John Prine‚ born on October 10‚ 1946‚ in Maywood‚ Illinois‚ and passing away on April 7‚ 2020‚ was a significant American folk and country singer-songwriter. Gaining prominence in the early 1970s with his self-titled debut album‚ Prine was known for his poignant‚ narrative-driven lyrics that often reflected on social and personal themes. His songs such as “Sam Stone” and “Angel from Montgomery‚” showcased his ability to blend melancholy with wit. Prine’s influence spanned across genres and generations‚ leading to collaborations with artists like Bonnie Raitt and Johnny Cash. Continuing to produce music well into the 21st century‚ Prine left behind The post Complete List Of John Prine Studio Albums And Discography appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

There is a textbook for English readers in Hong Kong universities on 6‚000 years of Chinese history. After reading the first part‚ which documents the political history of the country‚ a trend is immediately identifiable—that ruling dynasties rose from peasant rebellions and fell to peasant rebellions. Now‚ in southern China’s Sichuan Province‚ a series of […] The post 76‚000 Gold and Silver Artifacts Recovered from Chinese River Chart Infamous 17th Century Warlord’s Conquests appeared first on Good News Network.

Why not quote Ecclesiastes: For everything there is a season‚ and a time for every matter under heaven. January 1675 in London marks a season of newborns‚ but these pregnancies are more unpredictable and deadly than the norm for the time: More and more babies are coming out of the womb with horns‚ or gills‚ or enough eyes to pass for a Biblically-accurate angel. Are the rumors true‚ of expecting women crossing paths with a devilish figure that imprints on their wombs? Or could it have something to do with the new apprentice midwife‚ unassuming widow Mrs. Sarah Davis‚ who has her own unusual origins? Lina Rather’s A Season of Monstrous Conceptions is a dark‚ thoughtful novella about what it means to pass from the relative safety of one world into another that offers more opportunity but also more danger. This particular time in history and society is the perfect setup for this speculative plot‚ because of the unfortunate norm that pregnancies did not always ensure a living child and/or mother: Between breech babies and postpartum complications‚ birth was a bloody and often fatal affair. That’s even before you add in this particular crop of newborns not surviving the night‚ whether due to aforementioned inhuman features like gills if not born in water‚ or superstitious and God-fearing folks drowning the infants themselves. Sarah has a personal incentive for delivering these particular babies‚ which is that twenty-odd years ago she was one of them‚ albeit born in the quiet but gossipy village of Cookham. A sixth child already rendered extraneous by birth order‚ she also came out with a nubby little tail that her grandmother matter-of-factly snipped before anyone could be the wiser. Yet Sarah’s otherworldliness goes deeper than a missing appendage‚ and she grows up with the uncanny sense that there is another world existing right beyond the borders of our own… and must eventually leave Cookham‚ and her unhappy marriage‚ when she discovers the ability to tap into that realm’s power. But while the London births that Sarah and her mentor Mrs. June attend are becoming ever grimmer‚ that doesn’t stop them from taking on new clients—especially when Sarah hooks a big fish in Lady Faith Wren‚ genteel and gravid. Her husband‚ Sir Christopher Wren‚ is a renowned architect building a monument to the Great Fire that devastated London nine years before. Despite immediately recognizing the fetus in Faith’s womb as one of her kind‚ but far less able to pass in the human world than she‚ Sarah takes on the pregnancy as if it is a normal gestation. During those final weeks‚ Sir Wren recognizes something in Sarah‚ too: her uncanniness‚ yes‚ but also her intellect and curiosity. Buy it Now Sarah’s intelligence is not appreciated by her harsh mentor figure Mrs. June‚ nor by the rest of the midwives’ guild—unofficial‚ of course‚ as the king will not recognize a group of women on the same level as the (male) surgeons. Their meetings are in pubs rather than universities or hospitals‚ but their studies are just as intensive‚ except they already know the workings of the female body and are instead concerned with the encroachment of what they call the Other Place. Despite the midwives having devoted years to trying to contact this world and its inhabitants‚ Sarah is instead drawn to midnight rendezvous (purely platonic) with Sir Wren in his underground laboratory‚ as he lets her in on his true blueprints for crossing over to this other sphere of existence. Because no matter how canny (like Wren) or driven (like Mrs. June)‚ intellectuals and magic-users cannot access the Other Place in the way that these otherworldly children can. And with most of the crop still learning how to self-regulate and sleep‚ Sarah is the rare specimen with enough life experience moving through our world to attempt any sort of crossover. But passing doesn’t mean that Sarah has ever felt safe or like she has a home. Her eagerness to become a teacher’s pet to Sir Wren is so poignant‚ not least because we’ve already witnessed her plaintive insistence on casting herself as a surrogate daughter to Mrs. June. Yet when offered a place in more liminal spaces‚ Sarah recoils. For such a slim story‚ Rather endeavors to explore as many different spheres of London as she can. Most notable is anywhere where Margaret is: A serving girl at a brothel whose births Sarah and Mrs. June frequently attend‚ she represents the life that Sarah would have had if she had been born with horns instead of a tail. The attraction between the two women sparks on multiple levels‚ drawn to one another by desire but also repelled by fear. Their interludes are the novella’s most powerful‚ as Margaret endeavors to show Sarah that it doesn’t have to be parallel spheres‚ but that magic can bleed into the mundane and vice versa. Rather’s novella is most effective when it demonstrates how the uncanny manifests in our familiar world. Sarah’s recollections of using her power‚ at first unintentionally and then with more conviction‚ are chilling in how she subtly bends others’ will to her frustration and rage—interrupting the natural course of things by compelling someone into a body of water or a wall of fire. Her night out on the town with Margaret‚ in which queerness is a symphony of meanings‚ brings tantalizing zaps of pleasure to a mostly grim tale. And on the other end of the spectrum‚ a climactic scene involving common people misunderstanding the thin line between child and demon is the most disturbing yet necessary part of the tale. But as the veil between our world and the Other Place grows thinner than an effaced cervix‚ the subsequent passages do not inspire the same sense of distraught wonder. Our glimpses of this alternate world are so rare that the brief moments in which we are dropped within‚ it’s difficult to know whether to regard the human subject as feared oddity or harmless interloper. We have the sense that these unwanted children could survive better there‚ but we don’t really know how much they’d fit in‚ either. However‚ Sarah’s constant sense of belonging to neither world‚ of straddling them at best‚ aches like a phantom limb. Rather doesn’t entirely resolve that dilemma—in fact‚ the climax creates as many new questions as it answers existing ones—but she comes out the other side much like a mother giving birth‚ a bit worse for the wear but also with the closure that she has experienced a transformative journey of her body and mind. When it comes to A Season of Monstrous Conceptions‚ it’s rather like the quandary of family size: On the one hand‚ I would love to see “sibling” novellas further exploring Sarah’s midwifery after the events of this story. On the other hand‚ this is a lovely dark standalone that begins and ends within a particular season. Who knows‚ maybe there will be a surprise addition down the line. A Season of Monstrous Conceptions is available from Tordotcom Publishing. Now Natalie Zutter is on the hunt for more SFF about pregnancy‚ childbirth‚ and all the horrors and joys contained therein. Feel free to recommend some to her on Twitter or Bluesky!

