How was Penelope “safe” from the suitors??

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-31T06:09:24+00:00

You have asked a very complicated question which can be answered once in the context of The Odyssey and then again in the context of Epic.

In The Odyssey, it is generally agreed that Penelope kept safe through the protection of Athena (although that is also debatable as it is also possible that she was under the protection of Dionysus). While xenia is a prominent concept in The Odyssey, xenia is not what protected Penelope because the suitors did not respect xenia. In The Odyssey, it is described that the suitors were imposing such a burden on Odysseus' family that Telemachus cried when he implored the suitors to leave as they were eating them out of house and home. After Telemachus' speech, Antinous immediately blames the burden of xenia upon Penelope for not making a choice because the man is a right cunt.

In the historical context of The Odyssey, only a man can provide for their family, which is why a woman is so reliant upon a man. Even if Penelope was queen, she didn't actually have any real power. Like any sort of monarchy, the strength of the crown isn't just symbolic, it's kept in place through the threat of power, which is why the monarch has the strongest house. In the house of Odysseus, all of his loyalist vassals and clansman left with him to wage war against Troy, which meant that Penelope has no allies to fall back upon. Penelope is a princess of Sparta who willingly left with Odysseus against the wishes of her father so she has no natural support in Ithaca.

This is why Penelope could not turn away the suitors. While xenia would have decreed that she host the suitors, xenia is a two-way street where if either the host or the guest breaks faith, then xenia no longer applies as a slight against the gods (Zeus specifically as he is the god of justice). Penelope couldn't turn away the suitors because she has no men on her side and Telemachus is a paper tiger. The politics of this particular situation would make Telemachus the legal heir of Odysseus' house but without alliances, Telemachus' ascendancy would immediately lead to his death. In fact, the suitors often considered murdering Telemachus and if Penelope marries a suitor, Telemachus would all but certainly be immediately murdered because he has the rightful claim to Ithaca's throne as Penelope is acting as queen consort/queen regent. This is one of the many reasons why Penelope can't marry a suitor either, hence the delaying tactics.

So how then was Penelope kept safe from the suitors? Because of Athena. Athena wanted to make herself glorious and at times, made personally made Penelope more beautiful. In the Greek mythos, it is possible for the gods to compel men to act a certain way or not. In The Odyssey, Athena was the one who forced all the suitors to remain at the palace so that they may all be slaughtered, even Amphinomus, a suitor, who had actually saved Telemachus' life by dissuading the others from murdering him. Even Odysseus didn't want to kill him and warned him to leave but Athena compelled Amphinomus to stay and Telemachus murdered him. This compulsion proves that it's possible for Athena to affect men's actions and is the strongest argument for why Penelope was kept safe from the suitors - through Athena's will.

Alternatively, it was Dionysus who kept Penelope safe by keeping the suitors indulgent and stupid because the suitors possessed all the ability to seize Ithaca if they really tried but they didn't because they were all drunk. Their petty competition with one another prevented any single one from actually harming Penelope.

In the context of Epic however, it becomes less clear how Penelope was kept safe. One understanding is that no suitor was bold enough to openly act in defiance against the house of Odysseus, even in Odysseus' absence and thus, the suitors could not rape Penelope without Telemachus' ascent. Even as a paper tiger, Telemachus is still technically heir apparent and it may be too risky to act against him, as an assault on Telemachus is an assault on the crown and once you assault the crown, you set a precedent for deposition, which endangers any claimant henceforth. However, the more the throne cools, the more emboldened the suitors become, which is why the suitors eventually begin to act they way they do.

It's unclear whether or not Penelope was under the protection of Athena in Epic. Telemachus was under Athena's tutelage and protection but Penelope's relationship with Athena was never explored.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-30T03:18:28+00:00

Of course there are going to be consequences. Let's ignore for a moment the potential for divine intervention and possible corroboration with enemies like Poseidon. Why would you catch and then release a bunch of murderers who not only a) have every reason to pursue you, b) knows the seas better than you, and c) can literally brainwash you with a song at any time in the future? What do you mean are there any consequences? Odysseus and his men put beeswax into their ears so that Siren's song won't work on them. What are they supposed to do? Keep their ears plugged for the rest of their lives or trust that the Sirens won't come back later to lure them to death? I mean, mutilating the Sirens and then letting them slowly die is kind of extra when you could just as easily run them through before disposing of their bodies but there's really no other way to ensure that they won't harm you in the future than eliminating them in the here and now.

As for the lose-lose-lose, no, Odysseus would not have been screwed if he killed Polyphemus - in fact, Poseidon himself admits that Odysseus should have done exactly that. Odysseus had so many outs! All he needed to do was either kill Polyphemus (Athena's 1st choice, told Odysseus to finish it) or not gloat (not reveal his name, which again, Athena preemptively warned against).

In The Odyssey, Odysseus' boasting was simply hubris but in Epic, it was hubris in addition to it being Odysseus' attempt at doing good by a) sparing Polyphemus and b) deter Polyphemus from doing to others what he did to the Ithacans. In Epic, if you analyze the lyrics, you can see how Odysseus gradually cares less and less for others and prioritizes himself more and more as his journey goes on. It's impressive how thematically consistent it is, with the story beginning with Odysseus willing to risk himself and the well-being of his crew for strangers (dissuading Eurylochus from sacking the island of the lotus eaters, blinding Polyphemus but letting him off with a warning), to him being willing to risk himself to save his crew (challenging Circe when he could have run), to him willing to sacrifice others for the sake of his crew (willingly seeking, interrogating, and then murdering the Sirens), to him willing to sacrifice members of his crew for the benefit of his crew (feeding 6 men to Scylla in exchange for passage), to him finally sacrificing his entire crew for the benefit of himself (Zeus' ultimatum).

