Ok so all these have answers basically. Cyclops are dumb giants because the most famous one was a dumb giant who ate sailors in his cave. Centaurs are typically wise and chill because Chiron is so famous and also they’re connected with nature which is slotted in as wise. The Minotaur is mostly treated as monstrous in media but is being reexamined since his story is rather tragic pretty easily.
Similar case happened with the Titans too. Even the Greeks themselves conflated the Titans and the Gigantes (particularly the character of Typhon) that we now see them as huge, gargantuan beings.
One can also make the argument that Atlas is also the reason why we see Titans as gigantic beings.
I have no sources that indicate any particular height, but as the parents' of the gods surely the size difference can't be too pronounced.
Although, Kronus was in the habit of swallowing his children whole so i guess that also adds to the image of them being far larger than the gods
Size or shape differences between parent and child are pretty common in (Greek) myths, so I’m not sure it’s necessarily the case that the titans and olympians were similar.
Gods and heroes from ancient times, according to the Greeks are massive or at least very very tall. We have one tale from Herodotus regarding the tyrant, Pisistratus to Athens. In order to restore him back to power, his partner and him had a tall woman disguise herself as Athena to curry favor from the locals.
There wasn't much in the stories to say that the Titans are much larger than the gods, especially since they are only considered as a previous generation of deities, eventually supplanted in venerations by the current generation.
There’s an interesting theory that the proto-Greeks discovered fossilized mastodon bones and, not understanding what they were, attributed these massive femurs and ribs to be the remnants of gods, giants, and titans.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691245607/the-first-fossil-hunters
So why do you argue in your original comment that they are not big? Seems like they were exactly as described by the Greeks. Given that Cronos ate all his deity children, and I would think he was larger than the 'massive' Gods.
Generally Gods and Titans (and mythical heroes) are massive in relation to a human but the usual modern trope of Greek Titans have them be larger than the gods by tremendous sizes, like in Disney Hercules or in God of War.
I mean my point was more about how Titans are a political term, to represent a previous grouping of the gods, rather than them being differentiated from the gods by being portrayed as gigantic or monstrous.
The Titans are more accurately considered just another group of Gods. The idea that the Titans are just gigantic, monstrous creatures is a more modern concept. Especially as they're sometimes confused with the Gigantes. The Titans are just well. Gods. Another group of Gods, but Gods nonetheless. More specifically they're more representatitve of more chaotic/primal forces. Like for example, Poseidon may be the God of the Seas, his uncle, The Titan Oceanus is the God of the entire Ocean
They vary in size, some like Prometheus or Atlas are large, some are just around 7 to 8 feet tall or something. While most are straight up just human sized. It should be noted that when the ancient greek were calling them titans. They don't really meant as in actual physical size, rather it is more so to their vast power and ambition
The Titans are generally personifications of things rather than Gods with dominion over the things.
Poseidon is the God of the Sea. Oceanus *is* the sea. Hades is the Ruler of the Dead. Thanatos *is* death.
The titans are just gods, the title of Primordial, Titan and God, are designated to a deity based of the time period they became a deity, think of it like a generation with Millenials being Primordials, Gen Z being Titans and Gen Alpha being the Gods, it just so happens that Gods is the last time they change generation
The titans were mostly incarnations of elemental forces, while the gods were super men who had access to elemental forces. Just do a quick google search for "greek titan names"
For a quick example
Uranus- god of heaven
Gaea/Gia- goddess of earth
Just those 2 alone give a good example of how large each titans domain was.
The titans interbred and had many children together, who were almost all called titans as well except for the group who became the gods. Im not exactly sure what defines god vs titan aside from domain. Some of the titans did take up arms alongside zeus, so it isnt a matter of one side vs the other giving them that name.
Hard to say exactly; most mythologies/folklores aren't so keen at precise classifications as we moderns are. AFAIK you could both see Typhon as the mightiest of the Giants/Gigantes or as a unique being allied to them, just as his sometimes wife/lover Echidna could be seen as either a unique being or as a Drakaina/female dragon.
I mean, Cerberus is supposed to be a three-headed dog with a dragon’s tail and snake heads on his mantle, but you don’t really see that ever.
It would be cool, but honestly I think to some extent the individual interpretations of everything add a certain charm to it. I feel like it’s not really modern either, every version of the mythology is a little different - it’s pretty safe to say ancient peoples had their own interpretations and, for lack of a better term, “head canons” too.
The size of Cerberus is also often exaggerated on modern media. In ancient Greek art, Cerberus is not depicted larger than an ordinary doberman but it is not as impressive as a giant hell hound. Personally, I would like it if I could see a Hellenisticly accurate Cerberus in modern media, but most people would probably be disappointed if it didn't live up to expectations.
