^^^^^^^ All Of This.

Beetlejuice Fan Theory

Okay, so I’ve already shared this with several of you, but I thought it would be neat to post it here in case anyone out there was interested in adding on or joining the discussion. I am absolutely CONVINCED that Betelgeuse knew he was going to try and marry Lydia before the Maitlands ever summoned him. Here are the events as we know them to have passed:

Lydia spots the Maitlands through the window and they comment on it, in full view of the model. 

Lydia receives the skeleton key from Jane.

Cue Betelgeuse’s commercial. The Maitlands immediately leave for the Neitherworld. 

Lydia enters the attic, picks up the handbook, sits down, starts reading.

The Maitlands return three months later and Juno says “I believe he’s been sleazing around your cemetery.”

When the Maitlands FINALLY summon Beej, he goes out of his way to make it look like he’s still trapped in the model- but he’s not. He says to their faces “you want to get some people out of your house. I want to get SOMEBODY out of your house.“ 

From this point on until the end of the snake scene, when Barbara calls him back, Betelgeuse has free roam of the house. Juno even explicitly scolds the Maitlands, telling them “you took Betelgeuse out and you did not put him back!”(sidenote; I can’t help but wonder what he was doing during those hours)

Later, Delia comments that there’s no way anyone could get into the attic because it’s locked. This tells us that Lydia never turned over the skeleton key. Charles kept the study for himself. Lydia keeps the attic. 

We KNOW that Lydia never gave up the skeleton key. This means that if she did continue visiting the attic during those three months(of course she did, why wouldn’t she?) she would have had to sneak around to do it without arousing Delia’s suspicion(cause Delia would take the attic and turn it into a god awful trendy mess given the chance). Which means she was probably only there late at night… wink wink nudge nudge naughty, naughty girl ;)

PLEASE if anyone would like to add on to this, dispute my claims, or contribute a theory of your own, feel free to do so. 

Περσεφόνη/Persephone

The Greek word used for this myth, the verb 'ἁρπάζω' also means to abduct, to snatch away, and it doesn't have a sexual connotation. Hades literally just steals Persephone. Meanwhile when, for example, Pausanias talks about Halirrhothios deflowering Alkippe, Ares' daughter, he specifically uses the word 'αἰσχύναντα' which means he dishonored her, disgraced her. So what I mean is, there is a difference between cases of rape as in assault, and the case of the 'rape' of Persephone, as in her abduction.

ngl i do enjoy the hades x Persophone idea, but i wish it reflected mythology more like Dread queen persophone is a damn kidnapping freak too.

The thing with Hades and Persephone is that these two are far from the perfectest, most pure, most ideal couple to ever exist. The beginning alone is disturbing, with Hades kidnapping, raping and then either tricking or straight-up forcing Persephone into remaining into the Underworld by giving her those pomegranate seeds. He also cheated on her with Minthe, so fidelity is not a strong point either.

What frustrates me though is that a lot people completely erase these aspects and try to create a version of the myth completely different from the ancient ones where the only similarities end up being the figures' names. I understand erasing the rape part, because even though back then marital rape wasn't considered a crime (and there are still parts of the world where it still isn't, unfortunately), the idea of having a woman starting to be fond or to love her rapist just because he treats her nicely is on itself deranging. But erasing the kidnapping or the infidelity only removes the complexity and the grey nuances of their relationship. Why, instead of claiming that Persephone willingly went with Hades or that Hades is the only faithful god, people would focus on the fact that she had just as much power and authority over the Underworld as him? Why, instead of demonizing Demeter, people would try to understand that having your daughter kidnapped and forcibly married off to someone is a disturbing scenario, and that her actions were completely justified?

On the "dread queen Persephone" part, I have to recognize that I despise the way people either portray Persephone as this innocent, naïve and oblivious flower girl, or as a cruel, merciless and completely terrifying queen.

Yes, she groomed Adonis (Pseudo-Apollodorus), brutally tortured Minthe before turning her into a plant (Starbo), inflicted Thebes woth a deadly plague (Antonius Liberalis) etc. etc. But she also realeased Sisyphus from the Underworld (Theognis), gave Orpheus a chance to rescue his wife (Diodorus Siculus), sent Alcestis back (Pseudo-Apollodorus), welcomed Heracles like a brother, allowed him to take Cerberus and to rescue Theseus and Pirithous (Diodorus Siculus) etc. etc. She had her own moments of cruelty, but compared to Aphrodite who made children lust over their parents or Dionysus who cursed mother to kill and devour their babies she is not as blood-thirsty and merciless as people like to give her credits for. What is ironic though is that people are perfectly capable to acknowledge that just because Hades ruled over the dead and ancient greeks were afraid to pronounce his name that doesn’t mean that he was evil, but somehow Persephone must be completely dreadful in order to be intersting.

Reducing either one of them two or their relationship to an aesthetic isn't just reductive, but also shallow, repetitive, uninteresting, uncreative and overall boring.

March 12: Tom Holland and Christoper Nolan prepare to film 'THE ODYSSEY' at the Greek sea.

I'm just saying

(my contribution to this poll)

I'm Greek and I'm fed up

Guess who read tua

Oh no she actually mentioned using Ovid, Shakespeare's Ulysses, and other sources in an interview.

Oh neat..

However Ovid does not depict Circe being assaulted in his work thankfully. Her stories center around her unrequited love, jealousy, and the consequences of her powerful magic. The focus is on her role as a sorceress who transforms others, not as a victim.

That's a main difference that Miller has been making in her works is the useless plot device of using women's suffering and trauma for shock value.

Like miller you are ruining the source material and the image of those old poets.