“You need to go home. Vault-dwellers are an endangered species.” It’s not exactly the warmest of welcomes‚ is it? Especially when coming from Michael Emerson‚ whose iconic role on Lost rendered him perpetually a bit creepy. But then‚ a weird warning only makes sense in this world. Right on the heels of some intriguing images‚ Prime Video has delivered the first trailer for its Fallout adaptation‚ and it looks very‚ very good. The thing that makes this trailer so appealing is the way it slowly gets increasingly weird. Wasteland‚ skulls‚ yeah‚ yeah‚ we’ve all seen these things in a post-apocalyptic landscape before—though it is all new to Lucy (Ella Purnell). For us? Old news. The giant cockroach is unnerving‚ but still‚ sure‚ okay. I guess you need a really big magazine with which to smash it. But then. Then‚ there’s a gentleman (Maximus‚ played by Aaron Moten) who seems to be in love with his power armor‚ maybe. (At least that’s what the musical cue is saying.) A nice doggie has a nice severed hand in its mouth. Walton Goggins has no nose. Another guy has no pants. I don’t even want to talk about the bear‚ or the moldy coffee. All of this plays out under the sweet strains of Nat King Cole’s “I Don’t Want to See Tomorrow‚” which is very much A Choice‚ and gives it all a very pleasantly doomy vibe. Here’s the synopsis: Based on one of the greatest video game series of all time‚ Fallout is the story of haves and have-nots in a world in which there’s almost nothing left to have. 200 years after the apocalypse‚ the gentle denizens of luxury fallout shelters are forced to return to the irradiated hellscape their ancestors left behind — and are shocked to discover an incredibly complex‚ gleefully weird and highly violent universe waiting for them. Fallout was developed by Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy (Westworld); Geneva Robertson-Dworet (Captain Marvel) and Graham Wagner (Portlandia) are co-showrunners and writers. The cast includes Kyle MacLachlan (Twin Peaks)‚ Sarita Choudhury (Jessica Jones)‚ Leslie Uggams (Deadpool)‚ Zach Cherry (Severance)‚ and Xelia Mendes-Jones (The Wheel of Time). The series premieres on Prime Video on April 12‚ 2024.

There’s a fight a-brewin’: On September 26th‚ Emily Wilson’s translation of the ancient Greek epic poem the Iliad was released (published by W.W. Norton)‚ the natural follow-up to her 2018 translation of the Odyssey. That initial project garnered a great deal of attention as being the first published translation of the Odyssey done by a woman—into English. Wilson‚ for her part‚ prefers to emphasize her work’s more immediate qualities than her own metahistorical first-ness. The marketing campaign for Wilson’s Odyssey was very successful‚ however‚ due in whatever proportion to usage of the reliable “first woman to ____” narrative‚ and the book received popular acclaim as well as positive scholarly reviews. To some people‚ it was their first introduction to the Homeric epic. For others‚ it was the first time that they really connected to the story‚ freshly delivered to them in more idiomatically accessible language. In either case‚ I have anecdotally heard several people say that they first developed a deep personal connection to Homeric poetry and to Odysseus’ story through Wilson’s translation. Other people‚ however‚ received the first translation of the Odyssey (into English) by a woman with hostility and suspicion. This too is probably ascribable to the emphasis on Wilson’s gender during the translation’s marketing. Why‚ reactionaries appear to have reasoned‚ would you put so much emphasis on the “first woman” business unless this new work was a part of some feminist agenda? Why can’t the feminists leave these traditional tales about super men alone? Now once more‚ with the release of Wilson’s Iliad‚ the controversy has been revived. At least this time around‚ the conversation’s nominal centering on the Iliad‚ the tale of Achilles’ wrath‚ permits us to make a cute little parallel: both Achilles‚ the Iliad’s central wrathful hero‚ and Wilson’s more strident detractors compel us to wonder‚ “why are you so angry?” I don’t really wish to litigate here every specific argument that has been raised‚ or even just the best or worst ones‚ about what the Homeric epics should really be and how Wilson distorts/misses their essence. But I do wish to reflect on how these arguments play on commonly held notions about the past‚ for I think they will be pertinent to a fantasy-reading audience. It is worth mentioning that I will be making some arguments here about what I infer to be broadly held beliefs. Estimating what others believe is at the best of times a tenuous proposition‚ and I may simply prove to be not a very good barometer. Have I done enough hedging yet? OK‚ here we go: There is a lot of fat to cut through in the discourse around Wilson’s work‚ most of it pertaining to disagreements on translation methodologies. Is it superior to keep the translation as literal as possible‚ cat for chat‚ or is there some “spirit” of the original text that it is more important to communicate‚ one better achieved through the taking of certain liberties? What register of English speech is truest to the style of Homeric Greek? And so on. These are interesting but thorny topics—in whose brambles one can hide an awful lot of ideology. A couple of weeks before her Iliad’s release‚ a thread criticizing Wilson’s Odyssey in anticipation of her new work made some waves on Classics Twitter‚ interrupting everyone’s busy schedule of making niche mythology puns and references—and even broke containment into the broader discourse by dint of being so silly that it unwittingly copied the format of a common meme. (Paging Rebecca Solnit…) One particular claim‚ though‚ stood out to me and a number of other rubberneckers: that Wilson’s rendering of the Greek adjective πολύτροπον (polytropon) as “complicated” in the Odyssey’s first line amounts to an “insult” toward Odysseus. “Tell me about a complicated man.” (The Odyssey‚ Book 1‚ line 1) It’s a perplexing point‚ but a telling one‚ I think‚ once you untangle its logic. A more primary objection would be that the translation is off‚ and this objection has also been raised. But Wilson has discussed her methods and reasons for translating just this one specific word this way many‚ many times. It is metrically felicitous‚ it employs a similar kind of metaphor to the one at work in the Greek. You will either be persuaded by her explanations or you won’t. But to call the choice an “insult” is a stretch which signals that a larger point is being made—one that’s about values rather than accuracy. I think it is fair to extrapolate that the real issue here is that “complicated” and many of Wilson’s other choices of diction are not grand enough for certain tastes. Most reactions to Wilson’s style‚ both the positive and negative accounts‚ emphasize