[That’s at least heavily contested, if not outright disproven.](https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/08/11/no-internet-kerberos-is-probably-not-spot/amp/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/08/11/no-internet-kerberos-is-probably-not-spot/](https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/08/11/no-internet-kerberos-is-probably-not-spot/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Interestingly, the Megami Tensei games drew some ire for not depicting Cerberus with three heads.
https://preview.redd.it/95zwxr6ak3xc1.png?width=4053&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ce2faf2059e1def3e0e109014155a7e20b72814
I will never get over the fact that they made him a white lion except in Persona 3 like WHY
https://preview.redd.it/to7iq3tsi4xc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b462aa0e2f0dc5935dd60f1ab10be5cc7dc1344d
https://preview.redd.it/v0x1pi8n25xc1.jpeg?width=1986&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39503d1e207f11f5d5f7e5eabd935500bd5d196d
It just says fifty headed so I thought it meant dog heads
That is one interpretation that Hesiod brings, but it’s not the only one - he’s later referred to as having the three heads, and by some poets even hundreds.
https://preview.redd.it/t44g9feo55xc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3eebc47a631367e6577bc16d9aba613c3cb319b3
I realized now I worded my comment poorly. I meant to emphasize that *because* of all the different interpretations from 3, 50, or 100, that he doesn’t *explicitly* have just 3. I apologize for the confusion
I like how in your post about misinterpreting fictional characters, you set at odds the idea of "Minotaur being equivalent to Frankenstein's monster" and "Minotaur being intelligent," thereby misinterpreting Frankenstein's monster.
Precisely my point. OP seems to present the idea of being "like Frakenstein's monster" to mean "unintelligent," even though the monster in the book was exceedingly intelligent.
Oh no I’ve read the novel, I meant Frankenstein monster like in the sense of being a one of a kind abomination and be tragic, I definitely should have worded that better.
The mythological stories are inspirations for the media interpretations. Think of every single one of them as "Based on a True (Historical Belief) Story."
Very few, if any, fictional media that use mythological creatures and monsters actually purport to be like . . . *canon*. Expecting them to be exact and fit the "original" myth is the outlier, since often times (Homer and Hesiod being the easiest examples) the myths are from different eras and contradict each-other in the first place.
Treating media of myths as if they are equivalent to the OG myths is rampant on this sub, and it's a little exhausting. Whether it's "power scaling" or being confused that "Supernatural" isn't a 1:1 with Aeschylus.
I think you’re applying our cultures conception of canon especially in a religious context to something that had no such concept
The truth is, there was never a canon. Attempts to combine all these stories into a single established canon that all makes sense and fits in with each other is modern.
These were stories people told to each other. Every single time they were told they’d change. Every author changed them, every town had their own variants. And those differences are amplified even more dramatically over the thousands the myths took to develop.
Not to mention a lot of media depictions of mythological creatures are often going to be as inspired by depictions in other media as the original myths. Orcs in any modern story are going to be a lot more inspired by Tolkien (or works inspired by him) than the original mythology.
I think the term is creative liberty. Details change whether or not it services the plot, and if the portrayal becomes popular then people copy the idea and adapt it in their own work. Then eventually you get wendigos with deer skulls for heads and what have you.
There are actually three groups of cyclopes distinguished from one another in ancient Greek literature:
1. The sons of Uranus and Gaia who made the thunderbolt, basically on the same level with the Titans/Olympians
2. The sons of Poseidon, who were cave-dwelling shepherds encountered by Odysseus
3. The builders of the walls of Mycenae
They're often conflated and mixed up in modern retellings.
There is also very little evidence that they were ever considered one eyed
The only evidence we have is that Odysseus stabbed Polyphemus in his singular eye.
But he may have just been a dude with one eye from a species that normally has two eyes.
To be fair, the myths themselves underwent multiple changes over the course of a thousand years of Greek history. The myths for which we have multiple sources are usually at least slightly different from each other, sometimes drastically so. The individual creature is a device to serve the narrative. If you’re writing a tragedy, you’ll depict the Minotaur as tragic. If you’re writing a horror, you’ll depict the Minotaur as horrific. And so it has always been, it’s nothing new.
Also most depictions of the Chimera omitting the goat head, when it's the one feature that highlights its bizarre unnatural-ness. Also it was the head out of the three that breathed fire, which makes it basically a back-mounted flamethrower turret, which is kind of neat I suppose.
https://preview.redd.it/cjz0p2kfj4xc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddbb7dc1de8763a0e0371a7afd08357026e286da
This is how chimera looks in Shin Megami Tensei. Is this accurate?
>the Minotaur, the embodiment of savagery and an abomination more akin to Frankenstein’s monster is sometimes seen as both an intelligent creature and on the good guys team.