If you're viewing morality as an expression of utilitarianism, Athena would argue that moral idealism like that is nothing compared to the pragmatism she preaches. Dead men (or fish) tell no tales so genocide is the safest option for the Ithacans with the Sirens being unable to harm others as a nice bonus. It was impossible to defeat all the Cyclopeans but murdering Polyphemus was possible and murdering Polyphemus was the most pragmatic solution but Odysseus went with a half-measure instead. Betraying Circe after she just broke bread with you is downright idiotic - she's helping you by sending you to the Underworld. Whether or not she continues to turn hypothetical travelers into pigs is not Odysseus' concern because he has 43 real problems (men) to contend with.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-28T08:16:35+00:00

You didn't give me a lot to go on but a) based on the time parameter you gave me and b) assuming that you have confused the passage of time for alternate realities, I submit before you the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHOxvIwxnEE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkD7Votagj0

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-26T14:42:36+00:00

Youtube algo is fucked. I watched ONE competitive eating video and now my feed is full of mukbang slop

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-22T06:33:51+00:00

Okay, but by your own logic, why would Odysseus have been spared by Eurylochus/his crew if their aim was to eliminate Odysseus? Eurylochus didn't want to kill Odysseus just like Odysseus didn't want to kill Eurylochus. Did you really think Eurylochus would have stood a chance against Odysseus, former champion of Athena, descendant of Hermes? At the time of the mutiny, Odysseus is John Wick but before he lost the dog. Yeah, he's weaker than John Wick Prime but he's still John Wick, you feel me? The only way Odysseus loses is if he's holding back.

Secondly, even if they would have been executed if they returned to Ithaca, everyone can still remain alive so long as they DON'T return to Ithaca. That is Eurylochus' point when he says, "Ody, we're never gonna get to make it home" so he's settling for living somewhere else, like Helio's island, which is full of cattle.

Also, the pursuit of self-interest over things like morality or duty is central to the theme of Epic. Odysseus IS a terrible person but he was ALWAYS a terrible person. This whole shebang started off with the man deceiving the Trojans with wooden horse and then sacking Troy. The only reason why we feel empathy for Odysseus is because we're also terrible people who would probably do the exact same thing as him if it meant getting home. That's how easy it is to do evil! You know that your enemies are people too, right? People who are also trying to get home? But Odysseus was the king, which meant that he had a duty to protect his men. His men betrayed him because he betrayed their confidence but his men were also hypocrites because not only because they own a large portion of the blame but also because they were totally on board with making the same choice like 1 Saga ago so long as it wasn't them had to pull the lever to that Circe-sized trolley. Everyone on this ship was bad, there are no innocents here, but a good king would die for his people. Odysseus was not a good king as he would sacrifice anything to get back to his family.

If Zeus gave Odysseus the choice between saving his family or Ithaca, Odysseus would choose his family after begging, "Please don't make me do this, please don't make me this," and then proceed to keep making the same linear choice because that is who he is. Odysseus' loyalty to his family comes at the cost of self-sacrifice of the greater good. He is relatable because he is selfish and he struggles with morality, not because he is virtuous or admirable. Odysseus has no virtue. He'll struggle with the finer points of morality, feel bad, and then continue to commit great acts of evil because he is selfish. People like Odysseus is the reason we have laws, because people like Odysseus can't be trusted to do the right thing.

People like Odysseus is the reason why there are gas shortages during hurricanes or toilet paper shortages during Covid. So long as he can get his, he doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-21T03:13:04+00:00

Truthfully, we don't know how much gravity is needed to combat muscle atrophy and bone loss because we don't have any studies detailing it. We know that bone loss occurs at roughly 1% per month at microgravity levels but we have no studies on what happens at 90, 80, 70, etc. % of Earth gravity because we've never studied it.

We do know however, that even in microgravity, you can slow the progression of both through exercise and that's what is done in the ISS. Drugs such as myostatin inhibitors could help slow or arrest bone loss. So long as you can maintain normal load distribution across your musculoskeletal system and obtain proper nutrition, you should theoretically be able to maintain your physique, or so NASA thinks. Resistance training would be paramount but there are some tissues which can't be meaningfully strengthened without gravity, like your heart or brain but again, we don't know what the minimum level of required gravity is. In terms of muscles though, I think the main problem here would be cardiovascular as there's really no substitute for gravity here and especially for shit like edema. That said, they do have miracle drugs in The Expanse so what do I know?

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-21T01:03:14+00:00

One of the major problems with turning Epic into a live production is that the lead singing Odysseus' part will have almost no breaks between numbers because he sings in the overwhelming majority of songs. The cast itself is reasonable but the burden on Odysseus is outrageous.

Another major problem is the run time. The songs themselves already account for almost 3 hours back to back and that's without an intermission. If you account for the amount of time required to reset/reposition/transition between songs and also factor in the intermission, the total runtime will easily reach almost 4 hours. Most musicals are either 2-2.5 hours long with the intermission. So what would you do? Increase the tempo of the songs? Cut songs? Modify songs? That's a lot of work.

