What do you think?
Rate this book
Enraged: Why Violent Times Need Ancient Greek Myths
An examination of remedies for violent rage rediscovered in ancient Greek myths
Millennia ago, Greek myths exposed the dangers of violent rage and the need for empathy and self-restraint. Homer’s Iliad , Euripides’ Hecuba , and Sophocles’ Ajax show that anger and vengeance destroy perpetrators and victims alike. Composed before and during the ancient Greeks’ groundbreaking movement away from autocracy toward more inclusive political participation, these stories offer guidelines for modern efforts to create and maintain civil societies. Emily Katz Anhalt reveals how these three masterworks of classical Greek literature can teach us, as they taught the ancient Greeks, to recognize violent revenge as a marker of illogical thinking and poor leadership. These time-honored texts emphasize the costs of our dangerous penchant for glorifying violent rage and those who would indulge in it. By promoting compassion, rational thought, and debate, Greek myths help to arm us against the tyrants we might serve and the tyrants we might become.
Millennia ago, Greek myths exposed the dangers of violent rage and the need for empathy and self-restraint. Homer’s Iliad , Euripides’ Hecuba , and Sophocles’ Ajax show that anger and vengeance destroy perpetrators and victims alike. Composed before and during the ancient Greeks’ groundbreaking movement away from autocracy toward more inclusive political participation, these stories offer guidelines for modern efforts to create and maintain civil societies. Emily Katz Anhalt reveals how these three masterworks of classical Greek literature can teach us, as they taught the ancient Greeks, to recognize violent revenge as a marker of illogical thinking and poor leadership. These time-honored texts emphasize the costs of our dangerous penchant for glorifying violent rage and those who would indulge in it. By promoting compassion, rational thought, and debate, Greek myths help to arm us against the tyrants we might serve and the tyrants we might become.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published August 22, 2017
36 people are currently reading
437 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
January 5, 2018
This is an innovative and timely book. Prof. Anhalt keeps her scope narrowed by focusing only on Homer's Iliad, Sophocles's Ajax, and Euripides's Hecuba in the hopes of finding ancient wisdom for our troubled modern world. Her questions are well-chosen: Is vengeance justice? Must we dehumanize our enemies? What if the majority chooses unwisely in a democratic country? What if? Quite timely, Professor! She notes that Homer started the conversation, the 5thc Athenian playwrights continued it, and all 3 authors invite us to be the best versions of ourselves or to become "aristoi" as the Greeks would term it. For me, the best part of this book was the beginning of each chapter when she retold the tales. Her translations of the scenes from Homer, Sophocles, and Euripides were even more delightful than her reflections on them. At various points in those translations, she engages the reader in the 2nd person ("You are appalled" by Ajax's actions; "You see" that Odysseus is a resourceful speaker; when Achilles refuses Hector's request, this "convinces you" that his humanity has been compromised) and I really enjoyed that. If you make your living trying to convince people that the Greeks and Romans are still relevant to the 21st century--and I do--then this is a thought-provoking read. Recommended.
May 27, 2020
"Rage," famously, is the very first word in Western literature. That is, it is the first word of the Iliad, with which Western literature begins. And fittingly, Anhalt seems to argue, it begins the Ancient Greek and thus Western obsession with rage, with what it means, how it affects us, and how we ought to deal with it. She argues persuasively that the Homeric tradition that has come down to us is a cautionary tale against indulging in rage - it is, after all, the tragic flaw that drives the Iliad and undoes the humanity of Achilles - but so seductive is the human urge to indulge anger that it was possible for even the Ancient Greeks (and so many since) to mis-read Homer as glorifying the very horrors of war against which the tradition was writing. Examples drawn from subsequent Greek tragedies (like the Ajax of Sophocles and the Hecuba of Euripides) look more closely at the dangers of indulging rage as it relates to democratic decision-making and abuse of power (especially in democratic societies), respectively. This is great and powerful stuff, and we ignore it at our peril! The parallels to modern events are all too striking, including the messages encoded in Ancient Greek tragedy - entertainment with an agenda - to the democratic audience of Athens that was tacitly accepting corruption and abuse of power in government, atrocities committed on behalf of the state, etc. In some ways, a very timely book.
June 20, 2024
As a fan of Greek myths and political theory, I was initially very excited to read this book. However, I only got about halfway through this book and was just too annoyed with it to finish it. I'm a bit surprised by its high reviews because most of the time I was reading it, I was just thinking about how bad it is. I have 4 main critiques which were recurring throughout the book and really detracted from my enjoyment of it.
First, and this is admittedly a pretty minor point, Anhalt provides summaries of specific scenes from the stories being discussed at the beginning of each chapter, but I found them to be poorly written. These summaries are written in an awkward second-person POV. For example, "Suddenly, the narrator intrudes, speculating that Zeus must have taken away Glaucus's sense for the moment, since he gave up gold armor for bronze, gold armor being almost ten times as costly as bronze. But you might not agree. Bronze is much stronger than gold. In battle, which is really the more valuable metal? You might even begin to consider what exactly makes something valuable. Is it just what people say? Or are there objective standards of usefulness?" (p.32) If Anhalt believes that the purpose of this scene is to get us to disagree with the narrator's assessment, I would rather she just come out and say that as opposed to couching it in this awkward second person POV. The dialogue in these sections can also be pretty bad and it sometimes reads like teen angst.
