve got ‘Say My Name,’ where a third of the song is Betelgeuse talking (singing) Lydia out of jumping, and ‘What I Know Now’ is Miss Argentina and the entire Netherworld ensemble telling her to go home and live her life to the fullest.

the fact that this film / show about death has SUCH an emphasis on keeping this depressed teenager alive is so meaningful. and yes, Betelgeuse’s contributions here are quite likely selfish. but from a Doylist perspective, the fact that even HIS immediate reaction to Lydia’s suicidal thoughts is negative makes it mean even more. there is intention here. this is a story about living life.

plus, when we get to ‘Jump in the Line,’ she’s so HAPPY! in both versions! it all makes me really glad they didn’t go with that earlier version where she did die.

[amazingmsme]

so we know that shit suitor who thinks he could pull penelope, antinous, right?

if his name is antinous, hes the enemy of the warrior of the mind.

okay, hear me out,

anti (means against) nous (means the mind)

SO SEE WHERE IM GETTING AT?

THAT’S SO FUCKING COOL ON SO MANY LEVELS! Hold up, let me unpack this, cause holy shit. Obviously Homer knew the meanings of those words & purposefully played around with names & their meanings, like how Odysseus basically means hated or to hate

But on another level that makes me think that Jay really did his research into the names & I really want to believe that perhaps warrior of the mind is somehow intrinsically linked to all of this but I’m probably thinking too deep on this

[finisnihil]

Watching people fight about death of the author and reader response is exhausting like yeah I have respect for death of the author but why are you using death of the author to erase their specific experiences?

Like I see people on TikTok chewing out queer people who get upset when they completely misinterpret Good Luck Babe, like yeah probably because the authorial intent is rooted in queer experience and grief so your reader response of making it about straight women marrying shitty men contributes to erasure of queer experience.

It is well within one's right to declare an author dead and that is healthy for fanbases. Like as an example, lot of Void Archives content I see is rooted in death of the author, because that's how you play with fiction, thats how you make fiction into your own story, you kill the authorial intent and loot it for the concepts you like. It keeps you engaged in the down time between updates on that character's place in the story.

The difference I see between like character/story oriented death of the author and music/art death of the author though is that character/story disregard of authorial intent still uses it as a reference or still reveres core aspects of the character/narrative. For example, Epic the Musical v. The Odyssey. Epic may rely on death of the author in some aspects of the story and characterization, but it still utilizes aspects of the authorial intent. It's an apple that doesn't fall too far from the tree, which is expected for an adaptation of something, but it goes to show that someone liked this character/story as it was. To retextualize too much will make it unrecognizable. It loses what made you fall in love with it.

Stuff like songs, on the other hand, can be liked more freely for other things, like their beat and their style more than their message. It's much easier to have conflicting reader response because I may like Good Luck Babe for its meaning, but so-and-so may like Good Luck Babe for its style and beat and as such, a personal meaning is attached to it that is wildly different from authorial intent.

At the end of the day I feel like it's a delicate balance with lots of nuance. Reader response is valuable but authorial intent is as well, especially when the subject matter struggles to exist without the context of the author. Sometimes, the killing of authorial intent is an act of malice and negligence and sometimes it's a new perspective on a broad environment and discussion. I feel what's important is knowing when and where to prioritize authorial intent or reader response. For as many specific pieces of art, there are also vague ones meant to have a personal value based on your experience with it. Extremism kills nuance, and putting too many coins in one side's scale will only break your place in the measurement.

[lenievi]

ok so what I kind of alluded to in this post the other day

like choices were made with bbc!Javert that's for sure but also he is not unrecognizable

from the beginning, they decided that Javert would have power. He was not just helping in Toulon, he was the guy there. He had no one to answer to, he had no superiors there. He followed the law and the rules of Toulon, cruelly and coldheartedly.

And so they established his character to be like this. Then he became a policeman and got promoted to an inspector and assigned to Montreuil. We were supposed to see him working under Madeleine, but they decided that bbc!Javert would recognize him immediately - there was zero doubt in his mind.

