Apollo And Artemis

After Hotel Oblivion

(Spaceboy finds out Rumor has asked Number 5 to spy on her ex-husband)

Spaceboy: Now I'm losing her! What'll I do? What'll I do?

Number 5: What are you talking about?

Spaceboy: Huh?

Number 5: You are Spaceboy! My God...

Number 5: *swatting Spaceboy with a newspaper*

Number 5: Pull-yourself-together! 

00.07

Alchemy & Dreams in Beetlejuice Part 2

Credit to the observant eye in the discord who noticed this fall from Astrid's belongings—

As mentioned in the last post, red and silver are representing Lydia and Astrid: the material and spiritual realms. The item which falls next to the cracked photograph is a molecular structure with a red atom and a silver atom.

Alchemists viewed the human body (microcosm) as a reflection of the universe (macrocosm). This suggested that atoms could give insights about human nature. Within this context, the atoms in the image represent Lydia and her dream Self (Astrid), and how they are the same person and are of the same element, due to the fact they both come from the same Molecule.

Alchemy consists of a mix of chemistry, philosophy, semiotics, and metaphysics, with much of the symbolism used to convey alchemical themes in Beetlejuice. But enough about Astrid the Mercurial Ghost; let's look at another character.

Otho

Throughout the first movie, Otho is typically associated with black and red. He's often wearing black with either a red tie, red buttons, or red shoes (which mysteriously disappear in a couple scenes only to be replaced by different colour shoes).

Red shoes have long been used in media to represent a metaphorical journey (The Red Shoes (1948), Kiki's Delivery Service (1989), and Hans Christian Andersen's The Red Shoes are a few examples). Need I remind you of one of Tim Burton's favourite movies, The Wizard of Oz?

Otho is the only character other than Lydia who piques interest in the dead. Despite his willingness to exploit them, he is ready to believe in their existence and study the handbook. These visual cues are conveying the character's motives.

Part of the alchemical process are the stages "Rubedo" and "Nigredo". Rubedo is Latin for "redness", the stage of understanding where two opposites have joined and created harmony. Nigredo is Latin for "blackness", the stage of putrefaction or decomposition, thus symbolising the dead. In layman's terms, red and black represent the character's willingness to connect with the dead. The only other character really associated with black and red is Lydia, and that speaks for itself.

Otho is a character who inspired the creation of Rory in the second movie. Within Lydia's psyche, Rory has been manifested from guilt. In the first film, Lydia is almost complicit in helping Otho to exorcise the Maitlands after he makes it clear that he wants to capitalise on the dead. In the second film, Lydia is under Rory's management to capitalise on the dead, and she is trying to make peace with that guilt by trying to help people through exorcisms.

Guilt in dreams is often seen as a manifestation of the unconscious mind's attempt to communicate unresolved internal conflicts. This is where the shadow becomes a central concept in Jungian psychology, referring to the parts of the Self that the conscious mind rejects or ignores. Lydia rejects the traits that Otho and Rory embody, and that is why her reconciliation with Astrid is a manifestation of her own forgiveness.

The Chemical Wedding

We talked about the purpose of the Chemical Wedding before, but why is it so relevant to the plot of Beetlejuice? Other than the fact Betelgeuse has fallen in love with Lydia, there is an allegorical reason for why the wedding must take place between these two, and no one else but these two.

A Chemical Wedding is the marriage between the sun and the moon. In alchemical texts they are often depicted as the white queen and the red king, though this has nothing to do with literal gender roles, for we see Lydia herself portrayed as the red king in her parallel with Astrid. It is related to the Anima (the female self) and the Animus (the male self). This is also the marriage between mercury and sulfur, spirit and matter, the dead and the living.

One of the most famous works on the subject of a Chemical Wedding is a Rosicrucian allegory published in 1616 by Christian Rosenkreuz. It describes a mystical journey where the main character must attend a wedding at a mysterious castle. The journey is a symbol of the alchemical process, while the wedding itself represents the final transformative stage.

The story is filled with strange and dreamlike imagery, with many claiming it as a source of German dark romanticism.