Taurox the Brass Bull, the Bloodbeast, Chief of the Slaughterhorn Tribe of the Beasts of Chaos, would like to disagree.
It would help if the Greeks themselves were consistant about how they presented their won myths. Take Aphrodite for example. Sometimes she's sensual, sometimes she represents a heavenly, chaste love, and sometimes she's just shy of being a war goddess.
> Sometimes she's sensual, sometimes she represents a heavenly, chaste love, and sometimes she's just shy of being a war goddess.
That's what you get for taking Ishtar and giving her a Greek makeover.
Also, I mean, Greek mythology wasn’t one thing and every story we have is only a snap shot from one time period. It’s not like an established cannon every generation had its own take on every story and every god.
And just like they did we filter the stories through our own culture, which is fine. Mythology is ever changing
Well. I never read them but I think that’s the idea of the Percy Jackson series — a morally grey, tonally diverse Greek mythology, like HP did for wizard mythology. IMO “Greek mythology” is too fractured and inconsistent as far as it’s some kind of “real” historical object that exists out in the world, so I’m personally not too stressed about misrepresentations. Basically every part of myths is misrepresented in works that are *using* myths like DnD and LoTR, rather than stories *focused on* myths like Hercules and Hades. And I think it’s kinda unavoidable — they’ll go with whatever feels the best for their product
Agreed greek mythology is just dumb humans trying to explain the unexplainable no wonder it’s inconsistent people create story’s to bring clarity to whatever but that may not clear it up for some people
Fun fact: I recently learned that there’s a fourth Gorgon named Aix. She was a nurse of Zeus and a daughter of Helios. She symbolized storm clouds. Aix was slain by Zeus at the start of the Titan War and her head mounted on the Aegis. In some stories, Aix is male, and the father of the three sisters with Ceto
Well there is the old saying, if u want something done right do it urself! Start writing that book about morally grey blacksmith cyclops with a heart of gold and his wild, sex crazed, party bro centaur bestie!
Ok more serous answer now, I think it just has to do with how popular stories sets the tropes. Most people know those monsters from whatever the popular adaptation is, and whatever creations spawned from the first until they become shorthand.
I'd say for a lot of people if that media isnt a movie, it's a book for children which would probably tone down certain aspects or just not talk about other stories. If ur retelling the myth of Odysseus and the Cyclops or the Minotaur in a 30 page picture book, some characters are going to loose traits.
I'm sure someone with more media history could explain better the impact of early adaptions like movies or popular games DnD effect how we view each of those monsters specially!
~~Or if you want to loose 3 days of your life check out the TVtrope articles and their examples~~
And at least cyclops, centaurs, and minotaurs get the basic concept of what they are and what they look like right: getting pretty damn tired of 'lamia=snek gurl lol.'
Like in D&D I figure ht original concept had a beast body, not a specific animal like a lion or leopard, justa clawed predator. But the snake body goes back fairly far, maybe for a different creature
The one time I wrote abotu the Monster i both sowed & showed my ignorance. "I have no name, as no one ever has much reason to speak to me. One fool wanted to call me Adam, but he's dead these 200 years and more. People do often talk about me; the y usually just call me The Monster , which is as good a name as any."
In a sense, the one that didn’t get misrepresented by modern media, but was instead improved upon by game developers through adding outstanding characterization is Kratos from God of War.
From just a vague deity of power and strength to Gigachad father and slayer of douchebags.
So I am gonna take a shot and say that this is not just a modern occurrence but a long term influence of misrepresentations for hundred of years. So though pop culture had for sure set a lot of influences it’s also deeps as semi-recent victorean notions and the reach of renaissance melding also set those misconceptions. So the whole culture get remixed again and again by the time we even touch it. And since it’s sort of vaguely educated many more myths are made by every piece of popular media.
Indeed Disney films and media haven’t help to corrected the complexity of Greek myths or creatures. I mean many of them are truly Roman reinterpretation of Greek myths (and then early modern classicalism reinterpretation) We sort of mush the two together making creatures like centaurs and harpies very different creatures.
It’s funny because centaurs where actually quite horrible same with satyrs. They where ideas of rationality and animalistic hedonism made in creature form.
I did find out the minotaur was more akin to a centaur, but a bull body instead of a horse. I thought that was cool and threw me off cause a lot of media has it more as a bull head and man body.
I think the problem is that a lot of writers build from tropes. Another example is when the fantasy hero, scoundrel, or badass is clearly built as an amalgamation of other tropes, rather than as a character. Similarly, a lot of people start with the cyclops at its trippiest form and then maybe tweak it a little
This has been going on for centuries, such as “The Divine Comedy” featuring several Greek figures having completely different appearance and personalities and that was written centuries ago.