the accessibility of her language‚ leading some to titter that the masses can now read the story “without excessive mental interruption.” This is a deeply unworthy criticism that at best confuses verbal floridity for complexity‚ and at worst snidely hides elitism behind thin intellectualism. This lack of highfalutin’ talk—though to my ear‚ it is still plenty falutin’—does not overdetermine for the audience how exalted or virtuous we should think the feats of masculine achievement related in these stories are to the same degree that using language in higher register might have. To some readers‚ this robs the texts of what (to them) made the poems meaningful. If we are not here to bask in the glory of Achilles and Odysseus and Diomedes and Ajax and their strength and daring‚ then why did we even show up for the party? Fortunately‚ Daniel Walden for The Bulwark has already done an excellent job at cutting through the noise‚ calling out in his review reactions that confuse “criticism of taste and criticism of merit”: Wilson has made choices‚ the same as any other translator has: These choices place emphasis on one thing and not on another. To complain “but there’s more to it than that!” is nearly redundant: of course there is‚ because we are reading English and not Greek. Walden does not hesitate either to identify the culprits of that unsophisticated criticism as “culture-war pundits.” The usual suspects‚ then. But we can say a little more here about what it is that these pundits seem to believe. For whether or not we are politically aligned with the people making these sorts of arguments (whom I infer tend to be more conservative)‚ we might share more ideas about the past with them than we realize‚ ideas centered around that past’s relative…well‚ complexity. That is the supposed distortion taking place at Wilson’s hands‚ is it not? That she has taken an ancient text about virtue and either injected it with some sort of postmodern moral skepticism‚ or at least she has introduced it to too wide of an audience who will‚ by fault of being moderns with modern styles of interpretation‚ misinterpret it. That is a strange way to talk about art‚ to insist that it should leave as little room as possible for people to misunderstand‚ i.e.‚ have a different perspective from yours. It is‚ however‚ a legibly less strange way to talk about an artifact. Unlike art‚ where we might be more forgiving of differences in perspective borne out by critical engagement‚ we expect artifacts to represent a particular moment in time. The artifact tends to get held out as a more purely educational object‚ and as such it ought to impart clear‚ standard information. This will be on the test. Thus‚ our understanding of the artifact needs to be relatively simple. If it is very old‚ we might even be given to think that the culture the artifact represents really was relatively simple‚ in the senses of being less large‚ less diverse‚ and perhaps less self-reflective. So here’s the crux: I suspect that we are collectively inclined to treat the Homeric epics as artifacts. They are supposed to represent an idea of ancient Greece to us‚ and arch narratives of historical progress prime us to accept that past societies were scientifically‚ politically‚ and ethically less complicated. Thus‚ we as readers may expect the Homeric epics to reflect a relatively simplistic worldview‚ one that is‚ say‚ uncritical of patriarchal hegemony—and we can believe that without‚ as some people do‚ trying to use it as an argument in favor of patriarchal values. It is worth pointing out‚ then‚ that the Homeric epics invite a lot of ambivalence about the heroic world they portray. The closest they ever come to a tidy moral lesson that I can think of is Menelaus’ statement on ideal hospitality in Odyssey book 15‚ imparted upon hearing that Telemachus would like to go home now‚ please: I disapprove of too much friendliness And of too much standoffishness. A balance Is best. To force a visitor to stay Is just as bad as pushing him to go. Be kind to guests when they are visiting‚ Then help them on their way. […] (Trans. Emily Wilson) And this is a rare universal truth‚ Homer. Well done. Anyone who has ever desperately tried to excuse themself from an interminable party will understand. But neat universal truths delivered didactically are few and far between here‚ even more so in the Iliad than the Odyssey. Some may try to describe the former‚ the tale of Achilles‚ as one about the importance of glory over even life itself‚ a study in macho-ness—delivered direct from the time when men were men! I won’t outright say that this reading is wrong. It is certainly not completely out of touch with the text‚ which is indeed deeply concerned with honor‚ both that which must be paid to the gods and goddesses (Hera and Athena’s sense of slighted honor is deliciously palpable whenever they appear) and that which mortals can scrape together for themselves while they live. But I think it is more correct to say that the poem is depicting the difficulty‚ nigh impossibility even‚ for mortals of weighing those two goods against each other‚ life versus glory‚ happiness versus honor. What is impressive about Achilles is that he bothers to stop and really try to hash out the answer. What is tragic about him is that in his selfish deliberation‚ he loses more than he bargained on—the life of his dearest friend. Now Achilles’ chance for a long life is gone‚ and the glory he purchased with it is not as sweet as he hoped. There is emotional catharsis‚ but no clean resolution to take home like a trophy once the dust has settled‚ and we and Achilles are left to make peace with that. There is‚ of course‚ “more to it than that.” Different Greek heroes strut their hour upon the stage in Achilles’ absence (Diomedes clocks in a few more hours than others)‚ Trojan champion Hector—contrary to the sweet‚ Eric Bana-fied version of him that occupies the popular consciousness—sinks slowly deeper into his own war-madness the longer he fights‚ and human and Olympian politics play out to alternatingly dramatic and comedic effect. There are a hundred little moments of big emotion. The venerable Ursula K. Le Guin wrote about Homer on her blog (she had a blog!) back in 2011: People keep going to him and discovering new things‚ or old things‚ or things for the first time‚ or things all over again‚ and saying them. This has been going on for two or three millennia. That is an amazingly long time for anything to mean anything to anybody. Le Guin understands the magic. It’s in how these stories‚ with their many sparkling facets‚ make you think and feel‚ not in what they instruct you to believe. This is also where the fantasy genre comes into our discussion‚ for Le Guin’s new-old observation this time is that the Iliad and the Odyssey serve as ur examples of the two basic types of fantasy‚ the War and the Journey. (“I’m