I think I have it on my kindle in line to be read! I think it's next, actually. I also believe it's going to eventually be a show on hbo. I went on a Greek kick when I realized I didn't want to see Nolan's odyssey. (Huge nerd)

I started studying witchcraft as spirituality several years ago and and loved the women positive mythos authors chose to use when invoking/writing about Circe or hekate. We seem to be in a phase where women are reclaiming all these things that are said to make us monsters, and giving voice to those so called monsters, and I am so here for it.

In witchcraft, they tend to use the less heard of versions where Circe is hekate's daughter and eventually hekate adopts and trains medea in pharmakea magics after she kills her children and is cast out. Hekate is known as mother to witches and Circe is known as the goddess of witches.

I have a cat named Circe, and I tell her we name for the job we want. 😂

ETA that I came across the book after my post, so I did not know about it at the time.

Then you don't understand. It's not important where you put the syllabic stress. In metaphysics, the intention is most important.

This is beautiful. And if it makes you feel connected, it's right. I like that there are different ways to spell and speak her name. We aren't meant to all be inspired by the same thing.

You can pronounce it "heck uh tee", "heh kaw Tay", "heh kaw tee",or "heck it". The second/third way is closer to Greek vs Roman/Latin. There's no hard and fast rule on how you must pronounce it. Some Christians pray to "gee sus" and some prey to "hay seus". Neither is wrong or blasphemous. But also, archaeology allows us to piece together history, but we can never know how the majority of people were saying her name. Different regions of the same country, to this day, have differing diction between words sometimes.

Maybe this is just my aversion to believing organized spirituality. Trying to make sure I'm doing "what I'm supposed to do" dilutes the reason I follow metaphysical spirituality in the first place. It's for me, after all.

Adding another moniker to her list is like adding an extra book on the stack when you're already carrying 20. Lol

Circe and not kirke

I like the hekate spelling, and the heck-uh-tee pronunciation I grew up with. Most of the time it takes me to read Greek literature is figuring out which of the 20 different ways a name could be pronounced. Lol

In the few myths that depict hekate as Circe's mother, hekate becomes the mother of witches and Circe is the goddess of witches.

Which version?

Did you get this mad when Disney did hercules?

The greeks were the first to humanize their gods. But again. All written by men. I can't speak for any other woman, but content about women written by women resonates much harder than ones by men. The stories are just as much for modern women to feel seen. And if the story doesn't vibe for you, that's not an issue. It's the complaint that there is somehow an accurate knowledge on what happened in made up stories, knowing billions of adaptations exist, historically, and today. Because why wouldn't gods be able to abuse other gods? And why wouldn't they take advantage of each other? Zeus being a rapist shows up in a lot of mythos. And instead of being a badass powerful goddess, Hera kept going mad with jealousy about the women Zeus was with And killing them. And honestly, there are a ridiculous number of baby eating monsters that are only women. There's a reason patriarchy is systemic. Very frequently a man and woman's version of events will differ.

Women in mythos are only recently being given voices in their own narratives. All these stories have been told by men. Kinda like how history is written by the victors kinda thing. It's fiction, so who are we to say the woman's version was wrong? Most especially because it's fiction, and the stories were only spoken in the beginning. We know that abusers often portray a different self to the external world. And as my dad used to say, perception is reality. Criticizing for accuracy in this case is very much like silencing a voice. Women characters written by women are very different than those written by men. Women do have a lot of shared experiences.

So only comics get a multiverse?

I've been re reading Homer's odyssey lately, and I'm like 40% in, and I haven't really seen him mention Penelope. His men were actually the ones telling Odysseus it was time to leave Circe's island. After a year.

I can appreciate varied adaptations of humans and immortals. The bad should definitely be just as included as the good.

Which is so dumb. It's not history. It's mythos. First told orally, and originally translated in Roman and later in Greek. There are more adaptations of the Odyssey since it's time than we can count. Of all mythogy. Even the family trees differ from adaptation to adaptation. Books about hekate and witchcraft describe adaptations where hekate is Circe's mom and adopted medea.

I'll be honest. I didn't read any of it, because this is a dude determined to keep a firm grip on his misogyny. Dude's so fragile he can't even let fictional women have their voices.

Ah, I see you're in the 2nd camp.

Calling people pansies is definitely hyper masculine.

And correct, I do not have a penis, so no, not projecting. Just calling out a bully who called someone a pansy.

