You See Whenever I Dont Understand Someone's Sexuality Or Gender Or Pronouns Or Whatever I Go "ohwell

you see whenever i dont understand someone's sexuality or gender or pronouns or whatever i go "ohwell this has nothing to do w me!" and move on w my day

The Ithaca Saga: What IS a Monster, how it’s presented, and when fictional S.A is integral to the plot.

So -

This was originally a response to @ / anniflamma which you can still find on my page unedited. But with the new discourse surrounding the suitors, I figured I could retool it as a standalone essay to express a topic I’ve been trying to pin down for a while now; What exactly does the mean when they call a character a monster? What do they do, do the reasons matter, and how does the subject of rape affect how the fandom consider some monsters more unforgivable than others? When IS rape in fiction “necessary” and why such questions defeat the purpose of exploratory creative works.

In this post we will discuss all the major antagonists of the Epic Musical, Penelope’s agency, the label of Monster and the types of moralizing one might do when faced with uncomfortable subjects in fiction and how to prevent these feelings from blinding is about what a story is trying to say.

For those who read my original response; there’s new content to read here and posts that will be referred to, if you’d like to give it another gander!

Thank you,

Let’s begin;

I think making the threat of rape explicit was very much needed, actually.

It’s come to my attention that there are people here and on tiktok who are so uncomfortable with the subject matter in this CENTURIES old tale that they’re both refusing to accept that it plays an important part in the original poem and musical, AND are bizarrely insisting that Jorge should have magically done away with it to make more palatable.

This is beyond juvenile - it’s a clear sign of media illiteracy.

What, if I may ask, do you think it means when you say that the suitors are going to force Penelope to choose one of them to marry.

You may respond that they want to take over Ithaca. That they want to be king. But take a moment to consider what forcing a woman to marry one of them will entail. I wonder if you think that one can divorce the idea of sexual violence in this plot.

It would be…unfathomably difficult to do so. Because you CANT. There is an implicit threat of Penelope’s will breaking and having to have unwilling and reluctant sex with any one of them in the event she just gave up and picked one.

This isn’t a storyline that depicts Penelope of being willing to marry any of the suitors. She is WAITING for her husband’s return. Even if he doesn’t, she doesn’t WANT to marry someone else. Her consent is being violated by the very merit of them being in her palace, eating her food, and threatening her son.

They’re doing ALL OF THIS in order to bend her will in the HOPES of raping her as a bonus to becoming king of Ithaca.

My contention is the use of “unnecessary” when it comes to this trope in media - though themes of rape can be uncomfortable, to call them unnecessary HAVE to meet certain criteria. Which this specific instance doesn’t.

By observing various responses, it’s clear that the threat of rape went completely over many’s head in this instance of the story. So I very must appreciate Jorge making it SO clear that it’s upsetting.

This part of the odyssey, and the musical, is very much about Penelope suffering under the threat of assault for YEARS. In the same way Odysseus was (a thing I touched upon in my calypso essay, in terms of his ambiguous situation in the musical) - it’s a parallel that works as both Antinous and Calypso were introduced (regardless on your personal interpretation of what Calypso did or did not do, but that’s neither here nor there).

It has taken an emotional and psychological toll of either spouse. And the kicker is that neither of them are freed of this situation on their own - they are both rescued by outside forces. Athena/Hermes helps free Odysseus; Athena/Odysseus will help free Penelope.

The looming threat of rape is SO necessary that it helps the catharsis factor we feel toward PENELOPE’s story - it’s nothing to do w Odysseus who by now is a force of nature as big as Poseidon, his actions happen TO her, and it’s up to her to decide (per “would you love me” ) what she feels about that. She can very well reject him! She’s suffered under male violence for YEARS. Odysseus’s violence and those of the suitors toward her are basis enough for the comparison.

Do all men, including her husband, become violent? Does she want to put up with that? We know from her song snippets that she is NOT a woman that simply succumbs to the Rape Rescue trope as suggested by ignorant consumers of media - and I call it ignorance and consumerism because there’s a clear lack of engaging with the material in an intuitive way. It’s just blind consumption - as if one bites into a burger and find a pickle, which you personally don’t like, and having it removed - you can’t treat ART that way .