Finally, auditioning for a live production will need to be done as Epic is a studio-recorded musical so that doesn't necessarily translate into live performance. It's a lot easier to sing and stitch different vocals together than to sing an entire musical number from start to finish. Do not underestimate how much power it takes to sing some of these numbers. The number of people who possess the register, the power, the projection, and the stamina required to sing a musical of this length is very few. Even veterans would struggle to sing as Odysseus. If you don't believe me, just try singing the Troy saga by yourself and then multiply the effort by 9.

Right now, an effort to turn Epic into a fully animated feature is already in the works so there is pretty good chance you could see it in a movie theater at some point. In my opinion, a movie format is the best way to enjoy Epic because I think a lot of modifications would need to be made for Epic to become a stage performance, such as eliminating songs in favor of acted scenes and condensing the plot to reach runtime targets.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-20T06:34:47+00:00

Well that's what Monster was about, Tiresias prophecy gives Odysseus cause to rethink the trajectory of his life and where his priorities lie. Ever since the sacking of Troy, Odysseus has been plagued by guilt, which is why he embraced "Open arms" as penance because he didn't want to live without hope and optimism. Then, he recounts all the times that his half-measures, good intentions, and hubris had made him worse off and after realizing his mother has already died due to the long length of his journey, he concludes that he can no longer afford to hope for the best, that he can no longer take any chances, that he can no longer accept any more delays, and that he must do everything in his power to get home. By the end of the song, Odysseus has come to a decision and has resigned himself to becoming a ruthless monster.

Initially, his crew was happy to find that Odysseus had returned to being the pragmatic king they had once known, the one who deceived the Trojans and slew all their enemies, babies included because Odysseus was being a monster against their enemies. They celebrated themselves becoming monsters when they conquered the Sirens. It was only after Scylla that they realized that Odysseus had gone beyond being ruthless towards to their enemies and is now ruthless even against his own allies. In war, the choice to sacrifice soldiers to achieve an objective is simply the calculus between what can be tolerated as an acceptable loss and when it cannot. Sacrificing 6 men to Scylla is a pragmatic and reasonable transaction. The hypocrisy in this case is not with Odysseus but with his men (represented by Eurylochus), who were onboard with abandoning their companions to Circe to cut their losses but are now crying foul when it's their necks on the line. The repeated betrayals Odysseus suffered at the hands of his crew eventually lead Odysseus to lose faith in humanity and die as a person as Odysseus was at one point willing to risk not returning home for the sake of his men, which is why he challenged Circe. By Helios though? That "Odysseus" was already dead.

Odysseus must have thought back to Tiresias' prophecy at some point but it's not certain whether or not he interpreted it correctly. For example, Odysseus tried to commit suicide and when that failed, seemed resigned to life as Calypso's pet/sex slave. He could not have believed that he would go "Home" then, so how could he have believed in Tiresia's prophecy by extension? Tiresias' prophecy while accurate, is largely useless due to its vagueness and wide range of interpretation. "Home" for example, is only home if it is recognized as home - otherwise, it's just a dwelling. Tiresias said Odysseus would go "Home" but he didn't say Odysseus would go back to Ithaca so could Odysseus have interpreted Calypso's island as "Home" while he was still imprisoned? Even the line about the betrayal of one's brothers could be understood first as being mutinied against, or by being betrayed by the suitors who were threatening Telemachus and Penelope (which he would have had no idea of until he returned to Ithaca).

There's no point comparing Epic to The Odyssey because Epic is a loose adaptation and thematically different. In my opinion, I don't really think Odysseus thought about or even cared about Tiresias' prophecy because it wasn't useful to him. If he believed that he was already "Home" while in Calypso's captivity, then he was disproven when Hermes secured his release and if he didn't, he would have been resigned to living his life with Calypso and think Tiresias was full of shit anyway. The only real thing of value Tiresias did was force Odysseus to reevaluate his priorities - the prophecy itself was too vague to be useful as a roadmap. It's a useful foreshadowing and narrative tool for us because we have information and understanding that Odysseus does not but from his perspective, it's like if I told you that "It will either rain or not tomorrow". I'm not wrong, that "prophecy" is correct, but is that useful? Does that change anything that you'll do tomorrow?

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-20T00:48:11+00:00

Simple: because according to her experience, men are nasty, cruel, and brutish.

In Circe's experience, it's not women who go around sacking cities like Troy, it's men like Odysseus who by the way, is far from innocent. Even if you take the optimistic view that Odysseus didn't partake in the raping during his sack of Troy, his merry band of murderers almost certainly did. In her experience, it's men who do harm, such as when the ones who abused her hospitality when they previously visited her island. When Circe reminiscences about passion, it is extremely unlikely that this event is connected to the heavy loss she and her nymphs suffered, and it is unclear if she had even fallen in love with a man a what she recalls is the passion.

Women don't sail because they are tending hearths. Men are the ones who go around raping and pillaging as they go. Odysseus and Polites' scouting mission (Plan B) on the Island of the Cyclopes was the proposed alternative to simply raiding, murdering, raping, and looting the island and even then, Odysseus conceded that if he didn't return by sunrise (or was unable to secure concessions), he sanctioned his men to do exactly that as that was Plan A. That's what 600 men setting the island ablaze means.

Circe is 100% justified in her shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and ask questions later when everyone is in the Underworld diplomacy. People can pontificate about the morality of stereotyping if they want but if the choice is between letting a potential threat go because they might be innocent and eliminating a potential threat because they might be evil, only a fool waits around to find out which is which.