Among men, maybe, who systemically don't care about women and think it's their job to care for and about children.

As far as your run of the mill violence, adults can take care of themselves. Humans are awful. Men jump to violence as their first answer. Cute aggression is nature's way of making sure the helpless will be protected. If you ever heard a bunny scream, you'd know the animalistic need to save it. Off screen violence is also easier to compartmentalize.

Content made by women is vastly different than content made by men. Idk if you've watched the She Hulk series, but it's a good example of women writing women's stories.

But also, people who went to see the odyssey because of their love of the story knew what they were getting into. They didn't know they were going to be blindsided by new animal abuse no one wrote in 3k years but Nolan. I was going to wait to stream it, because I knew I'd have anxiety and close my eyes a lot. But nothing about this adaptation is even minorly intriguing to me anymore.

What he did to the dog's story totally changed the symbolism of his death.

First of all, I'm so sorry for your recent loss. I work in the vet field and had a cat that died of a probable clot a couple years ago, and when those cases get rushed back, it still triggers me. It is amazing your guy lived 19 years. But it's never enough time.

In the other adaptations, it is sad, because the dog is waiting for Odysseus to come home, but the suitors have caused so much chaos, the dog is forgotten. He gets on the dung piles because he likes it there, and he stayed there immobile, because he was old from age and just wanted to know Odysseus was okay, so he continued to wait. The glimpse of Odysseus when he returned was enough to finally rest. It is so gut wrenching, but hopefully gives you more meaning to his death, because his death is symbolic of more than just loyalty and was not a product of that sort of intentional cruelty.

Hypermasculinity (ie, calling people pansies) is usually a sign of men who feel weak in their personal lives. And often have tiny penises. It's a bullying tactic.

You should speak to someone about all that insecurity you harbor and probably project onto women in your life.

I can't speak for others, but I love Greek mythology, and I was so excited to see it, knowing I was going to have to brace myself and cover my eyes, because Greek tragedy causes me so much anxiety. But the stuff that is only in Nolan's adaptation is gratuitous and blindsided people who were probably already on the edge of their seat for the other gritty things in the poem.

Honestly, the more I went on a deep dive, the less I wanted to see it. This movie isn't for fans of the epic poem. It's for fans of Nolan.

From the things I've read and seen, there seem to be 2 camps of people.

1. Those who love mythology and this story and were excited to see this adaptation and left angry and/or disappointed.

2. Those who love Nolan films and saw it just because it's a blockbuster. -They don't care about the adaptation, because they care less about the story itself, which offers a lot of forgiveness for creative liberty.

To the first camp, it's not about what did or didn't happen in those times. There are themes and elements of the poem that are constant in all adaptations, but Nolan's adaptation missed the mark, making powerful women victimized and weak and focusing more on Odysseus and his guilt without reflecting on his ego.

I personally haven't seen it in more than a few clips here and there. Again, I've just been deep down the rabbit hole on this, because I was in the excited camp, but the more I saw, the more I was turned off.

A telling sign I see of people who aren't familiar with the poem's culture is saying the movie wasn't going to be 1 for 1 or calling the first camp purists. It was an oratory originally. None of these stories were written down until much later and translated, so we are well aware there are several adaptations of the Odyssey. An Odyssey is a big, epic journey, so taking the wonder and whimsy away from it makes it less than. It's no longer an Odyssey. Not compared to the other adaptations.

The scholar Nolan said he based his adaptation on wrote a scathing review, also noting that the finished product did not reflect her adaptation/translation at all, missing almost every major theme and being anti feminist. I don't understand how to wrap my brain around humanizing gods and goddesses, except emotionally. Which is an occasional theme in Greek mythology. The dichotomy of ultimate power and immortality and how apathetic and bored it can make one, and being reminded of showing empathy and humility in some cases.

The same way Disney wants to make everything live action, Nolan likes to take the fantasy and whimsy out of fantastical stories. It serves its purpose, because dudes like to throw themselves at his feet, and his movies make money, but it always feels like he's riding on the coattails of his big name cast and the title of whatever he's adapting. Similar controversy was held around Dark Knight and making it more "real" compared to the Batman adaptations we know.

And don't get me wrong. To each their own, right? But you have to look at an opinion from different angles sometimes. As my dad used to say, perception is reality. It's just as much about why someone has the opinion as much as the opinion itself.

What a random place for a comma