Second, and this one is a personal pet-peeve of mine, it plays into the Great Myth of the West and of Western Exceptionalism. For instance, Anhalt says that "Ancient Greek culture demands our attention, despite its exclusions, because it initiated, although it never achieved, a movement toward individual autonomy and universal human rights that we ourselves have yet to accomplish" (p. 6). As such, Anhalt celebrates "the crucial role that ancient Greek myths played in the development of Western culture" (p.6). She also says that "They put the ball in play, so to speak. We have yet to score the goal" (p. 12). There are 2 issues with this belief. First, it retroactively seeks to apply a modern ethical framework (human rights) backwards onto a society which never subscribed to nor developed it. The second issue is that it homogenizes thousands of years of history and hundreds of different societies into one monolith called the West which has (supposedly) been consistently working towards one goal. Does it make sense to argue that Greek culture initiated the movement towards towards personal autonomy when, for the vast majority of its history, Greece was ruled by oligarchs and monarchs? Athenian democracy lasted only about 150 years (if we are being generous) and was a relatively brief flash in the pan compared to the Archaic Age and the Hellenistic ages of Greece. It was also not a reflection of other Greek poleis at the time. There is also the issue that she is arguing that Greek myths are an antidote to violence when Athenians were massive imperialists and much of their cultural achievement were, at least indirectly, the result of their imperialism. If anything, Ancient Greek culture has played a regressive role in attempts to achieve universal human rights. For instance, consider Aristotle's belief that women were incomplete men or his justification of slavery. There is also the fact that much of ancient Greek philosophy was dedicated to outlining the harms of democracy (e.g., Plato's Ship of State metaphor) and that democracy was a dirty word for much of the West's history. But Anhalt brushes away such concerns and just seeks to create a unifying narrative in which the US is the successor to Ancient Athens, saying that "no other democracy appeared anywhere in the world until our own republic in the eighteenth century" (p. 194). This is typical American parochialism and woefully outdated in the 21st century. If the goal of this book is to make the classics relevant to modern times, you need to address these issues rather than perpetuating the same tired and harmful myths.
This mythologized homogenization leads into the third issue which is that Anhalt consistently argues for there to be only one correct interpretation of the stories, only one set of messages or values which can be gleamed from them. For instance, she argues that "Hector's tale illustrates the consequences of opting to honor talents that will ultimately prove self-destructive. The Iliad confronts its audience (any audience, not merely a modern one with egalitarian, humanistic sensibilities) with the responsibility to reassess the conviction that the capacity for violence deserves the highest honors that the community can confer" (p.50). She also says that "Hector cannot see the problem [with this system], but the audience must" (p. 48). However, this is clearly not how it was read by ancient audiences, at least in some cases. Alexander the Great, for instance, was famously inspired by the Iliad and sought to model himself like Achilles and went on to conquer vast parts of the world. So, if the Iliad is critiquing this structure, like Anhalt believes, this critique was clearly missed by some audiences. Many of these sections (especially around the Iliad) read like 21st century apologia. She seems to argues that Homer was critical of these ideals, but that was never my reading of the text and it clearly wasn't the reading of other people at the time.
This issue of trying to argue for one universal interpretation of the text is also related to my fourth issue with the book which is that it seems hypocritical in that it advocates for a liberal reading of the text while accusing other readings as being politically motivated. Anhalt says that "Scholars at extremes of the political spectrum often criticize one another for appropriating the ancient texts to serve their own political and/or social agenda" (p. 5). However, in trying to universalize her liberal reading of the text, she is doing the exact thing that she criticizes 'scholars at extremes of the political spectrum' of doing. This book reads very much as a rejection of Trumpism in favour of an embrace of liberal values like universal human rights, individual autonomy, and the lessons she discusses in her book. Rather than recognizing and reckoning with these biases, Anhalt instead seems to see any other interpretation as politically motivated while her own is simply a logical reading of the texts. The fact she does not see or recognize this was incredibly frustrating to me. These various issues were recurring throughout the text and were a major part of the framing her argument. As such, I found it very difficult to enjoy the text as it struck me as very superficial and outdated.
First, and this is admittedly a pretty minor point, Anhalt provides summaries of specific scenes from the stories being discussed at the beginning of each chapter, but I found them to be poorly written. These summaries are written in an awkward second-person POV. For example, "Suddenly, the narrator intrudes, speculating that Zeus must have taken away Glaucus's sense for the moment, since he gave up gold armor for bronze, gold armor being almost ten times as costly as bronze. But you might not agree. Bronze is much stronger than gold. In battle, which is really the more valuable metal? You might even begin to consider what exactly makes something valuable. Is it just what people say? Or are there objective standards of usefulness?" (p.32) If Anhalt believes that the purpose of this scene is to get us to disagree with the narrator's assessment, I would rather she just come out and say that as opposed to couching it in this awkward second person POV. The dialogue in these sections can also be pretty bad and it sometimes reads like teen angst.
