Troy Story 2: Electric Boogaloo

When we talk about the works of Homer, Aeschylus, and Virgil, we usually talk about them in the context of individual books. But when we pan out and view them from a distance, it becomes clear that each individual book is part of the same story, the difference between them being the context in which we view the story.

The Iliad begins with an up close and personal view of the beginning of the rift between Achilles and Agamemnon: A rift that moved gods and men and turned the tide of the war. We're getting to see the Trojan war, yes, but we're viewing it through the context of Achilles' actions and the effect he had on it.

Next, the Odyssey. As we follow Telemachus and Odysseus around the Mediterranean, we learn through their eyes and ears more about this world and the characters in it. In Agamemnon's part of the Oresteia, we find more clues. The tape rewinds, and we expound upon a part of the narrative that had been glossed over in the last story.

Hundreds of years later, Virgil dusts off the old epic and gets out paper and pen. This time we rewind almost back to the beginning and we see the aftermath of Troy from the perspective of Aeneas and the Trojans.


When else in history has this phenomenon occurred? What other examples do we have of different authors and different mediums joining together through time and space to create a single narrative that has imprinted itself into our culture? I think it’s special how The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Oresteia, and The Aeneid form Voltron an interconnected web of people and events that make up a part of a much larger story.

Ruminations on This Week's Conversation

On the gods…

There were some interesting posts and comments about the role of the gods on the blog this week. One of the more interesting threads questioned how much credit for heroism was actually due to Odysseus and Achilles, given how much help they receive from their godly champions. (When you think of it, shouldn’t we rank Hector’s fame actually higher, given that he achieved his feats largely despite the ill-favor of key gods and goddesses?)

Maybe the way to look at it is through our own experience of bravery, luck, and heroism. When something profound or amazing happens, what do we say? You win the lottery: God was smiling on me today. A child survives a deadly illness: Her guardian angel never left her side. Someone survives a should-have-been fatal crash: Jesus took the wheel. Did they? Well, maybe. But did anyone actually see that? Or was it luck, resilience, quick reflexes? Maybe yes, maybe no. It is an ancient human response to extraordinary fortune or acts of prowess in defeat or victory to see an unseen hand in those events.

But here's the key point: Do we think any less of the bravery or strength or persistence of these hometown heroes and survivors because we suspect they had an angel on their team? I think it was no more different for the Greeks of Homer's time than it is for us in our modern time.


The question of Odysseus’ culpability in the loss of his men…

So many of you have voiced exasperation at Odysseus as a leader—maybe especially for his seeming utter inability to bypass any island or country his ships come across in their voyage home to Ithaca—that I thought it made sense to address this issue here. And you are not wrong about it! Odysseus’ behavior certainly comports with the personality traits for which he is famous: an abiding curiosity about the world, coupled with a deep-seated drive to know all that can be known and experience all that can be experienced. But: that’s not all there is to it.

Knowledge of the shores and islands and waters of the Mediterranean is  indispensable for the sailor. And the most reliable knowledge is that gained from personal observation and exploration. Let’s remember, too, that ships had to stop frequently on long journeys to take on fresh water and replenish food supplies. Most of the times when Odysseus and his men make landfall, it is because they are damaged, having been battered by some storm and in need maintenance, or hungry and in dire need of replenishing their stores. So it’s not all for the adventure of new lands and peoples, though it's that, too...



Cheating on Penelope?

Well yeah, but. Do not underestimate just how formidable a demigoddess can be, either in her powers of seduction or in her powers to completely mess you up long-term if you cross her. No less than male gods, they are dangerous, unpredictable beings, however beautiful. Odysseus’ bondage to Círcë and later Calýpso is not just sexual: his crew are essentially hostages, whose lives depend on how happy he makes his beguiling captors. Only more important and powerful gods, intervening at Athena's request, can finally break their spell and set him free.

I'm not saying it was exactly torture for poor Odysseus, but, in the end, as we see him weeping beside the seashore on Calýpso's fragrant, wafty isle, we realize the end he has reached: these goddesses are not his wife, and their islands are not his home...

Achilles versus Hector: Who Really Wins?

Whenever you read and/or analyze The Iliad, one of the biggest and most prevalent points to talk about is the relationship formed between Achilles and Hector.  Though most would argue that Achilles is our hero and protagonist, I am here to ask the question: is he really?

When you look at these two characters, you will find that they have a lot more in common that what one would initially think.  They are both leaders, strong willed, and want to lead their armies to success. Though their differences are far more evident, they ultimately want the same things.  So what makes one a hero over the other?

Hector is far more mature than Achilles, and leads his men with a sharp mind.  He is courageous and has a lot at stake. He is not only fighting for his kingdom, but for his family and companions as well.  He seems to keep everyone in mind, and is far from egotistical.