sure‚” she notes‚ “this has occurred to others.”) But the big sticking point‚ what impresses Le Guin about Homer‚ is that he does not do the War like the many fantasies that followed in his wake. He does it better. Le Guin takes issue with how most contemporary fantasy wars reduce the conflict to Good vs. Evil (the BBGE‚ she dubs it: Battle Between Good and Evil). Homer’s war‚ by contrast‚ is only people vs. people‚ and in those non-absolute terms it makes space for human tragedy in a way that the other kind of story can’t contain: In the War of Good vs. Evil there can be divine or supernal justice but not human tragedy. It is by definition‚ technically‚ comic (as in The Divine Comedy): the good guys win. It has a happy ending. If the bad guys beat the good guys‚ unhappy ending‚ that’s mere reversal‚ flip side of the same coin. The author is not impartial. Dystopia is not tragedy. There’s a not-so-subtle genre rebuke here over how fantasy tropes of Good battling Evil elide complexity in order to make a power fantasy. That point is itself a bit reductive‚ we might object‚ in the way that all generalizations are. We could communally probably produce a whole catalog of examples of tortured heroes (and villains) whose psychological woes keep readers from thinking that the life of a sword-swinging champion is too much fun. Frodo Baggins immediately jumps to mind‚ who is not even a mighty warrior but only a humble hobbit carrying the One Ring‚ the essence of Evil‚ to where it can be destroyed. No one envies Frodo’s lot. It breaks him in ways that will never fully mend. Rand al’Thor from The Wheel of Time series‚ which often feels like The Lord of the Rings in photo negative‚ wields a tainted magic that will someday snuff out his sanity and cause him to turn on his loved ones (Greek myth scholars call that one “the Herakles.” For the inverse of this dynamic see “the Ajax”). In creating Elric of Melniboné’s vampiric runesword‚ Stormbringer‚ one gets the sense that Michael Moorcock is suggesting that all swords are really vampires that seduce and corrupt their otherwise virtuous wielders—or even if he didn’t intend it‚ we can still think that. Even Le Guin herself goes in for this sort of heroic struggle in her Earthsea series. In the fourth and fifth books‚ the wizard Ged makes a great personal sacrifice to right the natural order of the world and subsequently must muddle his way through a kind of metaphysical bereavement. But there is a difference between a hero who suffers in the name of his quest‚ which audiences are given to find ennobling and worthy in its own way‚ and protagonists who act in an indifferent moral landscape where the goalposts for “right” and “wrong” are not clearly established. The former are usually making a sacrifice‚ which is a hard decision‚ but one made with a certain idea of what they or the community are getting in return. The latter can experience loss without any framework to make it meaningful. That’s what Le Guin means when she talks about the “tragic‚” I think. Loss existing without the comfort of some crude utilitarian gain. The former sort of story isn’t wrong to tell or to enjoy‚ obviously‚ and it is even a useful tool for us to theorize about the nature of capital-E Evil (or conversely of Good). But the division of Good and Evil into clear‚ opposing camps will tend to simplify the moral calculus. Who is doing the Bad Thing? Just those guys over there. That’s part of the appeal of a solid Good vs. Evil story. They offer the comforting certainty of simplicity. Their heroes may sometimes be at a loss for what to do in the moment‚ but they are sure of their quest‚ their larger goal. We might sometimes call that “escapism”—which is yet another idea Le Guin wrote about on her blog. She’s pro-escapism‚ as she is pro-Homer‚ for its imaginative potential to confound simple‚ orthodox ways of thinking. But when it comes to the fantasy war‚ the BBGE‚ we probably ought to consider whether what we are escaping toward is a scenario where violence is inevitable and justified‚ which does not sound like much of an escape from our reality at all. Well‚ at least in fantasy‚ then it’s time to break out those super cool magical swords‚ baby! They all have names; I named mine Jessica. Now‚ fictional violence is fun and kinetic and tense‚ all great things for fiction to be. I couldn’t get rid of it if I wanted to‚ and I don’t want to. It’s harder to make a narrative of normalizing diplomatic relations as exciting. We are just acknowledging here that the war of Good vs Evil‚ the setting for uncomplicated‚ fun violence‚ finds itself a ready home in the fantasy genre‚ which mostly consists of pseudo-historical settings‚ medievalesque societies and even more distant pasts in the case of sword-and-sandal stories. These fictional approximations of the past are presented as less complicated times. And if they didn’t exist‚ I would have nowhere to take Jessica. Buy it Now What is interesting about the Iliad—and what reactions to Wilson’s translation‚ along with Le Guin’s old blog post‚ have got me thinking about—is how it gives the lie to this notion that the ancient past—or at least its art—was restricted to the fabular and allegorical‚ morally prescriptive and didactic. That’s the way that I used to approach Greek myth‚ anyway. It’s not a reading framework I find that the Iliad or the Odyssey naturally fit into‚ which ought to be part of their appeal. I worry a little that the reviews which paint them in some totalizing manner (generally in an effort to get a dig at Wilson for missing the “one thing” about them) will turn off potential readers by making them seem more banal than they are. I do want to tread a delicate line here and not imply that the epics were‚ in total contradiction of reactionary appropriations of them‚ secretly progressive all along. They’re not. The Odyssey is a deeply misogynist story‚ not just incidentally‚ through matter-of-fact descriptions of the patriarchal culture in which it is set‚ but concertedly and thematically. The figures of Helen and Clytemnestra loom large in the text as paradigmatic “bad wives‚” unfaithful and homicidal‚ in whose footsteps Odysseus must ensure his own wife‚ Penelope‚ has not followed. Agamemnon’s ghost stresses this to Odysseus‚ and that point‚ more than the not-so-helpful prophecy of Tiresias‚ feels like the true important lesson of his visit to the underworld. And the Iliad is a story impressed by the heroic capacity to commit incredible violence. It is important and impressive that Achilles is the best at violence and has got the biggest spear. That’s not me making a funny‚ by the way. That’s a fact emphasized in the narrative. Book Sixteen‚ line 140‚ get a copy and see for yourself! Oh‚ Achilles‚ how will your boyfriend manage your big‚ enormous spear? He can’t. Patroclus has to leave it behind when he borrows the rest of Achilles’ gear. It’s just