Second, and this one is a personal pet-peeve of mine, it plays into the Great Myth of the West and of Western Exceptionalism. For instance, Anhalt says that "Ancient Greek culture demands our attention, despite its exclusions, because it initiated, although it never achieved, a movement toward individual autonomy and universal human rights that we ourselves have yet to accomplish" (p. 6). As such, Anhalt celebrates "the crucial role that ancient Greek myths played in the development of Western culture" (p.6). She also says that "They put the ball in play, so to speak. We have yet to score the goal" (p. 12). There are 2 issues with this belief. First, it retroactively seeks to apply a modern ethical framework (human rights) backwards onto a society which never subscribed to nor developed it. The second issue is that it homogenizes thousands of years of history and hundreds of different societies into one monolith called the West which has (supposedly) been consistently working towards one goal. Does it make sense to argue that Greek culture initiated the movement towards towards personal autonomy when, for the vast majority of its history, Greece was ruled by oligarchs and monarchs? Athenian democracy lasted only about 150 years (if we are being generous) and was a relatively brief flash in the pan compared to the Archaic Age and the Hellenistic ages of Greece. It was also not a reflection of other Greek poleis at the time. There is also the issue that she is arguing that Greek myths are an antidote to violence when Athenians were massive imperialists and much of their cultural achievement were, at least indirectly, the result of their imperialism. If anything, Ancient Greek culture has played a regressive role in attempts to achieve universal human rights. For instance, consider Aristotle's belief that women were incomplete men or his justification of slavery. There is also the fact that much of ancient Greek philosophy was dedicated to outlining the harms of democracy (e.g., Plato's Ship of State metaphor) and that democracy was a dirty word for much of the West's history. But Anhalt brushes away such concerns and just seeks to create a unifying narrative in which the US is the successor to Ancient Athens, saying that "no other democracy appeared anywhere in the world until our own republic in the eighteenth century" (p. 194). This is typical American parochialism and woefully outdated in the 21st century. If the goal of this book is to make the classics relevant to modern times, you need to address these issues rather than perpetuating the same tired and harmful myths.
This mythologized homogenization leads into the third issue which is that Anhalt consistently argues for there to be only one correct interpretation of the stories, only one set of messages or values which can be gleamed from them. For instance, she argues that "Hector's tale illustrates the consequences of opting to honor talents that will ultimately prove self-destructive. The Iliad confronts its audience (any audience, not merely a modern one with egalitarian, humanistic sensibilities) with the responsibility to reassess the conviction that the capacity for violence deserves the highest honors that the community can confer" (p.50). She also says that "Hector cannot see the problem [with this system], but the audience must" (p. 48). However, this is clearly not how it was read by ancient audiences, at least in some cases. Alexander the Great, for instance, was famously inspired by the Iliad and sought to model himself like Achilles and went on to conquer vast parts of the world. So, if the Iliad is critiquing this structure, like Anhalt believes, this critique was clearly missed by some audiences. Many of these sections (especially around the Iliad) read like 21st century apologia. She seems to argues that Homer was critical of these ideals, but that was never my reading of the text and it clearly wasn't the reading of other people at the time.
This issue of trying to argue for one universal interpretation of the text is also related to my fourth issue with the book which is that it seems hypocritical in that it advocates for a liberal reading of the text while accusing other readings as being politically motivated. Anhalt says that "Scholars at extremes of the political spectrum often criticize one another for appropriating the ancient texts to serve their own political and/or social agenda" (p. 5). However, in trying to universalize her liberal reading of the text, she is doing the exact thing that she criticizes 'scholars at extremes of the political spectrum' of doing. This book reads very much as a rejection of Trumpism in favour of an embrace of liberal values like universal human rights, individual autonomy, and the lessons she discusses in her book. Rather than recognizing and reckoning with these biases, Anhalt instead seems to see any other interpretation as politically motivated while her own is simply a logical reading of the texts. The fact she does not see or recognize this was incredibly frustrating to me. These various issues were recurring throughout the text and were a major part of the framing her argument. As such, I found it very difficult to enjoy the text as it struck me as very superficial and outdated.
December 4, 2019
Main thesis: Greek myths played a vital role in challenging the celebration of violent rage and in cultivating values and skills essential to rational, humane, compassionate relationships.
The narrative of the Iliad exposes the inadequacy of violent revenge and hints that empathy better serves an individual's self-interest. Human vulnerability to suffering and death makes moral behavior among mortals both necessary and possible.
[...] paradoxically, to challenge democratic values with verbal argument is to affirm them.
In emphasizing the role of human choices from the outset, the Ilaid begins by exposing the problem that rage poses for the community. Western civilization thus begins with the problem of passion, specifically the problem of anger, lust and ambition.
By showing us the causes and consequences of anger, lust and ambition, the Iliad compels us to consider what qualities we require in a leader and what attributes we must cultivate in ourselves.
Intervening in the narrative as hector races towards his city, the exchange between Diomedes and Glaucus reminds the audience that the decision to honor one's obligations require conversation, judgement and choice.
Succes and power may be transitory. Self-restraint and compassion in times of victory and succes could be a good idea.
Prioritizing his own honor, Agamemnon remains an ineffective and self-defeating leader. Achilles' refusal to compromise his own principles proves dire for his people.
Homer's characters value the ability to use words effectively. In defining, honoring, and preserving human achievements, stories are far more durable than other human constructions.
In memorializing human achievement and transcending the limits of individual human lifetimes, the Ilaid promotes an interdependence between the individual ad the community.
Eating, sleeping, these normal human activites mark Achilles' return to humanity. Achilles understood that suffering unites him and Priam as human beings. The narrative enables the audience to see the deaths of defeated warriors as sad and wasteful. In discovering the value of empathy, Achilles does not intuit a new standard of 'bestness'. Rather, he corroborates an ideal implicit in the narrative all along. The Iliads characters celebrate warfare as the finest human achievement, the narrative does not. The Iliads detailed account of the horrors of war is also a critique of the morality of warfare and a celebration of the value of each individual human life.
The intensity of rage prevents Achilles from pursuing his insight to its logical conclusion. the thought of the grief of his own losses does not permit Achilles to think of the future grief of the parents of his intended victims. The passion for vengeance robs Achilles of his human attributes.
Greek has two words that can be translated as 'glory': kudos (the glory that the gods bestow) and kleos (the glory that human beings comfer). Achilles' bloody pursuit of kudos make the audience question whether his behavior deserves human approval.