Rosenkreuz's allegory actually represents inner transformation of the individual, with marriage being used as a metaphor, insofar as the masculine and feminine halves must be merged together in matrimony to achieve completion within oneself.

"Death and the Maiden" trope is a motif that depicts a woman being taken by Death, as he desires to marry her. It is dire for death to marry his living bride, for he wishes to venture the living world and the underworld with her.

Betelgeuse is the perfect complementary opposite to Lydia, each crafted to embody the other's symbolic missing half. Betelgeuse is the animus; he's loud, provocative, and dead; Lydia is the anima; she's quiet, thoughtful, and alive. The contrast is straightforward and uncomplicated. You could easily spend hours analysing their differences, and you'd still be right—because they are deliberately written as foils to one another.

Looking back at how Otho/Rory represents the shadow of Lydia, we should take into account who guided her through this dream sequence. Our psyche creates these thought-images in our unconscious minds as a means to roleplay scenarios where we have internal conflict. It gives us a chance to psychoanalyse ourselves and try to understand the core of our trauma.

Betelgeuse, within Lydia's dream, is acting as a guide (remember his guide outfit in the first film?). He's constantly appearing to her, influencing her and urging her to face her fears. While he's causing chaos in the way he knows best, he's also showing Lydia the bare truth, and this is especially apparent when it comes to Rory: he tells Lydia she's an enabling codependent and forces Rory to tell the truth about his intentions. Betelgeuse is what Jung would refer to as the Trickster archetype. The Trickster is often seen as a figure that disrupts the status quo and challenges the Ego through chaotic and karmic actions, serving as a profound guide in the process of one's personal development. Think of "Jester's privilege", or The Fool in tarot.

In mythological symbolism, there comes the legend of a scorpion that stung Orion to death (the giant red star "Betelgeuse" sits on Orion's belt). The scorpion was delivered as to snub Orion's pride and teach him a lesson by way of death, because the scorpion is a symbol of death and rebirth. This is the Trickster archetype again, teaching a lesson in a very karmic way. Betelgeuse does the same throughout both movies. Otho, the Deetz, and the Deans are all punished by him in the first film for acting as antagonists against the ghosts of Winter River. Despite this, he also acts as an antagonist himself by punishing the Maitlands, two loving parental figures for Lydia, for getting in the way of his plan to marry her.

"They therefore represent a supreme pair of opposites, not hopelessly divided by logical contradiction but, because of the mutual attraction between them, giving promise of union and actually making it possible. The coniunctio oppositorum engaged the speculations of the alchemists in the form of the ‘Chymical Wedding," — Carl Jung, Psychology & Alchemy

In alchemical tradition, Saturn is associated with the metal lead, which symbolises the starting point of the alchemical work—the Nigredo phase. Alchemy is mostly known as the quest to turn lead into gold, but the allegorical meaning is to refine the Self. Saturn is equated with Cronos in mythology, the father of time, who was portrayed as an old man with a scythe/sickle, similar to the grim reaper, who is associated with the end of one's time. Betelgeuse has time-warping powers and wears time-keeping devices on his wrist, all a microcosm for how we measure eternity.

The whole Alchemical Opus works through THREE stages:

Nigredo (Black Stage): Betelgeuse represents lead and Saturn. Putrefaction.

Albedo (White Stage): Before Lydia summons Betelgeuse and agrees to the marriage, he is wearing a black and white suit. White is added to the mix. Purification.

Rubedo (Red Stage): Lydia is manifested a red wedding dress to finish the ceremony. They completed the alchemical process. Lead is turned into Gold.

In the movie's original wedding scene, found here, at 9:11 on the clock the afterlife creature who marries Lydia and Betelgeuse dissipates into fire, and then the scene ends. 911 in numerology is the number of completion, and is used in occultism to symbolise new beginnings and rebirth.

For this reason, it has been theorised that the wedding vows went through, and the Chemical Wedding was completed.

^^^^^^^ All of this.

There's a difference between 'telling your own version' of a myth, and telling a completely different story. If you need to change a pre-existing character so much that they feel like a new character, then it's simply bad writing.

