My name is Amanda. I am Candian but I live in Japan because of reasons. I like comic books and lame music and gay porn and pretty girls and beautiful boys. My accomplishments include navigating an entire conversation in Japanese on the phone and getting a sucker from Billy Talent one time.

 

did you know that kero once wrote a like 60,000 word fanfic about a character I made up as a plot device, because she 100% did

Palestinian independence and the validity of authorial intent in literary criticism are literally the only two subjects that get me riled up

i will scream it from the rooftops until my throat is raw and bleeding it makes no god damn difference what an author intended it only matters how the reader receives it

the words on the page may be static but a piece of literature is alive, it means different things to different people in different contexts regardless of how the author intended it to be read

you can examine a piece in its historical context and that’s fine and often incredibly interesting and thought-provoking, but that doesn’t invalidate a modern interpretation of it

besides that, often works of art can say things that the author never intended them to say, even taking into account the historical context. An author can have intended a piece of fiction to be a satirical commentary on government, and created a commentary on women or minorities entirely by accident, simply through the way they chose to portray what to them would have been unimportant characters. Should that avenue of criticism be off-limits simply because the author had no overt intention of portraying it? It’s there, right on the fucking page, whether the author likes it or not.

laughterbynight:

thetrekkiehasthephonebox:

desidere:

uncleclustersthirdbrain:

renlyslittlerose:

mildlyamused:

oh man wouldn’t it be GREAT if Hollywood gave Medusa the movie treatment and showed her as the tragic wronged hero she was? Just chillin’ out as a just a ordinary woman until Poseidon raped her in Athena’s temple and instead of being like “DUDE UNCLE NO WTF ARE YOU DOING?!” and smiting him, Athena punished the victim and turned her into a monster with snakes for hair…only wait Athena isn’t an idiot and how could she even punish the god of the sea? But she could give Medusa the power to make sure no man ever laid a goddamn finger on her again. Until Perseus traipsed in and fucked it all up. Way to go idiot. I bet if you’d just asked nicely she might have turned shit to stone for you.

 Okay I am seeing this type of commentary frequently, and I have to say something about this because it has been bothering me.
 In the original myth, the rape/transformation of Medusa never happened. This was added in by the Romans— Ovid, specifically, who changed the myth in his Metamorphoses that was written in 8 CE. The entire theme of these tales was the transformation of mostly women who were perused by the gods in some form or another (some men were also transformed throughout the series, such as Hyacinth.) Prior to this, during Archaic Greek times and Classical antiquity, Medusa was never a beautiful maid who was transformed by Athena (and I am gonna get into the whole situation with Athena being a feminist figure in a second.) She was a gorgon born from two underworld monsters, Ceto and Phorcys. This story is outlined in Hesiod’s Theogony which is sort of the accepted canon of Greek creation myths. It was in the 5th century that she was shown by artists to be beautiful but still a monster, and it wasn’t until Ovid showed up that she was the human maid who was raped by Poseidon. Also, many Greeks and Romans read Ovid’s version of the tale as Athena being outraged at Medusa for having been raped in her temple— it was a punishment, not some mercy shown to her.
 Because guess what— Athena was a grade-A asshole just like her father, who often sided with men rather than women. In fact, she saw herself as a man and not as a woman. Physically, yes she was a woman, but mentally, because she came from Zeus’ head and was not born of any woman, she considered herself male in all respects. Therefore, her intelligence and strength was indicative of her masculine side. This is all explained in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, in which Athena as a judge, ends up siding with Orestes when it came to the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. She stated she sympathized with Orestes because he was a man, and she would ‘defer to all things’ as her father would. Athena was never seen by the Greeks (and to some extent the Romans) as a strong female figure. She was a man in thought and in action, female only in her figure.
 So the original story of Medusa was that she was a monster— born of monsters and resided on earth to be defeated by a Greek demigod who goes by the name Perseus. Had Athena really been ‘protecting’ Medusa, she’d not have given Perseus a mirrored shield, and she wouldn’t have placed Medusa’s head on her shield after Perseus cut it off. The Greeks and Romans did not see her as a person in which to empathize with. I’m all fine and good with people in literature classes reading this myth through a feminist lens, but I see a lot of these posts on Medusa that come off as historical. Only trouble is, they see things through this modern view when you need to look at it through the perspective of the ancients— from the view of those who wrote it and who their intended audience was. And I think both sides of the myth should be told; the original and the changes Ovid made. Don’t just explain one side of the story. There were multiple sides and changes and adaptations, and they should both be discussed and examined.

I’m such a mythology nerd read this and enlighten yourself

damn everyone was just schooled A+ STUNNING BREAKDOWN OF THE CAUTIONS OF READING AGAINST THE GRAIN 

Thank you

This is why I usually scream from the rooftops about authorial intent. Believe it or not, it REALLY is an important part of understanding what you’re reading, not just something to be tossed to the side when you think you know what’s going on. Everything isn’t all about personal interpretation. 
You can and do miss a LOT thinking that way.