Agreement, love, oaths are features of human society, consequences of the human capacity for verbal communication. The desire for vengeance, by making these all impossible, has made Achilles not merely bestial but monstrous.
The funeral games for Patroclus enable Achilles to reestablish his leadership role (reassertion of his political power). Achilles finally derives comfort from the capacities that he shares not with gods but with all human beings: the capacity to suffer and the capacity to make moral choices. Achilles suddenly recognizes sorrow as the crucial component separating hum beings from gods.
By giving the audience a perspective different from that of it's characters, the Iliad permits us to assess the characters' values and to consider other possibilities.
Greek myth originates in a spirit of critical self-reflection. By devaluing rage and promoting empathy as a mre therapeutic alternative, the Iliad reveals the possibility that verbal debate might replace physical combat.
Agamemnon cannot see the connection between self-interest and compassion.
The tragedies encouraged reassessment not only of old ideas but also of new ones. Athenian tragedies continued to develop the audience's ability, as individuals, to make rational moral judgements.
Sophocles' Ajax (448 BCE) warns against overconfidence in the ability of democratic institutions to restrain the passion for violent revenge. A democratic voting process cannot be the whole answer.
Ajax denies the validity of the voting process. Ajax' rage and suicide reveal the fundamental opposition between traditional archaic values and democratic procedures.
For ancient Greeks, the opposite of hybris was not humility, but sophrosune (prudence, moderation, wisdom, self-restraint).
Sophocles also shows that Ajax's inability to change or to evolve is completely self-destructive.
Unjust democratic decisions can violate individual rights and fracture communities. They may produce rather than prevent injustice and conflict.
Following Ajax's death, the play exposes the double nature of moral flexibility.
Teucrus reduces justice to a commercial transaction: look what Ajax did for you: you owe him.
Tecmessa's suggestion, that Ajax is worthy of lamentation, even from his enemies, directly contradicts the traditional archaic value system that commends not grief at the destruction of an enemy, but laughter and exultation.
The Ajax directly criticizes laugther at someone else's suffering.
Ajax has based his whole life on the absolute distinction of friend from enemy and the moral obligations this entails.
Odysseus' compassion derives from a farsighted understanding of his own self-interest.
By exploiting both the destructive and the constructive potential of persuasive argument, Odysseus shows that democratic procedures require some flexibility on questions of right and wrong, but that moral flexibility also must include and defend some absolute standards of justice and humanity. Without these, moral flexibility risks doing more harm than good.
In its portrait of rage, Euripides' Hecuba (ca. 425 BCE) exposes the consequences of people in power failing to respect any obligation towards the powerless.
Hecuba epitomizes the impermanence of fortune.
In the Hecuba the characters continue to attribute to Chance (Tyche) the gods, or Luck, things that the audience recognizes results from free choice.
The chorus conclude by blaming the cruelty of Ananke (Necessity), but since human choices and actions produced each vicious event in this terrible story, Euripides suggest taht the real Necessity, the real constraint, is not a supernatural force, but human nature itself.
Polydorus' death results from the arbitrary, opportunistic greed and ruthlessness of a king, but Polyxena's murder results from a democratic decision. The chorus exposes the dark side of persuasive speech and moral flexibility.
For Euripides' contemporaries, ochlokratia (mob rule) constituted the vicious version or dangerous potential of demokratia.
Hecuba's motives are understandable, but the play makes the audience question her goals and her methods.
In his complete subordination to public opinion, Agamemnon epitomizes the most dangerous sort of demagogue.
Polymestor's prediction assures the audience that the equation of vengeance with justice will continue to produce endless and escalating violence.
The Hecuba enables the audience to see that whether power derives from wealth, influence, physical strengt, military might, or numerical superiority, it is in the interest of the powerful to exercise restraint and compassion.
Rage can simplify moral complexity and mask moral uncertainty.
As early as Homer and long before democratic ideals emerged, ancient Greeks began incorporating into their stories the kind of critical self-reflection essential to individual and communal succes.
Their myths and their experience suggests that the stories we inherit and transmit determine our values, and our values determine our ends (goals and consequences).
The Homeric epics and the tragic plays taught the ancient Greeks to look for models to esteem and strive to emulate not in the supernatural realm but in the real worlds of human beings.
Succesful human relationships and nonviolent political participation require that individuals not only take responsibility for their own choices, but also acknowledge the viewpoints and essential humanity of others, including political opponents and enemies.
Greek myths suggest that individual and communal succes require not merely a specific set of institutions, but also a specific set of ideals. These ideals are not natural but cultivated.
Tolerance itself poses a grave danger, as it may make us perilously inactive.
The stories we tell ourselves have political consequences. The rejection of tyranny can only derive from a transformation of attitudes.
Homer, Sophocles and Euripides invite us to become aristoi, 'best'.
The narrative of the Iliad exposes the inadequacy of violent revenge and hints that empathy better serves an individual's self-interest. Human vulnerability to suffering and death makes moral behavior among mortals both necessary and possible.
[...] paradoxically, to challenge democratic values with verbal argument is to affirm them.
In emphasizing the role of human choices from the outset, the Ilaid begins by exposing the problem that rage poses for the community. Western civilization thus begins with the problem of passion, specifically the problem of anger, lust and ambition.
By showing us the causes and consequences of anger, lust and ambition, the Iliad compels us to consider what qualities we require in a leader and what attributes we must cultivate in ourselves.
Intervening in the narrative as hector races towards his city, the exchange between Diomedes and Glaucus reminds the audience that the decision to honor one's obligations require conversation, judgement and choice.