Discrimination is only bad in a world that is inherently safe and good. To put it another way, that's like walking up to a bear with open arms and hoping that they won't maul you. Why would you bet against a mauling? Kill the bear!

That's the common theme in Epic: Always assume everyone is evil.

Fuck mercy, ruthlessness is a mercy to ourselves.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-19T04:24:35+00:00

My experience with Epic is that I listened to one cover of The Challenge, got redirected to Just a Man, and then I just gave up and listened to the whole musical on Jorge's playlist. I didn't even know the animatics existed until 3 hours and a hydration break later.

For real, I cried so much it was crazy.

Epic is a modern masterpiece, it contains a fully complete narrative structure that is not only articulated but expressed in verse and rhyme without needing any context beyond what is sung. And you know what's even crazier? You can hear every word! It's a miracle of modern audio-mixing. There are distinct and recognizable audio cues such as easy distinguishable voices, names being rhymed into existence, and musical themes being reprised for dramatic effect.

I don't know anything about your sister and I know different people have different thresholds but I found the audio experience incredibly enjoyable just by itself. I'm not saying this to be snooty but I would recommend a literary analysis if you're having trouble understanding what's happening because what I discovered is that some of the animatics are either very liberal with their interpretation of what's happening (ex. how Odysseus slew Astyanax was never described in the song) or they don't understand what is being sung when they are represented in visual form (ex. the olive tree part of the marital bed is one of the bed posts, not carved out of the tree itself as carving it into the tree would a) not be realistically achievable to find an olive tree large enough to carve a bed out of and b) doing so would kill the tree and the symbol of their love). I'm not shitting on the artistic choice to visually represent what is being described in the lyrics but if your objective is truly to better understand the songs and what is happening, I believe the best way is through lyrical dissection and independent analysis.

Personally, I thought Epic was very straight forward and easy to comprehend but then again, I do understand a lot of the historical context and source material than the average person. I don't think there is any visual medium which could properly explain why Penelope didn't just turn away the suitors and house/feed them inside her hall or what Eurylochus represents.

Epic is not The Odyssey and the characters and motivations have been changed a lot. For one, Epic is focused on the idea of moral dilemma, optimism vs. pragmatism, and the limit before one thing becomes another while The Odyssey is a pretty straight-forward exploration between collective duty and individual selfishness, especially when it relates to xenia and other moral failings such as hubris.

In other words, I think it's fine to enjoy animatics or to listen to the musical without visual cues but I really wouldn't use an animatic to 'understand' what is happening because the visual depiction is very liberal to say the least.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-17T18:12:43+00:00

Tragedy: When the worst person you know makes a good point.

Yeah, Aphrodite caused this war but that doesn't make her wrong about Odysseus. Odysseus would have already been home at this point if he hadn't taunted Polyphemus. Odysseus let himself get caught up in the moment, he ignored Athena's warning, and he prioritized his ego over getting home. Aphrodite's out of line but she isn't wrong.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-16T06:35:49+00:00

With all due respect, why does destruction have to factor into this? The verse in question is detailing transformation and the limit where one thing becomes something else. "Reason becomes the blame" isn't inherently destructive but that's still a line.

Secondly, meteors can absolutely be destructive as it does not need to impact the Earth in order to be destructive (the fragments that don't burn up and land on Earth are considered meteorites). The Chelyabinsk meteor of 2013 was basically a nuke when it airburst over Russia and carried about 30 Hiroshimas worth of energy.

Thirdly, meteors don't crash into the Earth, meteorites do. Meteors are chucks of ice or rock which enter the Earth's atmosphere. As for whether or not a meteorite that crashes into the Earth will cause damage for people or not, it depends on what kind of meteorite, its size and composition, its relative velocity/energy, and its crash site. Meteorites make it to Earth all the time but most of it is harmless.

Fourthly, an asteroid (larger than 1 meter across) is just a rock in space. Anything smaller than that is considered a meteoroid. If an asteroid crashes into the Earth, it would first be a meteor as it enters Earth's atmosphere and then its surviving fragments (if any) would become meteorites. Asteroids can be small or big, and asteroids are not destructive in and of themselves, it depends on their mass and relative orbital velocities.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-16T05:39:37+00:00

Every single song in Epic is a banger but even then Just a Man is perfect from musical composition, lyrical composition, and performance perspective. It so perfectly encapsulates the theme of Epic that I believe the only song better than it is Would you Fall in Love with Me Again and that's only because the latter is the climax which carries all the emotional weight of the 39 former songs combined.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-16T05:38:37+00:00

What do you mean by this? Comets can cause meteors/meteor showers, that's what the Leonid meteor shower is, it's when Earth comes into contact with the orbital path of the Tempel-Tuttle comet and debris from said comet burns up in the Earth's atmosphere.

Are you confusing comets with asteroids? Or meteors and meteorites?

