#but i do disagree with that interpretation of his character | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

The Tumblr office adopted Tommy, an 11-year-old Pomeranian.

#but i do disagree with that interpretation of his character

ineffably-graham · 8 months

Text

hannibal did not repeatedly demonstrate that he would let will do anything he wanted with him, moan while tied up after being told will sent a guy to kill him, turn his head and lean sensually on his fridge while will pointed a gun at him, and lay on the floor after being shot while looking into will's eyes and posing like a renaissance painting for the fandom to decide hannibal is a christian grey type dom.

#i said what i said #thank you for coming to my ted talk #im not anti bottom will #just anti christiangreyification of hannibal lecter #write and let write!#but i do disagree with that interpretation of his character #to each their own #do what you want #hannibal #nbc hannibal #hannigram #will graham #hannibal lecter #hannibal nbc #murder husbands #christian grey #never thought i'd use that tag

361 notes · View notes

onlyplatonicirl · 6 months

Text

@lightyearssurrogatedaddy i saw your tags lol. cue incoming characterization essay because i dont want to do my homework:

I've actually attributed the sunk-cost fallacy to Error's mindset on multiple occasions, and it's something I'm going to be referencing in my writing when it comes up.

The sunk-cost fallacy is the core principle in regards to Error's character and why he does the things he does in TCOTI. You have this character (error) who has spent his entire life dedicated to an impossible goal: complete annihilation. At first it didn't really seem to matter whether or not it was pheasable - it was just something he felt that needed to happen. He made it his life's goal, he became the villian of the entire multiverse to see his plan through for what he thought would right the mess and clutter of a chaotic world that shouldn't have even existed. Of course, it's a stupid plan, and he has that plan because he's literally insane. Error's spent an untold amount of time in a white void, both his mind and body warping to an unrecognizable degree. His view of the world is skewed, and he sees things different than others - while being stubborn and refusing to listen to anyone's thoughts but himself.

My story (but you can apply this to potentially any story involving Error because I personally feel like it's on par with his character) takes place at least a century in the future. Time does not matter to world-walking immortals. He is no closer to his goal than when he first started. Why would he? Error is essentially trying to stop an immutable force of nature - the deviance of timelines and branching pathways of the multiverse. (And if we're taking the canon route in regards to creators, then he's attempting to stop people from creating.) It's a completely impossible task. Universes are created at a much quicker rate than he can destroy them.

Even in a hypothetical situation where he achieves his goal and nothing but the original universe remains, it's going to branch off again eventually. His goal of "killing everything and then himself" would never last because once he's gone, there won't be anyone else left to "take out the trash" that will once again branch off and spread through the entire multiverse. Not that it's ever even gotten to that point though.

And like a said - He's crazy. These aren't really concerns of his, nor is he following sound logic or reason to his plan. But while he is crazy, he is not stupid.

How long do you think it would take him before he realizes he isn't getting anywhere? That everything he destroys just ends up replacing itself in one form or another? My story is a hypothetical century later. He may be able to stall the growth by killing off a main universe, or potentially backtracking the progress, but it's not the same as permanently making a dent in the net growth. And perhaps he's eased himself into that routine, into being content with just keeping things at an even level of creation and destruction. But it's not the goal he has centered his entire existence around- and eventually in the very subconscious of his mind, after an uncountable amount of time doing the same thing his whole life -running on a treadmill towards nowhere - does he begin to wonder why he's still doing this.

It wouldn't even register to him as a fully formed thought. It would be a nagging feeling in his gut, a general unease. It would take him years to even recognize that something is wrong, to try and think about things that go against his ideology and his reason to be, as stubborn and narcissistic as he is. But eventually it surfaces as a fully formed thought:

Why is he still doing this?

He had a reason back then, but it's going no where. It's been ages. decades. Almost nothing has changed.

But the simple fact is, he can never really answer that thought. Because he has been on this path for so long, there is nothing else left for him outside of it.

Sunk-cost fallacy.

If he stops, if he tries to seek out an alternate path, than what was EVERYTHING he worked for for YEARS and YEARS even for?? He went through so much pain, he's isolated from the rest of the multiverse as a villain, he has solidified his place in the world. If he ever stopped, it would be admitting to himself that every second of his long existence so far has been a waste. That he has done nothing with himself, and that he worked for nothing but the insane whims of a corrupted mind, towards an unachievable goal.

The world continues to move on. The multiverse continues to grow and change. And he remains, destroying, and convincing himself that he's fine with forever keeping balence.

Because what else does he have left?

And the question he doesn't even think to consider: What of the future?

#error sans #loreltxt #i love going on long unhinged rants about my favorite Guys #feel free to disagree with me lol its just my personal interpretation #because like i said #hes not stupid #i dont think he could just do the same thing forever #he'd hit a breaking point eventually #because he has depth of emotions to him - he's not one demensional. he's a complicated character #if he was a one dimensional caracature of destruction i wouldnt be writing this analysis #but yeah #hes stubborn so an extreme version of the sunk-cost fallacy would be his mental downfall #his acknowledgement that something is wrong but he's too big a manbaby to ever admit it to himself #which is where ink comes in #i can write an entirely separate essay on that #anyway enjoj #utmv #undertale multiverse

37 notes · View notes

cumbiazevran · 1 year

Text

I know I’m batting at the hornet nest, and please know that if you like this character, it’s nothing personal bc we interpret things as they make more sense to us that being said, I cannot stand the Solas gang who paint him as nothing BUT someone who has the interest of elves at heart and was their liberator, who is just kind and thoughtful and does his best to help people. I do not have a problem with people who like Solas bc this isn’t a morality competition about who has the most correct opinions, nor I care about people who do that, but did we play the same game?

Destroying the world is not the revolutionary move of liberation you think it is. I think we have seen enough movies that deal with that ecofascist narrative (bc even if the character isn’t, the narrative is). People still live in the world, and anyone who would genuinely suggest this would be destroyed in an argument by people who do actual mutual aid and left-based activism. What is or isn’t revolutionary doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and the devs being terminally Canadian/USAmerican don’t get to redefine things that exist beyond and over them

Solas isn’t a particularly helpful person. Not even to elves. Thinking pitifully of city elves and as the Dalish as savages, without any will to recognise the culture that flourished among them is also not the solidarity move you think it is

Solas isn’t particularly kind. Being soft spoken isn’t the same as being kind

For a fandom that usually has a lot of issues with other characters being used as BioWare mouth pieces (which is honestly understandable and I’m not jabbing at bc me too bestie), a lot of people in this fandom seem to be okay with Solas being one of the most blatant mouth-pieces there is

A person who laments hurting you, and saying he doesn’t want to hurt you, and how he wish he wasn’t hurting you, and who has the space to STOP and DOESN’T is you know. not someone who’s particularly interested in listening to other people

This is the guy who killed his best friend because he had the audacity to believe that a city elf could actually better the conditions of elves who are currently alive. Which is the revolutionary thing to do

The Elvhenan being destroyed is literally Solas’ doing. Organise unions and commit regicide like a normal person if it bothers you so much

“But they were enslavers” gee listen, I’m not saying the ancient elvhen empire should be pristine and perfect and a happy utopia, but you’ve never stopped to think how it’s at least a little racist that they modelled a people after several indigenous cultures and cultures of colour and then decided that the guy who wanted to fix them was a white looking king and fallen god who thinks people who are lesser than him are underdeveloped and savage? Not only that but that BioWare decided that that very culture was going to be based on slavery like a wildly inaccurate, racist, methodologically questionable global north high school text talking about Mesoamerican cultures? That they took the ancient practice of face tattoos and decided they were slave markings? How white are you???

Once again he constantly distances himself from modern elves, and the only one he speaks kindly of is a high approval Dalish Inquisitor.

He is one of the biggest “all faith in anything at all is subjugation if you disagree with me you are committing an attack on the very concept of freedom" characters in the franchise. I fully see going that route when you’re playing with Andrastianism, because of the narrative around it in the game and the influences it has. But with other minority religions and Otherised cultures in the game? It is straight up racist to me, and sounds too close to white atheism for my comfort. This isn’t just a Solas thing, but a Bioware thing in general. Even if Andrastianism is criticised or portrayed as genuinely damaging, every single person who isn’t a human andrastian is portrayed as being Oppressed Without Knowing It. every single dialogue and investigation option is framed like this.

Also foreign liberators don’t really tend to be liberators. People who seek to free other people because they know better should be met with resistance. It is with the people or not at all, and Solas actually fits in this category. He sees himself as the granter of Freedom. Where I come from, we call these people gringos or conquistadores, so you choose.

I’m not saying you can’t find entertainment, enjoyment, pathos or whatever else in this particular character. On the contrary, as different narratives and different narrative devices satisfy different things. That, however, doesn’t mean the narrative they use is extremely skewed and can be interpreted as extremely infective in terms of what people pretend it is aka a story about Liberation.

In my personal opinion, Bioware doesn’t have stories about liberation because it does not have the range for it in Dragon Age, which leaves us with a lot of half assed attempts, but I digress. My point is I’m not claiming to know what you see in this character just because I don’t enjoy him, or that you can’t at all. I’m not the boss of you. I am, however, proposing that perhaps people should stop ignoring Solas’ negative traits and the actual text material to pretend he’s some benevolent, lost, elvhen King Arthur come to fix things while being willing to kill everyone else in the process. Again.

#jules.txt #character critical #da critical #solas critical #'but everyone hates my favourite character'. listen. i don't think anyone is allowed to give you personal shit for characters they don't #like but you do. but like at least work with the text instead of making solas a white liberator who is not at all how he actually is #i follow a lot of people who main solas and whose interpretations of his narrative i think Fuck and are excellently constructed #*even if i don't see it that way or disagree* bc you know different analysis and solid building #but we're gonna lie now?

58 notes · View notes

enderspawn · 1 year

Text

as more time passes the more respect i have for grizz’s takes on mark winters, even when we Completely Disagree bc like. the divergence in our opinions doesn’t occur in our base understanding of the character, but rather in the personal interpretation of said character.

like i can go ‘mark does [bad action X] bc of [Y] which, while it doesn’t excuse said actions, does explain it and allows me to understand and sympathize with his decisions”, but grizz goes “mark does [bad action X] bc of [Y], which is a skill issue” and i respect the hell out of that LMAO

#LIKE GENUINELY THO it’s #‘I know why he did X i simply do not respect it anyway’ vs ‘I know why he did X and Get It’ kind of thing #he gets the character fine he just doesn’t Care for it and I get it man I Respect it BFJDN #idk man that comment a few riptide rolled abt him getting Bullied for his opinions on wavelength stuck w me HDJSB #and like. AS someone who Wholely disagrees w a lot of his perspective/takes on the character #he also does Not deserve the bullying for his take bc it’s not like he doesn’t GET IT it’s just. different interpretations of it #jrwi #pd #og post #‘he’s a bad dad bc of his own personal issues he hasn’t gotten over 🥺🥺’ ‘okay well. Get Over Them you’re a fucking Adult dude’ kinda deal #fjskkdkf

32 notes · View notes

rustedleopard · 2 years

Text

Whenever I think about how I characterize Porky, I always come back to this quote I read in a short story in the Twelve Kingdoms series regarding the trial of a prisoner named Shudatsu, who (among many other crimes) killed a young child just to steal the small amount of cash he had on him, and held no remorse for his crime. This is the quote:

The bitter realization occurred to Eikou—the man himself possessed no powers of self-analysis. His was an unexamined life. He had no substantive awareness of his crimes and was not about to face up to his actions and gain that awareness. Calling himself “trash” was the tortoise shell he crawled inside, and he was content to stay there forever. No words would persuade him otherwise and no words could wound him. (Prison of Dusk: Chapter 8, Twelve Kingdoms, trans. Eugene Woodbury. Emphasis added by me).

This quote makes me go !!!!!! because that’s exactly how I characterize Porky: someone who is capable of doing so many horrible things because he uses “I’m a terrible person” as his armor to protect himself from doing any sort of self reflection.

My interpretation of his character is why seeing him being characterized as “a terrible person who was always going to end up a monster” or “innocent because his family/Giygas who made him this way” irks me so so much! Saying that Porky was always a terrible person doesn’t really show respect to his character. He’s an abused child. His parents demeaned him and in the Japanese version, his father physically abused him in the beginning of the game. Unconditional love, kindness, and respect were likely commodities in his house (and while Porky’s closeness with Picky is left a bit vague, Picky did wait for Porky on the hill when he ran off. Meanwhile, during Fourside, Picky was abandoned at home while Porky and his father (and mother? My memory is a bit foggy) were living it up, so make of their relationship what you will).

But on the other side of the coin, saying that Porky’s family/Giygas is solely responsible for his behavior is annoying because he’s capable of independent thought. Porky does have at least some idea of what’s right and wrong considering that he begs for Ness’ forgiveness in Happy Happy Village after kidnapping Paula and joining a cult. And while Buzz Buzz admits that Giygas sways people to do evil, my interpretation of how Giygas’ powers work is that he cannot force you to do anything that you aren’t at least somewhat willing to do: he can only make the worse options seem more appealing. If he was capable of outright possession, then what stops him from possessing your sister/mom/dog/every NPC you encounter and making them attack you? There’s still a choice to do the right thing, even if he can make you feel like the wrong choices are more appealing.

To me, Porky is someone who was born in unfortunate circumstances which made him feel powerless and weak and when an opportunity arose to get power (wealth, influence, followers), he jumped on it. And when people grew upset with him because the power he’s accessed is hurting others, instead of doing some self-examination and giving it up, he saw himself as the victim and doubled down. He took the words that people threw at him, “horrible” “terrible” “rotten” “bad,” and decided that if that was how he was going to be seen both as the abused child and as Giygas’ right-hand man, then he may as well live with it and enjoy his power regardless. In the end, being a terrible person was a place of safety for him because he would never have to confront his own actions and see that the only thing he’s truly accumulated is a wealth of shame.

#pokey tag #this is a follower exclusive take BABEY!#please ignore my poor attempt at an in-text citation. i'm not about to bust out the purdue owl for this #i 100% believe that if porky didn't have such an awful family he wouldn't have ended up that way #the circumstances of his birth put him at a disadvantage to resist g.iygas' influence #but he still took a shovel and dug his morals down until they were doing limbo w/ the devil #that was a choice that he made for himself.#i know he was a kid and kids do stupid stuff but he's also old enough to know basic morality #and that teaming up with the Universal Cosmic Destroyer is a really bad thing to do #and also turning animals into chimeras/brainwashing people/trying to destroy the world/etc is really bad too #this is about a medium level take on how i interpret him. it doesn't hit every point but it hits the major ones #this is why i can't see porky trying to redeem himself. redemption cannot arise from an outside mediator #and he doesn't want to redeem himself either. he wants to enjoy himself and his power. he doesn't want to take things seriously #he'd rather live inside the title of 'a bad person' because it's easy. he never has to ask himself hard questions #he never has to confront himself or grow or change at all. he does what he wants because he's 'a bad person' so you can't expect #better behavior from him.#this is also my interpretation of his character though so like. if you disagree that's fine #variety is the spice of life (and salt is the seasoning of death so don't be salty in my inbox)#(also please please read the 12k chapter link i left above. context may be hard to understand but i see so many similarities between Porky #and Shudatsu that it's insane)

10 notes · View notes

babyrdie · 6 days

Note

although my first request was achilles idk much about patroclus. you said he's one of your favorites so you know other ancient texts that mention him besides homer?

IT TOOK SOME TIME, BUT HERE IS YOUR PATROPEDIA!!!

Hey! Patroclus doesn't have AS MUCH lore as some other mythological characters, but there's still enough for this post to be long, so get ready! Fortunately, it's divided into topics, so it should make it easier to read with pauses.

And some details:

Since you said "ancient texts", I'm assuming non-mythological texts count and I'm going to put them here.

My focus is on Greek texts because I don't know much about non-Greek sources, but there are some non-Greek texts here.I’ill indicate which are the non-Greek ones so that no one confuses them with the Greek texts. As I'm already considering texts from the Archaic, Classical and Roman Greece, I'll consider Byzantine sources as well. So be aware that some of these texts have a considerable amount of time in between.