"Good God! it is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just. Come! if you had been what I thought you, I should not have been kind to you, not I! You would have seen!" (Hapgood)

(the translation I'm reading is using "good" (because the French is using "bon") and not "kind", but I think it doesn't matter much)

So bbc!Javert had no reason to act extremely respectfully and deferentially (in some way, he acted as Javert in the book before Madeleine became the mayor, but bbc!Javert was more forward and open about it. We only got very little from that period in the book; and the most we got was him provoking Madeleine during the cart scene).

And because bbc!Javert always knew, his character needed to be kept consistent and so his characterization would be mainly taken from Fantine's arrest and Valjean's arrest.

Javert doesn't listen to people he deems to be criminals. He doesn't care. Any protestation will make him angry, he will raise his voice. Javert enjoys power and hates when his authority is mocked and threatened.

During Valjean's arrest, Javert is petty, he literally stomps his foot, he even grasps Valjean's coat, cravat and shirt. He is elated, cruel, and uncaring.

“I tell you that there is no Monsieur Madeleine and that there is no Monsieur le Maire. There is a thief, a brigand, a convict named Jean Valjean! And I have him in my grasp! That’s what there is!” (Hapgood)

During the Montreuil era, bbc!Javert is a version of book!Javert that excluded the presence of a superior Javert would respect, i.e. Madeleine, imho. There was only a thief and a criminal present for bbc!Javert, and so he behaved accordingly.

[saphosticated]

I saw a Tik-Tok of someone explaining that they recently had the realisation that Espresso by Sabrina Carpenter was actually not about caffeine keeping someone awake at nights. Good for them. But, people were still arguing about it in the comments.

1. Media Literacy is dead

2. Do I need to analyse every-single pop song and explain the figurative meanings with my whiteboard?

(This does not apply to the Taylor Swift fans, you guys go off on your deep dives of potential intertextuality)

[breadbutrosestoo]

Quick, first impression analysis of Hozier's "Wildflower and Barley" from the new EP

Springtime in the country Each time, I'm shocked by the light The world lying fallow And you are apart from me Everything in my vision is movement and life Riverboat, wheelbarrow, wildflower and barley

“The world lying fallow” - fallow can mean “characterized by inaction; unproductive” but also it can mean “plowed and harrowed but left unsown for a period in order to restore its fertility as part of a crop rotation or to avoid surplus production”. I find that I like the second definition more because in covid times, that’s what happened (although it wasn’t planned). For example, the sea animals were coming back to the canals in Italy because the water was healing. Nature was healing. Though the world was unproductive, life isn’t necessarily synonymous to productivity like how we as humans have been led to believe. Your life isn’t characterized by what you do because life is an innate quality.

Though life at that time was in a state of limbo, life moves on (aka the last line). It's interesting that this is set in the springtime specifically because spring is the month of renewal. After the months of winter where nature is basically taking a break from any sort of growth and all growth has been stopped, spring and it's rays of light that are contrasted from the darker, cloudy winter days is a ray of hope and the start of renewal.

Springtime in the country I can smell summer on its breath Low and harrowed lie the fields and the heart of me Everything in my vision, departure and death Riverboat, wheelbarrow, wildflower and barley

This stanza plays on the first one because it’s practically the same lines yet it has substituted the speaker’s vision of life by death. However, the line about departure and death is followed by the same line that was to describe movement and life. Though there is death and departure, life moves on. The riverboats keep moving down the river, the wheelbarrow keeps rolling along, wildflowers always bloom in spring, barley grows into food for sustenance (to keep life living).

The fields are low and harrowed, waiting uneasily for action and the cultivation of food are exactly like his heart because he is waiting without a deadline for the time in which he can live life freely and love you again.

(The healers) This year, I swear it will be buried in actions (Are healing) This year, I swear it will be buried in words (The diggers are digging the earth) Some close to the surface, some close to the casket (I feel as useful as dirt) Useful as dirt Put my body to work Mmm (Ooh) Mmm (Ooh)

Whenever Hozier sings a song w another person I love the way in which he mixes two different storylines in the chorus (damage gets done). What is being buried in actions? What’s being buried in words? What is close to the surface and also close to the casket? Idk. It’s gone a little bit over my head. If I had to guess, I think he’s making a big metaphor from humans to plants (omg wow has he ever before done this like ever?).

