Talk:Ganymede

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Ovid's realistic poetic details were being presented in this entry as images thought to represent the attitude of the masses towards same-sex love even in Roman times. This isn't very good: it smacks of modern disapproval and wishful thinking. Anyone want to put it back? Wetman 01:26, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But it's been outdone by the following addition to the caption on the Rembrandt illus: he uses the work as to denounce the same-sex love of his day. As he would have it, the men are rapacious animals, represented by the aggressive eagle, and the youths vulnerable children, here represented by the squalling toddler pissing in fright, his rear turned to the viewer to underline the heinousness of the act. We owe User:Haiduc this penetrating interpretation, so in tune with the best Rembrandt scholarship and so splendidly in the Wikipedia tradition of "NPOV". Hats off to Haiduc for making Wikipedia the respected information source it has become today. --Wetman 07:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the florid prose, but the interpretation is not original. Richard G. Mann, writing in glbtq.com (European Art: Baroque) sees it as mocking of sodomy, and Kenneth Clark (in a piece I have mislaid) also sees deprecation in it, unlike Saslow who engages in critical contortionism in an effort to explain it away. It is always touchy, to try to render another's [here, Rembrandt's] eloquent interpretation in neutral terms. What do you suggest? Haiduc 13:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I suggest, and am doing, is adding

• Peter R. Griffith on the subject of Ganymede from a GLBT point-of-view

to the External links subsection. It will be up to Haiduc to give a brief report on the article, without personal spin. Wikipedia's image caption can return to its more mainstream content. That's what I suggest? Fair enough for anyone. --Wetman 03:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have followed your link and found it to be a less-than-perspicacious analysis of the work. I have revised the caption based on Mann's analysis. It might clarify the waters if you were to express the reasons for your apparent disagreement with the interpretation of this work as one critical of sodomy. Haiduc 05:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Not my link of course, but the one apparently offered by this person just above. This person's POV must prevail. ) --Wetman 05:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance and Baroque

Please reference all analysis or criticisms of these works that describe them as "critical of" anything. Unless a good reference can be found, all works of art should simply be described as the artist's depiction of a shared fable. In particular, unless there is very good reason, please do not burden the Rembrandt image with commentary about how some people view it. Just describe what it is and when it was produced, and leave any well-referenced analysis to the body text of the relevant section. --Sj

[edit] Hera abandoning the Trojans

The section in the text about Hera's hate for Ganymede seems to be incorrect.

[Her hate of him was applied by mythographers to account for her abandoning the Trojans, an otherwise inaccountable shift in the alliances of the Trojan War, for the Troad was part of the homeland of the Great Goddess, of whom Hera was the main Olympian representative.]

The reason for the war was the decision of Paris in the famous contest between goddesses Hera, Athene and Aphrodite. Hera was sure to take the other side in the war, as she wasn't the choice of Paris.SYS64738 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myth Disclaimer

I just noticed the disclaimer about the use of the word "myth" to describe the tale of Ganymede. I don't know how many other pages it appears on, but it does not seem as if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, rather being an excess of political correctness. Would anyone be wildly angered if I removed it? (And, if not, could someone assist me in finding other pages where it has been placed?) —Cuiviénen 03:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We have to thank User:Haiduc for this. --Wetman 06:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)