It's also important to say that I'm only including the ones that >>I<< know Patroclus is in, there may be others! And I'm not a classicist or anything like that, any part here that is my interpretation (it will be very obvious when it is) is...just an interpretation of an ordinary person. It is not a super historical, contextual analysis, etc. For the love of god, don't think you have to agree!

The links go to the exact points I mentioned,so it’s easier for you to check.

Check the "References" part in the end!

My English can be broken, especially in such a long text.

FAMILY

Father: Menoetius

From what I've seen, Menoetius being Patroclus' father is a constant characteristic of his character. Now, just to clarify some ideas:

"Patroclus is the son of a titan"

I've heard this one, but guys…he's not! It's just that there's a titan named Menoetius, but it's NOT the same Menoetius. Patroclus' paternal grandfather is Actor, and this titan's father is Iapetus and not Actor.

[...]And Actor's son Menoetius[...]

The Iliad, XI, 938. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Now Iapetus took to wife the neat-ankled maid Clymene, daughter of Ocean, and went up with her into one bed. And she bore him a stout-hearted son, Atlas: also she bore very glorious Menoetius [...]

Theogony, 507-510. Translation by Hugh G. Evelyn-White.

"Patroclus' father was an Argonaut"

That's right! There is indeed a Menoetius son of Actor from Opus among the Argonauts.

Moreover Actor sent his son Menoetius from Opus that he might accompany the chiefs

Argonautica, 69. Translation by Seaton, R. C.

"Patroclus' father is the brother of Achilles' father, Peleus"

This wasn't invented! There are fragments attributed to Hesiod, and fragment 61 is a commentary by a scholiast of Homer named Eustathius mentioning a Hesiodic tradition in which Menoetius and Peleus are brothers.

Eustathius, Hom. 112. 44 sq: It should be observed that the ancient narrative hands down the account that Patroclus was even a kinsman of Achilles; for Hesiod says that Menoethius the father of Patroclus, was a brother of Peleus, so that in that case they were first cousins.

Catalogue of Women, frag 61. Translation by Evelyn-White, H G

Mother: Sthenele, Periopis, Polymele, Democrateia, Philomela

Patroclus' mother is not a fixed tradition, her identify changes depending on the source.

Achilles was also accompanied by Patroclus, son of Menoetius and Sthenele, daughter of Acastus; or the mother of Patroclus was Periopis, daughter of Pheres, or, as Philocrates says, she was Polymele, daughter of Peleus.

Library, 3.13.8. Translation by James George Frazer.

If we consider Philocrates' version, then Patroclus' mother is Achilles' sister, which makes Achilles Patroclus' uncle. This makes me think that Philocrates probably didn't follow the Hesiodic tradition of Menoetius and Peleus being brothers, or Menoetius would be marrying his niece. But who knows, after all Arete and Alcinous in The Odyssey are married and they're niece and uncle. Or it could be another Peleus, though I have never seen that name on another character before.

Damocrateia was also attributed as his mother by a scholiast of Pindar in the Olympian Odes. And here is the moment when you expect me to post another excerpt in English, but that won't happen because I simply DIDN'T find it in English! But I found it in Greek and, activating Google Translate, the translation comes out completely messed up, but you can see that the information is really there and wasn't invented by Wikipedia! And if you use a translation website, it's less confusing to read but it's definitely not 100% accurate yet.

Anyway, it’s in poem 9 scholia. From what I understand, it’s basically telling about the nymph Aegina, daughter of the river Asopus. She first gave birth to Aeacus (son of Zeus), who is the father of Peleus and Telamon (Telamon is the father of Great Ajax and Teucer). She subsequently went to Thessaly, where she had a relationship with Actor and gave birth to Menoetius. Menoetius settled in Opus and had Patroclus with Sthenele or with Damocrateia. The part mentioning Democrateia is more specifically poem 9.106.b! In 9.104.a, it's said that Democrateia is also Aegina's daughter, so basically in this version Patroclus is a child of half-sibling incest. As Aegina is the mother of Aeacus, who is the father of Peleus, who is the father of Achilles, Achilles and Patroclus are cousins once removed.

There is also Philomela, mentioned by Homer's scholiasts in 343 and 134 (both in Greek). There was no translator that could save me, so I had to ask for help from someone who understands Greek and, apparently, the scholiasts weren’t sure whether or not she could be considered Patroclus' mother. It wasn’t really a statement like in other cases.

Sister: Myrto

There is a daughter of Menoetius and therefore sister of Patroclus named Myrto. In this version given by Plutarch, she had a daughter with Heracles named Eucleia. This makes Patroclus a kind of brother-in-law of Heracles.

Now Eucleia is regarded by most as Artemis, and is so addressed; but some say she was a daughter of Heracles and of that Myrto who was daughter of Menoetius and sister of Patroclus, and that, dying in virginity, she received divine honors among the Boeotians and Locrians. For she has an altar and an image built in every market place, and receives preliminary sacrifices from would-be brides and bridegrooms.

Aristides, 20.6. Translation by Bernadotte Perrin.

I only found this mention of her as Patroclus's sister.

Brother: Abderos

The version of Abderos, one of the characters considered between the lovers of Heracles, being the brother of Patroclus is found in Photius' Bibliotheca. This Bibliotheca is Photius giving reviews of the books he has read, so this version isn't his, but rather the person he's evaluating. In this case, he attributed this myth to Ptolemy Hephaestion's New Histories (because of a passage in the Suda, there is a theory that this Ptolemy is Ptolemy Chennus. In this case, Ptolemy Chennus is from Roman Greece. So although Photius is Byzantine, the version isn’t from Byzantine Greece). Again, Patroclus is a sort of brother-in-law of Heracles.

The centaurs who fled from Heracles through Tyrsenia perished of hunger, ensnared by the soft song of the Sirens. Abderos, who was loved by Heracles, was the brother of Patroclus [...]

Photius' Bibliotheca, 190.39. Translation by Roger Pearse.

I only found this mention of his as Patroclus's brother. And in case you read the part where I say it's a review and wondered what Photius' opinion was on Ptolemy's versions... well, he wrote “a work really useful for those who undertake to attempt erudition in history; it can, in fact, give the method to know in a short time connected elements, whereas a long life would be consumed in the effort of locating them in the books through which they are scattered. It abounds in extraordinary and badly imagined information; and the peak of absurdity is that he attempts, for certain trivial fables, to explain the reasons for their appearance.”

My take

Although the fragment attributed to Hesiod establishes Menoetius and Peleus as brothers, the other sources don’t seem to make this connection between them. Peleus 99% of the time isn’t Menoetius' brother, but Telamon's (and Phocus' half-brother by Aeacus). On the other hand, Actor appears to mostly have children with Aegina, Menoetius being one of them. So I think it's more likely that the most popular version would be that Patroclus entered Aegina's lineage as Achilles' cousin once removed, rather than first cousin. Patroclus' siblings are only mentioned in much later sources, which leads me to believe that they’re a more recent version of the myths and perhaps in older versions he was an only child or his siblings didn’t have important myths. As for Patroclus' mother, it’s impossible to deduce anything besides Philomela seems to have been the only possible mother to be cited with doubt by scholiasts.

As I can't be sure of Patroclus' most popular attributed mother (although I theorize that perhaps it could be Sthenele since she was the only one I saw mentioned in two different sources), I won't do his maternal lineage or it would take too long. But, by his father's side, Actor is apparently the son of Myrmidon and Pisidice and has a brother named Antiphus.

[...] and Pisidice had Antiphus and Actor by Myrmidon.

Library, 1.7.3. Translation by Sir James George Frazer.

However, there are surprisingly a fair amount of “Actor” in the mythology, so while being descended from Myrmidon fits in with Patroclus becoming a Myrmidon, I'm not sure if we're talking about Patroclus' Actor or someone else. Although Menoetius is king of Opus, his family doesn’t originate from Opus according to Pindar.

[...] until the ruler of Olympus carried off the daughter of Opus from the land of the Epeians, and lay with her peacefully in the glens of Mount Maenalus, and brought her to Locrus, so that age would not overtake him and lay the burden of childlessness on him. His bride was carrying in her womb the seed of the greatest god, and the hero rejoiced to see his adopted son, and gave him the same name as his mother's father, Opus, a man beyond words in beauty and fine deeds. Locrus gave him a city and a people to govern, and strangers came to him from Argos and Thebes, from Arcadia and Pisa. But among the settlers he chiefly honored the son of Actor and Aegina, Menoetius [...]

Olympian Ode 9. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

PRE-TROY

As a child, Patroclus killed another boy and, as a result, was sent to Phthia, where he met Achilles. Sources we have regarding this are:

"[...] just as we grew up together in your house, after Menoetius brought me there from Opois, and only a boy, but banished for bloody murder the day I killed Amphidarnas' son. I was a fool — I never meant to kill him — quarreling over a dice game. Then the famous horseman Peleus took me into his halls, he reared me with kindness, appointed me your aide. [...]"

The Iliad, XXIII, 102-108. Translation by Robert Fagles.

[...] At Opus, in a quarrel over a game of dice, Patroclus killed the boy Clitonymus, son of Amphidamas, and flying with his father he dwelt at the house of Peleus and became a minion of Achilles.

Library, 3.13.8. Translation by Sir James George Frazer.

I haven't found any other version that explains why he met Achilles other than being exiled to Phitia, so I imagine it's constant in Patroclus myths.

Patroclus is mentioned among Helen's suitors by Pseudo-Apollodorus.

Now the kings of Greece repaired to Sparta to win the hand of Helen. The wooers were these: -- Ulysses, son of Laertes; Diomedes, son of Tydeus; Antilochus, son of Nestor; Agapenor, son of Ancaeus; Sthenelus, son of Capaneus; Amphimachus, son of Cteatus; Thalpius, son of Eurytus; Meges, son of Phyleus; Amphilochus, son of Amphiaraus; Menestheus, son of Peteos; Schedius and Epistrophus, sons of Iphitus; Polyxenus, son of Agasthenes; Peneleos, son of Hippalcimus; Leitus, son of Alector; Ajax, son of Oileus; Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, sons of Ares; Elephenor, son of Chalcodon; Eumelus, son of Admetus; Polypoetes, son of Perithous; Leonteus, son of Coronus; Podalirius and Machaon, sons of Aesculapius; Philoctetes, son of Poeas; Eurypylus, son of Evaemon; Protesilaus, son of Iphiclus; Menelaus, son of Atreus; Ajax and Teucer, sons of Telamon; Patroclus, son of Menoetius.

Library, 3.10.8. Translation by Sir James George Frazer.

And by Pausanias:

At a spot called Arainus is the tomb of Las with a statue upon it. The natives say that Las was their founder and was killed by Achilles, and that Achilles put in to their country to ask the hand of Helen of Tyndareus. In point of fact it was Patroclus who killed Las, for it was he who was Helen's suitor. We need not regard it as a proof that Achilles did not ask for Helen because he is not mentioned in the Catalogue of Women as one of her suitors.

Description of Greece, 3.24.10. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

Although Hyginus isn’t Greek, Fabulae (attributed to him) was intended to collect Greek myths and present them to a Roman audience — that's why the Latin names. So I’ll be considering it here as a source of Greek myths.

SUITORS OF HELEN: Antilochus, Ascalaphus, Ajax, son of Oileus, Amphimachus, [Ancaeus], Blanirus, Agapenor, Ajax, son of Telamon, Clytius the Cyanean, Menelaus, Patroclus, Diomedes, Peneleus, Phemius, Nireus, Polypoetes, Elephenor, Eumelus, Sthenelus, Tlepolemus, Protesilaus, Podalirius, Eurypylus, Idomeneus, Leonteus, Thalpius, Polyxenus, Prothous, Menestheus, Machaon, Thoas, Ulysses, Phidippus, Meriones, Meges, Philoctetes. Older writers mention others.

Fabulae, 81. Translation by Mary Grant.

Chronologically, Patroclus wouldn’t have been old enough to become Helen's husband (he would be at least 7/8 years old and at most just over 10). I really don't know if it's a case of myths contradicting each other in chronology or if perhaps the intention was to achieve an engagement rather than a direct marriage or even a connection (Odysseus himself was among the suitors, but focused on Tyndareus and Penelope rather than Helen). This version doesn’t seem to be a case of more isolated myth like Menoetius and Peleus being brothers. I also imagine it happened before Patroclus was sent to Phitia.

Although people consider Patroclus training at Pelion, there are no Greek sources that show him there, only Roman ones. I imagine that Patroclus' current association with Chiron is to make sense chronologically that he grew up with Achilles, since Achilles in most sources spent a considerable portion of his childhood with Chiron. In this post I exemplify this better.

As for Patroclus going to Troy, we have:

“[...] And your fathers filled your ears with marching orders. The old horseman Peleus urging his son Achilles, 'Now always be the best, my boy, the bravest, and hold your head up high above the others: And Actor's son Menoetius urging you, 'My child, Achilles is nobler than you with his immortal blood but you are older. He has more power than you, by far, but give him sound advice, guide him, even in battle. Achilles will listen to you-for his own good: So the old man told you. You've forgotten. [...]”

The Iliad, XI, 934-943. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Here it seems that the reason, or at least the main reason, Patroclus was in Troy is because Peleus wanted him to be with Achilles.

[...] And in that way Achilles went to Troy. [...] Achilles was also accompanied by Patroclus, son of Menoetius [...]

Library, 3.13.8. Translation by J. G. Frazer.

Once again it appears that Patroclus went to Troy as Achilles' companion.

He’s usually described as going to Troy accompanying Achilles. The character of Patroclus actually seems strongly linked to going to Troy, since in some versions he’s one of the suitors and therefore took the oath. And even if we consider authors who didn’t mention Oath of Tyndareus, Patroclus follows Achilles. It's as if there was an effort to avoid the possibility of Patroclus not having gone to Troy, which makes sense because his character is essential to the development of the tenth year of war. Bro was reaaaaaally doomed by narrative lol

PERSONALITY, ROLE AND CHARACTER

Note: most of the things I wrote are more on the objective side, but this is the most subjective part of the post. So, of course, it's perfectly possible for you to disagree.

The uncommon “gentle” epithet

Patroclus was portrayed as gentle by Homer. He may not be what we see as "gentle" today because a soldier isn't exactly the picture of gentleness in modern times, but by the standards of the time and even among Homeric characters, Patroclus was considered gentle. It isn't a modern invention, as some people think.

When Menelaus announces the death of Patroclus, this is how he describes him:

[...] So here Menelaus paused with much to command Meriones and the Aeantes: "Ajax and Ajax, captains of Achaea, Meriones too, remember Patroclus now, our stricken comrade! That gentle man, the soul of kindness to all while the man was still alive... Now death and fate have got him in their grip."

The Iliad, XVII, 751-757. Translation by Robert Fagles.

When thinking about the fate of mortals, this is how Zeus describes Patroclus:

Now, when Zeus who arrays the clouds saw Hector from afar, strapping on the gear of Peleus' godlike son, he shook his head and addressed his own deep heart: "Poor soldier. Never a thought of death weighs down your spirit now, yet death is right beside you ... You don the deathless arms of a great fighterand all other fighters tremble before him, true, but you, you killed his comrade, gentle, strong, and against all rights you ripped the immortal armor off his head and shoulders. So great power for the moment I will grant you to compensate for all that is to come: never again will you return from battle, Hector, nor will Andromache take that famous armor. Achilles' deathless armor, from your hands."

The Iliad, XVII, 227-239.

When mourning the death of Patroclus, Briseis said:

[...] So now I mourn your death — I will never stop — you were always kind."

The Iliad, XIX, 355.

One of Priam's sons, Lycaon, when begging to be spared by Achilles appeals to the memory of Patroclus and describes him thus:

[...] Listen, this too-take it to heart, I beg you don't kill me! I'm not from the same womb as Hector, Hector who killed your friend, your strong, gentle friend!"

The Iliad, XXI, 107-109.