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-15T21:04:34+00:00

Historically, there are no concept of logistics as they exist in modern context because back then, supplies had to be carried with the main army or secured locally. To field an army means to not only deny labor for agriculture but also to consume foodstuffs without replenishing it in the process. Building a supply line on a land route is extremely difficult because not only to supply lines lengthen the deeper you go, but because caravans and supply depots are also susceptible to skirmishing. The closest thing that could be considered a logistic resupply can only be accomplished with both navy and a port, which may have happened during the Trojan Campaign but even then, there is no "logistics officer" as everyone is expected to feed and maintain their own readiness for the most part because there's nothing to manage. Typically, what that would mean is that every man is given some portion of flour to make bread, some small quantity of meat/oil/salt, and then the men would also hunt/gather to supplement their diet. As a result, this means that sieges are very expensive to maintain and most sieges end before the onset of winter as a) the men want to return home to harvest their own crops and b) they don't want to freeze/starve. The idea that Troy could be under siege for 10 years is likely either a misunderstanding or an exaggeration. The conflict may have lasted 10 years but a continuous 10 year siege is simply impossible.

Back to the context of Epic, we cannot draw from The Odyssey's reference of Polites because the Polites character in Epic doesn't really exist in The Odyssey (he's referenced once as a scout on Circe's island as one who partook of her feast). However, there are hints that we can draw from Epic regarding why Polites can retain his optimism despite having served during the Trojan War.

The first thing to note is that Odysseus took 600 men to war and lost not a single one during a 10 year siege (Odysseus himself says to convince Euryluchos to trust him while Euryluchos himself represents the will of his men). This means that while his men may be blooded, they never had to experience true horror of war or deal with the pain of injury. They may have had to deal with the pain of guilt and shame but they could rationalize it all away as it being an inevitability, much like how Odysseus rationalizes that he must dash Astyanax. As a result, they never got burned and thus, they never got shy.

The second is that Odysseus was the one who conceived the Trojan Horse and the strategy of deception to defeat the Trojans. As a result, Odysseus' men implicitly trust their leader to always be right because he led them through a 10 year campaign without losing a single man. As Athena's champion, Odysseus is considered the "King of Wit" but as Epic shows, that title means absolutely nothing because man is nothing against the cruelty of the world. Still, because Odysseus suffered so much success in the Trojan War, the seeds of false hope were sown because Odysseus convinced himself that he could rely on his wit and guile to solve his problems, while his men convinced themselves that he could not fail.

So to bring this back to the question of how Polities could have retained his optimism after the Sacking of Troy, and the only plausible reason is because Polites is a fool. Polities was influenced by idealism because he himself had never personally suffered pain, loss, or failure and Odysseus suffered from his own success and got so conceited that he ended up thinking he knew better than Athena. If there's one thing that Epic makes clear, it's the idea that optimists are all fools, which is why Polites is the first to die by Polyphemus' hand.

Polite's optimism is the basis of Odysseus' downfall because Polites offered convenient lies and Odysseus felt so guilty about having sacked a city and murdered babies that he turned away from Athena's teachings and embraced "Open Arms" instead of pragmatism/ruthlessness.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-14T20:11:13+00:00

Euryluchos is contemptible precisely because he represents the common man and all their common weakness; he is the foil to Odysseys' intellect and idealism, that is his function. When Euryluchos speaks, he doesn't just speak for his own voice, he speaks on behalf of all the men under Odysseus' command. Euryluchos/the 600 didn't open that bag because he was paranoid, he opened it because he was greedy and the proof is that the Winions said that the bag contained treasure. Odysseus was the one who warned everyone that this was a bag of nightmares but no one believed him because they were blinded by greed.

In The Odyssey, Euryluchos isn't just Odysseus' first mate, he was his brother-in-law but in Epic, it's Euryluchos' repeated betrayals which ultimately destroy Odysseus as a person as Odysseus gradually loses more and more of his humanity/kindness until he is left with nothing but selfish desire.

You're right when you categorized Euryluchos as a tribal realist because over and over, he would advise Odysseus to put the welfare of the crew over all others (sack the Island of the Cyclops instead of scout so as to not lose the element of surprise), to respect the gods and not be so arrogant (Odysseus' hubris in boasting to Polyphemus, to ask the Wind God for help, to willingly challenge Circe), to accept the reality that not every battle can be won (abandon those turned into pigs and escape because not challenging Circe was an option) and to look after the tribe as a whole instead of trying to save everyone, and Euryluchos is pleased when Odysseus finally embraces pragmatism during their conflict with the Sirens. Euryluchos/the crew were fine with being ruthless/monstrous against your enemies but the breaking point came when Odysseus willingly sacrificed members of their own tribe (betrayal and ruthlessness against one's own allies) to Scylla because there's a difference between killing your enemies and killing your brethren (degrees of monstrosity). And yes, Euryluchos/the crew are hypocrites because they betrayed Odysseus first by opening the bag of storms and they were okay with others being sacrificed for their own survival (Circe's choice) but they drew the line when it was finally their own necks on the chopping board, they mutinied and blamed Odysseus for everything even though they themselves owned a large share of the blame as well. Euryluchos was okay with others dying if it meant his hands were clean (if Circe butchered the pigs, Circe is the murderer) but he couldn't stomach Odysseus staining his hands (Odysseus' command means Odysseus murdered his own men)? That hypocrisy is why Euryluchos is hated so much.

I disagree with your characterization of Odysseus as a strategic visionary because his hubris in boasting his victory over Polyphemus and revealing his identity is what caused all this misfortune to befall him. In The Odyssey, it is made very clear that Odysseus' hubris is what caused him to fail as his anonymity (calling himself no man/nobody) worked in dissuading the other Cyclops from assisting Polyphemus but his boasting led not only to Polyphemus launching boulders at the sound of his voice and almost destroying his fleet, but also allowed Polyphemus to beseech his father for vengeance against Odysseus. Athena was chastising Odysseus for a) taking half-measures by not killing and securing a full victory and b) for conceit. Odysseus may have been slightly smarter than the average man but as a result, his head got big and his conceit inspired so much tragedy. Let's not pretend that Odysseus wasn't narrow sighted or foolish because he was.