(For these next two paragraphs ignore the parenthesized lines in the chorus) (first line = “this year, I swear it will be buried in actions)

Plant- first two lines (seeds of growth buried underground), third line (some close to breaking out into the world, some not budding at all), fourth line (though dirt is useful because it is the environment of the seed, the seed itself is useful because it is the thing that grows) fifth line (seed is put to work to renew life)

Human- first two lines (we are going to be doing things, we are going to be speaking, we are going to be living, though not productive, the mere act of living and just doing things regardless of impact is action and words and ultimately us living life) third line (some are close to making it out of the year and able to break out and do something greater, some die) fourth line (we are as useful to the world and the continuation of life as the environment outside of us, we are the ones that facilitate the growth of the plants and life in the dirt that holds the life we create in it) fifth line (I’m going to put my body to work and because we are innately full of life just by being alive, living and dying regardless of what happens to us is continuing life and renewing life)

“The healers are healing” and “the diggers are digging” are interesting because I have found both a straightforward meaning and a more creative one. “Healers” line could literally mean people are healing from covid and “diggers” line could literally mean people are farming. Also, “healers” line could mean people are participating in the continuation of life by healing others but people are also participating in the continuation of life by digging people’s graves when they die. Though dying seems like the end of life and the antithesis of life, it contributes to the duality of life and therefore a part of life.

I don't have much to say initially about the rest of the song because although there are little changes here and there, there isn't anything significant. But, I do want to talk more about the song as a whole. I hadn't read Inferno or known anything about the circles of hell but I did do a bit of research when I found out this was inspired by the first circle aka limbo. It’s oftentimes described as “a place of sorrow without torment” and that’s how the he's experiencing the world around him. I think when I first read this, I was so confused with the tone it was trying to convey (whether it was optimistic or pessimistic) because one line would be like “life persists” and the next will be like “we’re surrounded by death” but it makes sense to erase the idea of a one sided view of life and make room for the infinite shades. There can be space for two things at once. In the first circle of hell, the people that are in it are the unbaptized and the virtuous pagans. These people were good, they didn’t sin, yet they aren’t able to reach heaven because of the circumstances they have given. It is a lonely, forever existence and though it isn't heaven, it isn't hell. Life is sort of like that because though life comes with the pain of death and sorrow, it also comes with the renewal of life and death is simply a part of this cycle. I was just about to write the next sentence to be something like “therefore, we should be grateful for life and ourselves” but I think this is the wrong statement to write for this song because this song I feel lacks judgement. Like how limbo feels like a vague void of opposing forces yet the combination of those, it is less talking about the human condition through the lens of “what’s right” or “what’s wrong” and it’s more holding up a mirror to life and nonexistence of singularity. But even though there is no single human and natural story, there is one constant which is renewal and the innate continuation of life. Our death is life and our life is death. 

Please let me know what you think about this song because I'm frankly obsessed and my head is spinning because this song honestly feels the most obscure to me in meaning compared to the other three on the EP.

[m3r1m4r5u333]

I saw some people critiqueing Hozier's Too Sweet for "the quality of the lyrics being low", being too "mainstream", too "pop".

I don't know if I want to laugh or despair. Like obviously nobody is obligated to like a song, but sneering that the lyrics are too "popsongy" is just such an unfair, dumb take to me.

This song is exactly the sort of song that would be perfect for teaching literary/lyric/art analysis because it's so much deeper than it appears to be when you first hear it.

It's upbeat, catchy, sounds like a basic breakup-song at first glance, right?

It's a love song - sounds like the protagonist is talking to a lover, right?

...Is it though? Listen again, read the lyrics.

I think it's really quite political. It's a society critique. I think it's about (willful) ignorance, wearing blindfolds in a world that's burning.

"Baby I can never tell/

How do you sleep so well?"

Also, "You're too sweet for me". The line sounds like it's about lack of self-worth. ... Is it, though? Maybe it's an expression of disgust. People who like their coffee unsweetened tend to go "yack" when the coffee is sweetened.

Also, he sings "I think I'll take my whiskey neat". Sounds like a simple line... Is it? Hozier is irish. To quote wikipedia:

"Uisce beatha (Irish pronunciation: [ˈɪʃcə ˈbʲahə]), literally "water of life", is the name for whiskey in Irish. It is derived from the Old Irish uisce ("water") and bethu ("life").[1] "

"A neat whiskey" btw means that the whiskey is pure, as it is, not even ice added.