Note: In The Iliad, it's said that this Lycaon had been defeated before, but wasn't killed by Achilles because he was sold. In frag 1 of Cypria, it's said that Patroclus was the one who sold Lycaon in Lemnos. If we consider the possibility that it was the same in the Homeric tradition, it makes even more sense that Lycaon tried this strategy.

And Achilles:

"[...] But I and our fast stallions will not race today, so strong his fame, the charioteer they've lost, so kind — always washing them down with fresh water, sleeking their long manes with smooth olive oil. [...]"

The Iliad, XXIII, 320-322.

Besides Achilles, Menelaus, Trojans (Briseis and Lycaon) and a god (Zeus) related Patroclus to kindness.

In The Iliad, the heroes generally have epithets that refer to:

Their appearance (ex: Menelaus with “xanthus/blonde/red-haired” and Ajax with “giant/gigantic”)

Their abilities (ex: Achilles with “swift-footed” as an example of physical ability and Odysseus with “tactician” as an example of intellectual ability)

Their role (ex: Agamemnon with "lord of men/shepherd of people" because he’s the leader of the Achaean army)

Their ancestrality (ex: Diomedes with "Tydeus' son")

They’re all epithets that somehow magnify them in war. They're big, they're fast, they have an important lineage, they play a big role. Patroclus has epithets like these too. He is "dear to Zeus", he is "Menoetius' son", he is "great-hearted". And yet he’s the only one who has the epithet "gentle". Everyone who receives personality-related epithets still receives warrior or strategic/wisdom epithets, but Patroclus also receives “gentle”.

Homer intentionally emphasized this characteristic of Patroclus and never treated it as a weakness, but rather as a quality. Gentle or kind only appears describing Patroclus after his death, as if these two things were linked (Menelaus and Briseis feel affected by Patroclus' death because he was kind to them, Zeus talks about how Hector is destined to die for having killed Patroclus while associating Patroclus with kindness and strength, Lycaon tries to win Achilles' mercy by remembering that Patroclus was kind, Achilles speaks of his horses' grief at losing a kind charioteer). The preserved memory of Patroclus by those who mourn or speak of his death is not just his strength or his courage, but his gentleness. This makes me think that the choice to make Patroclus the only hero to receive this type of epithet is precisely to aggravate the tragedy of his destiny — Achilles was the most affected, but he wasn’t the only one to mourn between the characters and even the listener/reader.

Impact of Patroclus' death and his relationships

Although there is the joke of Menelaus and Ajax recovering Patroclus' body for Achilles' sake (because of Menelaus' lines in XVII, 100-120, mainly "and haul the body back to Achilles — somehow. Things are bad, but that would be the best"), Menelaus actually demonstrated a strong protective reaction toward Patroclus' body before he thought of Achilles.

But Atreus' son the fighting Menelaus marked it all— the Trojans killing Patroclus there in the brutal carnage— and crested now in his gleaming bronze gear Atrides plowed through the front to stand astride the body, braced like a mother cow lowing over a calf, her first-born, first labor-pangs she'd felt. So the red-haired captain bestrode Patroclus now, shielding his corpse with spear and round buckler, burning to kill off any man who met him face-to-face. But Euphorbus who hurled the lethal ashen spear would not neglect his kill, Patroclus' handsome body,

The Iliad, XVII, 1-11.

Menelaus even fears that he would be left behind and die, but he still doesn’t abandon Patroclus and gets help. The Trojans' plan was to recover Patroclus' body and give it to Hector, who wished to depreciate his body by feeding it to dogs. If this happened, Patroclus wouldn’t have a dignified burial, something that is already important in modern culture, but in this specific context it would also prevent Patroclus from having adequate rest after death. Ensuring proper burial was VERY important, which is why it's impactful when one character tries to stop another from having it (like Hector wanted to stop Patroclus’ burial, Clytemnestra wanted to stop Agamemnon and Cassandra’s, and Achilles almost stopped Hector’s. In the Odyssey, there's even a story precisely about Odysseus having to ensure that one of his companions is buried when they’re on Circe's island). That's why the Achaeans were so determined to recover the body.

Menelaus being the one who first protected Patroclus' body and one of those who tried the hardest to do so actually draws my attention to the detail that Menelaus and Patroclus are relatively similar characters in Homeric tradition:

Both are related to a more well-known and powerful figure (Achilles and Agamemnon)

Both were avenged by this figure (Achilles with Hector's death, Agamemnon by helping to recover Helen)

Both are portrayed as gentle and calm people compared to the other characters (I'm already talking about Patroclus here, but Menelaus even wants to spare a Trojan if it weren't for Agamemnon intervening and easily forgives Antilochus' fraud in the competition. In The Odyssey, Menelaus is depicted as an ideal host. It really seems like Menelaus only becomes angry and violent towards Paris, but it makes sense)

Both are the characters that receive the most uses of apostrophes (I’ill elaborate on this later)

Automedon at first doesn’t have time to mourn, after all he’s fighting for his life, but he’s also grieving.

[...] Automedon fought as he rode, though grieving for his friend, swooping in with the team like a vulture after geese. [...]

The Iliad, XVII, 529-530.

In Automedon's case, he has problems because Xanthus and Balius (Achilles' immortal horses) don't want to move because they’re depressed about Patroclus' death. Automedonte even says that the only person who could truly control the horses was Patroclus, but now he’s dead and cannot help. Patroclus' absence is then immediately felt by Automedon, who like him had to deal with Achilles' horses and will have to do it alone.

When Menelaus asks Antilochus to give the message to Achilles, this is the description of Antilochus' reaction:

Antilochus listened closely, hating every word. He stood there speechless a while, struck dumb... tears filling his eyes, his strong voice choked. But he still would not neglect Atrides' order. So handing his gear to a loyal aide Laodocus, who maneuvered his pawing horses close by, he set oft'at a run

The Iliad, XVII, 782-788.

And when Antilochus tells Achilles, he keeps crying.

As such fears went churning through his mind the warlord Nestor's son drew near him now, streaming warm tears, to give the dreaded message: "Ah son of royal Peleus. what you must hear from me! What painful news-would to god it had never happened! Patroclus has fallen. They're fighting over his corpse. He's stripped, naked-Hector with that flashing helmet. Hector has your arms!

The Iliad, XVIII, 16-23.

Antilochus kneeling near, weeping uncontrollably, clutched Achilles' hands as he wept his proud heart out for fear he would slash his throat with an iron blade.

The Iliad, XVIII, 36-38.

Antilochus's strong reaction to Patroclus' death, the way he knows Achilles well enough to fear that he will hurt himself as an initial shock reaction, and the fact that in the Odyssey and later myths Antilochus becomes Achilles' second closest companion after Patroclus' death makes me think that Antilochus was actually one of Patroclus' closest comrades. Antilochus is also one of the youngest in the army (a characteristic emphasized by Menelaus in the Book of Patroclus' Funerary Games), so he was probably closer to the age of Achilles and Patroclus.

Although Achilles' anger was well known, this wasn’t his first reaction to Patroclus' death. In Book XVIII we see how he throws sand at himself, pulls his hair and Automedon even holds his hands because he is afraid he will cut himself. The initial impact of Patroclus' death on Achilles wasn’t to make him want to hurt/kill someone, but rather to want to hurt/kill himself. And even after Thetis guarantees that she will bring an armor for Achilles to go to battle to avenge (because his is with Hector, who took it from Patroclus), in the meantime between that and him actually receiving the armor Achilles is absolutely depressed. He doesn't even eat, meaning he actually chooses to hurt himself. After receiving the armor from Thetis, he enters the most violent stage and at the end of The Iliad he slowly begins to recover.

Even Briseis and other women mourn Patroclus' death: And so Brisets returned, like golden Aphrodite, but when she saw Patroclus lying tom by the bronze she flung herself on his body, gave a piercing cry and with both hands clawing deep at her breasts, her soft throat and lovely face, she sobbed, a woman like a goddess in her grief, "Patroclus— dearest joy of my heart, my harrowed, broken heart! I left you alive that day I left these shelters, now I come back to find you fallen, captain of armies! So grief gives way to grief, my life one endless sorrow! The husband to whom my father and noble mother gave me, I saw him tom by the sharp bronze before our city,— and my three brothers-a single mother bore us: my brothers, how I loved you!- you all went down to death on the same day... But you, Patroclus, you would not let me weep, not when the swift Achilles cut my husband down, not when he plundered the lordly Mynes' city not even weep! No, again and again you vowed you'd make me godlike Achilles' lawful. wedded wife, you would sail me west in your warships, home to Phthia and there with the Myrmidons hold my marriage feast. So now I mourn your death — I will never stop — you were always kind." Her voice rang out in tears and the women wailed in answer, grief for Patroclus calling forth each woman's private sorrows.

The Iliad, XIX, 333-358.

Other members of the army are also mentioned lamenting. But, in addition to the emotional impact on people, there is the impact on destiny. Patroclus' death was a way to accelerate the fall of Troy. Only when Patroclus dies does Hector die, and only in Hector's death does Troy come close to falling.

Patroclus’ apostrophes

The characterization of Patroclus as someone who was mourned by everyone and who has "gentle" as a characteristic epithet after his death are not the only resources used to accentuate the tragedy of his death. Homer's repeated use of apostrophes with Patroclus is also significant, as this is intended to evoke sympathy in the reader/listener.

Apostrophe in Greek literally means ‘turning away’ (i.e. from the person who has continuously been addressed up till the moment of the apostrophe); the most common Latin translation is aversio. The term is mostly used, in ancient as in modern literary criticism, to indicate ‘the address to someone not present in the default dialogic scheme’, that is to say a (ﬁctional or intradiegetical) character, a third person, a god, an inanimate object or a personiﬁed abstraction. It may occur in narrative poetry, lyric poetry and all kinds of prose and oratory. The effect of apostrophe, as analyzed in modern theory, is that the dialogue (which in forensic oratory takes place between the speaker and the judges, in poetry between the narrator and the narratees) is ostensibly sidetracked. However, in reality the narrator continues to address the narratees, and so directs their emotions by emphatically voicing his own feelings.

Credits for the definition to this article written by Jacqueline J . H . Klooster because, honestly, I wouldn't know how to explain it without messing up.

In The Iliad, the two characters in which this resource is most used are Patroclus (8 times, all in Book XVI, moment of his aristeia. Aristeia is basically a type of moment in which the character reaches their peak, in which they prove themselves to be an aristo, that is, the best) and Menelaus (7 times, but spread throughout the Books), curiously the characters that I think are most sensitive and sympathetic among the Achaeans. You're supposed to care about Patroclus, so his death will have more impact. You’re supposed to sympathize with Menelaus' situation. In the case of Patroclus, the apostrophes applied to him begin even before he enters battle and gradually increase until the moment of his death, as if they were alerting the reader/listener and leading him to absorb how ironically tragic the development of his aristeia is.

There is more to analyze about this, but it would make this already immense post even longer. I searched to see if anyone had written anything online about this and I found this great article on this topic written by Emily Allen-Hornblower. I recommend checking it out!

Patroclus is a character who does a lot for others, even narratively speaking. He does activities for Achilles like cooking, he tries to live up to the expectations of being Achilles' wise guide, he tries to reassure Briseis, he takes care of the animals, he’s open to listening to what the Achaeans have to say, he’s the one who inspires courage in the worst moment and his death is one of the main events that caused the fall of Troy.

In fact, there's more to talk about his character that I haven't covered here. For example, I didn't develop Patroclus' association with wisdom, something also linked to his age. Nor did I enter into scholars' interpretation of Patroclus as a kind of Achilles' double. Nor did I enter into scholars' interpretation of Patroclus as a kind of Achilles' double. That is, interpretations about how the funeral that Achilles gives for Patroclus is related to the death of Achilles himself or interpretations of how, by wearing Achilles' armor, Patroclus embodies him during his aristeia and that is why his more restrained person is suddenly more arrogant and confident (I mean dude was saying REALLY sharp words during Book XVI lol). But it's just that writing these interpretations here would make the post infinite. At least the articles I mention in this post also address this Achilles’ double aspect (although it isn’t necessarily the main topic of the articles), but the wisdom part will be lacking.

And as a bonus, I'll talk about how Patroclus is introduced by Philoctetes. In Sophocles' play "Philoctetes", the Achaeans have to return to the island where they abandoned Philoctetes because Helenus prophesied that Philoctetes and his bow (previously belonging to Heracles) would be needed to win the war. Odysseus takes Neoptolemus along and when Philoctetes asks for updates on the war that has been going on for 10 years, he asks about Patroclus referring to him as the one Achilles loved most.

[...] PHILOCTETES: Now, for the gods' sake, what of Patroclus? On that occasion where was he? Tell me. Your father loved him more than anyone. NEOPTOLEMUS: He was also dead. I can tell you why in one brief saying — given the choice, war takes no evil men. It always wants to seize the good ones. [...]

Philoctetes, 420. Translation by Ian Johnston.

A curious line, considering that Philoctetes didn't spend much time with Achilles as he was abandoned before they reached Troy. Either Achilles' favoritism towards Patroclus was extremely obvious or Philoctetes is very observant or both. Interestingly, he gives different characteristics to the other characters. Philoctetes remembers how Nestor is a good advisor, how Tersites was inconvenient, he associates Diomedes and Odysseus with something negative, when talking about Ajax the size of Ajax is there, he says that Achilles was noble...but with Patroclus, the most memorable characteristic for Philoctetes is that he was very loved by someone. The characterization of Patroclus as someone whose importance is linked to being loved isn’t modern, contrary to what some people think (note that when I say "loved" I mean in general. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the context of romance, friendship or family).

PATROCLUS AND CLEOPATRA

Patroclus (Patroklos Πάτροκλος) is the combination of “father” (patḗr πατήρ) + “glory” (kleos κλέος), meaning “glory of his father”.[1] A father or mother giving their child that name isn’t strange, however there is one more detail: the feminine of Patroclus is Cleopatra (Kleopatra Κλεοπάτρη), which is the junction of “glory” (kleos κλέος) + “father” (patḗr πατήρ).[2] Another way to write this name is Κλεοπάτρα.[3] Anyway, Cleopatra is the name of Meleager's wife.

[...] την ώρια Κλεοπάτρα, της σφιχτοστήθως Μάρπησσας την κόρη και του Νίδα. [...]

The Iliad, Raphsody Ι (Book XIX), 556-557. Translation by Alexandros Palles. See here.

This strengthens the parallel between Patroclus and Cleopatra, and between Achilles and Meleager comparing the plot of The Iliad and the story told by Phoenix in Book IX. In both cases:

Heroes came together for a common, divinely motivated cause (Trojan War motivated by several gods and goddesses and Calydonian Boar motivated by Artemis);

The people in general have incredible abilities as a whole, but one stands out (Achilles for several feats and Meleager because he killed the boar)

A deity feels insulted by a king and therefore sends punishment (Apollo for the treatment given to his priest by Agamemnon and Artemis for being forgotten by Oeneus)

The prominent hero interferes to stop the divine punishment from continuing (Achilles by encouraging Calchas to speak the truth and Meleager by killing the boar)

After the solution was given, a conflict began (Agamemnon took Briseis and there was a war for possession of the boar's skin and hide)

The prominent hero retreats from the fight (Achilles after being dishonored by Agamemnon and Meleagrus angered by his mother Althaea)

The hero then spends time with his closest companion (Achilles in his tent with Patroclus and Meleagrus with his wife Cleopatra)

People start to have problems with the hero's refusal to fight (the Trojans advance and so do the Curetes)

People try to make the hero return and fail (Achilles with Odysseus, Phoenix, Ajax and Meleager with Aetolian)

His closest companion then begs the hero to return (Patroclus with Achilles and Cleopatra with Meleager)

As if, as Cleopatra did with Meleager, Patroclus accompanied Achilles in his decision and spent his days caring for him and having fun with him (it is mentioned that Achilles was playing for Patroclus when Odysseus, Phoenix and Ajax arrive. Cleopatra is mentioned that Meleager was lying with his wife), but also like her Patroclus felt worry and despair and equally like Cleopatra Patroclus believed that, although no one had convinced Achilles, he alone could convince him. The difference begins when Meleager hears Cleopatra's plea and returns to battle, although he doesn’t receive any reward because the Aetolians no longer think so highly of him. On the other hand, Achilles doesn't listen to Patroclus.