too big for him. It is an unsubtle signifier‚ but—look‚ subtlety and nuance are different things. But these aspects of the epics are not created‚ as they may be in the hands of a lesser storyteller‚ through incurious and uncritical depictions of either women’s motivations or men’s pride. Homeric women have as much emotional and intellectual depth as the men—I’ll even disagree with Le Guin around this particular point; I think she reads Homer’s Helen as more shallow than the poet portrays her as—and Achilles’ and Odysseus’ unbending need to be lavishly credited for their greatness is a constant and unambiguous source of their folly. Is there a word for that idea? A Greek word‚ perhaps? I’m not sure; I’ve never heard of one… There is a lot more we could say about the Iliad and the Odyssey here—and have said‚ and will say—because there’s no one thing to say about them that feels sufficient. Thus‚ coming to any conclusion on the subject always also feels a bit artificial‚ and the only one I can deliver here that feels honest‚ complete‚ and adequate is to say that I really love these poems. Considering the misogyny—this is not an imaginary past to which I yearn to return—maybe sometimes my love is as Mr. Darcy loves Elizabeth‚ “against my better judgement.” But my feelings will not be repressed. I love the heroes’ big man emotions‚ the manipulative goddesses‚ the whole forest of metaphors about falling trees‚ and—one of my all-time favorite fantasy motifs—adoring descriptions of Really Cool Stuff. I also love their sometimes surprising and never mawkish depictions of tenderness between people‚ even people who are deeply out of harmony with one another‚ as Hector is with Andromache‚ or Achilles with Patroclus. I guess what I’m trying to say is‚ marry me‚ Homer. I have 10‚000 a year. Your weirdo family doesn’t have to be in the picture. I don’t think the epics are stories that will liberate me‚ teach me virtue‚ or even necessarily exalt my soul. For reasons of the dilated nature of their composition‚ they may not be the best document for learning about any one period in Greek history‚ either. But at least I love them for what they really are. Ursula K. Le Guin and Emily Wilson seem to feel the same. Indeed‚ this‚ Wilson has repeatedly testified‚ is the true premise of her translation project: to render the poems in an as unmediated a way as a translator feasibly can‚ so that even more people can love them just as they are. Kristen holds a master’s degree in Greek‚ Latin‚ and Classical Studies‚ but she also holds strong opinions on subjects in which she is not formally accredited. She reads. She is always trying to read more‚ MORE!

Godzilla vs. Kong filmmaker Adam Wingard certainly wasn’t afraid to dream a little bigger. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire‚ the latest cinematic entry in the MonsterVerse‚ picks up on a thread from 2021’s Godzilla vs. Kong: the matter of the Hollow Earth. “For most of human civilization‚” Rebecca Hall’s character asks as the trailer begins‚ “we believed that life could only exist on the surface of our planet. What else were we wrong about?” There’s a definite Jurassic Park vibe here‚ with all the rich green landscapes and flocks? herds? of animals roaming about. And‚ of course‚ there’s an even bigger ape—who Kong certainly can’t tackle alone. Here‚ sort of‚ is a summary: The epic battle continues! Legendary Pictures’ cinematic Monsterverse follows up the explosive showdown of Godzilla vs. Kong with an all-new adventure that pits the almighty Kong and the fearsome Godzilla against a colossal undiscovered threat hidden within our world‚ challenging their very existence—and our own. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire delves further into the histories of these Titans and their origins‚ as well as the mysteries of Skull Island and beyond‚ while uncovering the mythic battle that helped forge these extraordinary beings and tied them to humankind forever. Adam Wingard directs this clash of the titans; the screenplay is by Terry Rossio‚ Simon Barrett‚ and Jeremy Slater. Along with Hall‚ the film stars Brian Tyree Henry‚ Kaylee Hottle‚ and Dan Stevens‚ who looks unexpectedly at home among all the monster chaos. This Godzilla film is‚ of course‚ no relation to Godzilla Minus One‚ but it is related to Apple TV’s Monarch: Legacy of Monsters‚ as well as the animated series Skull Island and the previous four MonsterVerse Godzilla films (Godzilla‚ Kong: Skull Island‚ Godzilla: King of the Monsters‚ and Godzilla vs. Kong). But if you can’t keep all the ’Zillas straight‚ you’ll probably be okay. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is in theaters April 12‚ 2024.

I think this has been the greatest movie year of my lifetime. I still have a long list of films I want to see before New Year’s Day‚ but so far the pattern has been: go to a movie‚ be astonished by it‚ worry that people are going to think I’m a shill because all my reviews are positive. (I promise you‚ if I think a film is crap I’ll tell you to save your precious money and far more precious time.) But now here we are‚ today‚ with me saying that Godzilla Minus One is one of the best movies of the year. YES‚ this year‚ with all those other extraordinary movies in it. I’ll admit that I never expected to cry during a Godzilla movie. (A Mothra movie‚ sure—I love Mothra‚ and some bastard’s always trying to hurt her.) But I also never expected to see a Godzilla movie where a shellshocked protagonist wails that maybe he isn’t even alive—maybe he died in the war‚ and the life he’s lived since is the last dream of a man rotting in the dirt. A Godzilla movie where honest engagement with PTSD is balanced perfectly with some of the most terrifying kaiju attacks I’ve ever seen. This movie is so good I can’t believe it. [Mild spoilers ahead.] Godzilla Minus One takes Godzilla seriously. Godzilla is myth‚ metaphor‚ eldritch horror‚ divine judgement‚ and bureaucratic tragedy. He can be climate collapse‚ or the Bomb‚ or Terrorism‚ or War Itself‚ or Death Itself—but he’s also‚ always‚ an unknowable living being who wants to crush the life out of everything in his path. Godzilla Minus One begins in what people would poetically call “the waning days of World War II”. Which means that Japan is barely standing‚ the country is ravaged by bombings and fires‚ the government still won’t admit that the tide has turned‚ and every adult watching the movie presumably knows what’s coming to end everything. The movie doesn’t show us that‚ instead allowing Godzilla to stand in for the horror of nuclear holocaust. Writer and director Takashi Yamazaki drops us straight into the film’s action. It’s 1945‚ and Kōichi Shikishima (Ryunosuke Kamiki) is meant to be on a kamikaze mission. He deserts his mission‚ but soon it doesn’t matter‚ because the base he lands at‚ claiming a plane malfunction‚ is attacked by a creature