So the chorus:

I think I'll take my whiskey neat

My coffee black and my bed at three

You're too sweet for me

You're too sweet for me

I take my whiskеy neat

My coffee black and my bed at three

You're too sweet for mе

You're too sweet for me

... Kinda sounds like the idea is that the protagonist thinks that he's a better person than the one who is "too sweet", who ignores the dark, bitter things in life, and takes their world "sweetened".

However, I think the chorus is actually also a self-critique. Are you really doing much if you're drinking a black coffee? Sure, it sounds all moody, bitter and cool, but anyone who knows anything about the coffee industry knows that whenever you're drinking coffee you are also kinda wilfully ignoring all sorts of problems caused and surrounding the coffee industry.

"A neat whiskey" sounds like you're taking the world as it is... But what is alcohol but oblivion?

"Taking the bed at three" also sounds quite deep, like you're choosing to see the darkness of this world instead of avoiding it. Staying up, or not being able to sleep, hardly solves any problems either, though.

I could go on analyzing the song, but I think I'll leave it at that. I think the beauty of the lyrics is that the lines are so multidimensional.

Like when he sings "I aim low", is he talking about ambitions, punches, or Hell? Something else?

I certainly feel gut-punched, as I always do, when I listen to Hozier!

Edit. Oh and the music video!! Ants nesting in a desert. That's us, people, isn't it?

[depresstrogen]

ANNOUNCEMENT: An Analysis of Transgender Dysphoria Blues

On May 24, 2012, Rolling Stone introduced Laura Jane Grace to the world. Laura was already a well-established figure in punk music (for better or for worse) for her role as the lead member of Against Me!, but she was known by a different name and as a different gender. While not the only high-profile transgender musical artist in history (Wendy Carlos and Kim Petras come to mind), Laura is one of the biggest, and she has gone on to inspire thousands of trans people, punks, and trans punks (such as myself).

2 years after the Rolling Stone article, Against Me! released Transgender Dysphoria Blues, a landmark album in the history of queer music. So, I thought that, in honor of the start of pride month, I would finally get started on a project I've been thinking about for a while: a complete lyrical and musical breakdown and analysis of TDB. I intend to interpret TDB as a concept album telling two simultaneous stories, one Laura's own story of coming out and the other the story of a trans sex worker. This is a large project, so it will come in the form of 5 essays:

(Brief content warning here (there will be more detailed ones at the start of each essay) for discussion of transphobia, familial rejection and trauma, death, and suicide, and for use of anti-trans and generally anti-queer slurs)

Part 1 - Prologue: A brief overview of Laura's career up until the release of TDB through quotes from Laura's autobiography Tranny and the analysis of 4 pre-TDB songs: The Disco Before the Breakdown, Pretty Girls (The Mover), Searching For a Former Clarity, and The Ocean.

Part 2 - Introduction: Laura introduces both herself and the main character of the album (who I'm calling the True Trans Soul Rebel, or just the Rebel for short) through the first two tracks, Transgender Dysphoria Blues and True Trans Soul Rebel.

Part 3 - Rejection: Laura and the Rebel both deal with discrimination, rejection, and even violence from family, friends, and society at large on the next three tracks, Unconditional Love, Drinking with the Jocks, and Osama Bin Laden as the Crucified Christ.

Part 4 - Loss: Mounting anxiety and insecurity comes to a head for both Laura and the Rebel as they both lose friends and lovers and are left contemplating loss and death on the tracks Fuckmylife666, Dead Friend, and Two Coffins.

Part 5 - Death and Rebirth: The Rebel hits rock bottom and commits suicide on new years' eve on the penultimate track Paralytic States, but on the same evening Laura, also close to giving in, finally decides to come out to the world as she eulogizes the Rebel on the final track Black Me Out.

[that-ari-blogger]

Content. Warning. (Poison)

Hazbin Hotel has a predicament that I haven’t really come across anywhere else. The episode that I would use to recommend this series is also the episode that I would use to recommend people away.

I would recommend another tale for the characters and the storyline and how the writers weaved in a dissection of subject matter more nuanced than I expected. But Hazbin Hotel is, in my opinion, at its best when it deals with that material front and centre.

There’s a reason I have titled this post what I have. Episode four of this series isn’t shy about what it’s talking about. But there’s an interesting difference between the idea of something being subtle and something being nuanced, and there’s also another weird thing about this episode and especially the first song contained therein.