Patroclus was present during this conversation and even cooked for them, so he certainly heard Phoenix's story. This makes me wonder if this story just served as a parallel or if it was a further construction of Phoenix and Patroclus' characters. Nestor, known to be wise, seemed to believe that Patroclus had a chance of changing Achilles' mind, so I don't see why Phoenix couldn't have thought the same. Perhaps part of the reason Phoenix chose this story wasn’t only to tell Achilles that he might end up regretting his choice, but also to indirectly try to get Patroclus to react like Cleopatra did. Nestor, when trying to get Patroclus to talk to Achilles, reinforces how Peleus trusted Patroclus to guide Achilles. It really seems like the other characters were purposely trying to get Achilles back through Patroclus. The Acheans did get Achilles back through Patroclus, but unfortunately not through his words but through his death.

This is a specific interpretation of the Homeric tradition. It isn’t possible to know whether this play with names and parallels with Patroclus and Cleopatra already existed in oral traditions before Homer.

About Patroclus begging Achilles to return, there is even an post-homeric ancient source in which Achilles yields!

[...] Meanwhile Phoenix and Patroclus were standing around Achilles in the position of suppliants, taking hold of his knees and, without restraint, kissing his hands and face, begging him to give up his wrath and return to his place of honor. Do this, they said, not so much for these representatives but, as is right, for all of the army. Finally Achilles yielded. He would do what they wanted. The sight of the representatives, the prayers of his closest friends, and the realization that the army was not to blame made him change his mind. Then for the first time after his wrath, at the suggestion of Ajax, Achilles went to a meeting of the council. Agamemnon greeted him in a royal manner, and the other leaders were happy to welcome him back. On every side there was joy, unbounded joy. And then Agamemnon, taking Achilles by the hand, led him off, along with the other leaders, to dinner. A little later, during the dinner, when they were enjoying themselves, Agamemnon commanded Patroclus to take Hippodamia to Achilles’ hut, and also the jewelry he had given to her. This was an order Patroclus was glad to obey. During this winter, Greeks and Trojans mingled in the grove of the Thymbraean Apollo.17 They went freely, whether singly or in groups, without any fear of each other.

Dictys Cretensis, Book II. Translation by R.M Frazer.

Dictys Cretensis was believed to be a story from the Latin tradition, but it was discovered to have a Greek original and to be, in fact, a Greek source translated into Latin. The authorship or time of the Greek original isn’t yet certain, but it’s theorized that it’s a late source compared to the others sources. It’s interesting to mention, however, that the format of this text is a first-hand account by Dictys and at one point in Book I he even uses Odysseus as a source (who isn’t known for being super sincere), so I particularly wouldn't rule out the possibility of this narrative being purposefully biased. And I'm not talking about this part that I mentioned here, but Dictys Cretensis in general.

ANIMALS, FUNERAL AND POST-DEATH

Note: this part is considerably composed of theory (not entirely). So remember that theory is theory, it isn’t certain.

Yes, that's a curious title. In my defense, my intention was to do an “Animals” topic and a “Funeral and Post-Death” topic, but then the two topics got mixed up more than planned and I had to combine the topics. So here we are with this peculiar title.

Dogs

Okay, now seriously…Patroclus had nine dogs. I know it's kind of a silly detail, but that's precisely why this part gets me so much. When you read The Iliad, everything seems to be there for a reason and everyone has this aura, you know? And then we have to…apparently Patroclus spent his free time in Troy collecting dogs to look after? It's so mundane that it's unexpected. And then Achilles goes and sacrifices two of them. And I wondered if it was really so random that these dogs were there.

[...] And the dead lord Patroclus had fed nine dogs at table-he slit the throats of two, threw them onto the pyre and then a dozen brave sons of the proud Trojans he hacked to pieces with his bronze…

The Iliad, XVIII, 198-201. Translation by Robert Fagles.

I thought that if the dogs weren't just any detail, it could be another attempt to direct sympathy towards Patroclus. I couldn't be satisfied with this explanation, because Homer had already used the characterization of Patroclus' personality, the repeated use of apostrophes, and the other characters' reactions to do this, it's not like he needed to use dogs. But then I thought…what if someone already said something about this? This story has been here for years, long before I even existed, so I'm DEFINITELY not the only person who finds these dogs strange.

I did some research and in fact someone already mentioned it. The author compares the funeral rites of Patroclus, Hector and Achilles and then defines a possible Homeric formula for funerals based on this, then explains why among the three that of Patroclus isn’t a typical Homeric ritual but an exception. She believes that the sacrifices made by Achilles at Patroclus' funeral (four horses, two dogs, twelve Trojans) aren’t meant to be seen as common in a Homeric context as some scholars say and that also says more than just Achilles being very angry or something like this. The text is very long, going as far as analyzing Hittite rituals and words in the original Greek, so there is no way to summarize the argument. I'm just going to post the concluding opinion section and, if you want to see the rest, go read it.

As for the dog sacrifice, Krick suggests an ingenious interpretation “that the dog is the ritual representative of the mythic dog Saramā, who will then function as a leader for the horse to the land of the dead.” Krick’s reading may help to illuminate the role of the table dogs at Patroclus’ funeral. The dog sacrifice in tandem with the horse sacrifice that occurs during the funeral of Patroclus bring into sharper relief comparisons with the aśvamedha ritual. Yet the dogs in the funeral are sacrificed in a manner more similar to that of the Hittite severing rituals, though it is not explicitly clear that the puppies in the Hittite ritual are decapitated like Patroclus’ table dogs. In both the Hittite and Sanskrit rituals dogs are used as a method of purification. While it is possible that purification may have been an underlying motivation for the dogs sacrificed at Patroclus’ funeral, the potential recipient of the purification is quite ambiguous. I argue then that it is more probable that the table dogs sacrificed during the funeral of Patroclus are symbolic representatives of the dog of the underworld, meant to lead their master, Patroclus, to the land of the dead. The inclusion of dog sacrifice in addition to horse sacrifice in Patroclus’ funeral strengthen the resemblance to the aśvamedha. Anthony reasons that “Pre-Greek and Pre-Indo-Iranian almost certainly were neighboring Indo-European dialects, spoken near enough to each other that words related to warfare and ritual… were shared.” Perhaps the funerary sacrifice of dogs and horses was another early shared innovation.

Pag 33-34 of this article.

Horses

Dogs aren’t the only animals related to Patroclus, but horses too. Ptolomy even goes so far as to attribute this characteristic of Patroclus to him having been loved by Poseidon and having learned to ride directly from him, the god who created horses. Although this version is something that I only found in one source, Patroclus' connection with horses was already present in The Iliad. To begin with, Patroclus is sometimes referred to as “master horseman”:

[...] She was up in flames at once. engulfed in quenchless fire, in a flash the blaze went swirling round the stem and Achilles slapped his thighs and urged Patroclus, "To arms-Patroclus, prince and master horseman! I can see the blaze go roaring up the ships. They must not destroy them. No escape-route then. Quick, strap on my gear-I'll rouse the troops,"

The Iliad, XVI, 149-155.

[...] 'Now don't come back to the hollow ships. you hear?— Patroclus, master horseman— not till you've slashed the shirt around his chest and soaked it red in the blood of man-killing Hector!' So he must have commanded — you maniac, you obeyed."

The Iliad, XVI, 980-983.

During his aristeia, as Patroclus is using Achilles' resources (with the exception of the spear, as only Achilles can lift it), he also uses the immortal horses Xanthus (Roan Beauty) and Balius (Dapple).

Now the war-team. Patroclus ordered Automedon to yoke them quickly— a man he honored next to Achilles breaker of men, always firmest in battle, nerved to wait the call. So at his command Autornedon yoked the horses, the rapid stallions Roan Beauty and Dapple, the team that raced the gales, magnificent team the storm-wind filly Lightfoot foaled for the West Wind, 180 grazing the lush green grass along the Ocean's tides. And into the traces he ran the purebred Bold Dancer— Achilles seized him once when he stormed Eetion's city, a mortal war-horse pacing immortal horses now

The Iliad, XVI, 174-184.

These horses aren’t ordinary horses, but immortal horses — the immortal sons of a harpy and the god Zephyrus. They were a divine gift to Peleus, who subsequently gave them to Achilles, who then loaned them to Patroclus. This makes them great horses, but it's also not like it's easy to command animals with such speed, and yet Patroclus does it. Automedon even declares Patroclus was the only one capable of fully controlling Xanthus and Balius.

Diores' son Automedon shouted back, "Alcimedon! What other Achaean driver could match your skill at curbing this deathless team or spurring on their fury? Only Patroclus. skilled as the gods themselves while the man was still alive— now death and fate have got him in their grip. On with it! Take up the whip and shining reins. I'll dismount the car and fight on foot."

The Iliad, XVII, 544-551.

Another characteristic that differentiates them from common animals is their consciousness, shown in how they cry at Patroclus' death and miss him. Zeus has to comfort them so they can run again.

So they would say, fueling. comrades' courage. And so they fought and the iron din went rising up to the bronze sky through the barren breathless air. But standing clear of the fray Achilles' horses wept from the time they first had sensed their driver's death, brought down in the dust by man-killing Hector. Diores' rugged son Automedon did his best. lashed them over and over with stinging whip— coaxing them gently now, now shouting oath on oath. But both balked at returning now to the ships moored at the Hellespont's far-reaching shore or galloping back to fight beside the Argives. Staunch as a pillar planted tall above a barrow, standing sentry over some lord or lady's grave-site, so they stood, holding the blazoned chariot stock-still, their heads trailing along the ground, warm tears flowing down from their eyes to wet the earth... the horses mourned, longing now for their driver, their luxurious manes soiled, streaming down from the yoke-pads, down along the yoke.

The Iliad, XVII, 490-508.

At Patroclus' funeral, Achilles describes how Patroclus used to take good care of Xanthus and Balius and warns that the horses will not be used in the Funeral Games as they’re so depressed that they refuse to move.

“[...] You know how my team outstrips all others' speed. Immortal horses they are, Poseidon gave them himself to my father Peleus, Peleus passed them on to me. But I and our fast stallions will not race today, so strong his fame, the charioteer they've lost, so kind — always washing them down with fresh water, sleeking their long manes with smooth olive oil. No wonder they stand here, mourning... look, trailing those very manes along the ground. They both refuse to move, saddled down with grief. But all the rest of you, come, all Achaeans in camp who trust to your teams and bolted chariots— take your places now!"

The Iliad, XXIII, 317- 329.

Just as two of Patroclus' nine dogs were sacrificed, Achilles also sacrificed four horses. Returning to the thesis I mentioned previously about sacrificed dogs, Aubrey A. Cumt (the author) also considers the sacrifice of horses unusual for a Homeric funeral. She also doesn't think it's just a narrative device to indicate Achilles' violence or anything like that. However, she says that there are a Hittite source that demonstrate the existence of horse sacrifices in Hittite societies (interestingly, Troy nowadays is theorized to have some Hittite heritage). She also argues that in The Iliad the Trojans are strongly associated with horses and that this animal was a type of wealth, even more so depending on the breed. Although The Iliad is unclear which horses Achilles sacrificed, Aubrey theorizes that they were likely conquered Trojan horses. Then she concludes:

In this way, the horse sacrifice that occurs at the funeral of Patroclus can be understood in a new light. Rather than representing solely an irregular practice, emblematic of Achilles’ violence, the sacrifice can be interpreted as an intentional ritual action, both metonymically representative of the destruction of Troy, but also as possibly triggering far earlier Indo-European cultural and linguistic associations with power and kingship for Achilles, the principal hero of the Iliad.

Pag 26 of this article.

Human sacrifice

And now we stop the animal part of the topic and just focus on death. I’ill proceed by summarizing Aubrey's thesis, but this time her theory regarding the twelve sacrificed Trojans. Human sacrifices existed in Ancient Greece, but they weren’t common, despiste how abundant they were in Greek mythology. And yet, even when human sacrifices occur in Greek mythology, there is a narrative reason. It’s generally associated with divine/prophetic inspiration (Andromeda, Iphigenia, Hesione, Megareus...) and even considering Polyxena (her sacrifice isn’t divinely motivated), it’s easy to know why specifically Polyxena. In the case of the Trojans whom Achilles adds to Patroclus' pyre, the sacrifice not only doesn’t follow the Homeric formula for funerals but is also unusual as a whole.

Just as people have theorized about the dogs and horses, there is the theory that this could simply be a narrative device to show how disturbed Achilles was beyond usual at the time. He had already taken longer than usual to bury Patroclus and broke social rules by doing what he did with Hector's corpse (in fact, in this part of the funeral he even wants to feed Hector to the dogs, as Hector wanted to do with Patroclus. But this doesn’t happen because Hector's body is divinely protected). So the theory that it was another clue as to how on edge Achilles was exists.

For Aubrey, the verbs used in the Greek text added to the different way in which Achilles makes these sacrifices compared to the others (he slaughters Trojans with bronze) gives connotations that are more militaristic than ritualistic (typical of a sacrifice scene). She also argues that they were most likely young Trojan soldiers, considering the interpretation of the Greek text. Aubrey emphasizes the violence of this attitude as well, demonstrated even in the text when it’s says “and he contrived evil works in his mind (κακὰ δὲ φρεσὶ μήδετο ἔργα)". She then concludes that this particular sacrifice is intended to reinforce power.

Given the inclusion of horse sacrifice in Patroclus’ funeral, the human sacrifice of the Trojan youths may then be interpreted as an extension and elevation of the associations to kingship and power. Certainly, in light of Puhvel’s Victimal Hierarchy, Patroclus’ funerary sacrifices as a whole can be construed as a gradation of sacrifices, increasing in significance from dogs to horses and finally to humans.

Pag 42 of this article.

Ghost

Another difference in Patroclus's funeral ritual is the way his bones aren’t cremated, but rather reserved with fat. But this is already explained by Homer: the ghost of Patroclus appeared to Achilles and asked him to mix their ashes, thus guaranteeing that they would continue together in death as they were united in life.

And you too, your fate awaits you too, godlike as you are, Achilles— to die in battle beneath the proud rich Trojans' walls! But one thing more. A last request — grant it. please. Never bury my bones apart from yours, Achilles, let them lie together... just as we grew up together in your house, after Menoetius brought me there from Opois, and only a boy, but banished for bloody murder the day I killed Amphidarnas' son. I was a fool— I never meant to kill him — quarreling over a dice game. Then the famous horseman Peleus took me into his halls, he reared me with kindness, appointed me your aide. So now let a single urn, the gold two-handled urn your noble mother gave you, hold our bones — together!"

The Iliad, XXVIII, 97-110.

We know that this wish came true.

“[...] But after the flame of Hephaistos had consumed you utterly, then at dawn we gathered your white bones, Achilleus, together with unmixed wine and unguents. Your mother gave you a golden jar with handles. She said that it was a present from Dionysos, and was the work of renowned Hephaistos. In this your white bones are laid away, O shining Achilleus, mixed with the bones of the dead Patroklos, son of Menoitios, and apart from those of Antilochos, whom you prized above all the rest of your companions after the death of Patroklos. [...]”

The Odyssey, XXIV, 71-79. Translation by Richmond Lattimore.

The scene of Patroclus' ghost serves as an explanation for them having his ashes mixed together, but it also opened up more debate. However, I don't even dare try to summarize another theory because there is still much more to be written in this post, so instead I’ll present this article by Menelaos Christopoulos if you’re interested.

Postmortem

The death of Achilles filled the army with dismay, and they buried him with Patroclus in the White Isle, mixing the bones of the two together. [...]

Library, E.5.5. Translation by J. G. Frazer.

[...] White Island, where, he used to declare, he saw Achilles, as well as Ajax the son of Oileus and Ajax the son of Telamon. With them, he said, were Patroclus and Antilochus; Helen was wedded to Achilles [...]