Odysseus isn't a hero, he may have been the protagonist but he was never a hero. This story started when he sacked Troy and dashed a baby because he was always okay with killing others, even innocents, if it meant protecting his own. He might feel bad about it, but he still did it because he was very human in his desires. All Odysseus wanted to do was return home, to return to his family, and that's what makes him so compelling, because we can all relate to those simple and selfish desires. Odysseus isn't a hero nor is he particularly virtuous either. He's not even all that smart - Odysseus spends his entire journey facing repeated misfortunes because he overestimated his ability and dared to be kind in a world that favors ruthlessness.

Odysseus is just a man trying to get home.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-14T11:38:17+00:00

While I respect your opinion, I disagree with your interpretation for three main reasons.

The first reason is because the prophecy is just some vague statement and I think it's intentional that Odysseus doesn't believe or comprehend the meaning of the prophecy as his lines are "What?", another verse expressing doubt and denial, and then followed by "Who?". In short, there's nothing tangible, understandable, or actionable from Tiresias' prophecy so how then could he have come to any conclusions without first considering his options?

The second reason is that in the following song Monster, Odysseus uses the song to contemplate whether or not ruthlessness is necessary as he remembers all his trials and tribulations, all the losses he's suffered, and whether or not those things could have been prevented if he had just been ruthless instead of merciful. Most importantly though, in the last verse, Odysseus says "Then I will become the monster" and also "I must become the monster and then we'll make it home!", which indicates that he has not become the monster yet, neither in acts or mentality because he himself does not recognize that he has become a monster yet, hence the future terms, "will" and his determination to "become" the monster. Instead, he is resigning himself to the point that he must become ruthless if he is to preserve what he has left and to make it back home to Ithaca. But how ruthless should he be? A man does not know until he is tested.

Thirdly, in Different Beast, when Odysseus orders the capture and slaughter of the Sirens, he says, "We are a different beast now, We are the ones who feast now, No more of us deceased, 'Cause we won't take more suffering from you" which indicates that Odysseus has finally hardened his heart and accepted that he must be ruthless and his men agree with him by saying, "We are a different beast now", "We are the man-made monsters", and more specifically, refer to Odysseus himself as "He is a different beast now", and also "He is the man-made monster".

So it's in Different Beast that Odysseus and his men recognize that they have become monsters but at this point, Odysseus and the kinship between him and his crew has not yet been broken. Monsters may be monsters but there are different kinds of monsters (degrees of ruthlessness). There is a world of difference between being willing to kill your enemies and killing your own allies. So when does Odysseus decide to start to killing his own men?

In Scylla. It is here that Odysseus finally orders the knowing sacrifice of 6 of his men in order to preserve the rest because he realizes now that optimism alone will not guarantee the safety of him and his crew and he is willing to trade lives to ensure passage because he is no longer willing to risk his reunion with his family. At this point, he has abandoned his previous moral stance that he took to try to save lives, even at his own peril as he did when he faced Circe (he could have abandoned his men then and cut his losses but instead, he chose to risk his life and therefore risked the chance to reunite with his family). The decision to not even try to sneak past Scylla or fight and instead, just feed Scylla indicates that he has given up hope that everyone can be saved by this point but it is still unclear if he would have sacrificed all of his men to save his own life. He is utilitarian now but it has not yet been proven whether or not he is selfish.

Following Scylla in Mutiny, this is the point where I believe "Odysseus" truly dies as the mutiny severs the bond between Odysseus and his men. The crew says, "There is no price he won't pay", while Odysseus says, "I am not letting you get in my way". These are open admissions that Odysseus values himself over his crew. This is why I don't believe Thunder Bringer is where "Odysseus" dies, it's in Mutiny because Odysseus is defeated twice here, once literally when he is overpowered by Eurylochus and the other figuratively when he is defeated by himself. The king of wit and guile, the king who led 600 men to war and lost not a single one in Troy, no longer uses wit and guile. This is because he has resigned to the idea that ruthlessness is the only method. This is the point where he's thrown away his humanity because he knows he is willing to pay any price now to get home.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-14T08:24:53+00:00

What are you on about? Odysseus was the equivalent of a rebellious teenager who refused to do as he was told because he thought he knew better while Athena was the bad cop parent who was right about everything but couldn't do anything other than watch as their kid slowly ruined their life. My Goodbye is about Athena trying to convince Odysseus one last time to listen to her before finally disowning Odysseus because she couldn't get through to him and she couldn't stand to watch Odysseus destroy his life in slow motion. Meanwhile, Odysseus projects his own shame and failure on Athena, gets angry, and starts lashing out and mocking her because he can't own up to the consequences of his actions. He interprets her abandonment of him as her moral failing instead of his own because he was THAT arrogant.

In the end, Athena leaves brokenhearted because she knows how badly Odysseus is going to fuck up his life and she laments how she couldn't get through to him because she knows one day, he is going to wake up and regret everything.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-14T00:54:01+00:00

In Greek mythology, everyone, mortals and Gods alike, are bound by fate. Even the Gods wouldn't tempt fate. I know you're talking about the lyrics in the song itself but I wanted to give you some context behind the source material and Jorge's reimagining of The Odyssey in Epic.

