The be quite bratwurst, Robert Fagles' translation of The Odyssey is hilarious, and that's unexpected. I rather thought the epic would be heavy, wordy, and dry (I know some people like that. ...). While it is quite wordy, being circa 400 pages long, it's easy to read and enjoy. It's not just Fagles, of course: Homer penned the work, and how he chose to do it is interesting.
In the first book of The Odyssey, Homer takes a personal look at the gods' interests and their inclusion in everyday life. They choose favorites--Athena openly shows her affection for Odysseus, and Zeus speaks on the traveler's great qualities. Athena also likes his son, and she visits Telemachus in the first book of The Odyssey. He is attached to his name and his family, and is enraged with Penelope's suitors. She, in turn, is distressed with their unwelcome advances. Athena shows her support for the whole family.
However, no where in the first book do readers even meet Odysseus. It merely sets the stage for his infamous tale; it is the exposition, the precursor to hearing of the odyssey. Being a poet and perhaps a performer, maybe Homer wrote it this way--briefly outlining Odysseus' tale through Athena--to capture the attention of his ancient audiences.
It's difficult to imagine the epic as it would have been performed, and also astounding, as it's so very long. At first I wondered if audiences would have been amused, as I am, but I recalled that The Odyssey is fraught with drama and would have been taken very seriously: Athena's pride, Zeus' favor, Telemachus' anger, Penelope's grief. It's serious business.
Here are some ramblings of a Friday night....
ReplyDeleteIf the first book merely sets the stage to the odyssey would the order of things in the book then show how the Greeks thought one's background was important before knowing the person?
This thought spirals, for me, into the idea that you need to know the background of someone before you decide to associate with them. Granted this idea is not really implicit in my question or even in looking at the rest of the book. --I have not read it in a while and can't even remember if I read the same translator--. My mind leans toward that because I heard it a lot from some older ladies that were trying to give me advice on who to associate/date.
The little that I know of the Greeks it could mean that they deem (sp?) their background heritage as a very important. I am the son of so and so who did this and such thing.
I would also think that this type of intro. of sorts would not only connect us more to Penelope and Telemachus, who we see a lot more of towards the end of the book. It sets the scene for the end of the story, but it also pulls us in and connects us with Odyssey's background, so we can feel that much closer to Odyssey when he appears in the next book and understand better to what he is striving to return to at the end of his journey.
I vaguely recall Dr. Jackson touching on the reason for this in class, but it has been quite a few years and those classes were at 8 in the morning. I would have to go back to my notes and read them to remember fully his comments.
Hey, that makes sense. When Homer talks about people, he often says 'Thisman, son of Hisbossfather,' or something quite similar. In the later books, when Odysseus meets Nausicaa, the Phaeacian princess, Athena tells him of her family history. I think because of the stranger-ness of everyone's situation (in that, while traveling, they have to rely on strangers and their hospitality, because there was no room in the inn, or, indeed, any inn at all), they like to know histories of people. Most likely this was faccurate in Homer's time, which could be why he felt the need to show that background story. You also make a good point in that it shows us who Odysseus wants to return to--they aren't figments of his imagination; having read about them, they are real to readers, and we know that Penelope is beautiful and wise, and that li'l Telemachus is truly, as they say, 'his father's son' (which is a ridiculous phrase).
ReplyDelete(Sorry my sentences are so complex.)
I think the idea of needing to know someone's background before you associate with them really varies by the person. Also, sometimes you can't know that before you associate with them, therefore the notion would be void--you need to talk to them, but you can choose to continue that relationship once you discover it. However, just going by history would be using poor judgment; a woman might have been a drug addict and is now healthy and reformed and really likes Star Wars and knows the catechism by heart. If you would just say, "Wow, she used to be a drug addict, and her mom was too, so I can't be friends with her," that would be retarded. She sounds awesome.
I'm not saying you do that. I'm just clarifying on a topic with which I'm sure you are familiar.
Hey!
ReplyDelete1) This story starts more or less in the middle. The literary latin term for that is in medius res (in the middle of the thing). If I was writing a test, that would be on the test.
Homer does that so that you get more drawn into, INSIDE, the story. You're not just an observer of Odysseus, but now you're experiencing his life and return home in the same way that his family might be experiencing it. It draws you in.
2) Another ancient world thing, that should actually be a now-world thing, because it just might be an always-for-all-people thing that we mostly ignore. When people introduce themselves, they say three things:
a) their name,
b) who their parents are,
c) where they're from.
Why? because those three things help make up who you are. Your name is your reputation (good/bad/ugly), your parents have reputations too (good/bad/ugly), and where you're from, the place you come from also has lots of people who just might have a collective reputation too (awesome/not-awesome). All of those things contribute to their understanding of who a person is and how you can get to know them.
If, for example, Ithica gets a bad reputation because they're being hospitable, people might start to disrespect you for being from Ithica. Etc.
What do most people use today to determine who someone is and what they're like? Are either of these options the right way to figure out someone's character?
1) i know, man. i was just confused at first. a lot of stories do that.
ReplyDelete2) well, what if you're a nice person from Ithaca, and then all the rest of them are jerks? maybe you shouldn't base your opinion about them on where they're from. although i guess we do that if someone is from the ghetto. so i'm pickin' up what you're layin' down.
today it seems like they use their appearance. i would inject a quote from pride and prejudice right here, about conversation, but i don't remember it... but basically... conversation seems like the best way.
2) yeah, there are weird people who are mean from generally nice places. They didn't really think of it in terms of "nice" or "not." ...more like "AWESOME" or "not."
ReplyDelete