Description of Greece, 3.19.13. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

[...] whereas Achilles, son of Thetis, they honored and sent to his place in the Isles of the Blest, because having learnt from his mother that he would die as surely as he slew Hector, but if he slew him not, would return home and end his days an aged man, he bravely chose to go and rescue his lover Patroclus, avenged him, and sought death not merely in his behalf but in haste to be joined with him whom death had taken. For this the gods so highly admired him that they gave him distinguished honor, since he set so great a value on his lover.

Symposium, 179e-180a. Translation by Harold N. Fowler.

SKILLS AND FEATS

I'll leave battle skills for later, so let's start with the other skills!

Patroclus has knowledge of healing, as Achilles taught him what he learned from Chiron:

"[…] And spread the soothing, healing salves across it, the powerful drugs they say you learned from Achilles and Chiron the most humane of Centaurs taught your friend. […]"

The Iliad, XI, 992-994.

He’s an excellent horseman, even capable of controlling Xanthus and Balius:

The Iliad, XVII, 544-551.

And he knows how to cook:

He paused. Patroclus obeyed his great friend, who put down a heavy chopping block in the firelight and across it laid a sheep's chine, a fat goat's and the long back cut of a full-grown pig, marbled with lard. Automedon held the meats while lordly Achilles carved them into quarters. cut them well into pieces. pierced them with spits and Patroclus raked the hearth, a man like a god making the fire blaze. Once it had burned down and the flames died away, he scattered the coals and stretching the spitted meats across the embers, raised them onto supports and sprinkled clean pure salt. As soon as the roasts were done and spread on platters, Patroclus brought the bread, set it out on the board in ample wicker baskets. Achilles served the meat.

The Iliad, IX, 246-260.

In Book XVI, Patroclus's named deaths are:

(I'm using Robert Fagles' translation as references for the localizations in parentheses)

Pyraechmes (337)

Areilycus (362)

Pronous (474)

Thestor (477)

Erylaus (490)

Amphotereus (495)

Erymas (495)

Epaltes (495)

Tlepolemus (496)

Echius (496)

Pyris (496)

Ipheus (497)

Euippus (497)

Polymelus (497)

Thrasymelus (550)

Saperdon (578-579)

Sthenelaus (684)

Adrestus (812)

Autonous (812)

Echeclus (812)

Perimus (813)

Epistor (813)

Melanippus (813)

Elasus (814)

Mulius (814)

Pylartes (814)

Cebriones (860)

But Patroclus actually killed more people than that in his aristeia, after all we still have these lines:

[...] and Patroclus charged the enemy, fired for the kill. Three times he charged with the headlong speed of Ares, screaming his savage cry, three times he killed nine men.

The Iliad, XVI, 911-913.

He attacked three times and each time killed nine men, resulting in twenty-seven unnamed deaths. This means that in Book XVI, Patroclus killed a total of 54 men in a single battle. This is an impressive feat indeed, but I also have to be fair and not omit that Patroclus had Zeus’s divine aid (Diomedes, Achilles, Odysseus, Paris and other characters also had divine aid so nothing rare or that takes away the merit completely, but important to mention). Euphorbus and Hector also killed Patroclus with divine aid (Apollo, hi!)

In a fragment attributed to Hesiod, we have a part related to Saperdon. Although it doesn't finish what is being said, it’s obviously about Patroclus killing Saperdon:

Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1358 fr. 1 (3rd cent. A.D.):

“[...] Very greatly did he excel in war together with man-slaying Hector and brake down the wall, bringing woes upon the Danaans. But so soon as Patroclus had inspired the Argives with hard courage..."

Catalogues of Women, frag 19A. Translation by Evelyn-White, H G.

Pindar, in one of his odes, describes that Achilles and Patroclus were the bravest in the conflict against Telephus, son of Heracles:

[...] But among the settlers he (Locrus) chiefly honored the son of Actor and Aegina, Menoetius, whose son went with the Atreidae to the plain of Teuthras, and stood alone beside Achilles, when Telephus turned to flight the mighty Danaans, and attacked their ships beside the sea, to reveal to a man of understanding. From that time forward, the son of Thetis exhorted him in deadly war never to post himself far from his own man-subduing spear.

Olympian Ode 9. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

There are his actions in Dictys Cretensis too. As I already showed in the Cleopatra part, there is no Achilles absenting himself from war and, therefore, there is no Patroclus taking his place. But honestly, if you're really interested in this version, I recommend reading it. It's short, so I don't think it's really worth dissecting that much.

As for Hyginus, he seems to be just repeating Homer. The descriptions of Patroclus' attitudes follow The Iliad and he even says Patroclus killed 54 people, the same number of men he kills in Book XVI.

Pausanias attributes Las's death to Patroclus, disputing the narrative that it was Achilles:

Description of Greece, 3.24.10. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

SEXUAL AND/OR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Achilles

No reverence hadst thou for the unsullied holiness of thy limbs, oh thou most ungrateful for my many kisses!

Aeschylus, frag 64. Translation by Herbert Weir Smyth.

And the Greek text:

σέβας δέ μηρῶν ἀγνόν ουκ ἐπηδέσω, ὢ δυσχάριστε τῷν πυκνῶν φιλημάτων μηρῶν τε τῶν σῶν εὐσέβησ᾽ ὁμιλίαν κλαίων

Apparently, for Aeschylus they had a same-gender relationship.

Plato's well-known excerpt about the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles is a kind of response to Aeschylus' interpretation, as Plato disagreed on who was "eromenos" and who was "erates" (Symposium, 179-180). Plutarch also mentions this Aeschylus' fragment in Amatorius in a non-platonic context:

Add to this of Solon that other of Aeschylus: "Ungrateful, for the kisses of my lips, Not to revere the glory of my lips."

Amatorius, 5. Translation by "several hands". See in Greek here.

This excerpt from Aeschylus being interpreted as sexual and/or romantic also seems to have remained in the Roman Era, since the text "Amores", attributed to Lucian of Samosata (despite the era, he isn't a Roman, but a Syrian), refers the Aeschylus excerpt in a sexual context in 54.

[...] Do not be surprised: Patroclus in fact, was not loved by Achilles just because he was seated before him, waiting for Achilles to finish his song…but it was lust that mediated their friendship. For Achilles, moaning upon the death of Patroklos, allows his unrestrained passion to burst out with the power of truth when he says: "The holy commerce of your thighs my tears do mourn". I also believe that those whom the Greeks call ‘comastes' are none other than professional lovers. Some might call this a shameful thing to say, but at least it is the truth, by the Aphrodite of Cnidus!

Amores, 54. Translation by Andrew Kallimachos. In Greek here. Note: This excerpt was used only to show the use of Aeschylus. The context of the text as a whole is best seen by reading.

Athenaeus of Naucratis also appears to reference this play by Aeschylus in a romantic sense.

And, in fact, there was such emulation about composing poems of this sort, and so far was any one from thinking lightly of the amatory poets, that Aeschylus, who was a very great poet, and Sophocles, too, introduced the subject of the loves of men on the stage in their tragedies: the one describing the love of Achilles for Patroclus [...]

The Deipnosophists, 13.75. Translation by Henry G. Bohn.

There is an interpretation that Pindar could think of them as being in a romantic relationship because he compares Hagesidamus and Ilas with Patroclus and Achilles and later compares Hagesidamus with Ganymede. Personally, I find this too interpretative to be anything other than ambiguous, but I'm mentioning it here anyway.

[...] let Hagesidamus, victorious as a boxer at Olympia, offer thanks to Ilas, just as Patroclus did to Achilles. With the help of a god, one man can sharpen another who is born for excellence, and encourage him to tremendous achievement [...] And I praised the lovely son of Archestratus [Hagesidamus], whom I saw at that time beside the Olympic altar, winning victory with the valor of his hands—beautiful in form, and blended with that youthful bloom which once kept Ganymede from shameless death, with the help of Cyprian Aphrodite.

Olympian Ode 10, 10.1 and 10.75. Translation by Diane Arnson Svarlien.

There are other texts in which Patroclus x Achilles are interpreted as romantic and/or sexual, regardless of whether the author is framing this as positive or negative. However, I'm trying to focus on plays/poems/libraries/odes/etc and I only cited Lucian, Plutarch, Athenaeus and Plato because they were quoting Aeschylus first.

This relationship isn't considered a fixed tradition — for example, Homer doesn't explicitly a romantic/sexual relationship between them. But yeah, it exists. There is the argument that Aeschylus did it differently from Homer, but the way Aeschylus portrayed Agamemnon's family is also different from the Homeric tradition (Clytemnestra's role is different and the children are not the same) and people take The Oresteia as something valid, so I particularly don't see why the Achilles trilogy wouldn't be. Even ancient Greeks seemed to at least take it into account, considering other authors' mentions of Aeschylus.

Iphis

[...] And over across from him Patroclus slept with the sashed and lovely Iphis by his side, whom Prince Achilles gave him the day he took the heights of Scyros, Enyeus' rocky stronghold.

The Iliad, IX, 813-816. Translation by Robert Fagles.

Iphis was a slave brought by Achilles from Skyros to Patroclus. She doesn't have much narrative importance in The Iliad, since she's only mentioned in this excerpt, but her character is remembered in other sources. For example, in Description of Greece 10.25. In the Roman Era, she was also still remembered, notable in how the sophist Philostratus mentions her in Heroica 716.

Poseidon

Once again reviewing New History (Ptolemy Hephaestion), Photius mentions that Patroclus was Poseidon's lover and learned to ride a horse with him.

[...] Homer calls Patroclus the first horseman because he learned from Poseidon, who loved him, the art of riding horses.

Photius' Bibliotheca, 190.6. Translation by Roger Pearse.

This isn't a constant/fixed tradition. But yeah, it exists. I actually like this idea because it strengthens Patroclus' connection with animals (in this case, horse), but at the same time I couldn't find any source other than Photius' review. I wonder if it existed beyond Ptolomy and if anyone even took it into account.

PHYSICAL APPEARENCE

Homer doesn't describe Patroclus' physical appearance, but there is a bit about it from other sources.

Achilles tending Patroclus in a kylix, by Sosias, 500 BC. See here.

In it, Patroclus's distinguishing characteristics are short curly hair, a beard and a non-straight nose (compare him with Achilles's).

In the frescoes of Pompeii, Patroclus is usually portrayed as a tanned young man with short brown hair, dark eyes and no beard.

Fresco in Pompeii, Briseis being taken by order of Agamemnon. See here and here.

Fresco in Pompeii, respectively Briseis, Achilles and Patroclus. See here and here.

There is a Roman (copy of an original Greek, though) statue of a bearded man carrying the body of a young man from 200–150 BC, which has been thought to be Menelaus and Patroclus. However, the Wikipedia article says that the topic is up for debate, as there is a possibility it could be Ajax and Achilles or even Odysseus and Achilles, so I won't consider it sure. Here is the article, anyway. But the young man has short curly hair and no beard.

According to Pausanias, Polygnotus painted Patroclus without a beard in the Lesche at Delphi.

[...] and beyond Achilles is Patroclus standing. With the exception of Agamemnon these figures have no beard.

Description of Greece, 10.30.3. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

For some reason, Hyginus made a list of the most beautiful (?) and put Patroclus there. Good for Patroclus, I guess

THOSE WHO WERE MOST HANDSOME: Iasion, son of Ilithius, whom Ceres is said to have loved [credible, since vouched for by old histories]. Cinyras, son of Paphos, king of the Assyrians. Anchises, son of Assaracus, whom Venus loved. Alexander Paris, son of Priam and Hecuba, whom Helen followed. Nireus, son of Charops. Cephalus, son of Pandion, whom Aurora loved. Tithonus, husband of Aurora. Parthenopaeus, son of Meleager and Atalanta. Achilles, son of Peleus and Thetis. Patroclus, son of Menoetius. Idomeneus, who loved Helen. Theseus, son of Aegeus and Aethra, whom Ariadne loved.

Fabulae, 270. Translation by Mary Grant.

In Dares, The Prygian, there is a description of Patroclus. However, this text is still quite uncertain. It isn't certain if it has always been a Latin tradition or if it has a Greek original, in addition to other aspects that are still questioned. But I'm going to put it here just to clear my conscience.

Patroclus was handsome and powerfully built. His yes were gray. He was modest, dependable, wise, a man richly endowed.

Dares, The Prygian, 31. Translation by R. M. Frazer.

NON-MYTHOLOGICAL ASPECTS (INTERPRETATIONS, MONUMENTS, ETC)

Apparently, Patroclus was honored and had monuments, since in Geography Strabo says:

The length of this coast, I mean on a straight voyage from Rhoeteium to Sigeium, and the monument of Achilles, is sixty stadia; and the whole of it lies below Ilium, not only the present Ilium, from which, at the Harbor of the Achaeans, it is about twelve stadia distant, but also the earlier Ilium, which lies thirty stadia farther inland in the direction of Mt. Ida. Now there are a temple and a monument of Achilles near Sigeium, as also monuments of Patroclus and Antilochus; and the Ilians offer sacrifices to all four heroes, both to these and to Aias. But they do not honor Heracles, giving as their reason his sacking of the city. But one might say that, although Heracles did sack it, yet he sacked it in such a way as still to leave it a city, even though damaged, for those who were later to sack it utterly; and for this reason the poet states it thus:“He sacked the city of Ilios and widowed her streets;

Geography, 13.1. Translation by H. L. Jones.

According to Pausanias, one of the votive offerings at Delphi was an image of Achilles and Patroclus, sent by the Thessalians of Pharsalia.

The Thessalians too of Pharsalus dedicated an Achilles on horseback, with Patroclus running beside his horse [...]

Description of Greece, 10.13.5. Translation by W.H.S. Jones.

I only found these two mentions of Patroclus in a more religious context and there is always Achilles at the crime scene. This makes me think that if there were other religious practices related to Patroclus, they were probably the kind that honored a conjuct rather than a single person. It wouldn't be strange, since there were other cases like these, for example the Dioscuri, or Helen and Menelaus in Sparta (first case because they're brothers whose brotherhood is relevant in the myth, the second because they are a couple. In other words, there is a platonic and a romantic example! So I think even platonic Patroclus and Achilles wouldn't be that strange to appear as a pair of friends in a religious context). In any case, it isn't possible to be sure.

Update (25/04/2024): flaviafulvia in the comments added Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea, supposedly written in Roman Greek times by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia (86 AD-160 AD) to the Roman emperor Hadrian. In this text there is a mention of a dual cult of Achilles and Patroclus on the Island of Achilles (also called by other names such as Leuke and White Island). Pindar mentions this Island em Nemean Ode 3: "and Achilles holds the shining island in the Euxine sea."

Regarding interpretations of Achilles and Patroclus' relationship:

Note: I'm using interpretations that don't come from poems, plays, etc. So you're not, for example, seeing Aeschylus and others here. They're interpretations of rhetoricians, philosophers, etc.

Aeschines in Against Timarchus considered it romantic and/or sexual, although it's important to mention that this text is a process. Timarcus had accused Aeschines of a crime, and Aeschines retaliated by prosecuting him. In this process, he used the Athenian laws that prohibited a man from having paid homosexual sexual relations against Timarcus. Achilles and Patroclus are only part of the argument here. Furthermore, the lines of The Iliad that Aeschines presented were apparently corrupt. See 1.142.

In Xenophon's Symposium, he wrote Socrates explicitly stating Patroclus and Achilles' relationship was a platonic bond. Whether that was Socrates' opinion or Xenophon's is another story. See 8.31.

Plato in his Symposium considered their relationship as romantic, although under a Classical Athenian perception — i.e., with restrictive concepts of erastes and eromenos. See 179e-180a.

The author of Amores (it isn't certain if it was Lucian. If it was Lucian, this text is non-Greek, as Lucian was Syrian) considered them a romantic and/or sexual relationship. See 54.

Plutarch in Amatorius portrays them as in a romantic relationship, although it's in the context of refuting the famous theory that a male relationship is better than a relationship between a man and a woman. See 5.