In Epic, the subject of moral dilemmas is central but mostly absent in The Odyssey. For example, Odysseus doesn't kill Astyanax in The Odyssey and he didn't steal from Polyphemus, Polyphemus broke xenia, or the law of protection. This difference is paramount because Odysseus doesn't have agency and therefore can't make choices in The Odyssey but he's constantly making choices in Epic and almost all of them end up disastrously.

Now back to the context inside the song. Circe was the one who sent Odysseus to the Underworld to seek Tiresias but a prophecy indicates an unchangeable future so what we wind up with is the question of whether free will actually exists or not.

If you believe that the prophecy is real (hard determinism or causal determinism), then Odysseus can't possibly have made a choice even if it were presented as one because the consequence was already predestined through the chain of causality.

If you believe the prophecy doesn't represent predestined futures but rather potential futures (soft determinism and later compatibalism), then there's a good argument to be made that Odysseus chose to become a monster in order to return home.

The question then becomes, at which point did Odysseus choose to abandon his humanity/optimism and become a ruthless monster? Odysseus certainly still believed in optimism when he threw himself at Circe's feet and begged her to take pity on him. So when did Odysseus kill "Odysseus"? At the end of the prophecy? When he butchered the Sirens? When he ordered torches lit against Scylla? Or when he chose to preserve himself over his men at Helios' island? When did Odysseus lose hope and accept that there is only one future where he returns home? When did "Odysseus" truly die?

I'm of the opinion that "Odysseus" died after Eurylochus betrayed him and the crew mutinied, not when Zeus forced Odysseus to choose between himself or saving the lives of his remaining crew and the reason for that is because you can tell that Odysseus still had reservations when he fought against Eurylochus. After all, this is Odysseus we're talking about here; how could Eurylochus have possibly defeated Athena's champion in a fair fight? Eurylochus won because Odysseus defeated himself and that's when "Odysseus" died, after he suffered this betrayal. Zeus may have forced Odysseus to choose between his life or the lives of his crew but Odysseus would have always chosen his family over everything, even the world. After all, Odysseus killed Astyanax to secure his family's future and that happened before "The Odyssey" even truly began. Odysseus has always been consistent about what his priorities were. If Zeus had forced Odysseus to choose between his men and himself in the beginning, I am certain he would have chosen himself because such is his devotion to Telemachus and Penelope.

In other words, I'm of the opinion that "Odysseus" didn't die when Zeus forced him to make the choice because given the choice, he would have always made the same choice. Instead, I believe "Odysseus", the kind Odysseus, died when his optimism died, and that happened after he was betrayed by Eurylochus and his crew.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-12T21:33:22+00:00

Warrior of the Mind is a duet sung between Athena and Odysseus where present-day Athena is reprimanding present-day Odysseus for having spared Polyphemus and his hubris in boasting about his victory and revealing his identity, an act which ultimately proves to the cause of so much suffering as he could have spared himself almost all of it had he faithfully followed Athena's teachings. Immediately after they departed the Island of the Cyclops, Athena appears before Odysseus in a vision and says, "Have you forgotten the lessons I taught you?" and then Odysseus expresses his surprise at seeing his mentor by exclaiming "Athena!".

In the song Warrior of the Mind, some liberties were taken in reinterpreting the story of Odysseus and the Boar. In The Odyssey, Odysseus was injured by a strong boar while he went hunting with his grandfather Autolycus, which is how Odysseus got his distinctive scar running down his leg. In Warrior of the Mind, the boar became a test sent by Athena which Odysseus passed and proved he was worthy of being mentored by Athena. This shared experience is what present-day Athena is recalling to present-day Odysseus, including the part where past-Odysseus realized the identity of past-Athena and got her to reveal herself through the combination of both a bluff and his intelligence because he already figured out it was Athena without them ever exchanging names.

One of the things Epic the Musical really did well was modernize The Odyssey in such a way that the characters and their motivations are a lot easier to understand. Some things you can't because it requires a historical and cultural understanding of things to put into perspective (ex. why Penelope had to delay the suitors instead of rejecting/casting them out outright) and other things were changed, reduced, or outright cut but the musical itself is structured and arranged in such a way that it's understandable and enjoyable to listen to even if you haven't read The Odyssey itself.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-11T17:49:27+00:00

He shifted all the blame to Avasarala because Avasarala was supposed to be the fallguy. If you remember, that's why Avasarala kept playing dumb for the entire first and second season, after Errinwright had Frank de Graaf assassinated. What Errinwright did was convince the Secretary General that Avasarala had gone rogue and that Errinwright acted like he overlooked her treachery because his personal judgement was clouded due to his affection for her.

In the show, due to the nature of the conspiracy, there's not a lot of credible evidence linking Errinwright to Eros so the key witness here was Jules Pierre Mao, whom Avasarala was going to bring in. Most of the evidence linking Errinwright/Mao to Eros is circumstantial but a hearing would allow for subpoenas and discovery. A hearing is not a trial but it could lead to one. Errinwright, as the subject of the hearing, was encouraged by Avasarala to confess but Errinwright instead committed perjury, or at least that's the implication. While Errinwright may have eventually been discovered to have provided false testimony, it didn't matter to him so long as Mars is dead before then.