Miller is especially self-righteous about her retellings in interviews. Are her retellings 'other versions' of the myths? If by 'other versions' you mean distorting the mythology and missing its point, or utilizing foreign mythology as an aesthetic to draw people in, then yeah, I guess.

Readers who are ignorant of the myths or have no respect for the culture those myths belong to, will then take Miller's distorted stories as fact, and assume that hers is the correct way of telling them. And, evidently, Miller's fans will not tolerate anyone criticizing her.

Well I promise you that her books give the opposite impression.

In fact, her characterization of Patroclus alone is enough for me to doubt her both as an academic and as a researcher.

(Not to mention her tendency to invent unnecessary details, things that don't happen in the myths, like Circe getting assaulted, which was specifically added to 'justify' Circe's behaviour in the Odyssey. A+ writing, how very progressive)

A classicist like Miller should know that when you apply modern standards to an ancient myth, essentially removing it from the era in which it was written, and ignoring the reasons the myth was created, then you're missing half of the context.

Either she

has severely misunderstood the characters in the Homeric epics and Greek mythology in general (which doesn't say much about her as a classicist), or

she does understand the characters in the myths, but she cares more about what kind of story will 'sell'. She's thinking, "Let's see, if I frame Homer as problematic, and promote my books as the solution to the 'Homer problem', then of course people will prefer my stories."

If it's the latter, it's not a surprise, and she's not the first person to do it, and unfortunately she won't be the last.

@rightwheretheyleftme I think you're going into these retellings without fully grasping the purpose and cultural value of Greek mythology. I think you're glorifying these retellings regardless of how off the mark they are when it comes to characterization.

@lez-exclude-men If you're enjoying Miller's books that much, then I hate to break it to you, but you are the one who needs to get 'elbows deep' in research. But if you have no desire to do all that work, maybe you shut up and let people express their opinions? Miller's work is flawed, and we are allowed to point it out.

This isn't about Miller being a woman, and it isn't about all retellings being inherently bad. This is about Miller not respecting and not understanding the mythology she's so eager to 'fix'.

So Madeline Miller is writing a Persephone retelling. So let's make our bets about the book.

The winners will win this picture of a brick.

So let's make a bet.

A.) She will potray Demeter as an abusive mother, whaile the kidnapping will be ereased, and Hades will be baby boyfied.

B.) Hades will be potrayd as eveil incarnate, and Demeter will be potrayd as a poor poor blorbo (similar to how she potrayd Circe)

C.) Both will be potrayd as the worst. Demeter, and Hades will be potrayd as abusive, and Persephone will be potrayd as a poor poor girl who always has to suffer.

My bet is that it will be C.).

Iconic Golden Girls Things (as voted by you!)

#1: Picture it: Sicily... (28.3%)

Tethys: Titaness, daughter of Uranus and Gaia, wife of Oceanus and mother of the Oceanids. She was also Hera’s foster mother during the Titanomachy.

Styx: Oceanid, Zeus’ ally in the Titanomachy, mother of Nike, Zelus, Bia and Kratos. She’s the river that separates the Underworld from the living, and the one Gods swear their oaths upon.

Metis: Oceanid, the embodiment of wisdom and cunning, Athena’s mother by Zeus. She helped Zeus free his siblings and was his counsellor during the Titanomachy. 

Electra: Oceanid, she married the sea god Thaumas, and one of her kids was Iris, the messenger of the Gods. I drew her hair like that because her name derives from the word ἤλεκτρον, which means amber, and amber can acquire a static electricity charge. 

"Greece sort of owns the Parthenon Marbles"

Sort of? SORT OF?

On July 5th 2024, yet another discussion about the Parthenon Marbles took place, at the British Museum. I never expect much anymore when it comes to this subject. Every time there's some kind of update on this ongoing debate, somehow my frustration reaches a new level. Because for every sensible debater, there will always be someone like 'classicist' Mary Beard.

According to Mary Beard, Greece only 'sort of' owns the Parthenon Marbles. "These are objects which are international, they belong to humanity, not to one particular bit of it", she said on July 5th.