Succes and power may be transitory. Self-restraint and compassion in times of victory and succes could be a good idea.
Prioritizing his own honor, Agamemnon remains an ineffective and self-defeating leader. Achilles' refusal to compromise his own principles proves dire for his people.
Homer's characters value the ability to use words effectively. In defining, honoring, and preserving human achievements, stories are far more durable than other human constructions.
In memorializing human achievement and transcending the limits of individual human lifetimes, the Ilaid promotes an interdependence between the individual ad the community.
Eating, sleeping, these normal human activites mark Achilles' return to humanity. Achilles understood that suffering unites him and Priam as human beings. The narrative enables the audience to see the deaths of defeated warriors as sad and wasteful. In discovering the value of empathy, Achilles does not intuit a new standard of 'bestness'. Rather, he corroborates an ideal implicit in the narrative all along. The Iliads characters celebrate warfare as the finest human achievement, the narrative does not. The Iliads detailed account of the horrors of war is also a critique of the morality of warfare and a celebration of the value of each individual human life.
The intensity of rage prevents Achilles from pursuing his insight to its logical conclusion. the thought of the grief of his own losses does not permit Achilles to think of the future grief of the parents of his intended victims. The passion for vengeance robs Achilles of his human attributes.
Greek has two words that can be translated as 'glory': kudos (the glory that the gods bestow) and kleos (the glory that human beings comfer). Achilles' bloody pursuit of kudos make the audience question whether his behavior deserves human approval.
Agreement, love, oaths are features of human society, consequences of the human capacity for verbal communication. The desire for vengeance, by making these all impossible, has made Achilles not merely bestial but monstrous.
The funeral games for Patroclus enable Achilles to reestablish his leadership role (reassertion of his political power). Achilles finally derives comfort from the capacities that he shares not with gods but with all human beings: the capacity to suffer and the capacity to make moral choices. Achilles suddenly recognizes sorrow as the crucial component separating hum beings from gods.
By giving the audience a perspective different from that of it's characters, the Iliad permits us to assess the characters' values and to consider other possibilities.
Greek myth originates in a spirit of critical self-reflection. By devaluing rage and promoting empathy as a mre therapeutic alternative, the Iliad reveals the possibility that verbal debate might replace physical combat.
Agamemnon cannot see the connection between self-interest and compassion.
The tragedies encouraged reassessment not only of old ideas but also of new ones. Athenian tragedies continued to develop the audience's ability, as individuals, to make rational moral judgements.
Sophocles' Ajax (448 BCE) warns against overconfidence in the ability of democratic institutions to restrain the passion for violent revenge. A democratic voting process cannot be the whole answer.
Ajax denies the validity of the voting process. Ajax' rage and suicide reveal the fundamental opposition between traditional archaic values and democratic procedures.
For ancient Greeks, the opposite of hybris was not humility, but sophrosune (prudence, moderation, wisdom, self-restraint).
Sophocles also shows that Ajax's inability to change or to evolve is completely self-destructive.
Unjust democratic decisions can violate individual rights and fracture communities. They may produce rather than prevent injustice and conflict.
Following Ajax's death, the play exposes the double nature of moral flexibility.
Teucrus reduces justice to a commercial transaction: look what Ajax did for you: you owe him.
Tecmessa's suggestion, that Ajax is worthy of lamentation, even from his enemies, directly contradicts the traditional archaic value system that commends not grief at the destruction of an enemy, but laughter and exultation.
The Ajax directly criticizes laugther at someone else's suffering.
Ajax has based his whole life on the absolute distinction of friend from enemy and the moral obligations this entails.
Odysseus' compassion derives from a farsighted understanding of his own self-interest.
By exploiting both the destructive and the constructive potential of persuasive argument, Odysseus shows that democratic procedures require some flexibility on questions of right and wrong, but that moral flexibility also must include and defend some absolute standards of justice and humanity. Without these, moral flexibility risks doing more harm than good.
In its portrait of rage, Euripides' Hecuba (ca. 425 BCE) exposes the consequences of people in power failing to respect any obligation towards the powerless.
Hecuba epitomizes the impermanence of fortune.
In the Hecuba the characters continue to attribute to Chance (Tyche) the gods, or Luck, things that the audience recognizes results from free choice.
The chorus conclude by blaming the cruelty of Ananke (Necessity), but since human choices and actions produced each vicious event in this terrible story, Euripides suggest taht the real Necessity, the real constraint, is not a supernatural force, but human nature itself.
Polydorus' death results from the arbitrary, opportunistic greed and ruthlessness of a king, but Polyxena's murder results from a democratic decision. The chorus exposes the dark side of persuasive speech and moral flexibility.
For Euripides' contemporaries, ochlokratia (mob rule) constituted the vicious version or dangerous potential of demokratia.
Hecuba's motives are understandable, but the play makes the audience question her goals and her methods.
In his complete subordination to public opinion, Agamemnon epitomizes the most dangerous sort of demagogue.
Polymestor's prediction assures the audience that the equation of vengeance with justice will continue to produce endless and escalating violence.
The Hecuba enables the audience to see that whether power derives from wealth, influence, physical strengt, military might, or numerical superiority, it is in the interest of the powerful to exercise restraint and compassion.
Rage can simplify moral complexity and mask moral uncertainty.
As early as Homer and long before democratic ideals emerged, ancient Greeks began incorporating into their stories the kind of critical self-reflection essential to individual and communal succes.
Their myths and their experience suggests that the stories we inherit and transmit determine our values, and our values determine our ends (goals and consequences).