the locals call Godzilla. Even in this initial encounter‚ Godzilla is impossibly huge and mind-breaking—any sense of reality you have shatters when you see him. Having shown us the monster‚ the film takes an unexpected turn and becomes a post-war domestic drama. Having failed to die like he was supposed to‚ Kōichi has to figure out how to live. He returns to a home that was destroyed in the Bombing of Tokyo. His parents both died‚ there’s no money or food‚ and his neighbor Sumiko (Sakura Ando) is disgusted by his dereliction of duty. Then he meets Noriko (Minami Hamabe). Her parents also died‚ but as she was fleeing the fire that killed them‚ a dying woman handed her an infant. Now this woman‚ barely clear of childhood herself and grieving her own family‚ has to keep both of them fed. She and Kōichi  orm a makeshift alliance. They scrounge for food and look after the baby‚ Akiko‚ together‚ never daring to think of themselves as a real family‚ but acting like one all the same. They begin to try to live. And then Godzilla returns. You know that scene that comes in every Godzilla movie‚ where the poor beleaguered extras flee screaming from a guy in a rubber suit? And everyone has to kind of buy into it‚ like an old episode of Doctor Who? Here that scene is turned on its head. It begins with a character we’ve come to know commuting to work by train. She hears an ominous rumbling‚ she looks out‚ and there’s Godzilla. And she says‚ “Is that… Godzilla?” Image: Toho Studios And on its surface‚ this is hilarious. YES it’s Godzilla‚ we think. Who the hell else could it be??? But see‚ she doesn’t know. She only heard about Godzilla a few days ago‚ as a folktale told by people on a small island off the coast that she’s never even visited‚ who turned out to be real. Even while she believed the person who told her‚ she couldn’t really believe it believe it. Because Godzilla’s absurd. As absurd as the idea that humans have created a weapon that can destroy all life on earth. As absurd as letting bombs rain down on the innocent. As absurd as the idea that we’ve ignored clear signs of our collapsing climate long past the point where it will mean the death of our species. As absurd as the fact that all of us die‚ even me. And now here he is‚ this impossible monster‚ and we’re watching a character we’ve come to care about‚ whose life and history and dreams we know‚ commuting to her job and realizing that today might be the day she dies. That scene we’ve seen in every Godzilla movie isn’t funny this time. The film also gives us the usual scene where a scientist makes an absurd plan to defeat the monster—but he’s delivering his plan to a room full of exhausted army veterans‚ every one of them suffering from PTSD‚ everyone knowing that‚ having just come home to a bombed-out‚ defeated city‚ having just begun to pick their lives up and reunite with their families‚ they have to go back onto a navy cruiser and fight an impossible enemy. There are moments when people help each other up‚ and others when crowds trample the overwhelmed. There are scenes when people drop to the ground and start screaming‚ the way you would if an impossibly huge monster showed up in your town. Image: Toho Studios The acting is excellent across the board (like I said‚ you have to commit if this premise is going to work‚ and everyone in this film is all in.) The CGI and effects would be great in any year—but especially after watching multiple lackluster Marvel movies that were made for many times Godzilla’s budget‚ seeing an action movie that builds tension through blocking and choreography‚ with CGI that looks absolutely tactile‚ was a welcome relief. When Godzilla stomps through town‚ you feel the ground shake. When he roars‚ you want to cover your ears. Director Yamazaki got his start in visual effects‚ and was the VFX supervisor here‚ and you can see the care that’s been taken with bringing Godzilla to life. About the kaiju in the room: as much as Godzilla can be a metaphor for many things‚ here he is also a monster. He was attacking humans even before he was irradiated. He’s not an ally to humanity‚ he’s not here to save people from Hedorah or Mechagodzilla. He’s a relentless beast who can’t be reasoned with‚ and seemingly can’t be killed. Over the course of two hours and five minutes (that felt like half that) Godzilla Minus One nods to its own franchise‚ the work of Yasujirō Ozu‚ Grave of the Fireflies‚ Dunkirk‚ Mononoke Hime‚ and‚ in what I think was my favorite sequence‚ Jaws. Image: Toho Studios This is what I love. When people come into a series like this and take it seriously. When they look at how Godzilla started‚ and why it started‚ and think seriously about how to update that story. It becomes a story of nuclear proliferation‚ about the trauma of a nation in tatters‚ about governments that use their citizens as cannon- and kamikaze fodder. A generation that sells its children. And‚ look‚ I’ve been dancing around the thing I really want to say because I’m worried it will sound flippant‚ or even offensive‚ but here goes: what I kept thinking about was Oppenheimer. I’ve seen Oppenheimer three times‚ on three different screens. I’ll probably see it again‚ and I’d also like to see Godzilla Minus One on the big screen again. It’s easy to say “this film is about survivor’s guilt”‚ “this movie is about PTSD”‚ “this movie is about the horror of war”. Both of these films force their viewers to experience that horror in the context of a genre movie‚ a blockbuster—one a Kaiju Movie‚ and one a Great Man Biopic. And in both cases‚ they subvert their genres. Oppenheimer asks what happens when a movie uses all the its genre cues to tell us we’re watching a Great Man‚ right up until the moment that man does one of the worst things anyone has ever done. Godzilla Minus One uses the tropes of a kaiju movie‚ already rooted in a discussion of nuclear war‚ and twists it to explore survivor’s guilt—and then to take it a step further to look at what happens when the survivors face death again. Along the way‚ both films use their genre to help their audience understand a fact that is too large for the human mind to hold: by inventing the atomic bomb‚ and allowing nuclear war to be a possibility‚ we might have doomed ourselves. We’ve probably doomed ourselves. For the rest of humanity’s existence‚ it will have to contend with what happened at the end of World War II. It will have to do that because politicians and bureaucrats made some disastrous decisions‚ and left the rest of us to live with them. One of the reasons this movie made me cry—a thing that does not usually happen—is that‚ in contrast to Oppenheimer‚ it chooses hope in the face of despair. Maybe that makes it a lesser film in a way‚ but I would like to think not. I would like to think that watching people pull together to choose life in the face of death can also make for a genre-defining masterpiece.