Obviously I resent the entitlement in those words, the audacity to undermine the ethnic value of another country's heritage. The Marbles are international, you say? They don't belong to "one particular bit" of humanity? But if it hadn't been for that "one particular bit" of humanity, there wouldn't have been any Marbles to speak of. As a Greek person, I find it downright insulting of her, a British person, to say the Marbles don't belong to the "one particular bit" of humanity that birthed them.

How about we have a little laugh? Mary Beard said that the Parthenon Marbles are like a "child in a messy divorce case".

That's a wild simile. And by 'wild' I mean 'stupid'.

I'm calling it stupid because 'child of a divorce case' makes it sound like the Greeks and the Britons built the Parthenon together.

I know, of course, that Beard didn't make this simile out of stupidity. By comparing this debate to a child custody battle, she's insinuating the Marbles belong to the UK as much as they do to Greece, and that this is merely a matter of compromise. She knows exactly what she's doing, as a trustee of the British Museum.

On Twitter, she will 'educate' the public about what the Marbles should be called, in what feels like an attempt to justify naming the Marbles after the man who looted them. Whether you refer to the marbles removed from the Parthenon exclusively, or the 'less famous' stolen treasures, one thing is for certain; Elgin was a thief, and no amount of quirky 'pedantry' by Mary Beard is going to change that.

Lord Elgin was responsible for literally ripping pieces off of an ancient building, ignoring its cultural significance to Greek people. Make no mistake; he didn't find the Marbles on the ground, deserted and unappreciated by the Greeks. He RIPPED THEM OFF. Violently.

However, Mary autocorrect-to-the-rescue Beard will come to his defense, and tell you that when Elgin coveted the Marbles, the Parthenon was already in "a very sorry state". She went as far as to claim that "there is doubt at all he saved his sculpture from worse damage". All this is in a BBC archived piece written by Beard in 2011, in which she supposedly looks at both sides of the argument, yet it still felt one-sided when I read it.

So...he saved the Marbles from damage...by violently ripping them off the edifice? Gotcha.

We need to remember, everyone; the goal here is to make the BM Trustees and Elgin's ghost feel good about themselves.

"I want to see those marbles shared I think realistically, more generously with Greece", she said, on July 5th.

I wonder how Mary Beard would feel if one day a random person broke into her house and told her; "I planned to keep this place for myself, but you know what? Let's share it! I want to be generous to you."

Does she think she sounds like the bigger person? Does she think the British Museum is doing Greece a favor by entertaining the idea of sharing the Greek Marbles? How progressive!

How hypocritical.

She continued "I would like to see again the Parthenon marbles being ambassadors for a particular sort of Hellenic classical culture in which both Greece and the United Kingdom, and many other countries in the world, share; they can do their job not just in Athens or London- what about Beijing?"

What about Beijing, Mary? You reeeaaally don't want the Marbles to return to Greece, do you? If you could, I have a feeling you would personally deliver the Marbles to Mars. After all, the Marbles can be interplanetary.

I jump back and forth to her 2011 piece, where she asks; "Who owns great works of art? Do monuments such as the Parthenon belong to the whole world?" and "Are they the possession of those who live in the place where they were first made? Or are they the possession of everyone? The likelyhood is that we will be debating these issues for many years to come." Well, quite frankly, if we keep debating this for many years to come, it will due to the BM Trustees' own denial of reality. The questions Beard asks are easy to answer. Too easy, in fact.

In the same 2011 piece, Beard ponders the meaning of Cultural Property, of ownership. She points out how everyone can appreciate the works of Shakespeare and Mozart, and how things get sticky when it comes to the global appreciation of a tangible work of art such as the Marbles. The answer to this conundrum is obvious, if one looks at the matter objectively; the Greek Marbles belong in Greece, in the museum close to the Parthenon from which they were wrongfully torn from, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Elgin and his entourage hadn't taken them as souvenirs. The truth is that there is no real need for a debate, the BM trustees just keep dancing around the topic. They will harp on the complexity of this so-called debate because they don't like the idea of letting the Marbles return to Greece.

There's this childish insistence in the British Museum's reasoning, to keep associating the Parthenon Marbles with the UK much more than with Greece. I feel this stems from something that can be traced back to Elgin and his own avarice; a strange need to latch on to a part of a culture that was never theirs to begin with.