Masquerade feels like it is written by a comedian, and I mean that in the most straight faced, complimentary way possible.

Let me explain.

CONTENT WARNING: (Mention of Abuse, Mental Health, Sexual Assault, Addiction, Bodily Harm)

SPOILERS AHEAD: (Hazbin Hotel, Six)

I am an absolutely awful judge of the cultural zeitgeist, but I have observed that the music I like rarely gets described as “pop”. Partially, this is because I see a bunch of people liking a specific thing and I walk in the opposite direction, but partially this is because my musical taste isn’t limited to any specific genre.

My main musical tastes are centred around the emotionality of the song, rather than the musical distinctions. I will look at Harry Styles’ Watermelon Sugar and think it’s nice to listen to, but I will gravitate towards Olivia Rodrigo’s Vampire because of the emotional journey that song takes me on. The former of those two makes you want to dance; the latter makes you want to shout your rage at the sky.

Naturally, this leads me to ballads, songs that tell a story. The Crane Wives are particularly good at these, Curses is the archetypical example of a tale of personal guilt. But, for the sake of a constant thematic, let’s talk about Bitter Medicine for a moment.

“I bite my tongue to keep the worst of the words in So they don’t hurt nobody but me Swallow the poison I wanna spit Bitter medicine I think it’s making me sick Don’t look up to me I’m not as tall as you think You see, I talk a big game But it’s bullshit”

Bitter medicine is about bad coping mechanisms, kind of. The Crane Wives excels at exploring powerful emotions but leaves the scenarios open to interpretation. It’s not how you got here that matters, but where “here” is.

This is why the same few of their songs have gained popularity in Asexual spaces as well as in spaces for those recovering from their own actions. Reformed abusers and aces don’t tend to share much, except for a feeling of guilt.

It’s an unfortunate part of the ace experience that the realising of who you are feels like a betrayal. It feels like you have strung someone along with promises you can’t keep. I’ve been there, and it feels awful.

I do want to stress that this isn’t betrayal in reality. Being ace does not make you a bad person, you haven’t actually strung someone along. You are valid, end of argument.

The issue is that the mind isn’t always a rational thing. Sometimes it internalises things in an unhealthy way. Odds are the partner who you think you betrayed wouldn’t agree with you on that. People that like you have a habit of supporting you.

Essentially, part of being ace is that self-imposed guilt. Not every ace goes through it, but for those who do, that feeling is difficult to overcome.

But that idea of being the reason a relationship fallen apart has a lot of other applicable situations, hence the diversity of popularity.

Bitter Medicine isn’t about that, its about guilt for feeling bad. Its about the type of trauma response that is selfishness masquerading as selflessness.

The emotion on display is pain, with a song about bottling up everything until it explodes. You can’t be angry, you can’t be sad, you can’t let people help you because "there’s nothing wrong". You just have to keep things tight to your chest and let other people suffer. This is a song about becoming distant from those who can see you hurting and can’t do anything to help you.

It's about how bad coping mechanisms act as a poison that can’t be escaped, almost like an addiction.

The music video centres around the idea of others getting caught up in the crossfire of internal emotions. It’s monochromatic so you can see the stains left behind even more starkly, and those stains get everywhere. The protagonist has to be rescued by these others, but she has to let them.

You will notice that ballads don’t usually tell you the events of their stories. Everything is a metaphor; everything is a symbol. Sometimes a song will tell you outright what’s going on. That’s a strength of the medium, not a plot hole.

Which leads me to a song called Poison, a ballad that is entirely centred around the metaphor of its title.

Poison was written by Alice Cooper (with help from Desmond Child and John McCurry) and released in 1989 as a single, and it is surreal.

It’s about Cooper’s alcohol and drug addictions, which is weird considering the lyrics are ostensibly about someone he’s in a relationship with, and that’s the point.

The song depicts Cooper’s addiction as an abusive relationship, dedicating the song to that part. It’s singing to “you”, as if he’s in conversation with it, telling it to its face all the damage that he has taken.

This is personification, ascribing a will to an inanimate object, although its more than that. In this case, it’s ascribing an attraction to the object, a seductiveness. He blames himself for falling for a trap and frames the song as his own realisation of his agency. He got himself into this situation, he recognises what the problem is, he decides where to go from here.