The Homeric epics and the tragic plays taught the ancient Greeks to look for models to esteem and strive to emulate not in the supernatural realm but in the real worlds of human beings.
Succesful human relationships and nonviolent political participation require that individuals not only take responsibility for their own choices, but also acknowledge the viewpoints and essential humanity of others, including political opponents and enemies.
Greek myths suggest that individual and communal succes require not merely a specific set of institutions, but also a specific set of ideals. These ideals are not natural but cultivated.
Tolerance itself poses a grave danger, as it may make us perilously inactive.
The stories we tell ourselves have political consequences. The rejection of tyranny can only derive from a transformation of attitudes.
Homer, Sophocles and Euripides invite us to become aristoi, 'best'.
December 17, 2024
This was an incredible disappointment for several reasons.
1) Anhalt is insanely repetitive. I don't know if she ran out of steam for the points she's trying to make here, or if she assumes her audience is made up of idiots, but either way it was infuriating.
2) I am by no means a classicist. I wouldn't even say I'm a hobbyist of the genre. Anhalt has a Ph.D. I would not claim to know more than her on this topic, but I am highly suspect that she has an agenda with this book that I do not fully agree with. On the one hand, Greek myths (all myths, really, as the majority of them tend to serve as cautionary tales) do work as a means to view society at large through an alternative gaze, but to remove them from their own cultural context to judge them by ours is incredibly disingenuous to the subject material. Yes, Achilles' rage is a damning motivator for all of his actions throughout the course of The Iliad. Should he be so tied up in honor that he leaves his fellow Greeks to die? We would say no, but the Greeks of that era would say yes. Honor was the social currency of their society. Achilles came to Troy to obtain kleos, knowingly at the cost of his own life. Agamemnon dishonored him by taking his war prize (yes I know she's a woman but listen, if we want to discuss misogyny in ancient times here I'm going to run through GR's word count before I can make a point) and as such removed a physical symbol of that honor. No one faulted him until the consequences of his actions started to become a problem for them. If we're going to argue morality, here, why didn't other kings speak up for Achilles? We later discuss how democratic conventions are the only (but also not the only) means by which we can seek justice (until we can't), so where was that application here? If the people didn't defend him, why then should he defend them?
On the other hand, Anhalt flip flops (ironically she talks about people changing their stances in the wake of more edifying solutions as being called a flip-flopper even if there's moral grounding to do so) on whether or not democratic standards are the superior form of government. Can we depend on this as the best way to ensure personal liberties, safety, and society are cared for? Yes. Until we can't. Say if someone were to influence this method of governance to their favor. Then it's bad. But if someone doesn't influence it, then its good. Unless it isn't, because sometimes the group can be bad. Great.
3) So what's our solution? A standard basis for morality? Yes. Which comes from what? Our culture. But apparently, in the name of western exceptionalism, that morality can only come from Greek myths, because religious fundamentalists will always try to claim moral superiority and that cannot happen. (She literally says this in the book. P.195) Okay. Great. So keep the religious and the corrupt (and Odysseus, apparently) away from democratic proceedings and things will probably be fine.
4) What's the modern application of all of these stories and the author's interpretation of them? Other than the emphasis on how these myths must always be interpreted through the lens of liberalism (yikes) because that is the only way we will create a fair and just society. Except we still haven't actually done that, so maybe the myths aren't the best place to derive morality from because the ancient Greeks were actually rather deficient morally when it came to several instances of their society.
This take also fails on a grand scale for one very crucial reason: that classics are being cut from the curriculum everywhere here in the US. How are we as a country supposed to derive meaning from these when we are not even being allowed to study them? Do the ancient Greeks have much to say regarding education reform? What about classism? Poverty? You're going to get a resounding silence about those topics if you look only to ancient Greece for any sense of morality. So no. They should not be the end-all-be-all for your system of governance.
What's also funny is that the author claims that diversity of thought is what brings about a successful democratic society. But that diversity can only stem from ancient Greece? Maybe we should restructure that sentiment into diversity of thought being from people of all backgrounds? A single school of thought is just as much a mark of failure and a surefire way to ensure your government collapses as instilling and encouraging rage, selfishness, and violence. Trust in the democratic body as the best way to lead society, except for when it makes bad decisions, or is influenced by the corrupt. What am I supposed to trust in again? This unintentionally cyclical conversation is giving me a headache...
5) Finally, the book is too short. I say that, meaning I don't think the author does the subject matter any real justice. If you want to discuss the modern day moral influence of ancient myths and stories, you're better off at focusing on modern interpretations of those myths through media, as those are going to be better translated into the values of today. This book required historical, cultural, and philosophical context to expand upon the author's points that she simply did not, or could not, give the reader. In the end it becomes a big "nothing burger" that is harshly judgmental and sanctimonious of literature that was not intended to be the basis of any deep moral proceedings.
Myths are, at their core, cautionary tales. Not universally, but the majority. We are not supposed to idolize Achilles. We are supposed to pity him. We are not supposed to idolize war. We are supposed to respect its capacity for devastation, and that honor can be won, but at what cost? What does Ajax teach us? What does Hecuba teach us? That destruction begets destruction. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That this, ultimately, could be us. No one is too great to not be brought low.
Anhalt touches on these sentiments, but not enough to give this book any real value. It seems she set out to trivialize the value of these texts instead of exalt them. It's a genuine loss. I hope people who have read this have, or will, read the texts it references to get a better appreciation for them than what the author gives here.
1) Anhalt is insanely repetitive. I don't know if she ran out of steam for the points she's trying to make here, or if she assumes her audience is made up of idiots, but either way it was infuriating.