Martial portrayed them in a sexual relationship and didn't imply anything romantic. This text is non-Greek, as Martial was probably Roman. I didn't find this excerpt in English except on the Internet Archive because on other sites they removed it (literally. It said they had removed it, probably due to content considered obscene. Suffice to say that Martial's epigrams are sources of Latin obscenities.), but Perseus still has it in Latin here. See Robert Fletcher translation, Book 11 epig 44 (pag 111).

Athenaeus of Naucratis used Patroclus and Achilles as an example of romantic love between men The Deipnosophists, more specifically he used Aeschylus' version. See 13.75.

The bucolic poem, written by Theocritus (note: authorship somewhat unsure), Idyll XXIX uses Patroclus and Achilles as a comparison of romantic love. See Idyll XXIX, 25.

Conclusion: there isn’t much information about the Archaic Greece, but in the Classical Greece the debate about the nature of their relationship gained more prominence. Such debate continued in subsequent times. In mythological works, the only source that has confirmed this relationship is Aeschylus.

REFERENCES

Here I'll be organizing the references used. I include authors, dates, authors' ethnicities and types of source because I think it makes the context easier to visualize — a person from the Classical period didn't think like someone from the Archaic and a philosopher didn't write with the same intention as an encyclopedia. And of course, just because I specified excerpts doesn't mean you can understand them all by just reading them without context!

Mentions/scenes

The Iliad, Homer - the entire poem since it's the greatest source we have on Patroclus

The Odyssey, Homer - Book III, 102-117; Book XI, 465-470; Book XXIV, 15-18 and 71-79

Fragments attributed to Hesiod - Catalogue of Women frag 19A and frag 61

Cypria, attributed to Stasinus - frag 1

Fragments attributed to Aeschylus - Myrmidones frags (59-66) | Nereids frags (72-75) (because they accompany Achilles' mourning over the death of Patroclus)

Olympian Odes, Pindar - ode 9 | ode 10, 10.1 (see the scholiasts' comments on these same odes)

Philoctetes, Sophocles - 403

Heroica/On Heroes, Philostratus - 675

Idyll XXIX, Theocritus - 25

Symposium, Plato - 179e-180a and 208d

Symposium, Xenophon - 8.31

Geography, Strabo - 9.4.2 | 9.5.9 | 13.1.7 | 13.1.32

Fabulae, attributed to Hyginus - 81 | 97 | 106 | 112 | 114 | 257 | 270 | 273

Library/Bibliotheca, attributed to Apollodorus or Pseudo-Apollodorus - 3.10.8 | 3.13.8 (there is a mention of a Patroclus I don't include because it's Patroclus son of Heracles, not the Patroclus son of Menoetius)

Deipnosophistae, Athenaeus of Naucratis - 1.31 | 13.75 (here there is also a Patroclus who is not who I'm talking about, this other is Ptolemy's general. Also, other parts mention Patroclus, but they're about other characters like Nestor and Menelaus, so I didn't include them. )

Epigrams, Martial - 11.43

Aristides, Plutarch - 20

Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea, Arrian of Nicomedia - 16-18 sections on Wikipedia

Description of Greece, Pausanias - 3.19.13 | 3.24.10 | 4.28.7 | 5.8.3 | 5.19.8 | 10.4.2 | 10.13.5 | 10.26.6 (there is another Patroclus mentioned by Pausanias, but don't confuse him with the mythological Patroclus. The other one is Egyptian, not Greek!)

Amores, attributed to Lucian of Samosata or Pseudo-Lucian - 54

Bibliotheca, Photius - 190.9 | 190.6

Dictys Cretensis, ? - If you're really interested, just read the whole thing

Source dates

For reference:

8th century BC = between 800 BC-701 BC 7th century BC = between 700 BC-601 BC 3rd century BC = between 300 BC-201 BC 5th century BC = between 500 BC-401 BC 1st century BC = between 90 BC-0 BC 1st century AD = between 0 AD-90 AD 2nt century AD = between 101 AD-200 AD 9th century AD = between 801 AD-900

The Iliad and The Odyssey, Homer - 8th century BC, the year is much debated (Greek)

Theogony, Hesiod - 8th century BC, maybe 730–700 BC (Greek)

Fragments attributed to Hesiod - multiple dates because there are multiple sources

Cypria, attributed to Stasinus - 7th century BC (Greek)

Fragments attributed to Aeschylus - multiple dates because there are multiple sources

Olympian Odes, Pindar - 5th century BC (Greek)

Philoctetes, Sophocles - 409 BC (Greek)

Heroica/On Heroes, Philostratus - I haven't found the date of the text itself, but Philostrathus is theorized to be from 170 AD – 240 AD (Greek)

Idyll XXIX, Theocritus - 3rd century BC (Greek)

Symposium, Plato - 385 BC – 370 BC (Greek)

Symposium, Xenophon - 360 BC (Greek)

Geography, Strabo - late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD, the year is much debated (Greek)

Fabulae, attributed to Hyginus - I haven't found the date of the text itself, but Martial is theorized to be from 64 BC – 17 AD (Roman)

Library/Bibliotheca, attributed to Apollodorus or Pseudo-Apollodorus - 1st or 2nd century AD (Greek)

Deipnosophistae, Athenaeus of Naucratis - early 3rd century AD (Greek)

Argonautica, Apollonius Rhodius - 3rd century BC, maybe 283 BC–246 BC or 246 BC–221 BC (Greek)

Epigrams, Martial - I haven't found the date of the text itself, but Martial is theorized to be from 38/41 AD – 102/104 AD (probably Roman)

Aristides, Plutarch - I haven't found the date of the text itself, but Plutarch is theorized to be from 46 AD – 119 AD (Greek)

Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea, Arrian of Nicomedia - 2nd century AD (Greek)

Description of Greece, Pausanias - 2nd century AD (Greek)

Amores, attributed to Lucian of Samosata or Pseudo-Lucian - uncertain, but certainly AD (if it's by Lucian, Syrian)

Bibliotheca, Photius - 9th century AD (Greek)

Dictys Cretensis, ? - ? AD (Greek)

Type of Source

The Iliad and The Odyssey, Homer - epic poem

Theogony, Hesiod - poem

Fragments attributed to Hesiod - scholiasts comments

Cypria, attributed to Stasinus - epic poem (lost)

Fragments attributed to Aeschylus - scholiasts comments

Olympian Odes, Pindar - collection of odes

Philoctetes, Sophocles - play

Heroica/On Heroes, Philostratus - dialogue

Idyll XXIX, Theocritus - bucolic poem

Symposium, Plato - dialogue

Symposium, Xenophon - dialogue

Geography, Strabo - geographical encyclopedia

Fabulae, attributed to Hyginus - greek myths encyclopedia (adapted for a Roman public)

Library/Bibliotheca, attributed to Apollodorus or Pseudo-Apollodorus - mythological encyclopedia

Deipnosophistae, Athenaeus of Naucratis - dialogue

Argonautica, Apollonius Rhodius - epic poem

Epigrams, Martial - collection of epigrams

Aristides, Plutarch - biography

Arrian's Voyage Round the Euxine Sea, Arrian of Nicomedia - travel guidebook

Description of Greece, Pausanias - travel literature

Amores, attributed to Lucian of Samosata or Pseudo-Lucian - dialogue

Bibliotheca, Photius - text reviews

Dictys Cretensis, ? - first-hand account

Others

Apostrophe in Homer, Apollonius and Callimachus by Jacqueline J . H . Klooster, available in Academia.edu site (I used the apostrophe concept from here)

Revisiting the Apostrophes to Patroclus in Iliad 16 by Emily Allen-Hornblower, available in The Center of Hellenic Studies of Harvard site (I recommend reading it if you are interested in the use of apostrophe in Patroclus' scenes)

Irregularities in the Funeral of Patroclus by Aubrey A. Cum, available in University of Georgia site.

Patroclus and Elpenor. Dead and Unburied, in The Upper and the Under World in Homeric and Archaic Epic by Menelaos Christopoulos, available in Academia.edu site.

#Ask #Anon #13k about Patroclus lol #Tagamemnon #Patroclus #Achilles #Menoetius #Because Achilles and Menoetius were considerably spoken of as well #Greek Mythology #The Iliad #Patrochilles #Because of the part about versions of their relationships #This took a while to write (almost a week)#If anyone has anything to add feel free to do so #The interpretative parts are subjective (i.e. disagree if you want)#There was more of Patroclus in the scholia of Homer and Pindar but I don't know Greek #I'm definitely not a classicist please remember this #For the love of god please consider the context of the sources (the era for example)#I love Patroclus did you notice?#I tried to find more without Achilles but Patroclus in fact has almost all of his sources linked to Achilles #Just in case of “why is it always Achilles and Patroclus and never just Patroclus?”#I just saw this bunch of sources and apparently it's been like this forever and there is no escape it's not my fault!#I love him but the guy is reaaaaaally a secondary bro and it's time to accept that #Patroclus doesn't have to be one of the main characters to be a personal fav guys #Also he's a badass but please don't make that his only trait #Everyone there is a badass just being a badass isn't enough #Much is said about dogs but Patroclus and HORSES #And I'm getting personal in these tags time to stop #Birdiethings

22 notes · View notes

transmutationisms · 9 months

Note

how do i know what’s right?

i feel like i have zero critical thinking skills ;-;

a lot of the time when someone poses an idea or a theory they think they’re right, and so they use language that enforces that. but then someone refutes it, and uses language affirming what they believe and i see the point in their argument. and then it gets refuted again and again and again and im just confused.

hi great question. i would love it if there were a single easy litmus test to figure out who's 'right' and whose info i should trust! unfortunately things are rarely this easy, and it's actually completely normal to be overwhelmed by the amount of information being produced and shared, especially when it comes to topics you haven't researched/lived/etc. for most of us, this will be most topics!

i'd preface this by saying that i think your overall attitude here is actually a good one. you're framing it in a pretty self-deprecating way—but actually, imo this type of openness to discussion and disagreement is a really good place to start, esp when dealing with topics that are new to you. nobody enters a contentious debate with a fully fledged, defensible viewpoint. you might feel like you're just treading water here, making no progress toward being able to evaluate arguments for yourself, but i highly doubt that's true.

all of that said: while i again cannot give you a single litmus test for figuring out what's 'right', there are four pretty basic sets of questions that i automatically run through when encountering a new idea, source, topic, or argument: we can call these origin, purpose, value, and limitations.

origin: who's the author? do they have any institutional affiliations? who pays their salary? is this argument or paper funded in any way? is the argument dependent upon the author's social position or status (race, class, etc) and if so, are those factors being discussed clearly? does the author have ties to a particular nation-state or stakes in defending such a nation-state? what's the class character of the author and the argument? what's the social, economic, and intellectual context that gave rise to this argument or source?

purpose: why is this source or person disseminating this information or making this argument? are they trying to sell you anything? are their funders? are they trying to persuade you of a particular political viewpoint? keeping in mind the answers to the 'origin' questions, are there particular ideological positions you would expect to find in this source or argument, and are they present? what are the stakes for the author or source? what about for those who cite the source or further disseminate or publish it?

value: what does this source or argument accomplish well? what aspects of the argument are new to you and strike you as insightful? are there linkages being made that you haven't encountered elsewhere, and that you think are effectively and sufficiently defended? are there statistics or empirical data that might be useful to you in forming your own argument, even if you disagree with how this source or author is interpreting them? what does this argument or source tell you about the types of debates being had, and the rules of those debates?

limitations: where does this argument or source fail you or fall apart? are there obvious rhetorical fallacies you can identify? is the author forgetting or overlooking some piece of information that you know of from elsewhere? which viewpoints may be omitted? keeping in mind the answers to the 'purpose' questions, if this source is defending a particular ideology or political position, is that one you agree with? is it only defensible so long as the author omits or distorts certain pieces of information? are there points where the argument jumps from evidence to a conclusion that the evidence can't fully support? are there alternative explanations for the evidence?

over time you will often find that it becomes more and more automatic to ask yourself these questions. you will also find that the more you read/hear about a particular topic, the faster you can determine whether someone is presenting all of the evidence, presenting it fairly, and using it to fully defend the argument they ultimately want to make. and you will probably also find that at some point, you're able to synthesise your own argument by pulling the strong parts from multiple other people's viewpoints, combining them with your own thinking, and fitting them together in a way that adequately explains and materially analyses the issue at hand.

#sry if this feels kind of abstract lol fight between specificity and applicability #lit and literacy

2K notes · View notes

thepurestgirll · 2 months

Text

Soft spot ✧˖°

Scaramouche's attitudes may seem quite rude to those around him, but you don't fail to notice the small soft spot he has for you.

When he wants to, Scaramouche can act surprisingly kind to you, even if he does his best to hide it. If you are someone more extroverted, he can listen to you talk for hours and hours without any problems. Your voice doesn't tend to irritate him as much as others' voices do…

If we are talking about someone who is more introverted… he really doesn't mind the silence, if the two of you are together, he doesn't care what you two are talking about or what you are doing, your presence can entertain him enough. You won't need to move a single muscle to respond to the people around you, especially if you are someone who is shy. He can respond to those who dare interrupt your moment together, even though he never said he would do it kindly…

I see him as someone who values moments together more than expensive restaurants or material items. He won't think twice if you want to go to a nice restaurant, but his favorite type of "date" is just the two of you lying together while listening to music. I see him as someone who listens to crystal castles, cavetown or even TV girl.

Like Scaramouche, Xiao can be incredibly kind to you.

If you are someone who is more extroverted, he can listen to you talking about his interests for hours. Then he will try to research something about that particular subject to understand more the next time you want to talk about it.

If we are talking about someone who is more shy or introverted, Xiao may be able to handle social interactions for you. I don't see Xiao as necessarily shy, he just doesn't like people. So with that in mind, you can let him answer people for you when you just don't feel like talking.

I believe Xiao's favorite kind of date is dancing with you in the rain. He doesn't care if you two are wearing fancy clothes or are somewhere necessarily perfect, he just wants to enjoy that moment with you.

₊‧°𐐪♡𐑂°‧₊

Author's note: like always, open requests and everything you already know! (I'm just not sure if I can answer everything, I want to do things in my own time, sorry)

These are my interpretations of the characters, it's okay to disagree or just not like my point of view. As always, the reader has no gender! Just wanted to make this clear, as I've received questions in my ask box about this! Thank you for your attention, dear reader <3

432 notes · View notes

elizakai · 3 months

Text

I like thinking about their more canon adjacent dynamic (character wise)

MINI ANALYSIS TIME

Because while I love the soft interpretations, even WITH those let’s be real; that’s not how they’d act off the bat

Horror would be extremely judgmental (fair) and hate Dust for what he did. He’d despise him and probably be very passive aggressive. Making jabs and making his disdain apparent when they have to interact. I think getting a read on Dust is also difficult and would piss Horror off. Horror is unpredictable and has a sadistic streak, if he was mad or manic and had Dust in a corner he’d have no qualms about manhandling the guy. (And Dust probably wouldn’t do much to stop him.)

Meanwhile, Dusttale’s creator was asked once how Dust may feel if he met Horror, to which they said he feels bad for Horror. He likes him, sees him as someone who went through something horribly undeserved. In my mind Dust is somewhat protective of Horror.

I interpret these clashing of dynamics as Horror’s just utter disdain for this guy, and Dust’s resigned acceptance of Horror’s judgment. He’d agree with him if he were to judge himself, but I think a part of him wants Horror’s approval. He doesn’t EVER expect to get it, but Horror is….

While he’s seen hell, he’s almost a less tormented version of Dust himself. Deep down they are the same. Horror has suffered greatly, but even still hasn’t hit the deep end dust has, and I think he’d want to protect that sort of innocence he’s granted. One could think of it as him protecting a piece of himself he himself has already sacrificed. And wanting APPROVAL from him, wishing to be forgiven, craving that small piece of validation or understanding as he tries to reconcile with himself.

Horror’s formed opinion makes sense, he agrees with it, and simply wishes he disagreed, that he could have proof of himself being a FRACTION worthy of forgiveness or understanding.

The judge in both of them has both formed an opinion of the other, and they happen to differ greatly. Horror sees Dust as an abuser and Dust sees Horror as a victim.