I want to highlight that the central metaphor is used differently in both songs mentioned above. That’s part of the fun of literary analysis. Everything works together to provide context for everything else.

Poison is a song about alcoholism, so it uses the titular concept to focus on the realisation and consequences. Bitter Medicine focuses on how the poison masquerades as a cure to emphasise its point about bad coping mechanisms being traps. Hazbin Hotel’s Poison is the opposite of all these things.

The song in Hazbin Hotel is about an abusive relationship, and it uses the poison to step in for the addictiveness of that. It’s a reverse of Alice Cooper’s song, comparing a person to a drug rather than the other way around.

It is also gloriously unsubtle in a way that is really difficult to explain, so I’m going to have to use another, wildly different example.

I recently read a book called This Gilded Abyss. It’s by Rebecca Thorne (@rebeccathornewrites), and it struck me as a book that was graceful in the same way that a person can be “cool”. It’s not pompously dancing around clever wordplay. The book feels like the art is in the tale, rather than the telling, and I mean that in the best way. It’s more art than form.

The reason I bring this up is because that is the same feeling I get from listening to Hazbin Hotel’s Poison. There are cool details in the presentation, sure, but they are outshone entirely by the emotion on display. I don’t listen to the song or read the book to dwell on the fine details, not because they aren’t there, but because the story has me in a death grip and I am too enthralled by it to pay attention.

I could talk about how Poison uses high notes to ground itself, I could talk about how the songs instruments imply a fakeness. But that doesn’t seem like the point to me. Instead, I want to elaborate on what I said earlier about this song and comedy writing.

The song isn’t funny, per say. If you were insincere, you could point out that this is about a spider singing to a moth, so haha jokey joke joke. But that’s the key. Sincerity.

The golden rule of comedy is “commit to the bit”. It’s less funny to draw back and undercut yourself than it is to subvert expectations or do something dumb and go for it, despite seeing it coming a mile away.

I was a theatre kid (if you are shocked by this, welcome to the blog), and I remember being told by the theatre sports coach that for a joke to be funny, it can never be acknowledged as such. I don't know how much I agree with this, but it's a useful idea.

Hazbin Hotel does this in a big way with its entire design. It’s set in hell, and the main character is the most optimistic person you will ever meet. Pentious is a villain, and also a goober, and the show does not acknowledge the inherent silliness of this for a moment.

As such, the punchline of Poison is the final verse, which is a tour de force of Blake Roman’s acting skill. Everything cuts away and you get the emotional centre of the entire song. It’s like the dick joke you can see coming, but instead of making you laugh, it destroys you.

This is how the final scream in All You Wanna Do works. The song part of the musical Six, which I hope to cover on this blog at some point and follows the breaking down of Katherine Howard. She is seeking a kinship without any preconceptions, but everyone around her views her as nothing more than a vehicle for sex.

At the end of the song, she screams out into the stage:

"Bite my lip and pull my hair as you tell me I'm the fairest of the fair."

Six is a tragedy that has already happened. The characters know their fates, but the audience gets to learn them in real time, and is powerless but to watch with joy that turns rapidly into horror.

In this case, Howard hasn't been allowed to complain. She's been something pretty for people to look upon, and she has to be happy, right? She's married to the king. But she isn't, because nobody has at any point asked what it is that she wants.

So, she screams, letting all that rage and frustration out, letting the audience know how she really feels, and displaying her complete vulnerability in the face of history, and then she is gone, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Poison also does this with each chorus. There are mini punchlines, mini beats that make you react and keep you interested.

“What’s the worst part of this hell? I can only blame myself.”

This forms a bridge to the chorus, drawing you back like an arrow in a bowstring to send you rocketing forwards into an aggressively upbeat flurry of music. The same thing happens later on in the song.

“So far beyond difficult, To resist another gulp.”

This is use of the titular metaphor, but its also ascribing blame. Angel has been abused and sexually assaulted by Valentino, and this is the song about how he has internalised that. Namely, through condemning himself.

There are two things to note here, and I think the series disagrees with Angel on both accounts.

First up, there is the importance of proportionality. Falling for someone with more red flags than a beach in shark season wasn’t a good decision, I think we can all agree on that, but it doesn’t condemn someone to abuse.