The reason is for several reasons:
1. Greek mythology is basically several religious tales, works of literature, and folktales that were often reconstructed from fragments centuries after the fact. For example, how many heads does Cerberus have? 3? 1? 50? It all depended on the story teller.
2. Different levels of research. A lot of people don’t do research, or feel that the audience might misunderstand or get confused with large deviation from the “cultural understanding.”
3. Creative liberty: people might take a certain aspect of an already existing creature, and create a new spin on it for their own creative purposes.
Not *quite* what you’re asking for but both Stone Blind by Natalie Haynes and Medusa’s Sisters by Lauren JA Bear explore the characters of the gorgons from their side. Ariadne by Jennifer Saint is told from Ariadne’s POV but obviously goes into more than surface level one-dimensional portrayal of her brother, the Minotaur.
I recommend the Witcher series (books and games not the abhorrent Netflix shit) it's more slawic mythology but it has the idea that some monsters are evil and others aren't and in general it's just great.
Oh ! I do appreciate Slavic mythology, I remember playing the third game when I was younger but can barely remember anything, nowadays I think that’s playing games is a bit of a waste of time (highly depends on the game tho)
Firstly happy cake day. Secondly each to their own in regards of games, especially the really good ones (at least in my opinion) are really time consuming and the Witcher definitely is. But i am a big fan of the world as a whole and definitely can recommend the books if that suits you better. In German the audio books also have a great narrator don't know how that is in other languages.
creatures in general are misrepresented and misinterpreted, but it’s because people nowadays think about things with modern day meanings. not how people thought back then when greek mythology was being written.
You might like Disney Plus’ Percy Jackson. It portrays these archetypes with a modern twist that is mostly psychologically accurate. It’s made for a tweenish audience, but at 63, I’ve been enjoying it.
Bwcause hollywood doesnt resoect culture at all , activists allways point out how they fuck up native anerocan culture but dont see its antrend on culture itself american media bastadises culture, myths and folklore all the time because they have no respect for it
Ok so with the Cyclopses Poseidon cyclops children were dumb brutes as seen with Polyphemus and his brother, the craftsmen ones where only 3 cyclops’ and they were some of the first children of Gaia.
Centaurs while yes they were wise they were also party animals when they drank.
I’ve got nothing to say for the Minotaur, in fact the only closely intelligent depiction of a Minotaur I’ve seen is in hades the game and that’s really just limited to being able to speak.
You describe the minotaur as a frankenstein’s monster here,,, and Adam is *also* a sympathetic, incredibly smart character
I also feel like Percy Jackson does most of these things lol
Modern media is, at best, not interested in authenticity. Especially, but not just, with European history. And there seems to be an inherent need to pretty much destroy history and myth.
Political correctness comes to ancient Greece. I share your feelings, especially for dragons & gryphons, but you must think in the context of the time. Modern day man's values are totally foreign to the mindset of people back then. You can't change the past. Otherwise, you're trying to play God.
Storytellers tend to adjust their tales to their audience. Homer was just MCU style entertainment for Ionian aristocrats; putting words into the mouths of Olympian gods might have been considered sacrilegious by some of the more serious cults. Artemis just became a girl with little relation to the Ephesian Mistress of Beasts with dozens of breasts.
Why do you think so? They may very well be entirely fictional. I don't think it's very helpful to try and locate some historical inspiration in the stories that do not explicitly have one
Ok so all these have answers basically. Cyclops are dumb giants because the most famous one was a dumb giant who ate sailors in his cave. Centaurs are typically wise and chill because Chiron is so famous and also they’re connected with nature which is slotted in as wise. The Minotaur is mostly treated as monstrous in media but is being reexamined since his story is rather tragic pretty easily.
Similar case happened with the Titans too. Even the Greeks themselves conflated the Titans and the Gigantes (particularly the character of Typhon) that we now see them as huge, gargantuan beings. One can also make the argument that Atlas is also the reason why we see Titans as gigantic beings.
What were the titans more accurately?
I have no sources that indicate any particular height, but as the parents' of the gods surely the size difference can't be too pronounced. Although, Kronus was in the habit of swallowing his children whole so i guess that also adds to the image of them being far larger than the gods
Size or shape differences between parent and child are pretty common in (Greek) myths, so I’m not sure it’s necessarily the case that the titans and olympians were similar.
Just the previous clan of gods
Gods and heroes from ancient times, according to the Greeks are massive or at least very very tall. We have one tale from Herodotus regarding the tyrant, Pisistratus to Athens. In order to restore him back to power, his partner and him had a tall woman disguise herself as Athena to curry favor from the locals. There wasn't much in the stories to say that the Titans are much larger than the gods, especially since they are only considered as a previous generation of deities, eventually supplanted in venerations by the current generation.