The insistence to connect the Marbles to the UK is the undertone to the 'child in a divorce case' comparison. It's what ultimately makes Beard's argument fall apart, and brings the hypocrisy to light. She said the Marbles don't belong to Greece, they belong to humanity. They're international, she said. And I ask; where was that sentiment before Greece called the British Museum out? Before we asked for the return of the Marbles? Before Melina Mercouri, Greek Minister of Culture, started fighting for them? If this matter had never been raised, would you ever care about your British Museum becoming "the world's greatest lending library", Mary?

What Mary Beard wants you to hear is; Why should Greece have the Marbles, when the whole world should have them?

What Mary Beard actually means is; If the UK can't keep them, then no one can.

Especially not Greece. The BM Trustees are adamant about that.

Which brings us back to the ridiculous "child in a messy divorce case" phrasing. A simile that doesn't apply in this situation and makes no sense, unless Beard imagined the BM as the delusional party who has convinced themselves this child is theirs even though there's no relation between them. But that would be too much self-awareness to expect from this academic.

You wanna compare the Parthenon Marbles to a child, Mary? Okay, but it's not a child 'in a messy divorce case'. This is a child that was abducted from its own home. It's a hostage situation, Mary. The British Museum is keeping a child hostage.

Greece wants her child back.

And as for cultural 'ambassadors', the British are free to send their own, instead of playing around with OUR cultural heritage.

'I’ll be the first person to call out when a person from an imperialist country is disrespectful against another culture’s traditions because this affects my everyday life.'

I see, thank you for sharing that. I repeat, however, I did not accuse you of xenophobia.

OP's post was harmless, including the tags. They were joking, they said so themselves. You're making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.

There was an interview where Miller specifically said "I wanted to push back against Homer". That's probably what I remembered, and same logic applies. How can she compare her books to ancient writings?

As for which characters she simplified, well, I've already mentioned Patroclus. The women in 'The song of Achilles' are depicted negatively because they get in the way of Patrochilles. In general Miller sees the Gods as modern sociopaths and describes them as such. Why did Helios need to be a bad father, for example? Simply for protagonist Circe's backstory? In Circe, it often feels like all the male characters have to be abusive purely for Miller's 'feminist' narrative.

You keep forgetting what I wrote:

This isn't about all retellings being inherently bad.

Let me put it this way; I enjoy fanfiction. Fanfiction is essentially a form of retelling. But here's the thing; even in fanfiction, where you put the pre-existing characters in a story that diverges from canon, or even in an AU, the characters are still 'in character'. If their personalities are different, then what's the point? You might as well be reading about completely different characters.

'The idea that reimaginings are “bad writing” is restrictive of the medium and dismissive of plenty of great works'

I was refering to the characters' personalities. Not the entire idea of a retelling. So again, I'm not anti-art, and again, I feel you're twisting my words.

You said in your previous response 'I don’t care for misinformed reviews'. Well, I don't care for people who repeatedly distort my opinions. And I especially do not need to justify myself to them, since they will twist anything I say.

So Madeline Miller is writing a Persephone retelling. So let's make our bets about the book.

The winners will win this picture of a brick.

So let's make a bet.

A.) She will potray Demeter as an abusive mother, whaile the kidnapping will be ereased, and Hades will be baby boyfied.

B.) Hades will be potrayd as eveil incarnate, and Demeter will be potrayd as a poor poor blorbo (similar to how she potrayd Circe)

C.) Both will be potrayd as the worst. Demeter, and Hades will be potrayd as abusive, and Persephone will be potrayd as a poor poor girl who always has to suffer.

My bet is that it will be C.).

Person: Christina, why does teen Kraken look like a woodland creature?

Me: I don't know, Person; why did I have to spent half an hour sketching the perfect expression for teen Kraken's face, only to have the whole thing ruined by my unsteady hand later? Huh? Huh? Why do such things happen?

I was really excited for this one, and messing up the inking was NOT a happy accident.

However, I liked how mini Kraken turned out, so here you go.