Achilles, on the other hand, is a true man of war.  He has a lot of skills and really takes pleasure in watching his enemies suffer/die.  In addition to this, he gets away with a lot more with the gods. While the gods help out on both sides, it is obvious which “person” they favor.  Achilles only seems to car about himself, and his power truly does go to his head.

Ultimately, I find these characters to be fascinating, and I do think that Hector is more of a hero than Achilles.  These are just my surface-level thoughts regarding this issue, but I want to know what you guys think of this.

Here are my questions:

1.) Do you agree or disagree with my opinion?  Who would you deem as being the “hero” of the story?

2.) Is being a hero more based on strength and courage or wit and intellect?

3.) How do you think the gods influenced the path the story took?  Would there have been a different outcome if they had not been directly involved?

Are we all just pawns??

This post will be about book 6 of the Illiad, which I found particularly interesting. 

While reading the Illiad, I couldn't help but feel powerless. It seemed as though all actions and events were done by the gods in some way. For example, in book 6, Diomedes in wounded and prays to Athena for revenge. Athena then grants him SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH. He then goes around slaughtering everyone including the man who hurt him prior, Pandarus. Later, he wounds Aphrodite and then Apollo! This was a big uh-oh. Apollo shows Diomedes mercy but then out of retaliation urges the God of war Ares to fight on the Trojan side. Which leads me to my next talking point, are any mortals worthy of wielding the power of a god without messing things up? 

Later Hera and Athena go to Zeus to get permission to intervene on the side of the Archaens. 

This book truly made me wonder if this extremely long and taxing war is just a playground for the gods. It almost seems like a form of entertainment for them, like a play. Although humans have free will, they almost always ask/sacrifice to the gods for advice and help. Even when a human decides to do something, it seems as though a God can shut it down with the snap of a finger; all while able to be wooed, wounded and tricked by the mortals! This back and forth of power by Homer is intriguing to me. Let me know your thoughts!

(Also, I apologize for the tardy post. I added this class late and the permission email to enter this blog found its way into my spam folder) Also enjoy this horrible graphic I made with powerpoint haha

Storytelling: Better than Reading?

      

I used to think that reading was amazing, and I often preferred it to listening or watching. However, I have learned that we lose so much when we communicate alone. Books, films, and online communication are useful, but I think they only give us a glimpse of what it is like to interact face-to-face. As I read The Iliad, I found a few characteristics that seemed a bit odd to find in a written text. But they made more sense when I considered them in light of a face-to-face storytelling culture.

Practical detail: Often, Homer thoroughly describes what the characters are physically doing. In Book 16 there is more than ample description of the battles. In Book 24 there is a section that describes step-by-step how Priam’s sons prepare his cargo wagon for the trip. This detail seems excessive and boring for a written narrative, but from the perspective of storytelling, it appears to have more purpose. What would it be like to experience these (seemingly boring) descriptions through a real person, one we can see, hear, and respond to? 

Metaphors and similes: As we have discussed in class, there are many comparisons throughout the text. Homer compares characters and events to stars, snakes, eagles, hawks, hounds, trees, and war events. He even commands us (in second person) to think about the strokes of woodcutters as a metaphor. Some of these metaphors take a large chunk of text to describe. They slow down the pace of the reading, allowing listeners to slowly and fully experience the tale. There seems to be less an emphasis on plot and more on an attempt to feel and understand each small event, something a storyteller would prioritize. It’s slower, descriptive, and more life-like.

Clarification of identity: Another odd characteristic is Homer’s constant reminders of characters’ identities and relationships. When first reading, I tried to write down all of the names and relationships in order to keep them straight, but I soon realized that Homer often repeats these details for us. With multiple reminders, a reader – and even more importantly, a listener – doesn’t have to work too hard to remember the core relationships. The Homeric epithets add to this too. By the end of even just a couple of The Iliad’s books, we can have no doubt that Athena has white arms and Achilles is a fast runner. Perhaps this clarification is a tool that storytellers used for themselves and their listeners as they performed. 

What purpose do these characteristics serve in The Iliad? If you were to tell a story orally (even a short one), would you find that these characteristics make more sense when there is an active audience in mind?

The Iliad

For my blog post I am going to be focusing on the last part that we read, which would be book 24.

We begin this book with Achilles crying over the loss of his friend. Achilles in in such a rage that he takes Hector's dead body and attaches it to the back of his chariot. Now not only does he attach Hector's body to his chariot, he proceeds to drag it around. To me that set off some red flags for me that he may be a little crazy. The gods were obviously very upset over this, so they put a spell like thing on his body so it would not be damaged during Achilles little outburst.

For me I think there is something wrong in the head with Achilles. I know we all get upset and grieve in our different ways when we lose someone close to us. I think what Achilles did was a bit extreme in my opinion. The fact that he attached a dead body to the back of a chariot just shows that obviously this guy has some mental Issues going on.

 I hope I am not the only one in this class that thinks something is wrong with him. Also I do not think that what he did was socially acceptable back then either, considering that the Gods were very upset with him trying to ruin Hector’s body.