2) I am by no means a classicist. I wouldn't even say I'm a hobbyist of the genre. Anhalt has a Ph.D. I would not claim to know more than her on this topic, but I am highly suspect that she has an agenda with this book that I do not fully agree with. On the one hand, Greek myths (all myths, really, as the majority of them tend to serve as cautionary tales) do work as a means to view society at large through an alternative gaze, but to remove them from their own cultural context to judge them by ours is incredibly disingenuous to the subject material. Yes, Achilles' rage is a damning motivator for all of his actions throughout the course of The Iliad. Should he be so tied up in honor that he leaves his fellow Greeks to die? We would say no, but the Greeks of that era would say yes. Honor was the social currency of their society. Achilles came to Troy to obtain kleos, knowingly at the cost of his own life. Agamemnon dishonored him by taking his war prize (yes I know she's a woman but listen, if we want to discuss misogyny in ancient times here I'm going to run through GR's word count before I can make a point) and as such removed a physical symbol of that honor. No one faulted him until the consequences of his actions started to become a problem for them. If we're going to argue morality, here, why didn't other kings speak up for Achilles? We later discuss how democratic conventions are the only (but also not the only) means by which we can seek justice (until we can't), so where was that application here? If the people didn't defend him, why then should he defend them?
On the other hand, Anhalt flip flops (ironically she talks about people changing their stances in the wake of more edifying solutions as being called a flip-flopper even if there's moral grounding to do so) on whether or not democratic standards are the superior form of government. Can we depend on this as the best way to ensure personal liberties, safety, and society are cared for? Yes. Until we can't. Say if someone were to influence this method of governance to their favor. Then it's bad. But if someone doesn't influence it, then its good. Unless it isn't, because sometimes the group can be bad. Great.
3) So what's our solution? A standard basis for morality? Yes. Which comes from what? Our culture. But apparently, in the name of western exceptionalism, that morality can only come from Greek myths, because religious fundamentalists will always try to claim moral superiority and that cannot happen. (She literally says this in the book. P.195) Okay. Great. So keep the religious and the corrupt (and Odysseus, apparently) away from democratic proceedings and things will probably be fine.
4) What's the modern application of all of these stories and the author's interpretation of them? Other than the emphasis on how these myths must always be interpreted through the lens of liberalism (yikes) because that is the only way we will create a fair and just society. Except we still haven't actually done that, so maybe the myths aren't the best place to derive morality from because the ancient Greeks were actually rather deficient morally when it came to several instances of their society.
This take also fails on a grand scale for one very crucial reason: that classics are being cut from the curriculum everywhere here in the US. How are we as a country supposed to derive meaning from these when we are not even being allowed to study them? Do the ancient Greeks have much to say regarding education reform? What about classism? Poverty? You're going to get a resounding silence about those topics if you look only to ancient Greece for any sense of morality. So no. They should not be the end-all-be-all for your system of governance.
What's also funny is that the author claims that diversity of thought is what brings about a successful democratic society. But that diversity can only stem from ancient Greece? Maybe we should restructure that sentiment into diversity of thought being from people of all backgrounds? A single school of thought is just as much a mark of failure and a surefire way to ensure your government collapses as instilling and encouraging rage, selfishness, and violence. Trust in the democratic body as the best way to lead society, except for when it makes bad decisions, or is influenced by the corrupt. What am I supposed to trust in again? This unintentionally cyclical conversation is giving me a headache...
5) Finally, the book is too short. I say that, meaning I don't think the author does the subject matter any real justice. If you want to discuss the modern day moral influence of ancient myths and stories, you're better off at focusing on modern interpretations of those myths through media, as those are going to be better translated into the values of today. This book required historical, cultural, and philosophical context to expand upon the author's points that she simply did not, or could not, give the reader. In the end it becomes a big "nothing burger" that is harshly judgmental and sanctimonious of literature that was not intended to be the basis of any deep moral proceedings.
Myths are, at their core, cautionary tales. Not universally, but the majority. We are not supposed to idolize Achilles. We are supposed to pity him. We are not supposed to idolize war. We are supposed to respect its capacity for devastation, and that honor can be won, but at what cost? What does Ajax teach us? What does Hecuba teach us? That destruction begets destruction. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That this, ultimately, could be us. No one is too great to not be brought low.
Anhalt touches on these sentiments, but not enough to give this book any real value. It seems she set out to trivialize the value of these texts instead of exalt them. It's a genuine loss. I hope people who have read this have, or will, read the texts it references to get a better appreciation for them than what the author gives here.
September 5, 2020
This book contains lots of really interesting ideas but is plagued by LOADS of repetition and underdevelopment. I also found the second-person narrative sections really annoying - being told what I most think was... condescending at best.
January 23, 2024
"the ancient Greek evidence reminds us that the stories we tell ourselves have political consequences because they inevitably shape our attitudes toward power and its use."
i thought I knew what the Illiad was all about but turns out that the messages hidden behind the original language and the context the stories were told in change a lot of things. this book studies the moral messages that were sent by poets through myths to the first democracy and even though the links with our own times could have been dealt with more deeply and with less implied meaning, it does shed a new light on how to think about stories, politics, and about how the world never really changes.
in a few words: through the stories of Achilles, Hector, Ajax and Hecuba, the author retrieves not-so-hidden meaning that most of us do not get nowadays (I think, in any case I didn't) and shows us how greek myths are still very much useful.
i thought I knew what the Illiad was all about but turns out that the messages hidden behind the original language and the context the stories were told in change a lot of things. this book studies the moral messages that were sent by poets through myths to the first democracy and even though the links with our own times could have been dealt with more deeply and with less implied meaning, it does shed a new light on how to think about stories, politics, and about how the world never really changes.
in a few words: through the stories of Achilles, Hector, Ajax and Hecuba, the author retrieves not-so-hidden meaning that most of us do not get nowadays (I think, in any case I didn't) and shows us how greek myths are still very much useful.