Especially since this is the internet for Pete's sake. You only have to imply that a character is attractive, and you will have a collection of people who will defend their every move. Part of this is the "I can fix him" mentality and the fact that fictional characters aren't real, but still. Come on.

Second up, is Angel really to blame? More to blame than, say, Valentino? The victim is blaming himself for his victimhood, in order to deflect from the person who has put himself in that situation.

Episode four has one scene in it that is both my favourite and my least favourite, the one in which Charlie sets fire to the set.

This was a scene that made me reflect on the difference between something being good craft and something being enjoyable, as Valentino’s switch in tone when moving between Angel and Charlie is so viscerally uncomfortable that it made me pause the episode to sit back and take it in. It’s intentionally jarring, and it's not trying to present this character as benevolent.

What it is trying to do is present Valentino as seductive, someone who has two modes that he can switch between. Angel fell for the nice Valentino who got the gifts and was kind and charming and was blindsided by the more aggressive version of this character.

In other words, the highs were what he was drawn in by, the lows caught him off guard. Valentino is like a drug.

This truly is the opposite of Alice Cooper’s song. Where that personified the drug to give it agency, Angel dehumanises Valentino to place the agency on himself and take the blame.

“Because I know you’re poison, you’re feeding me poison. Addicted to this feeling I can’t help but swallow up your poison. I made my choice and every night I’m living like there’s no tomorrow.”

If we focus on the line I put in bold, there’s some similarity to another song, previously in the musical.

“Hell is forever, whether you like it or not. Had their chance to behave better now they boil in a pot”

The idea that choices are final and that everyone gets one chance that they must then commit to is a key antagonistic force in the series. The show is about hope, and the desire for things to get better, but Heaven and Angel say that if you make a decision, the rest of your life must be dedicated to the follow up of that.

If you got into a bad relationship, sucks to suck, you’re stuck there. If you got into a bind and had to do dark things to stay alive, sorry, no redoes.

There's a word for this: "Damnation".

Committing to the bit here is making the bit your entire deal. The theme is the dichotomy between change and stagnation, and every source of conflict comes from that one concept. It’s milking the joke for all its worth, but again, repurposed.

Although, there is one other advantage that comedians have in storytelling, an advantage I like to call the “What’s My Mother’s Name?” Moment.

Sam Riegel is a voice actor and a regular cast member on Critical Role. He is famous for being incredibly funny, but also for his relationship with humour. Several times across the series’ three campaigns, it has become clear that Riegel was being fully serious, and neither the audience not the cast saw it coming until far too late.

There’s an obvious example here but let’s get topical and talk about the latest episode of the series, as of writing this.

“He had a perspective and a goal and he laid it out very clearly. He wanted to get his family back and assume power. He did not set out to kill a city, to destroy a city. He wanted to get back with his family. The others prevented him. He gave them a choice to sit down at a table and they said, ‘No, we'd rather kill a city.’”

Riegel is playing Braius Doomseed, a minotaur champion of an evil deity, and in episode 102, there is a discussion of what has gone before. Braius starts to make a case for one of the villainous deities, and the rest of the cast assumes he’s just joking and committing to the bit. Instead, Reigel commits to the bit so thoroughly that he bypasses humour and plays it straight. This is someone genuinely making a case for the lord of the hells.

The question isn’t about when Reigel started beings serious because he’s always been that. The question, is “when did he stop being funny?”

Hazbin Hotel does this with Poison, and it causes the audience to reflect on what has gone before. All of Angels’s actions up to this point have now been recontextualised, and it's far too late to do anything about it. Angel has always been serious, the show has always been aware of this character as a damaged person, but now the lighting is different, and you aren’t shielded by the joke.

The punchline is the commitment to the bit.

Final Thoughts

I’ve seen a lot of praise online for this song, and while I agree that this song’s grip on you is unbreakable, I think that it gets outdone by the very next number.

I also want to point out why, in my opinion, episode four is the best in the series.

The show has a pacing problem, it’s in a hurry to tell its story because it’s had artificial constraints put upon it. But Masquerade takes its time and gives you a story without compromises and without outside input. In my eyes, this is a flawless episode of television.

Next week, we will stick with the episode, and look at Loser Baby, and how hope becomes triumph. Stick around if that interests you.

Previous - Next