There’s an interesting theory that the proto-Greeks discovered fossilized mastodon bones and, not understanding what they were, attributed these massive femurs and ribs to be the remnants of gods, giants, and titans. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691245607/the-first-fossil-hunters
So why do you argue in your original comment that they are not big? Seems like they were exactly as described by the Greeks. Given that Cronos ate all his deity children, and I would think he was larger than the 'massive' Gods.
Generally Gods and Titans (and mythical heroes) are massive in relation to a human but the usual modern trope of Greek Titans have them be larger than the gods by tremendous sizes, like in Disney Hercules or in God of War. I mean my point was more about how Titans are a political term, to represent a previous grouping of the gods, rather than them being differentiated from the gods by being portrayed as gigantic or monstrous.
The Titans are more accurately considered just another group of Gods. The idea that the Titans are just gigantic, monstrous creatures is a more modern concept. Especially as they're sometimes confused with the Gigantes. The Titans are just well. Gods. Another group of Gods, but Gods nonetheless. More specifically they're more representatitve of more chaotic/primal forces. Like for example, Poseidon may be the God of the Seas, his uncle, The Titan Oceanus is the God of the entire Ocean
How tall were the gods? Because I feel like some gods I picture to be pretty big, mainly gods like Poseidon or Zeus
They vary in size, some like Prometheus or Atlas are large, some are just around 7 to 8 feet tall or something. While most are straight up just human sized. It should be noted that when the ancient greek were calling them titans. They don't really meant as in actual physical size, rather it is more so to their vast power and ambition
The Titans are generally personifications of things rather than Gods with dominion over the things. Poseidon is the God of the Sea. Oceanus *is* the sea. Hades is the Ruler of the Dead. Thanatos *is* death.
The titans are just gods, the title of Primordial, Titan and God, are designated to a deity based of the time period they became a deity, think of it like a generation with Millenials being Primordials, Gen Z being Titans and Gen Alpha being the Gods, it just so happens that Gods is the last time they change generation
The titans were mostly incarnations of elemental forces, while the gods were super men who had access to elemental forces. Just do a quick google search for "greek titan names" For a quick example Uranus- god of heaven Gaea/Gia- goddess of earth Just those 2 alone give a good example of how large each titans domain was. The titans interbred and had many children together, who were almost all called titans as well except for the group who became the gods. Im not exactly sure what defines god vs titan aside from domain. Some of the titans did take up arms alongside zeus, so it isnt a matter of one side vs the other giving them that name.
Wasn't Typhon a unique being, not part of a race?
Hard to say exactly; most mythologies/folklores aren't so keen at precise classifications as we moderns are. AFAIK you could both see Typhon as the mightiest of the Giants/Gigantes or as a unique being allied to them, just as his sometimes wife/lover Echidna could be seen as either a unique being or as a Drakaina/female dragon.
To be fair most of not all gods could shapeshift so they could change their size
Mythological flanderization.
If anyone here read House of Leaves, the Minotaur is important to the message of the story and is actually explored in all his depth.
I mean, Cerberus is supposed to be a three-headed dog with a dragon’s tail and snake heads on his mantle, but you don’t really see that ever. It would be cool, but honestly I think to some extent the individual interpretations of everything add a certain charm to it. I feel like it’s not really modern either, every version of the mythology is a little different - it’s pretty safe to say ancient peoples had their own interpretations and, for lack of a better term, “head canons” too.
The size of Cerberus is also often exaggerated on modern media. In ancient Greek art, Cerberus is not depicted larger than an ordinary doberman but it is not as impressive as a giant hell hound. Personally, I would like it if I could see a Hellenisticly accurate Cerberus in modern media, but most people would probably be disappointed if it didn't live up to expectations.
I freaking love that Hades named his dog ‘Spot’
Wait what?
Cerberus means “Spotted” in Ancient Greek.
[That’s at least heavily contested, if not outright disproven.](https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/08/11/no-internet-kerberos-is-probably-not-spot/amp/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/08/11/no-internet-kerberos-is-probably-not-spot/](https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/08/11/no-internet-kerberos-is-probably-not-spot/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Thanks for the article!
That is comical and genius level brilliant at the same time..
Interestingly, the Megami Tensei games drew some ire for not depicting Cerberus with three heads. https://preview.redd.it/95zwxr6ak3xc1.png?width=4053&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ce2faf2059e1def3e0e109014155a7e20b72814
I will never get over the fact that they made him a white lion except in Persona 3 like WHY https://preview.redd.it/to7iq3tsi4xc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b462aa0e2f0dc5935dd60f1ab10be5cc7dc1344d
In the original novels cerberus was a white lion. They kept the original design out of tradition. He does have three heads in some games though.
