I've made my way through two different versions of this post before discarding most of the content and starting over. What happened was, I finished watching Crime Scene Zero, had mostly negative reactions and wrote that up, then started rewatching Crime Scene from season 1 and realized that hey, season 1 was not that great either so my feelings must be biased due to nostalgia goggles, but then I went through my favourites of season 2 and recalibrated again so here we are.

My most recent simplified conclusion is that Crime Scene Zero was fine overall, as I really enjoyed two episodes, was mostly positive on one, and didn't like two. (For reasons to get into shortly.) This seemed like a bad ratio until I rewatched bits of seasons 1 and 2, and realized that because those seasons had 10 and 13 cases each, compared to Zero's 5 cases, they FELT better because there were more cases I enjoyed, when the actual ratio of % per season enjoyed is similar to Returns and Zero.

Important to note that BOOOOOO, Hong Jin-ho didn't come back AT ALL, for either Return or Zero. He was an original cast member! Jin-ho, why! He probably has reasons, but I am still sad. But to my surprise, he has been in multiple episodes of Running Man, which I stopped watching ages ago, so maybe I'll.... find those..... maybe. I would've thought that Running Man isn't his style, but what do I know about the vagaries of reality TV celebs.

( Haha I got thoughts. )

I read Sarah B. Pomeroy's Goddesses, Whores, Wives & Slaves, which explores what daily life was for women of classical Greece and Republic Rome based on the thin historical record, plays, poetry and so on, for the purpose of illuminating an otherwise ignored or invisible faction of society. What rights did they have or not have, how were they viewed by and treated by the men who had power over them, what were the gender essentialist turned institutional mechanisms used to control them, and so on. Pomeroy argues that evolution towards increasing freedoms isn't a-given, with her analysis that ancient Greece had more freedoms for women, then a tightening of those freedoms after wartime and a reduction of the male population, then more relaxation of freedoms into the Hellenistic era.

I admit, although the topic itself is interesting to me, I found the prose hella dry and the style tough to get through at points. But then I realized that the book was published in 1975, during a very different time of historical scholarship! I still find it dry and heavy-handed in places, but I can appreciate the groundbreaking feminist view of analysis, and the necessity of spelling things out clearly in order to argue against common perception of the time, even if it's tiresome to read now. Particularly enjoyed Pomeroy mentioning her male historian predecessors who made assumptions about women's attitudes back then due to the societal blinders they had about the women of their own time (eg. assuming women are happy with their lot).

One thing I will take away from the book with the glee is the description of how in ancient Athens, high class women were kept secluded at home and away from the eyes of men who weren't family, with exceptions to go outside behind a veil. That is... the purdah. Ancient Athens, birthplace of the modern concept of democracy, practised the purdah, the same way medieval Arabia did. (Low class women and slaves were allowed to go about freely without the veil, same as in medival Arabia.) That's rather funny, I think!