I like to imagine that, while reluctantly thrown into the same general vicinity, Horror would grow to be more understanding (again if we are going with a PROGRESSIVE plot line) and come to understand that, yes, he wasn’t WRONG, but there is nuance to the situation. They both have a very grim understanding of what it’s like to be trapped. I think he has the capacity to understand Dust better if he was given time. His hands aren’t clean after all, and he knows what it’s like to be forced into a situation and to feel backed into a drastic decision. He knows what it’s like to lose your autonomy and to feel your mind break itself under pressure.

I think the simple fact that Dust wouldn’t TRY to change his mind or justify himself would be part of why Horror could come to understand him. He’s devestated by his actions, he is by no means a sadist.

Horror coming to understand Dust and sort of reconcile/forgive him I think would be rather BIG for Horror, especially if you factor in other situations he now has to consider. (For example, his Undyne and her drastic attempt at freeing the undergroud…) reconciling his OWN arguably cruel decisions he has made with pure intentions, when he feels there’s no other choice (like his Papyrus and tricking him into doing something so outside of his beliefs, to protect him)

It would also be healing for Dust to get that reconciliation with Horror because again…Horror’s opinion actually may MATTER.

And in the same way that Dust may see Horror as a sort of person to be protected from further harm, Horror would probably pick up on all of the VERY bad habits Dust has that (in my observation at least) are EXTREMELY similar to his own habits/past habits (isolation, obsession, deprivation, paranoia, bringing harm to self etc) and I could see him being sensitive towards those and trying to prevent it worsening (it’s a sore subject💔) Horror is shown to prioritize taking care of those he cares about, even when he’s a bit mad, and he has the capacity to grow an understanding for someone he doesn’t like initially :))

I think they have potential to be VERY good for one another, Horror (while being fucked up) encourages (and maybe forces) better habits and actually has an opinion that matters to Dust, and Dust is inclined to be VERY loyal (Horror needs someone to show him loyalty.) to anyone who cares to give him the time of day, as it’s far beyond what he’d expect, and he’s got the sympathy/protective streak towards Horror as an actual in character detail.

And from there it would be wonderful to explore their dynamic in whatever way you like to interpret it🤫💥

I could go on but I’ll stop here, if you read this all CONGRATS!!!

Share your thoughts I love it

515 notes · View notes

spectralreplica · 1 year

Photo

Uhhhhhhhh Sburb AU!! This was more of an excuse to classpect and make sprites, so don’t ask me questions about plot details because I put like zero thought into it. Tsumugi probably had something to do with setting up the session, and she’s hiding her real title and the fact it’s not her first session. Baby Kiibo is a robot baby because I thought that was the funniest option.

Drawing with anti-aliasing off really brings me back...

Classpect thoughts under the cut if you really want:

Immediate caveat: I mention speculative stuff here like unconfirmed active/passive class pairs and inversion theory. If you don’t like those things or otherwise disagree with the titles I gave people that’s fine but just know I’m not super interested in debating about it and won’t reply.

So, to start out with I wanted to make the 8 of them a session, so I needed no overlaps in class or aspect and one Time + one Space. I also wanted to have Kaito and Kokichi as opposing aspects. In general, I think of a Title as kind of the end of your assigned character arc, so depending on your level of maturity/introspection at the start, it can seem either really obvious or really unintuitive. I tried to base them off of the hypothetical chapter 6/survivor versions of characters, since those (plus maybe the chapter 5 deaths) of the ones that get a full arc in DR canon.

Immediately Tsumugi seemed like a deadringer for Space, not so much because of the literal physics-related stuff but because of its associations with creation/narratives and setting things up for other people to act. I made her Sylph of Space here, but that's a facade. She's actually a Muse of Space who participated in past session(s) and wants to watch how things play out.

Based on the Extended Zodiac description, Kaito or Kaede has to be time, but Kokichi CANNOT be Space by any stretch of the imagination. I made her Heir of Time with the interpretation of Heir as someone who invites change/influences of/through their aspect. Time is also associated with music and death, which is both fitting and a little mean. (I can also see Kaede as Breath outside of having to have someone be Time.)

So moving onto Kaito and Kokichi, I was considering Hope vs Rage (belief vs doubt, possibility vs restrictions), but 1) Rage is defined partially by hatred of lies despite otherwise sounding Kokichi-ish (that alone could be interesting, with the possibility of a negative/reverse title or else giving him Hope and Kaito Rage for the unexpected swerve........) 2) I really wanted to give Hope to Kiibo. So instead I went with Heart and Mind (emotion vs logic, intuition vs planning, identity/motivation vs action/decisiveness).

Kokichi is Thief of Mind for taking away other people's decisions for his own purposes but also for generally "stealing" things (e.g., the Mastermind Role, narrative importance in general, along with literal items) through his own cleverness. Vs Kaito, a Knight of Heart, who uses his constructed identity as a weapon to face challenges. I'm also a fan of inversion theory, so I think at low points they'd both trend towards Page of Heart (grows powerful late in the narrative based on his own ego/identity) and Rogue of Mind (taking choices/agency/logic away from people for their own good), respectively.

I always wanted Kiibo to be Hope since 1) Ult. Hope Robot 2) big on possibilities/faith but can be a little self-centered. I went with Bard at least partially to make a "guess we know whether he has a dick or not now!" joke, but I also think "inviting destruction through Hope, inviting destruction of (false) hope" is pretty spot on for chapter 6 Kiibo. Like, as the camera/audience surrogate, he's been forced into passively leading the others to despair, not to mention how the audience takes him over to destroy the hope of ending the show. But Kiibo ends up reversing this and helping destroy the audience's faith in Danganronpa, destroying the whole academy in accordance with the vote. (Sidenote: I wonder if Kiibo gets taken over by Horrorterrors and goes grimdark? Or if he's just really, really susceptible to orders from his Exile)

Shuichi, Page of Void, was another one that immediately came to mind. Like, "starts off weak but becomes really strong/important by the end" is Shuichi's thing! Also, counterpart to Kaito's Knight. And Void is all about secrets, mystery, etc. From the Extended Zodiac: "Where others might be compelled to go out and seek answers, the Void-bound lean more toward casting doubt on what is already considered understood. They don't take much on faith and would rather live in a state of confusion- than believe something that might be untrue or bow to intellectual authority... At their best, Void-bound are wise, intuitive, and vibrant. At their worst, they can be dismissive, indecisive and apathetic."

I had considering Light, for seeking out knowledge/truth, but Shuichi's character arc ends on "fuck you, I refuse to play. You all get nothing more from us" and learning to live with ambiguity, so I think he's way more Void. But, again, inversion would be Thief of Light, so selfishly taking away knowledge/importance from others.

Speaking of Light, I made Miu Mage of Light. Mage is like, active Seer, seeking out knowledge for yourself (vs advising others) and Light is luck, knowledge, and also importance/plot relevance. As an inventor, Miu keeps innovating and figuring things out, plus she's very motivated by her own importance to the world. She wants to be seen more than anything else and loves being smarter than those around her. Also: "At their best, the Light-bound are resourceful and driven. At their worst they can be fussy, pedantic, and insensitive." Inversion is Heir of Void, so "inviting change via hiding things" or "changing what's kept secret", which suits Miu when plotting murder.

Finally, Maki is Prince of Blood. Blood is trust, bonds, relationships, stubbornness, duty, obligation (vs freedom, change, choices) so "someone who breaks bonds/destroys relationships" but also "someone who destroys using/motivated by duty/relationships". Like, Maki is inherently a fracture point in the group because of her talent and then directly breaks the group apart and sabotages her relationships with the others in chapter 5, but also she's deeply motivated by her bonds to others in all of her destructive actions (protectiveness for orphanage/friend, love for Kaito). This sound super negative, but I think this is also the Maki who commits to destroying the institution of Danganronpa in chapter 6. Sometimes you have to be decisive and cut bad relationships out of your life.

Inversion would be Sylph of Breath, so "healing via change" or "encouraging growth towards freedom", which you can argue is sort of the way Kaito wants her to go? But she just doesn't. Idk, for better or worse, I think Maki is very aware of who she is and how people related to her, so even at her worst she's true to herself, vs, say, Kaito or Kokichi, who act "ooc".

#Homestuck #Kokichi Oma #Kaito Momota #Miu Iruma #Shuichi Saihara #Kaede Akamatsu #Maki Harukawa #Kiibo #Tsumugi Shirogane #New Danganronpa V3 #Danganronpa #Sburb AU #Spectra Art

2K notes · View notes

aurae-rori · 15 days

Text

DR RATIO ANALYSIS

SPOILERS FOR 2.1 CONTENT!

Now, you might be saying - "Aurae, Oh No! and Are You Satisfied? are much too basic songs to analyze Dr. Ratio to! Just because he's a scholar doesn't mean that he has academic trauma!" WRONG! Before we start, I have been researching psychology for approximately six years and I plan to go into it professionally. HOWEVER, that said, I am NOT a professional (YET. One day I will be. Yay for Aurae!) so understand that everything I come to conclusions about has been analyzed with some personal judgement, personal interpretations, and this is just what I have concluded with the info that I have deconstructed from his brain. If you disagree, that's fine!

I will be pulling from my own experiences with being a "golden" and "gifted" child, as well as the experiences I've had speaking to other people who were those. I will also be pulling from my experiences of researching and seeing how people with superiority complexes work, as well as diving into how those work (from what I've seen, as well as how they conceal a lack of self-esteem).

OKAY, NOW THAT THAT LONG AHH DISCLAIMER IS OVER, ALLOW ME TO WORK MY PSYCH ENJOYER MAGIC! Let's deconstruct Dr. Ratio like a lego toy.

Let's start off with how Dr. Ratio presents himself. When you first meet him, he seems like a haughty, arrogant asshole. He likes to PRESENT himself as a stoic, superior scholar who is purely in it to win it, and I got total "*stares down at your tiny body and laughs at how you lack knowledge*" vibes at the very start, due to how he goes around calling people idiots all the time. However, he DOES lose the idgaf war, and we can very quickly see that he does care for other people, even if in his own, strange way. Dr Ratio presentation: An asshole. The reality?

His entire character is based around the idea of helping the masses. He wishes to spread knowledge through the cosmos and give people who didn't have access to it, access. He's a harsh teacher, and calling people 'idiots' is NOT the way to motivate them, but he's doing his best™.

Actually, no, I'm going to go full psych into this. Okay, so here starts the Dr. Ratio and my FATHER COMPARISONS. My father is a professor and he is often called a harsh grader by his students. However, I've spoken to him multiple times because I was curious - why is he so harsh and diligent with his grading system? The answer is - he wants them to actually learn. When he's grading, he gives them harsh marks because he wants them to know exactly where they messed up, and he's always willing to stay after hours to help students understand where they can't. My father also is an enjoyer of knowledge, and for as long as I've remembered, he has prioritized teaching me how to think critically. He wants me to be able to think for myself - and I think that's what Dr. Ratio wants, too. He wants for his students to be able to fully comprehend and absorb the information that he teaches, and although his methods are harsh, he genuinely wants to help. My father's like this too - he hates students that waste his time or aren't here because their hearts are in it. Dr. Ratio hates people who aren't taking their education seriously because knowledge is important. Knowledge is a tool, and to disregard it completely is lowkey kind of insulting - especially when there are people who weren't privileged enough to actually get it, so this isn't something that you should take for granted. Dr. Ratio despises people who take knowledge for granted.

Also, I disagree with the claims that say that Dr. Ratio hates the genius society. He shows open respect for them in his voice lines. Just check them if you need proof. Also, I'll delve into the idea of Aeons and recognition later.

Now that we’ve established that Dr. Ratio kins my dad, let’s let's tackle the 'stoic' allegations. He is LOSING the idgaf war. Like, really badly. He has a temper of a thousand suns and snaps at people frequently, despite his 'impassive' face, his tone holds a LOT of emotion. He seems to feel very deeply and has a shit ton of empathy for others - why else would he be dedicating his entire career to helping others? Of course, he doesn't express this in 'typical' ways of being openly kind - but it doesn't mean that he doesn't care for other people. In fact, he seems to be pretty good at putting himself in the shoes of others and understanding them - expressed in the 2.1 quest where he tells Aventurine to tell him if he can't hold on any longer. Also, he loses the IDGAF war because he is actively trying to help people who want to learn and trying to spread logic and knowledge across the cosmos to those who didn't have it before. Would a man who didn't GAF do that? No!

Now that we've covered his view on knowledge and the way that he presents himself, let's turn to the way that he SEES himself. Now, this is where we get into the nitty gritty of gifted child trauma & academic trauma as well as crippling expectations. It's literally explicitly said in his character stories that he sees himself as mediocre, and it's canon that he doesn't have a good view of himself. His self-esteem is down in the fucking trenches along with my sanity as I write this analysis. The reality is - being called a genius your whole life doesn't really make you feel better about yourself. I'd know. I was. In fact, it makes you feel fucking worse when you can't live up to an expectation. We all fail in life. It's part of being human. But when you're held to such high standards - idolized for your knowledge and the way that you're 'gifted' - the crash comes really fucking hard. Failure is inevitable, and when people who are held on that pedestal experience it, they take it really bad.

The reality is that nobody - not even geniuses - are perfect, but you grow up believing that you are. Then, when you fail for the first time, it all comes tumbling down. The first time I came home with a bad grade was one of the most humiliating moments of my life. I hadn't studied because I was arrogant and I thought that I was smart enough to pass without putting any extra effort into it - because I was a 'gifted' child, right? I should've been able to do it without studying like the other kids. And that's the thing with gifted children – you grow reliant on that title. You cling onto it for dear life for motivation, as well as self-perception. Little by little, the person you are falls apart as you slave away to the perception other people have of you. I think basically every gifted child that I've ever spoken to is a victim of this – and of course, you can heal from this mindset - but it's a hard one to shake.

Ratio's way of presenting himself as being a 'genius' and 'arrogant' also seems to contradict the way that he calls himself 'mundane' at the same time. However, these are two mindsets that can coexist. One part of you believes that you are a genius and that you are perfect, while the other part is crumbling and calling yourself good-for-nothing every time you make a mistake. It's a tiring cycle to live in. This usually leads to people shutting themselves out and closing themselves off after living like that, pushing back your own feelings in favour of being the perfect child. However, we don't know the exact details of Dr. Ratio's childhood, but we can infer that he was held to a pedestal, and this is a very harmful mindset for a child to have.

His superiority complex comes both from how other people view him, but it's a way to cope with his crippling lack of self-esteem. I'm sorry my guy. Also helping others probably helps him feel like he's worth something and makes him feel better because he bases his entire worth off of what he can do and how he can help others. However, this is just my personal interpretation backed by what I have already deconstructed.

In general, this is an easy way to crush self-esteem. You spend your whole life working to meet the image of what other people think you are. In fact, another reason why Dr. Ratio might be so harsh is because that’s the kind of attitude he holds towards himself when conducting research – he’s as hard on himself as he is to others. You end up hating the idea of failure, instead of seeing it as it should be - a way to improve and grow. Actually, I think this could be a reason that he went out of his way to break that illusion of 'worshipping geniuses' in the Space Station. Maybe some sort of childhood connection? Personal connection? In his endeavour to spread more knowledge and make people think for themselves and not blindly follow geniuses, to wake them up and let them think for themselves - maybe, somewhere, in there, he's helping that little child that was almost dehumanized for his intelligence. TLDR: Conflicting mindsets due to trauma, brain vs heart almost - his knowledge that he is a genius vs the crippling lack of his self worth.

Now that we've established Dr. Ratio's self worth, let's take a look at the impact Aeons had on him. Nous, the Aeon of Knowledge itself. I think in a world where the Gods are real, tangible beings that you can reach out and talk to - it makes sense that someone with high ambition and someone who's been called a genius his whole life would seek the confirmation of Nous. When you're a man of knowledge, and you've spent your whole life working with it, being praised for it – it feels natural to look for a god to look down upon you and bless you, right? The Genius Society – it should house him, because he is a genius as well, right? Imagine this – you have been called a genius your whole life, held to that kind of pedestal for so long, and now you wait for the recognition of the Gods. Because if you truly are a genius – then surely, a higher being will recognize your intelligence, right?