Penelope is a very intuitive and emotionally intelligent queen. Stop infantilizing her. Her own husband suggests that like the suitors, his actions make him just as bad as they are and presents his hope as being understanding if she rejects him on those grounds. But those ARENT her grounds. She has full autonomy and can make a distinction FOR HERSELF whether she considers her husband equal to the monsters who have harmed her.

So let’s talk about the “Monster” label as it is presented on the entire musical.

Some have erroneously suggested that Odysseus has been given an out to commit cruel and ruthless deeds with out “good justification” - he does it for his family,, after all!

Which is a misunderstanding of everything every antagonist of each saga has done.

Let’s start with the Troy Saga: Odysseus has killed a BABY. He made the choice to put his family over this child. Everything he has done and lost would be for literally NOTHING if he hadn’t, as even if he had killed the suitors and regained everything - the GODS themselves would make sure that child would come to an aged Odysseus and slaughter him, Penelope, Telemachus and his entire kingdom when he came of age.

Odysseus STARTS as a monster. We have been rooting for the man who laid Troy and its children asunder. As such, the label of a monster is NOT so much a morally subjective label - it simply a thing that IS. Or rather. It is what ALL the antagonists ARE, but it’s hardly a condemnation of any of them.

(Peep that one of the first lines Ody says refers back to in the Vengeance Saga is what he did to Troy - he STILL views his actions over there as unforgivable, so not even HE will ever see himself otherwise, the problem was that he felt so guilty over it that he became a detriment (a different kind of monster) to his friends and family when they were all guilty of the same thing and trying to get home.)

ALL of the antagonists have a “good reason” to kill ALL the soldiers (who again, have looted and slaughtered the Trojans) Odysseus and his close friends included. Whether your AGREE is almost irrelevant…because the story itself proposes that it’s irrelevant.

The next saga introduces the cyclops: his motivation is primarily that his FRIENDS the sheep have been slaughtered. You can argue in the scope of things, you can’t empathize with this but it’s his good reason. He’s the son of a god, and these sheep are all he has. His friends, who matter to him as much as Polites does to Ody, are being taken and slain, he is being drugged, attacked and maimed. VERY much was Ody goes through in the final saga. And even so.

The Cyclops is antagonistic to the party, he’s a monster who feels justified killing to avenge his killed sheep. A monster is a thing he IS.

As Poseidon’s son, he asks his father to kill the 600 men who have ransacked his home and beat on him. He doesn’t view his father as being wrong for this. In the same ways Ody and Telemachus don’t waste any time addressing the slain suitors later on. Poseidon is a monster of a god - it’s just a thing he is. Not even being stabbed 100 times is enough to repay the harm he’s done - to most everyone, not just Ody, but we are not asked to quantify that. Just live with it.

Circe has killed NUMEROUS men over the years. HER “good reason” is that something bad happened to her nymphs when she let a stranger in her islands. She doesn’t even promise that she WONT kill in the future - her song ends w the suggestion that the world may continue to need her to puppeteer! Because she does not exist to be “redeemed” - she is somewhat more reasonable and capable of empathy than even the likes Athena, who being a greater and more powerful god, does not have the one on one affection to her follows as Circe does. She’s a monster! It’s a label, a thing she IS.

So here we begin to ask; is it LOVE that gives people the capacity to do monstrous things? Because the cyclops loved his sheep friends, Poseidon loves his son, Circe loves her nymphs.

And by now you’re saying now wait a minute didn’t the Underworld Saga go over this? Why yes it did! And Odysseus decides to “become the monster” - he already IS one by the standards of the cyclops, Poseidon, Troy - they all see him as a monstrous being. But he accepts that, after being one in Troy, he held back and ruined the lives of his men, making him a monster to THEM. His “good reason” for being so!

He attempts very hard to be the General he was in Troy and prioritize them going home, sparing no sympathy towards his enemies - but in the Thunder Saga we see the gods further push him to be completely self-serving like they are. The sun gods cows are harmed, he sends Zeus in relation - his “good reason” being his friend were personally harmed.

Odysseus’s “good reason” is ultimately decided to be the same good reason he had to slaughter the Trojans - to get back home to his wife and son.

Like with the Cyclops sheep, Circe’s nymphs, The Sun gods cows, and Poseidons son, WE are shocked and made to feel some type of way about Odyseuss’s reasoning. Surely HIS personal suffering shouldn’t cost the lives of “innocent” men…but it does! It surely does.

He is a monster. It’s just a thing he IS.

