Background image from here.
Anonymous said: Please, please, stop calling Ezra a pedophile, when he's not one at all. Tossing that word around is not a good thing.
@1 day ago with 186 notes
Ok, that’s it, this is officially the last time we’re ever gonna address this. Is Ezra a dictionary definition pedophile? No. Is he an adult male, who preyed upon a teenage girl, who he KNEW WOULD BE HIS STUDENT and also SPECIFICALLY TARGETED meaning he knew about her age? Yes. So, no, not a dictionary definition pedophile, but when dealing with an adult male, preying on a teenage girl, who he has an established power dynamic over, who may technically be over the age of consent in that particular state (BUT NOT OTHERS, I WOULD POINT OUT, NOT TO MENTION THE ABSOLUTE ILLEGALITY OF TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS IN PENNSYLVANIA), who he spied on for an extended period of time with hidden cameras, and who has, repeatedly, admitted to having the good sense of knowing that every facet of their relationship is wrong but continuing it anyways, we are gonna stretch that dictionary definition just a little bit.
If you find the word triggering, I’m sorry, but then shouldn’t you have a problem with the show itself for putting this relationship forward as something to be idolized, true love, full of wet stares and clandestine romance? We’re just calling ‘em like we see ‘em, and to be honest, if you don’t like it, simply put? Unfollow us.
pledgeallegiancetothestruggle said: Why do you seem to be so conflicted over the song of achilles? Can you go further into what you're problems with it are? I'm still basking in the honeymoon glow of just finishing it. Is it narrative or historical issues?
@1 week ago with 68 notes
well to be honest most of my issues are with its portrayal of patroclus. it’s been a while since i read tsoa but when i read it i remember being really taken aback by his characterisation - there was so much stuff about him not enjoying fighting and being terrible at it and wanting to be a healer, and to me that’s completely irreconcilable with the patroclus of the iliad. in the iliad, patroclus is one of the greatest fighters among the greeks, so much so that the idea of him being mistaken for achilles himself was a workable plan. he loves fighting so much that he disobeys orders and goes chasing after the trojans so he can keep going. it literally takes the personal intervention of apollo to kill him. the love of battle is an enormous part of his character, and writing that out is a really baffling choice to me.
the charitable part of me says that miller, as a classics professor, might have been trying to evoke the greek idea of erastes/eromenos relationships, where one partner was always smaller, weaker and younger than the other - as far we know, it was the most acceptable type of male/male relationship at the time and the question of which roles achilles and patroclus took has been debated since pretty much as long as the iliad has been around, so the idea that their relationship would have fit that pattern isn’t exactly new. the less charitable part says that she might be playing into the idea that gay relationships consist of a “masculine”, strong, aggressive partner and a “feminine”, weak, peace-keeping partner, which is obviously not true.
the reason im so conflicted about it is that i think it’s really incredibly important to talk about the fact that cultural icons like achilles may not actually have been straight, partly just because it helps normalise the idea and partly because it breaks down people’s assumptions about what non-straight men are “supposed” to look like (see also: alexander). tsoa was a huge deal when it first came out and it definitely helped raise mainstream awareness, so im glad it exists, but at the same time i just… wish it had been done slightly differently?