The invitation never comes.

And then, comes the doubt.

What if I'm really not a genius? What if everything I've worked for is a lie? Aeons are beings that are 'absolute'. If the god of Knowledge won't accept you or even cast a glance upon you, does that mean that everything was wrong. Gods see more than humans, after all. Gods know more than humans - and that spiral... I think you can see if. (If you don't let me know. I will ramble about how a failure like that can make you spiral down into a worse mindset).

However, the reason why Ratio was never invited to the Genius Society is simple. It’s because he LOSES THE IDGAF WAR. Now, if we look at all the people we know who are in the Genius Society - we find one thing in common. They’re in it to win it for themselves. They don’t help others using the knowledge that they’ve gotten - they use it to pursue shit for themselves. The people of the Genius Society are inherently self-serving. They WIN the idgaf war. Ratio LOSES. Do we see now?

Ratio’s empathy is the reason why he wasn’t let in. He is too human. Nous is a computer. Herta is detached from people. Ruan Mei is literally looking at life as test subjects. Screwllum is a robot.

OUR DOCTOR MAN LOST THE IDGAF WAR, BECAUSE HE IS HUMAN AND FEELS FOR OTHERS!!!

Also, it’s a plausible theory that Nous’s definition of ‘genius’ is different from the human definition of ‘genius’ – it’s a computer, after all. Who knows what’s going on in that code head of its.

However, we still love you Ratio. Never stop losing the IDGAF war.

TLDR: Nous is a computer. It is also in it to win it. It is also self serving. It gazes upon the hoes who are here to win it for themselves. Ratio is busy serving the masses and cooking knowledge in his frying pan. To it, there is no logical reason to be doing this. Therefore, no reason to invite this guy to the Genius Society.

Ratio’s gifted child trauma says otherwise. He wants in. Why wouldn’t he? He’s been working his whole life as a genius.

Nous is like… nah bro, you care too much. Ratio is like, ‘what the fuck?’ And then the AEON OF KNOWLEDGE GOES FOR THE MILK.

Okay, now, quick shoutout to Ratio wanting to help others. He is just like me fr. SO BASICALLY, RECAP OF EVERYTHING I JUST SAID:

Ratio LOSES the idgaf war because he cares about other people. Spent his whole life as the golden egg, and then turns to the gods for recognition because of the inherent trauma of being a child genius. He goes, "hey bro, can you confirm that I am in fact a genius?" and Nous goes, "no, you are too busy cheffing for the masses." Ratio goes, "what the fuck?" and then we collectively realize his attitude comes from blocking off his feelings (while failing miserably), being salty about not being recognized, being put on a pedestal for his whole life, and his crippling depression *cough* lack of self worth *cough*.

Oh, and the "I will never be enough" thought train probably hits him every single day. He is not enough to be recognized by a God. Gods are superior to humans. Maybe nothing has worth after all. Hey, that's Nihility! Hi IX, let's hear what you have to say.

*muffled ix noises*

I see, I see.

The consensus is: HE'S TRAUMATIZED BY EXPECTATIONS! HE WILL PROBABLY SUFFER FROM BURNT OUT GIFTED CHILD IF HE HAS NOT ALREADY!

Okay, now, before I delve into song lyrics (and I KNOW this has been long, just bear with me) I want to talk a little bit (read: a lot) about his relationship with Aventurine. We all know that he cares about Aventurine in his own way. But I want to pull in another idea that I didn’t cover before:

Ratio’s fucking emotional constipation.

Basically, the reason why he has trouble connecting with others is because he was most likely alienated by others as a symptom of being called a genius and being put on a pedestal. This makes him seem unapproachable to his peers, most likely, and therefore, as a result, doesn’t know how to properly connect with others. This just makes his way of presenting affection and care to others even more challenging – because he just doesn’t know how to do it in a healthy and clear way. Academic trauma causing emotional problems, because he’s probably a little bit out of touch with his own. Processing? No! Research. Also, this is very important for understanding Ratio’s character in my opinion, because he’s just a little guy who doesn’t know how to articulate. Maybe he’s got a touch of the ‘tism. Tism mutuals, do we agree or disagree?

However, in comes Aventurine. Love Aventurine, but they are both emotionally constipated. Aventurine displays his affection in ways that Ratio probably only catches after re-analyzing their time together about five times. He’s also a very closed off individual – but Ratio knows this. A cute thing is that Ratio is patient where he needs to be, even if he’s generally a pretty hot-headed guy, and I’m like… bro… that letter… “I wish you the best of luck”... I will wait for you…. GAY ASS MAN…

Sorry the Aventio demons took over. Anyway, what I’m trying to say here is that they both have nonverbal communication with one another that they clearly decipher and Ratio obviously cares for him (he came back and almost jeopardized the plan just for the sake of his ‘coworker’... okay gayboy…) and they just have such a neat little dynamic… Aventurine lets Dr. Ratio do his thing… understands his emotional alienation to a degree…. they’re so neat….

Okay, Aventurine segment over. NOW, FINALLY, WE CAN GET TO THE SONG LYRICS!!! YAY!!!! We all cheered!!!

We are going to be here for two more amber eras, because I realized I actually want to analyze every single lyric from both of these songs. Brace yourself for like, 2k more words. Help.

I think it’s only proper that we start off with ‘Oh No!’ the song that has haunted me since my childhood.

“Don’t do love, don’t do friends

I’m only after success

Don’t need a relationship

I’ll never soften my grip”

Remember when I mentioned that alienation was a big part of Ratio lore? Yeah, that manifests itself in this. When you spend your entire life chasing after knowledge and being held to that standard of untouchable genius, it makes sense that you couldn’t connect with others and that you turn your gaze only to success. Therefore, relationships that are interpersonal lose meaning for a bit – you’re just looking for answers and ways to help them, not connect with them. Also, this is what he wants to do – so he’s never going to pass down an opportunity to better himself or to help someone else.

“Don’t want cash, don’t want card

Want it fast, want it hard

Don’t need money, don’t need fame

I just want to make a change

I just wanna change, I just wanna change”

This is directly alluding to his reasonings for distributing knowledge across the cosmos. Was he based on this song? Maybe he was. He’s not looking for money or fame, his ultimate goal is actually pretty selfless – to bring knowledge and give people the tools they need to think for themselves. He just wants to make a change – he just wants people to be able to have access to knowledge and help cure ‘stupidity’. He wants to do it as quickly as possible, always reaching for lofty goals that might seem impossible, but he will make them possible.

“I know exactly what I want and who I want to be

I know exactly why I walk and talk like a machine

I’m now becoming my own self-fulfilled prophecy

Oh! Oh no! Oh no! Oh no, oh!”

Ratio knows his goal. He knows what he’s working towards. I do believe that he understands why he is the way that he is – he has a degree in Psychology, after all. He knows how he’s been hurt but at the same time, the trauma brain probably doesn’t want to recognize it and he hasn’t stepped into healing yet. He knows what he went through impacted him, but he’s too busy helping others to help himself. He’s becoming what he wants to be, and yet he’s not, all at the same time – which causes the idea of “oh no!” as a kind of cry for help, almost. He’s too proud to ask for it himself, of course, so he’ll fall alone until someone manages to catch him and give him the strength to continue holding on. Aventurine is that.

“One track mind, one track heart

If I fail, I’ll fall apart

Maybe it is all a test

‘Cause I feel like I’m the worst

So I always act like I’m the best”

Now, these are the exact lyrics that made me associate this song with Ratio in the first place. He’s got a singular goal that he will do nothing to stop at getting, that he goes so far to get to. However, as I mentioned earlier, failure is not an option for those who were deemed gifted or genius. You are perfect, so therefore you must live up to everyone’s every expectation and surpass them, too, in order to keep your perception of yourself intact. Ratio does not hold himself in high regard, but acts arrogant in order to hold himself together and not fall to the self-deprecating thoughts, even if they fall through the cracks. It gets tiring to hold yourself together like that for a long time, you know?

“I’m gonna live, I’m gonna fly

I’m gonna fail, I’m gonna die

I’m gonna live, I’m gonna fly

I’m gonna fail, I’m gonna die”

Remember how I was talking about contradictory mindsets and how they can coexist. This is them. The feeling of crippling self-hatred and lack of self esteem versus the idea that you can do it, you can make a difference – you were born a genius, this is what you’re going to do. This is the knowledge that you are a genius vs the lack of self-esteem that Ratio has. “Mediocre” vs “genius” mindset, eh?

All the other lyrics in this song are repetitions of what I’ve analyzed before, so let’s move onto “Are you Satisfied?”

To be honest, there are only a few lines in this song that allow me to connect it to Ratio, so therefore, I will only be analyzing them. However, if you think that other lyrics can connect to him, I’d be interested in knowing how.

“What you’re gonna be

It’s not my problem if you don’t see what I see

And I do not give a damn if you don’t believe

My problem, it’s my problem that I never am happy

It’s my problem, it’s my problem on how fast I will succeed”

Pretending to not care about how the world sees you is so fucking real. Sometimes, you really don’t give a shit, and sometimes it’s all you can think about. Ratio… doesn’t seem like he’s the happiest person. He works himself hard and he’s always chasing after a goal that must be exhausting. He’s always doing his best, and I think even with his empathy, it’s easy to start not giving a shit after trying for so long and so hard. Accepting help is one of the hardest things that anybody can do, especially with how much pride he has. His personal problems are his personal problems and he can deal with them on his own.

“High achiever, don’t you see?

Baby, nothing comes for free

They say I’m a control freak

Driven by a greed to succeed

Nobody can stop me”

Nothing comes for free. A lot of the things Ratio has achieved is due to his own intelligence, yes, but also because of a shit ton of hard work. His goal is literally to cure the universe of ‘stupidity’ – and that’s a pretty large fucking goal. He is a high achiever who likes to know the details of every situation when he can in order to try and make things better, and he is driven by a greed to succeed. Why wouldn’t he be? Success is important, and success means helping more people. He isn’t going to allow himself to be stopped by anybody – not even anybody from the Genius society.

Okay, and we have finally reached the end of my analysis! This caps at around 4k words, so if you stuck around for this long, thank you so much. I would love to hear any of your comments, and I hope you laughed a little bit. Thank you again! This means so much to me that you read. <3

335 notes · View notes

heroesriseandfall · 6 months

Text

Jason Todd & Chronic Pain

I scrounged for the panels I know from Rebirth about Jason still having lingering pain and injuries from when the Joker killed him. We know Jason had substantial injuries and brain damage when he was resurrected, and Talia healed that with the Lazarus pit. But here’s some I know of being mentioned even after Talia healed him with the Lazarus pit.

The first I know of is when evil future Batman Tim targeted Jason’s hip because of a Joker-related injury that he claimed would eventually become debilitating for Jason. This move does take Jason out of the fight so it definitely seems like evil Tim successfully aggravated the injury.

Detective Comics #968 (Jan 2018) — earlier in #966 Batman Tim also mentioned future Jason would eventually lose an eye and a leg while fighting assassins.

More recently, regular, not-evil Tim referenced it while evaluating how to fight a Clayface Jason mimic:

Tim Drake: Robin #3 (Jan 2023) — Tim says the pit brought Jason back, which has sometimes been a thing. Originally Jason was only healed by the pit after he’d already been resurrected by something else.

This next one was black label, so it may or may not be canon (the creative team claims “it’s up to reader interpretation” and disagree on whether they personally think it is canon). I’m not a fan of the comic but it did pretty clearly indicate Jason had chronic pain from the Joker:

Batman: Three Jokers #2 (Nov 2020)

(There might be more than these—my reading of post flashpoint comics is kinda random and incomplete compared to my reading of post-Crisis. In post-Crisis though I think they mainly put emphasis on Jason’s destabilized mental health and didn’t really bring up physical aspects IIRC. His brain damage seemed healed and yet he seemed more affected after the pit than other one-time-in-the-pit characters like Dinah Lance or Cass Cain were.)

They haven’t bothered explaining how the pit didn’t heal them so far as I know (the pits kinda work to authorial convenience anyway). My route is usually to blame any weird Jason stuff on the strange, multiversal circumstances of his resurrection, but versions of his origin where he’s only brought back by the pit might not jive with that (which includes some Rebirth IIRC).

In any case, I do hope more writers pick up on this more and I love to see when it’s expanded upon a bit in fandom. I would already consider Jason’s mental health to be a disabling issue for him but it’s neat sometimes to have writers recognize chronic pain-related issues among DC characters. (I’d love to also see more expansion of Bruce mentioning he experienced chronic pain…it pops up every so often but rarely if ever in depth.)

Alt text is copied and expanded upon under read more below.

ID 1: Two panels from Detective Comics #968 showing Jason Todd as Red Hood leaping to fight evil future Batman Tim Drake. Jason says, “Sorry, Timmy, I don’t believe in Santa Claus.” Batman Tim slams his staff directly into Jason’s right hip joint, sending him flying back, and says, “Jason. In a few years you were going to learn that one of your bones never set right after the Joker killed you. There’s a growing debilitating bone spur in your hip joint. There, I found it for you you’re welcome.” They’re both in the batcave.

ID 2: A cropped panel from Tim Drake: Robin #3 showing a red narration box for Tim Drake which says: “The Lazarus Pit may have brought Jason back from the dead, but he’s still sensitive where The Joker killed him.”

ID 3: A comic page from Batman: Three Jokers #2. A Joker leans in Jason Todd’s face, looking intense and serious. The Joker says, “Who is the Joker, really? We’re going to find out.” The word “out” is written in an extended sing-songy way. The Jokers put Jason’s Red Hood helmet over his head but they’ve decorated it with a wide Joker-style grin. The two Jokers laugh, then one says, “We’ve spent considerable time trying to best answer that question: who is the Joker? We found that judge. A serial killer. A surgeon. All rather predictable and uninspiring. And then there’s you. Tell me something. Why would you put on that helmet and call yourself Red Hood after what we did?” Jason, who is sitting naked tied to the wooden chair, says, “Come on. Is every one of you copycats gonna ask me the same thing? It’s a joke.” One of the Jokers holds up a crowbar as the other says, “A joke? We left you with brain damage and permanent nerve pain. Physical and emotional trauma so severe that the only relief you ever find is when you inflict pain on others.” The Joker holds the crowbar by Jason’s head. “You and me, boy…..We’re more alike than you’d care to admit.”

ID 4: A comic page from Batman: Three Jokers #2 showing Jason Todd with no shirt on and small bandages on various parts of his arms and face. He looks at a calendar on a wall and reads the crossed out days that have physical therapy sessions written on them. He sees a stack of various healing and exercise books. The top book is titled Chronic Pain Management by Dr. D. Kresan. He picks it up. Barbara Gordon as Batgirl enters a different, dark room through a window.

ID 5: A comic page from Batman: Three Jokers #2 showing Barbara Gordon as Batgirl entering her own bedroom. She says, “Jason?” She sees a book on her bed titled “Chronic Pain Management” by Dr. D. Kresan. Jason says, “Barbara?” and walks out of the attached bathroom with only a towel around his waist. Babs says, “I figured you’d left.” Jason says, “I hope it’s okay I used the shower and I…I didn’t mean to go through your things. The closet door was open and that book looked…useful.” Babs says, “It was. Are you okay?” Jason has small bandages and bruises on his face as he says, “I don’t think I’ve ever been okay.” Babs looks concerned. Jason continues saying, “What the Joker said…about how I’ve been on the path to being like them for years…they’re not wrong. I don’t want to be like them though. I really don’t. You believe that, right?” Babs says, “I’m willing to.” Then Jason says, “Can I ask you something?”

#jason todd #batfam #dc comics #red hood #batman #heroesriseandfall #disabled characters #disability representation #disabled jason todd #dc meta #lazarus pits #long post

442 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

nutrela

Nutrela Nutrition

miraimeity

Silly Lei

blackteablunt

dcwamaker

DCWA MAKER

no-deberias-jugar-conmigo

El demonio tambien es un angel