Now, Odysseus spends the next seven years under the thumb of ANOTHER monster. And through calypso own reasoning, despite her tragic backstory, her “good reason” she IS a monster. She’s incapable of understanding why she wasn’t reciprocated. Incapable of empathizing with a human because as a god who has spent eternity alone, it stands to reason she, like all the other monsters mentioned before, prioritizes HER personal suffering over everyone else’s. In some versions she either kills herself or does spend the rest of eternity alone. She’s a monster. This is a thing she IS.

Now what the HELL does all this have to do with the suitors?

Odysseus started the musical a MONSTER. He’s worn different hats, but it is what he IS. It’s a label, not a moral critique.

ALL of the antagonists of every saga have a “good reason” NONE of them are ruthless for ruthlessness sake! It’s immaterial whether you agree with them or not, but to understand them for what they are.

Odysseus is the antagonist of the ithica saga, md while the suitors are the antagonist to him and his family, we see their fate form THEIR POV

The suitors could not have been depicted as “rude youthful men” like Telemachus. That Odysseus killing them should be shocking - a frightening condemnation of everything he’s done and became. But I ask once again - in what world are the suitors not implicitly set up as monsters?

Because again. They aren’t being rude for rudeness’s sake! They aren’t JUST eating Penelope’s food and sleeping in HER house. Them threatening Telemachus, as you propose, isn’t “enough” of a reason because they didn’t wake up one day beefing w this boy. Everything they do is for the express purpose of sexual violence towards the Queen of Ithaca, who upon assaulting, will make it so any one of them will be King.

You can’t separate the one from the other. You get a nonsense scenario. The whole REASON they’re there in the first place.

Even if you create a fanfic where 108 men wake up one day and raid the palace to slaughter the royal family with no intent of sexually assaulting either (because remember Telemachus is also the subject of Hold Em Down) and then fight amongst themselves to be the next king, but then isn’t that STILL a “good reason” for Odysseus to slaughter them?

Now I hear what you may be asking: but if all the monsters of the sagas, Odysseus included, have a “good reason” even though we might not agree with it, what kind of monsters does that make the suitors? Surely and clearly THEY aren’t doing what they’re doing for noble reasons.

I consider them akin to the 600 men who died under their captains command.

Because, as stated before. Odysseus views his actions in a Troy as his start of monstrosity. He did all that to finish the war and do back home. He ruined the lives of all Trojans.

So did his soldiers.

The only moment in time (even in the deleted songs) that the bulk of them repent about the war is in terms that it left them without food.

But glasses! They were just following orders!

Which is what one of the suitors suggest in song 38. Their serpents head is dead, THEY were just going with Antinous’ flow, they are innocent.

Like the 600 soldiers, the 108 suitors sacked a home that wasn’t theirs and harmed a wife and child - does them being the queen and prince pale in comparison to the hundreds of wives and children slain in Troy? Homer is a genius to ask us to see these parallels for what it is.

The suitors ARE monsters. That is simply what all 108 of them are. In the context of the story itself, their intent is to break Penelope’s will, commit martial rape, and become king of Ithaca. They aren’t there for kicks, they aren’t ignorant boys, they’re socially accepted adults abusing the hospitality rule with an express purpose.

So a GROUP of monsters are slaughtered by ANOTHER monster, and though in this instance we can argue it’s morally justifiable, it doesn’t take away from Odysseus’s fear of being rejected by his family. He has ruined the lives of the Trojans, his men, AND multiple gods! To get to this point. He IS a monster. And the story asks US, through Penelope, if he is still worth loving.

Seeing Penelope as merely his reward is so backwards and bizarre. It’s very clear that bad faith interpretations of her are based on objectifying her erroneously, when the narrative presents her as a fully developed character.

In the story both in the poem and the musical that the suitors ARE NOT her guests. She is being sequestered against her will.

In what world could the suitors be “just” murderers and not….very clearly rapists? It’s BUILT into their motivation. You would have to change the very FOUNDATION of the Ithaca plot line and Penelope herself??? To say nothing of Telemachus’s role!