Uh it is a perfectly valid avenue of literary criticismThe issue with the original interpretation is that it is easily debunked purely through the text (Athena assists Perseus in killing Medusa)Even the historical context of the earlier version of Medusa’s origins is irrelevant; if the poster is referencing Ovid’s version then we should only be concerned with Ovid’s version.

laughterbynight:

thetrekkiehasthephonebox:

desidere:

uncleclustersthirdbrain:

renlyslittlerose:

mildlyamused:

oh man wouldn’t it be GREAT if Hollywood gave Medusa the movie treatment and showed her as the tragic wronged hero she was? Just chillin’ out as a just a ordinary woman until Poseidon raped her in Athena’s temple and instead of being like “DUDE UNCLE NO WTF ARE YOU DOING?!” and smiting him, Athena punished the victim and turned her into a monster with snakes for hair…only wait Athena isn’t an idiot and how could she even punish the god of the sea? But she could give Medusa the power to make sure no man ever laid a goddamn finger on her again. Until Perseus traipsed in and fucked it all up. Way to go idiot. I bet if you’d just asked nicely she might have turned shit to stone for you.

 Okay I am seeing this type of commentary frequently, and I have to say something about this because it has been bothering me.

 In the original myth, the rape/transformation of Medusa never happened. This was added in by the Romans— Ovid, specifically, who changed the myth in his Metamorphoses that was written in 8 CE. The entire theme of these tales was the transformation of mostly women who were perused by the gods in some form or another (some men were also transformed throughout the series, such as Hyacinth.) Prior to this, during Archaic Greek times and Classical antiquity, Medusa was never a beautiful maid who was transformed by Athena (and I am gonna get into the whole situation with Athena being a feminist figure in a second.) She was a gorgon born from two underworld monsters, Ceto and Phorcys. This story is outlined in Hesiod’s Theogony which is sort of the accepted canon of Greek creation myths. It was in the 5th century that she was shown by artists to be beautiful but still a monster, and it wasn’t until Ovid showed up that she was the human maid who was raped by Poseidon. Also, many Greeks and Romans read Ovid’s version of the tale as Athena being outraged at Medusa for having been raped in her temple— it was a punishment, not some mercy shown to her.

 Because guess what— Athena was a grade-A asshole just like her father, who often sided with men rather than women. In fact, she saw herself as a man and not as a woman. Physically, yes she was a woman, but mentally, because she came from Zeus’ head and was not born of any woman, she considered herself male in all respects. Therefore, her intelligence and strength was indicative of her masculine side. This is all explained in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, in which Athena as a judge, ends up siding with Orestes when it came to the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. She stated she sympathized with Orestes because he was a man, and she would ‘defer to all things’ as her father would. Athena was never seen by the Greeks (and to some extent the Romans) as a strong female figure. She was a man in thought and in action, female only in her figure.

 So the original story of Medusa was that she was a monster— born of monsters and resided on earth to be defeated by a Greek demigod who goes by the name Perseus. Had Athena really been ‘protecting’ Medusa, she’d not have given Perseus a mirrored shield, and she wouldn’t have placed Medusa’s head on her shield after Perseus cut it off. The Greeks and Romans did not see her as a person in which to empathize with. I’m all fine and good with people in literature classes reading this myth through a feminist lens, but I see a lot of these posts on Medusa that come off as historical. Only trouble is, they see things through this modern view when you need to look at it through the perspective of the ancients— from the view of those who wrote it and who their intended audience was. And I think both sides of the myth should be told; the original and the changes Ovid made. Don’t just explain one side of the story. There were multiple sides and changes and adaptations, and they should both be discussed and examined.

I’m such a mythology nerd read this and enlighten yourself

damn everyone was just schooled A+ STUNNING BREAKDOWN OF THE CAUTIONS OF READING AGAINST THE GRAIN 

Thank you

This is why I usually scream from the rooftops about authorial intent. Believe it or not, it REALLY is an important part of understanding what you’re reading, not just something to be tossed to the side when you think you know what’s going on. Everything isn’t all about personal interpretation.

You can and do miss a LOT thinking that way.

Uh it is a perfectly valid avenue of literary criticism

The issue with the original interpretation is that it is easily debunked purely through the text (Athena assists Perseus in killing Medusa)

Even the historical context of the earlier version of Medusa’s origins is irrelevant; if the poster is referencing Ovid’s version then we should only be concerned with Ovid’s version.

(Source: moseisleywelcomingcommittee)

jeaeren:

it looks like Haru is taking a selfie here like
"I dropped the cake on the police officer do you think I’ll get arrested lol"

jeaeren:

it looks like Haru is taking a selfie here like

"I dropped the cake on the police officer do you think I’ll get arrested lol"

image

i took this like five minutes ago because i was bored but it is definitely the greatest picture of me that has ever or will ever exist

i took this like five minutes ago because i was bored but it is definitely the greatest picture of me that has ever or will ever exist

dammittennant:

dmkswag:

Imagine all the muggleborns sneaking into the forbidden forest to climb the one tree where they can get cell service

Swapping charged battery packs with their bffs back home by owl

Buying the new daft punk album on vinyl not because they’re hipster but because the only audio device they can get to work is a hand-cranked gramophone

Muggleborn wizards of the information age got it rough man

But you can’t use electric devices in Hogwarts….?

which was the entire basis of this headcanon thanks that’s why it doesn’t say “imagine ROOM OF REQUIREMENT lol”