Israeli citizens and foreigners remain hostages to Hamas and other radical Islamic terrorist organizations in Gaza. It is believed that there are just over 120 hostages still in Gaza. Eleven of the hostages are foreigners and the rest are Israeli‚ according to Israeli officials. Those waiting to be freed range in age from 10-month-old baby Kfir Bibas‚ who Hamas claims is dead but has produced no evidence to confirm‚ to men in their 80s. Since Hamas terrorists attacked Israel on Oct. 7 killing 1‚200 Israelis and taking 240 hostage‚ more than 100 hostages have been released‚ mainly women and children. Hamas and Israel agreed to a temporary cease-fire‚ brokered by Qatar‚ the U.S.‚ and Egypt‚ that went into effect on Nov. 24. The original cease-fire was slated to last four days‚ and Hamas agreed to release 50 hostages in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel.   On what was supposed to be the last day of the cease-fire‚ Israel and Hamas agreed to extend the pause in fighting for another two days. Israel agreed to release 30 Palestinian prisoners for every 10 hostages Hamas freed. Foreign workers‚ mainly from Thailand‚ were released in a separate deal. The extended cease-fire ended early Friday morning‚ and fighting has resumed. “We will continue this war until we achieve the three goals—to release all our abductees‚ to eliminate Hamas completely‚ and to ensure that Gaza will never again face such a threat‚” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday.  The hostages still in Gaza are held by Hamas‚ Islamic Jihad‚ and likely other small terrorist organizations. Some of the Israelis originally thought to be hostages have since been found to have been murdered‚ either on Oct. 7 or while in captivity in Gaza. Below are names and pictures of the men‚ women‚ and children who are believed to still be alive and held hostage in Gaza. *Please note that information on the hostages is developing rapidly. This report will be modified as information is confirmed regarding the status of each hostage. Find a list of the released hostages here. Gadi Moses    Tal Shoham  Kfir Bibas Hamas claims baby Kfir Bibas was killed in Gaza by an Israeli airstrike. This claim has not been confirmed. Ariel Bibas Hamas claims Ariel Bibas was killed in Gaza by an Israeli airstrike. This claim has not been confirmed. Yarden and Shiri Bibas Hamas claims mother Shiri Yarden was killed in Gaza by an Israeli airstrike. This claim has not been confirmed. Gad Haggai and Judih Lynne Weistein Chaim Peri Amiram Cooper Elad Katzir Shifra Noy Yoram Metzger Silvia Ochayon Omer Neutra Liri Albag David Cunio Carmel Gat Ariel Cunio Tal Shalev David Shalev Tamir Adar Yair Yaakov Ohad Yahalomi Evyatar David Ofer Kalderon Itzik Algerat Matan Zangauker Tal Haimi Tamar Suchman Karina Ariev Yosi Sharabi Keith Samuel Siegel Fernando Marman Luis Norberto Har Daniella Gilboa Omri Miran Eliya Cohen Yagev Buchshtab Ron Scherman Ron Scherman Carmel Gat Nik Beizer Ron Benjamin Ben Binyamin Cohen Lior Rodaif Or Levy Hersh Goldberg Polin Dror Or Romi Gonen Omer Wenkert Omer Shem Tov Ohad Ben Ami Raz Ben-Ami was freed on Nov. 29. Almog Meir-Jan Dolev Yehoud Arbel Yehoud Eden Yerushalmi Yair and Eitan Horn Amit Buskila Itay Svirsky Elkana Bohbot Noa Argamani Avinatan Or Alex Dancyg Orión Hernández Radoux Ilana Gritzewtzki was freed on Nov. 30. Segev Kalfon Shlomo Mansour Bipin Joshi Edan Alexander Sasha Troufanov Eden Zecharya Eitan Avraham Mor Ruth Hodaya Perez Cohen Avraham Munder Ruth Munder was freed on Nov. 24. Gal Gilboa Dalal Bar Kupershtein Agam Berger Yotam Haim Ziv and Gali Berman Naama Levi Nadav Popplewell Yosef Chaim Ohana Itay Chen Joshua Loitu Mollel Alon Shamriz (Photo courtesy of Yonatan and Ido Shamriz) Matan Angrest Uriel Baruch Rom Braslavski Nimrod Cohen Ori Danino Sagui Dekel-Chen Itzhak Elgarat Itzhak Gelerenter Ran Gvili Hanum Yeheskel (Photo: Belopoppa/Getty Images) Maxim Herkin Tsachi Idan Dror Kaplun Denil Kimenfeld Andrey Kozlov Eitan Levy Elyakim Libman Oded Lifshitz Alex Lobanov Michel Nisenbaum Yonathan Mordechai Samerano Almog Sarusi Eli Sharabi Idan Shtivi Elia Toledano Ilan Weiss Chanan Yablonka Shalomi Ziv Bancha Duchruayawach Tu Saelee Pongsak Thaenna Sathian Suwankam Youssef Alziadne Hamza Alziadne Samer Fouad Al-Talalka Sahar Baruch Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Who Are the Hostages Still Being Held Captive in Gaza? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL: An 11-year-old girl was assigned to share a bed with a male student who identifies as a transgender girl while on a cross-country school trip‚ according to a demand letter sent Monday. That girl’s parents are now calling upon the public school system to provide answers and clarification of its policies related to children who identify as transgender. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom‚ Joe and Serena Wailes are calling on the Colorado-based Jefferson County School Board and Jefferson County Public Schools Superintendent Tracy Dorland to clarify “whether JCPS will continue this practice of intentionally withholding information about rooming accommodations from parents like the Waileses‚ who object to their children rooming with a student of the opposite sex‚ regardless of the other student’s gender identity.” “This practice renders it impossible for these parents to make informed decisions about their children’s privacy‚ upbringing‚ and participation in school-sponsored programs‚” reads the demand letter‚ which was exclusively provided to The Daily Signal. “Additionally‚ our clients request information related to JB R-1 and the ability to opt out of this rooming policy for all future school trips.” The Waileses describe how their daughter‚ who is in fifth grade‚ went on a JCPS-sponsored trip to Philadelphia and Washington‚ D.C.‚ in June 2023. JCPS had repeatedly told parents that the boys and girls on the trip would be roomed on different floors—and chaperones told the students that boys would not even be allowed to visit the girls’ floor‚ as well as vice versa‚ according to the letter. Serena Wailes also went on the trip‚ though she was not a chaperone. 2023.12.04-Wailes-Demand-Letter_Download The Wailes’ 11-year-old daughter‚ who is identified in the letter as “D.W.‚” was assigned to a room with three other students‚ according to the demand letter. Two of these students were girls from her school‚ and the third student was a boy who identified as a girl (named in the letter as “K.E.M.”) who went to a different school. D.W. and K.E.M were told that they would share a bed‚ and that evening‚ when the students were in their room together‚ K.E.M. reportedly revealed to the girls that he is a boy who identified as a girl. “We were definitely not aware of that before we went on the trip‚” Serena Wailes told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. The mother shared that this young boy was presenting as a girl‚ wearing girls’ clothing‚ and had longer hair. Uncomfortable at the thought of sharing both a room and her bed with a boy‚ D.W. snuck into the bathroom and called her mother. Then she went downstairs and met her mom in the lobby to discuss the matter. Serena Wailes told The Daily Signal that her daughter was “terrified and really upset about the idea of sharing a bed with a biological boy—even though she had a good relationship with this other student.” “I was really upset‚” Serena Wailes told The Daily Signal. “One‚ I was really upset that she was put in that situation at 11 years old—I don’t feel that is fair to put kids in that kind of situation—and two‚ that we were not even given the information that this was a possibility before the trip. The whole time they’re saying‚ ‘Girls on one floor‚ boys on another‚ they’re not going to be in each other’s rooms unless it is pre-approved.’ So we’re going through this whole process‚ not even recognizing that this is a possibility.” Joe Wailes said that his wife called him from the hotel and filled him in about the situation. “I felt a bit helpless‚” he said. “I was 2‚000 miles away. My daughter is scared in a bathroom trying to get herself out of a situation. It was a frustrating experience‚ and I just really felt like it was not a situation my daughter should be put in.” School chaperones called one of the trip leaders‚ Principal Ryan Lucas‚ who called the boy’s parents‚ according to the letter: “K.E.M.’s parents confirmed their child’s transgender gender identity and that K.E.M. was to be in ‘stealth mode‚’ meaning students on the trip would not know about their child’s transgender status.” After a good deal of trouble‚ chaperones finally agreed to move the male student‚ with a different female student‚ to another room. “Throughout the entire evening‚ K.E.M.’s privacy and feelings were always the primary concern of JCPS employees‚” the letter said. “After JCPS disregarded D.W.’s privacy and the Waileses’ parental rights‚ JCPS then silenced D.W.‚ thus infringing on her freedom of speech‚ when a JCPS teacher told the three girls that they were not allowed to tell anyone that K.E.M. was transgender‚ even though K.E.M. voluntarily chose to share this information.” According to the demand letter‚ the school district’s policy is‚ “in most cases‚” to room students based on the gender they identify as‚ rather than their sex. The Wailes parents have two fourth-grade children registered to attend a trip to New York‚ Washington‚ and Philadelphia in 2024‚ and they emphasize in their letter that the district must clarify its policies for room assignments for students‚ as well as parental ability to opt their children out of sharing rooms with children of the opposite sex. “They want to make sure that every parent knows that this is a possibility and can have the opportunity to opt out or make the best decision for their kid‚” Kate Anderson‚ director of the Center for Parental Rights at Alliance Defending Freedom‚ told The Daily Signal. “But they also have two younger children that they want to make sure are not in the same situation that their older daughter was in.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post EXCLUSIVE: School Assigned Girl to Sleep With Boy Who Identifies as Trans Without Parental Notification appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court on Monday will consider the legality of OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement‚ which shields the Sackler family—who built a multibillion-dollar fortune from their ownership of the company—from facing lawsuits over their role in the opioid crisis. Their settlement‚ which the government called “exceptional and unprecedented” in its breadth‚ would have the Sacklers provide up to $6 billion to address the opioid crisis in exchange for immunity from future lawsuits. The family withdrew close to $11 billion from the company before filing for bankruptcy in 2019 in response to thousands of lawsuits stemming from their deceptive marketing downplaying the addictiveness of OxyContin‚ which encouraged doctors to prescribe the drug. After negotiations‚ all states agreed to the settlement‚ including eight who initially opposed it. The justices put the company’s plan on hold in August pending review. The question before the court is whether a bankruptcy settlement can legally release non-debtor third parties from liability without the consent of those making the claims. Sackler family members are no longer part of Purdue Pharma’s board‚ according to The New York Times. In its brief‚ the government argues that the settlement “allows the Sacklers to shield billions of dollars of their fortune while extinguishing‚ without payment‚ claims alleging trillions of dollars in damages.” “Equally troubling‚ it releases the Sacklers from claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers themselves had filed for bankruptcy‚” the brief continues. In May‚ the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the plan earlier approved by the bankruptcy court. “Bankruptcy is inherently a creature of competing interests‚ compromises‚ and less-than-perfect outcomes‚” the court wrote. “Because of these defining characteristics‚ total satisfaction of all that is owed—whether in money or in justice—rarely occurs. When a bankruptcy is the result of mass tort litigation against the debtor‚ the complexities are magnified because the debts owed are wide-ranging and the harm caused goes beyond the financial. That is the circumstance here.” Nearly 247‚000 people died from overdoses on prescription opioid between 1999 and 2019‚ according to court documents. Purdue Pharma did not conduct any studies about OxyContin’s addictiveness prior to its approval‚ according to The New Yorker. A 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation review of grants awarded by Sackler affiliated charities—which provide substantial funding to the arts‚ humanities‚ and sciences—failed to find a single donation to an organization combating the opioid crisis. Opioid prescriptions increased in 1996 after Purdue launched a campaign that started to convince doctors the drug was a safe treatment for chronic pain. Purdue Pharma plead guilty to criminal charges in 2007 and 2020 relating to its misleading marketing of OxyContin. Ellen Isaacs‚ whose son died of an opioid overdose‚ opposed the settlement in a brief filed with the Supreme Court that characterizes the Sacklers as “the billionaire masterminds behind a criminal enterprise that caused a national tragedy.” “The Sackler releases are special protection for billionaires‚” her lawyer wrote. “That ugly fact is true.” Other victims‚ however‚ are not so ready to reject the arrangement. A brief filed on behalf of individuals who were themselves impacted or had a family member impacted by opioid addiction asks the court to account for their “urgent” need for funds. “No amount of money can bring back a beloved family member lost to addiction or undo the traumas routinely caused by opioid addiction‚” the brief states. “The confirmed reorganization plan‚ however‚ is needed—and needed now—to provide monetary relief to long-suffering victims of the opioid epidemic—and also to prevent more families and communities from suffering the same fate.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post ‘Special Protection for Billionaires’? SCOTUS to Consider Settlement That Shields Sackler Family From Opioid Lawsuits appeared first on The Daily Signal.