What’s the proposal here? That Penelope invited these suitors? That’s she’s actively looking for a replacement husband? Okay, again, that changes literally SO MUCH of the story, but wouldn’t that put Telemachus in a position where he too has to change? Does he resent his mother for doing this? Is he helping his dad out of spite or because he wants him back? How are we meant to view Penelope in this radically new and hip Epic the Musical? Is she savvy and in her right to choose a new boo? Okay…okay, so then….you want Odysseus to be the only one unchanged and go axe crazy because….hes jealous? He kills these upstanding men….curtain call. That’s all folks!

Absurdity at its finest. You throw Penelope’s agency out the window. Her weaving and unweaving her loom is meaningless or simply doesn’t happen. Or maybe it’s that she wakes up one day and goes hey yknow what I WILL consider marrying one of these guys with no sense of dread and fear. Oh wait Oddy has killed then all! Never mind me feeling unsafe a week ago, he’s done a Bad.

Crazy.

It’s just…not going to end up making Penelope look like a well written female character if Jorge has done what you wanted! THAT would make her a mindless prop. You seem to think she is one, and that’s not the case. Historically, in fact!

She is a whole person in the poem and musical whether you understand it or not. You would have to argue so thoroughly why she sucks and let me assure you - there are entire DISSERTATIONs on why you’d be incorrect.

So, no.

No, you CANT take away the rape in Penelope’s storyline. It matters ALOT. It’s the ROOT of the matter! Could old school vegetales make something up that’s more to your sensibilities? Maybe at its peak but god, I couldn’t possibly come up with a draft that could reflect that. I won’t even try.

The rape aspect of the Ithica Saga isn’t unnecessary - it’s INTEGRAL to the plot. It can make you uncomfortable, but it’s BUILT into the royal family’s suffering whether it’s explicit or not! And it SHOULD be explicit! Because you seem to think because it usually isn’t, that the rape aspect isn’t there!

I cannot imagine coming to this kind of conclusion.

They are not random men going on a siege of the palace one day - you cannot “sanitize” the SUITORS because by the very merit of them calling each other THE SUITORS there is an implicit threat of sexual violence. Because Penelope doesn’t WANT suitors. She rejects them. They’re already violating her consent.

How the FUCK to do you censor the rape when it’s in every action they take? And I know what you’re saying: but didn’t Jorge censor the rape aspect that both Circe and Calypso commit towards him?

Further reading: suggests that ALLUDING to it is not the same as censoring, that it still FITS the PURPOSE of these characters in regards to Odysseus’s suffering under them. That after ambiguity, it is NECESSARY to make the rape aspect CLEAR in order to create both catharsis and MEANING at the end of the narrative. The THEME is still respected and present, it is not REMOVED. Please consider reading the linked follow up that answers this question.

In short.

It’s truly a matter of using one’s goddamn head when it comes to view fictional depictions of rape as “necessary” - because though some depictions can be presented BADLY, to suggest they should not EXISTS lends itself to rape culture. It silences the voices of victims. Its representation denied. Don’t talk about it, don’t even suggest it, because rape is bad.

It’s an action that happens to people. It’s a crime in civilized society. It’s a physical and psychological trauma that has always been. It happens daily, in fact. Though epic the musical is a source of entertainment for you, it doesnt exist solely for that purpose.

When Homer included it within his original oral story, he did so as a storyteller trying to get his audience to philosophize, not simply have fun.

I think we’ve come to some abysmal conclusion that men can’t write about these topics when we have historical evidence of at least one man knowing what the hell he’s talking about. And Jorge has done a phenomenal job even when he hadn’t depicted blatantly.

If you’re uncomfortable to the point of not wanting to see it at all, that is entirely on you, art and creative works allow us to explore these topics safely. Whether it’s from the POV of the assailant or one of the victims commenting on it, fiction is one of the only places we can talk about it and learn about ourselves in a way it doesn’t harm real people.

I don’t even want to BEGIN discussing all the losers who are still harassing Antinous fans or people who genuinely enjoy his song despite/BECAUSE of the subject matter. Its purpose in the story matters more than you policing how it’s presented and how it’s consumed. No amount of people enjoying themselves will take away the foundational POINT of the character and song. It’s perfect the way it is.

Like with the chaos that calypso discourse wrought, you cannot control how people treat a NOT REAL CHARACTER or the songs they sing - if it bothers you that one type of fictional villian is treated one way or another, it is on you to find likeminded people instead of going into others faces and pretending to be a self-righteous prick. You can throw whatever buzzwords you want, the CONTEXT these characters live in has nothing to do with how others want to play with them. If you don’t understand the difference between the two instances, fandom is certainly not for you and will not be changed to suit your sensibilities.