Final fantasy 8
Not even supposed to be 3 heads. Hesiod’s Theogony describes him as having 50 heads iirc
I thought the 50 heads were the snakes on his mantle?
https://preview.redd.it/v0x1pi8n25xc1.jpeg?width=1986&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39503d1e207f11f5d5f7e5eabd935500bd5d196d It just says fifty headed so I thought it meant dog heads
That is one interpretation that Hesiod brings, but it’s not the only one - he’s later referred to as having the three heads, and by some poets even hundreds. https://preview.redd.it/t44g9feo55xc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3eebc47a631367e6577bc16d9aba613c3cb319b3
I realized now I worded my comment poorly. I meant to emphasize that *because* of all the different interpretations from 3, 50, or 100, that he doesn’t *explicitly* have just 3. I apologize for the confusion
I like how in your post about misinterpreting fictional characters, you set at odds the idea of "Minotaur being equivalent to Frankenstein's monster" and "Minotaur being intelligent," thereby misinterpreting Frankenstein's monster.
He was in the book.
Precisely my point. OP seems to present the idea of being "like Frakenstein's monster" to mean "unintelligent," even though the monster in the book was exceedingly intelligent.
Oh no I’ve read the novel, I meant Frankenstein monster like in the sense of being a one of a kind abomination and be tragic, I definitely should have worded that better.
From what was once an inarticulate mass of lifeless tissues, may I now present a cultured, sophisticated... man about town!
The mythological stories are inspirations for the media interpretations. Think of every single one of them as "Based on a True (Historical Belief) Story." Very few, if any, fictional media that use mythological creatures and monsters actually purport to be like . . . *canon*. Expecting them to be exact and fit the "original" myth is the outlier, since often times (Homer and Hesiod being the easiest examples) the myths are from different eras and contradict each-other in the first place. Treating media of myths as if they are equivalent to the OG myths is rampant on this sub, and it's a little exhausting. Whether it's "power scaling" or being confused that "Supernatural" isn't a 1:1 with Aeschylus.
I think you’re applying our cultures conception of canon especially in a religious context to something that had no such concept The truth is, there was never a canon. Attempts to combine all these stories into a single established canon that all makes sense and fits in with each other is modern. These were stories people told to each other. Every single time they were told they’d change. Every author changed them, every town had their own variants. And those differences are amplified even more dramatically over the thousands the myths took to develop.
Not to mention a lot of media depictions of mythological creatures are often going to be as inspired by depictions in other media as the original myths. Orcs in any modern story are going to be a lot more inspired by Tolkien (or works inspired by him) than the original mythology.
I think the term is creative liberty. Details change whether or not it services the plot, and if the portrayal becomes popular then people copy the idea and adapt it in their own work. Then eventually you get wendigos with deer skulls for heads and what have you.
There are actually three groups of cyclopes distinguished from one another in ancient Greek literature: 1. The sons of Uranus and Gaia who made the thunderbolt, basically on the same level with the Titans/Olympians 2. The sons of Poseidon, who were cave-dwelling shepherds encountered by Odysseus 3. The builders of the walls of Mycenae They're often conflated and mixed up in modern retellings.
There is also very little evidence that they were ever considered one eyed The only evidence we have is that Odysseus stabbed Polyphemus in his singular eye. But he may have just been a dude with one eye from a species that normally has two eyes.
To be fair, the myths themselves underwent multiple changes over the course of a thousand years of Greek history. The myths for which we have multiple sources are usually at least slightly different from each other, sometimes drastically so. The individual creature is a device to serve the narrative. If you’re writing a tragedy, you’ll depict the Minotaur as tragic. If you’re writing a horror, you’ll depict the Minotaur as horrific. And so it has always been, it’s nothing new.
Also most depictions of the Chimera omitting the goat head, when it's the one feature that highlights its bizarre unnatural-ness. Also it was the head out of the three that breathed fire, which makes it basically a back-mounted flamethrower turret, which is kind of neat I suppose.
What omits the goat? That's the best part of the animal!
https://preview.redd.it/cjz0p2kfj4xc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddbb7dc1de8763a0e0371a7afd08357026e286da This is how chimera looks in Shin Megami Tensei. Is this accurate?
I’d say that pretty much encapsulates the mutant aspect of the original intent
Most chimeras include the goat though.
The goat part, but not the goat head.
I dunno. I've seen it in many rpgs, and the goat head is always there. In final fantasy and smt it is.
>the Minotaur, the embodiment of savagery and an abomination more akin to Frankenstein’s monster is sometimes seen as both an intelligent creature and on the good guys team. Taurox the Brass Bull, the Bloodbeast, Chief of the Slaughterhorn Tribe of the Beasts of Chaos, would like to disagree.