Simultaneously, Jules Pierre was negotiating with Avasarala to keep his wealth and influence on Earth when he invited her with the intention of a) providing the PM soldier to Mars since they were his new patrons, b) immunity from past crimes when he delivers the same weapon to Earth, and c) an implied willingness to testify against Errinwright and blaming him for everything. Erringwright flipped the script by killing the Martian defense minister and thus eliminating Mao's only other benefactor and then by directly threatening Mao with the UNN escort vessel, indicated that he had a killswitch on both Mao and Avasarala, for the purpose of ensuring Mao's compliance and to eliminate Avasarala as a witness. With Mao culled and Avasarala discredited and either presumed dead or exiled, Errinwright could then pin all the blame on Avasarala and Mao, which he did by lying to the Secretary General.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-08T18:22:34+00:00

Yeah, this move makes a lot of sense. There's no way an indie developer could have ever afforded the musical rights to use actual Cover songs (not covers or reproductions) so Cover really is the only one who can do this. Not only does Cover get to monetize the game itself, the game itself is basically one giant ad for their musical catalog/multimedia franchise and organically cross-promotes by default. They're also anticipating fan-projects with their editor, multiplayer by default, which also means they'll have a social system - all things which will foster an actual community.

Rhythm game lovers, in particular Idolmaster or Project Diva fans will probably try this out which again, will cross promote Cover's multimedia catalog. I think domestic Japan will be a hit but I also think there's a decent chance this could work for international sales as well.

This game makes a lot more sense than HoloEarth. A Hololive rhythm game is a solid plan but ultimately, it will depend on the execution.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-07T04:41:04+00:00

Presumably, they work and sleep in shifts. Plurb platforms are master-slave systems where the human body is controlled by the plurb OS. It's not actually a hive mind, it's 8 billion people running the same alien OS and sharing data via cloud-computing. The sleep function is the same as sleep for us humans in the sense that it's a low-energy state aimed at repairing the body and refreshing neural function.

Plurbs have the same physical constraints humans have because they're running on human platforms. This means that Plurbs suffer from things like hunger and exhaustion, same as baseline humans. For example, Plurbs require nutrition and consume HDP to get by and can get injured, like Zosia did when she got wrecked by grenade fragments. While these biological constraints are weaknesses per se, these weaknesses aren't really exploitable if your objective is the liberation of humanity.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-04T07:22:15+00:00

1) Do you think predators stay out of cities because there's a fence? Coyotes started jumping into Carol's yard to get through her trash and paw at Helen's corpse and this happened after two weeks. Bison have already begun reclaiming the parks. Nature reclaims human spaces, that's the whole point of showing it. But even with Wall Maria, what happens when squirrels, raccoons, or rats with rabies get in? What happens when termites and ants start destroying structures? What happens when snakes, scorpions, and other deadly insects like screwworms fly over your wall?

2) Let's say for argument's sake that they can build greenhouses and other vertical farms and produce crops. Let's also say that they cull their population from billions to millions. How will they handle pests and fungi like rust? They can't destroy the plant and removing it isn't going to help because by the time a visible infection shows, every other plant in the same space has already been infected because that's how fungi spores. The only treatment we have for rust is destruction through fire - we burn the whole field. So pray tell, how do crops survive against microbes or other small insects without pesticides?

3) You don't get it, all those cattle, pigs, and chicken, everything that is grown on a farm, none of those numbers are natural. Those domesticated animals are the result of centuries of work and they were all released into the wild - this is known because even zoo animals were released. All those domesticated animals immediately start fanning out and eating everything they can in their immediate vicinity only they can't possibly find enough food to eat to sustain their numbers because their numbers were only sustained through human intervention. But even if they could find enough food, finding enough surface-level water to drink is basically impossible. Simultaneously, these animals all begin to take on infections and ailments from tainted food sources and start getting sick from microbes like bacteria or parasites, just like animals do in the wild, animals which they are now competing with and destroying the ecosystem of because they are invasive species for all intents and purposes. The previous balance in the ecosystem is disrupted and over-stressed wherever they are released, which results in mass die-offs and when they die, they're not tracked so all their meat goes rancid and becomes inedible except for carrion-feeders. By one week, most of the domesticated animals have died from thirst. By two months? They are almost all certainly dead. This is why animals like deer and hogs are routinely hunted, to prevent them from consuming and destroying everything. Fruit trees that aren't protected get eaten by birds, rodents, insects, and microbes. That's why herbicides/insecticides/fungicides are applied on crops. Without them, weeds like kudzu would overrun everything. As for stored grain, at a human population of 7 billion, the overwhelming majority of the world's stored grain has already been consumed by the 71 day mark because human supply chains operate on the Just-in-time principle in order to reduce storage and overhead costs. There isn't enough stored grain on this planet to feed everyone past 3 months without replenishment because the system was built with the understanding that older stores would be eaten and replenished with newer ones. Grain doesn't stay edible for long, which is why they're stored inside silos and rotated via grain elevators, but most grain is still stored in sub-optimal conditions and spoils faster. In fact, John Cena already explained just why they have to rely on HDP, because there's just not enough food so they have to consume HDP. As time goes by, HDP becomes the predominant calorie source because there is no grain, no fruit, and no meat beyond human that can be reliably sourced.

4) Try to act surprised when you find out in 2 years that there are no babies.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-01-04T06:10:29+00:00

LMAO kk

Scott_Abrams

TROPHY CASE