To end this post, I want to thank those who further asked me questions and bounced ideas off with me, and wow, what a phenomenal ending to a grandiose musical. I hope I can see it live, animated, streamed, developed into a game etc whatever form it takes now that the concept albums are published

Thank you all for engaging w my work💖

234 notes View Post

playlistanon

2 years ago

𝕷𝖔𝖐𝖎

(𝙻𝚘𝚔𝚒) ʷʰʸ ᵈᵒᵉˢ ᵗʰᵉ ᵏ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵗᵒ ˡᵒᵒᵏ ˡⁱᵏᵉ ᵗʰᵃᵗ↑ ₒ ₋ ₒ

𝕺𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖗 𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊(𝖘): Lokee, Luki, Logi, Lukkanet, Locke sprindlar

𝕲𝖔𝖉 𝖔𝖋: Trickery, Mischief, Cunning, and Seduction

𝕾𝖕𝖊𝖈𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖉𝖆𝖞(𝖘): April fools, July 23rd, Autumn equinox, Loki's Blot, Samhain, Yule, Thursday

𝕽𝖊𝖑𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖘: Son of Farbauti and Laufey, mother of Sleipnir, father of Hel, Jormungandr, and Fenrir, as well as Narfi. PACT BROTHER WITH ODIN. (Not Thor -.-) , Husband to Sigyn and lover to Angrboda

𝕰𝖓𝖊𝖒𝖎𝖊𝖘: Heimdall, (arguably the other Aesir)

𝕾𝖞𝖒𝖇𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖘𝖒-

𝕬𝖓𝖎𝖒𝖆𝖑(𝖘): snakes, foxes, wolves, coyote, ravens/crows, horses, goats, flies, spider, ant, seal, salmon

𝕺𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖗: Double snake symbol (Urnes), knots, chaos star, hearts, figure 8s, Naglfar, Loki's mask, fishing nets, lightning, earthquakes, the numbers 0, 1, 3, &8, shackles

𝕮𝖔𝖑𝖔𝖗(𝖘): red, orange, purple, violet, indigo, black, green, gold

𝕰𝖑𝖊𝖒𝖊𝖓𝖙: Fire and Air

𝕻𝖑𝖆𝖓𝖊𝖙: Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Dark moon/waning moon

𝖅𝖔𝖉𝖎𝖆𝖈𝖘: Aries

𝕾𝖎𝖒𝖎𝖑𝖆𝖗 𝕲𝖔𝖉𝖘: Hermes, Lugh

𝕺𝖋𝖋𝖊𝖗𝖎𝖓𝖌𝖘- Singing, dancing, helping minorities and children

𝕳𝖊𝖗𝖇𝖘/𝖕𝖑𝖆𝖓𝖙𝖘: aconite amber resin bentgrass birch burdock root cedar cinnamon clove clover dandelion dragon's blood ebony elder hemlock hemp/weed holly ivy juniper lavender mandrake root mistletoe moss myrrh patchouli rue tobacco

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖉𝖘: Anything sweet- candies chocolates coffee fruits pastries soda/juice drinks sugar etc.. - as well as red foods- cherries cranberries peppers pomegranate strawberries tomatoes etc..

𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖘/𝖈𝖗𝖞𝖘𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖘/𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖘: acrylic amber bronze clear quartz coins and other cheap random metals diamond fire opal fools gold galena garnet glass gold gold stones grenade lead magnesium obsidian onyx plastic red jasper rutilated quartz silver

𝕺𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖗: Incense, shiny things, plastic and stuffed toys, found/cheap things preferred, bunny, snake, fox, and raven imagery, art and poetry, knots, hearts, fishnets, lightning imagery,

𝕴𝖓𝖛𝖔𝖈𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖚𝖘𝖊 𝖎𝖓 𝖘𝖕𝖊𝖑𝖑 𝖜𝖔𝖗𝖐: Aids in spells with getting through tough, tight, and narrow situations, owning up to your shit, mischief, cunning plans, change, cleverness, creativity, youthfulness and beauty, seduction, androgyny, blessing and sharpening a blade or knife.

𝕬𝖕𝖕𝖊𝖆𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖈𝖊: Tall with a slim/cut muscular body type. Long pretty red hair, green/violet/gold eyes, a masculine yet feminine face and a sharp jaw, said to be one of the most beautiful Jotunn.

𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖊/𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖘: ~A cunning trickster who had the ability to change his shape and sex, the creator of lightning, hearth fire, the spirit of life. In the beginning he was a beloved friend and honorary member of the Aesir, but toward the end he became an enemy.. Was/is a companion of Odin and Thor, helping them with his clever plans but sometimes causing them embarrassment and difficulties, though also being any enemy of sorts. Though his father was a Jotunn (a giant), his mother was considered a goddess, thus Loki is included among the Aesir.

-Once cut off Thor's wife's hair and was forced to replace it. He tricked dwarves into a wager for his head if they could deliver wonderful gifts the the gods (including the hair). They made a hammer for Thor, A great spear and a drop-near gold bracelet for Odin, A boat and a huge golden boar for Freyr, and of course new hair made of gold for Sif -Thor's wife. Loki then told the dwarves that the wager said that they could only take his head and that they could not damage his neck. They were enraged but Odin told them that they should have paid more attention when making a wager with the god of trickery. Though Loki was still punished by having his mouth sowed shut so he couldn't deceive for a long time.

-One day someone stole Thor's hammer and left a ransom note, later demanding Freya's hand in return for the hammer that protected both Asgard and Midgard. Loki had an idea though, -much to Thor's dismay- he dressed the thunder god as a bride and took advantage of the giant thief's poor sight. (Also disguising himself as a woman) He tricked the giant, successfully making him think that Thor was Freya. As they ate Thor let out his apatite and the giant said something about his bride having a big stomach. To avoid being caught Loki said that the "goddess" was just eager to consummate their marriage. Thor was furious and embarrassed. The giant got excited and foolishly set the hammer on the table next to Thor. The thunder god took his hammer back and smashed the giant's head, all while still wearing his pretty dress. The gods always had fun talking about the time when Thor dressed up in drag.

-One day a builder came to Asgard offering to make them a wall that they needed. He said he could do it in record time, but that he wanted Freya's hand in return. The gods were enraged by his audacity and said no but Loki convinced them to set a wager- he could have the goddess as his wife if he was able to do the impossible task in an impossible amount of time. The idea was that he would try his hardest but not be able to finish in time, therefore giving the gods a free wall that they could just finish the end of. But the builder had a strong and mystical horse that could lift and carry all the large pieces for him. As the builder got closer and closer to finishing with time still left, the other gods we nervous and angry with Loki- who told them he had a plan. He turned himself into a beautiful mare and seduced the builder's horse, running off to the woods with him, and rendering the builder unable to finish the wall. Enraged, the builder revealed himself as a Giant and was killed, his head smashed in by Thor's hammer. Loki returned much later with an eight legged colt; his son Sleipnir which he gifted to Odin when he got older and stronger- in exchange for the horse's origin to be kept secret.

-It's said that he gave humans lightning to warn them of Thor's loud thunder before it happens, because he knew it was frightening. The swift walker of the skies is the lightning running ahead of Thor's great thundering cart.

-Tricked Baldr's blind brother Hodr into throwing the one thing that would kill the god; mistletoe- right at his chest. He indirectly killed Frigg's son; one of the most beloved god's in all the Aesir. As his punishment his one of his sons turned and killed the other and he was tied to a stone in a cave, by his dead son's entrails- a snake coiled on a stalactite above his face, dripping venom down onto him. Though Loki's wife Sigyn sat by his side and held a bowl over his face to protect him, she had to move every once in a while to empty the bowl, allowing the poison to drip onto his face as he convulsed, causing the first earthquakes in Midgard. It is said that he was to break from his chains and aid in Ragnarock. Baldr's story goes on to describe the burning of his body in a funeral pyre on his ship, Nanna accompanying him. BUT in another version, the goddess Frigg persuaded the other gods to restore Balder to life. She repaid their obliging wizardry with kisses. (THIS IS WHERE THIS IS MY THEORY) if the second ending is true and Baldr is alive, I think that Odin would eventually release Loki under the guise that he either not cause Ragnarok or aid the Aesir instead of what was prophesized. [I haven't really thought that a deity was speaking directly to me until I read this story, it's like I saw it and it came at me all at once like a vision. Just thought I'd include it.])

261 notes View Post

playlistanon

2 years ago

STEP BACK I THKNK IM GONNA VOMIT