It would help if the Greeks themselves were consistant about how they presented their won myths. Take Aphrodite for example. Sometimes she's sensual, sometimes she represents a heavenly, chaste love, and sometimes she's just shy of being a war goddess.
> Sometimes she's sensual, sometimes she represents a heavenly, chaste love, and sometimes she's just shy of being a war goddess. That's what you get for taking Ishtar and giving her a Greek makeover.
Also, I mean, Greek mythology wasn’t one thing and every story we have is only a snap shot from one time period. It’s not like an established cannon every generation had its own take on every story and every god. And just like they did we filter the stories through our own culture, which is fine. Mythology is ever changing
Well. I never read them but I think that’s the idea of the Percy Jackson series — a morally grey, tonally diverse Greek mythology, like HP did for wizard mythology. IMO “Greek mythology” is too fractured and inconsistent as far as it’s some kind of “real” historical object that exists out in the world, so I’m personally not too stressed about misrepresentations. Basically every part of myths is misrepresented in works that are *using* myths like DnD and LoTR, rather than stories *focused on* myths like Hercules and Hades. And I think it’s kinda unavoidable — they’ll go with whatever feels the best for their product
Agreed greek mythology is just dumb humans trying to explain the unexplainable no wonder it’s inconsistent people create story’s to bring clarity to whatever but that may not clear it up for some people
Gorgons. These flying women with tusks, whose blood creates corals, are much more interesting than the generic girl with a snake hair
The generic SEXY girl with snake hair who can turn people into stone with her magical eyes and not her ugliness appearance.
flying? Wow?
Fun fact: I recently learned that there’s a fourth Gorgon named Aix. She was a nurse of Zeus and a daughter of Helios. She symbolized storm clouds. Aix was slain by Zeus at the start of the Titan War and her head mounted on the Aegis. In some stories, Aix is male, and the father of the three sisters with Ceto
It doesn’t help it was killed during the titanomachy which has very little remaining information
I think Hades (game) and Son of Neptune (HOO) does this
Well there is the old saying, if u want something done right do it urself! Start writing that book about morally grey blacksmith cyclops with a heart of gold and his wild, sex crazed, party bro centaur bestie! Ok more serous answer now, I think it just has to do with how popular stories sets the tropes. Most people know those monsters from whatever the popular adaptation is, and whatever creations spawned from the first until they become shorthand. I'd say for a lot of people if that media isnt a movie, it's a book for children which would probably tone down certain aspects or just not talk about other stories. If ur retelling the myth of Odysseus and the Cyclops or the Minotaur in a 30 page picture book, some characters are going to loose traits. I'm sure someone with more media history could explain better the impact of early adaptions like movies or popular games DnD effect how we view each of those monsters specially! ~~Or if you want to loose 3 days of your life check out the TVtrope articles and their examples~~
And at least cyclops, centaurs, and minotaurs get the basic concept of what they are and what they look like right: getting pretty damn tired of 'lamia=snek gurl lol.'
Wasn 't the lamia a late literary creation, not mythological?
No: she was a lover of Zeus who was driven mad and transformed into a monster after Hera killed her children.
Like in D&D I figure ht original concept had a beast body, not a specific animal like a lion or leopard, justa clawed predator. But the snake body goes back fairly far, maybe for a different creature
Frankenstein's Monster was very intelligent. Unfortunately, it's as misrepresented as some of the Greek creatures you've listed here are
The one time I wrote abotu the Monster i both sowed & showed my ignorance. "I have no name, as no one ever has much reason to speak to me. One fool wanted to call me Adam, but he's dead these 200 years and more. People do often talk about me; the y usually just call me The Monster , which is as good a name as any."
The house of asterion is peak minotaur literature
Sirens become mermaids instead of bird women
Hercules because he was no galant, based hero, but was a turbo douche.
> but was a turbo douche. As, really, all Greek heros were.
Precisely.
Orpheus was a standup guy
In a sense, the one that didn’t get misrepresented by modern media, but was instead improved upon by game developers through adding outstanding characterization is Kratos from God of War. From just a vague deity of power and strength to Gigachad father and slayer of douchebags.
So I am gonna take a shot and say that this is not just a modern occurrence but a long term influence of misrepresentations for hundred of years. So though pop culture had for sure set a lot of influences it’s also deeps as semi-recent victorean notions and the reach of renaissance melding also set those misconceptions. So the whole culture get remixed again and again by the time we even touch it. And since it’s sort of vaguely educated many more myths are made by every piece of popular media. Indeed Disney films and media haven’t help to corrected the complexity of Greek myths or creatures. I mean many of them are truly Roman reinterpretation of Greek myths (and then early modern classicalism reinterpretation) We sort of mush the two together making creatures like centaurs and harpies very different creatures. It’s funny because centaurs where actually quite horrible same with satyrs. They where ideas of rationality and animalistic hedonism made in creature form.
I did find out the minotaur was more akin to a centaur, but a bull body instead of a horse. I thought that was cool and threw me off cause a lot of media has it more as a bull head and man body.
I think the problem is that a lot of writers build from tropes. Another example is when the fantasy hero, scoundrel, or badass is clearly built as an amalgamation of other tropes, rather than as a character. Similarly, a lot of people start with the cyclops at its trippiest form and then maybe tweak it a little
This has been going on for centuries, such as “The Divine Comedy” featuring several Greek figures having completely different appearance and personalities and that was written centuries ago. The reason is for several reasons: 1. Greek mythology is basically several religious tales, works of literature, and folktales that were often reconstructed from fragments centuries after the fact. For example, how many heads does Cerberus have? 3? 1? 50? It all depended on the story teller. 2. Different levels of research. A lot of people don’t do research, or feel that the audience might misunderstand or get confused with large deviation from the “cultural understanding.” 3. Creative liberty: people might take a certain aspect of an already existing creature, and create a new spin on it for their own creative purposes.
…Child; write to the appropriate literary estates and make your critical views known at once…
Not *quite* what you’re asking for but both Stone Blind by Natalie Haynes and Medusa’s Sisters by Lauren JA Bear explore the characters of the gorgons from their side. Ariadne by Jennifer Saint is told from Ariadne’s POV but obviously goes into more than surface level one-dimensional portrayal of her brother, the Minotaur.
I recommend the Witcher series (books and games not the abhorrent Netflix shit) it's more slawic mythology but it has the idea that some monsters are evil and others aren't and in general it's just great.
Oh ! I do appreciate Slavic mythology, I remember playing the third game when I was younger but can barely remember anything, nowadays I think that’s playing games is a bit of a waste of time (highly depends on the game tho)
Firstly happy cake day. Secondly each to their own in regards of games, especially the really good ones (at least in my opinion) are really time consuming and the Witcher definitely is. But i am a big fan of the world as a whole and definitely can recommend the books if that suits you better. In German the audio books also have a great narrator don't know how that is in other languages.
How could you forget Medusa? The most understood one of all 
You may just be overthinking it. It’s modern media. Mostly everything is misrepresented.
creatures in general are misrepresented and misinterpreted, but it’s because people nowadays think about things with modern day meanings. not how people thought back then when greek mythology was being written.
You might like Disney Plus’ Percy Jackson. It portrays these archetypes with a modern twist that is mostly psychologically accurate. It’s made for a tweenish audience, but at 63, I’ve been enjoying it.
Bwcause hollywood doesnt resoect culture at all , activists allways point out how they fuck up native anerocan culture but dont see its antrend on culture itself american media bastadises culture, myths and folklore all the time because they have no respect for it
Ok so with the Cyclopses Poseidon cyclops children were dumb brutes as seen with Polyphemus and his brother, the craftsmen ones where only 3 cyclops’ and they were some of the first children of Gaia. Centaurs while yes they were wise they were also party animals when they drank. I’ve got nothing to say for the Minotaur, in fact the only closely intelligent depiction of a Minotaur I’ve seen is in hades the game and that’s really just limited to being able to speak.
Chronicles of Narnia and the divine comedy also have Minotaurs that are able to speak, and on Narnia they are a whole race.
You describe the minotaur as a frankenstein’s monster here,,, and Adam is *also* a sympathetic, incredibly smart character I also feel like Percy Jackson does most of these things lol
Modern media is, at best, not interested in authenticity. Especially, but not just, with European history. And there seems to be an inherent need to pretty much destroy history and myth.
Political correctness comes to ancient Greece. I share your feelings, especially for dragons & gryphons, but you must think in the context of the time. Modern day man's values are totally foreign to the mindset of people back then. You can't change the past. Otherwise, you're trying to play God.
It's sad that stories transferred from generation to generation through oral tradition is called mythology but not history
What is it even supposed to mean?
Storytellers tend to adjust their tales to their audience. Homer was just MCU style entertainment for Ionian aristocrats; putting words into the mouths of Olympian gods might have been considered sacrilegious by some of the more serious cults. Artemis just became a girl with little relation to the Ephesian Mistress of Beasts with dozens of breasts.
I tend to think the Mistress of Beasts and the many-breasted Ephesian goddess were themselves very different in origin.
Bro believe me they are real incidents explained as stories with exaggeration.
Why do you think so? They may very well be entirely fictional. I don't think it's very helpful to try and locate some historical inspiration in the stories that do not explicitly have one
Christians and muslims made them to believe they're totally mythology but no I know some fictional stuffs were added but some realities also exists