November 28, 2019
3.5
A bit repetitive at times, but it makes some very good points.
A bit repetitive at times, but it makes some very good points.
July 7, 2023
3.75
Bliver nok nødt til at eje den fysisk
Bliver nok nødt til at eje den fysisk
August 20, 2019
Fascinating and frustrating treatise on how people have been telling stories to try to figure out how to be decent and good to one another for thousands of years. We're still having the same conversations about the same fears and insecurities that keep us from empathy and respect. A dense, university press read well worth the time.
June 18, 2025
Enraged – Why Violent Times Need Ancient Greek Myths by Emily Katz Anhalt – another note on these legends is here - https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20...
Alexey Navalny as Bellerophon
9 out of 10
Because the leader of the opposition in Russia, Alexey Navalny, has been killed a few days ago, the under signed is under that overwhelming impression, and this note will be from the perspective of the martyr as Bellerophon, listening to the legend, it seemed to me that there are aspects that bring the two together, somewhat
Navalny has tried to kill the Chimera of our times, Putin, The Butcher in the Kremlin, but his crashing end looks like what has happened to the Greek figure – it is so good that there is no need to include spoiler alerts here, except to warn a potential reader that he might find the lines dull, and could be better off on other pastures…
Another trait that the martyred politician has in common with Bellerophon is that they have darkness in the past, Navalny has been participating in marches with the extreme right, and has had xenophobic and some racist stands in his history, but he seemed to have grown and with flaws, he got as close to a hero as one (Russian) can get
Bellerophon was the grandson of Sisyphus, the one condemned by Zeus to carry a huge rock, in perpetuity, and then the legend of Bellerophon starts with a murder, which is actually stigmatized in his name, he kills his brother, instead of a stag, and has to pay for that, the gates of the city will be closed for a killer
Ergo, the anti-hero (for now) travels to Proetus, a king who is married to Stheneboea, the latter comes to the bed of the guest one night, ready to commit adultery with him, but the exiled man rejects the advances, unwilling to betray his host, hence incurring the wrath of the repudiated woman, who seeks revenge
To interpose in here the parallels with the late leader of the opposition – you would be well advised to watch the Oscar Winning Documentary Navalny – he had been poisoned with Novichok, a few years back, and this is a military grade material, nobody has it except the state employed killers, thus this is equivalent with having Putin’s signature on the attempted murder, the investigation proved what happened…
Navalny gets sick on a flight, they land, a doctor injects a substance and saves him, he is taken to a hospital, where the worry is that they need to keep him for as long as it takes for the traces to disappear from the body, only when they release the victim, and allow him to fly to Germany, they discover there what was the poison
Bellerophon is accused by Stheneboea that he had tried to kill her, only the king cannot break the law of hospitality and have his guest murdered, he decides to send him to his father-in-law, king Iobates, who spends days with the guest, and then reads the message from Proetus, which instructs the reader to eliminate the visitor
However, the same laws of hospitality work for Iobates, who has other solutions to the conundrum, he asks Bellerophon to murder The Chimera, a monster that was just as abominable as Putin - another reason for the resemblance between the story of the dead Russian hero and the legend…by the way, our city might change the name of the street on which the Russian Consulate is to…Navalny, it would be magnificent!
The hero is told that the only way to succeed would be to get the mythical Pegasus, and for that, he has some help, in a dream, coming from Athena, who gives the gift of a golden bridle, that is essential in taming Pegasus, the latter is crucial in the fight with the monster, and in the Greek story, he wins, in Russia, the Tyrant Chimera kills the angel of justice
Bellerophon is sent on other tasks, to fight the Amazons (who were cruel and vile, albeit Woke culture might have that scrapped from the books) and this looks to this reader as the narrative where Alexey Navalny has had to fight against the most powerful enemy, and his demise was not a defeat, as he stated before his death
In the fabulous documentary, Navalny says that he could be killed (he was aware of the danger, he was not a stupid fool, as say Orange Jesus, who never condemned the death, did not mention the Kremlin despot, but chose instead to make it about Trump, himself, which is what he always does, this sick bastard, suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder)
‘If I am murdered, then this means that we are extraordinarily strong’ says the martyr, also brave enough to travel back from Germany to Russia – we have had some disputes at the Downtown sauna, where the Kremlin butcher has admirers, like everywhere, there are Satanists, people who worship evil, the Orange Jesus…
One young man said that this was stupid (using the word that comes from Yiddish, ‘freier’) coming back, when the outcome was predictable, but the hero could not be at the top of the opposition from a safe distance…we have had this here, right after the fall of Ceausescu, in 1989, and you have a link down here, to show my contribution to the demise of our despot, and when the diaspora came back, they were attacked and verbally abused, but there were masses of the hoi polloi that wanted to kill the exiled, because ‘ they had not eaten the salami with soyabean’, in other words, they had no claim, if they had not shared the depravity, hunger, destitution, abuses of the Ceausescu regime with the rest of the population, which is what would have happened to Navalny, had he decided to stay safe in Germany, where he would still be alive, on the other hand…
Now for my standard closing of the note with a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/02/u... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se
There is also the small matter of working for AT&T – this huge company asked me to be its Representative for Romania and Bulgaria, on the Calling Card side, which meant sailing into the Black Sea wo meet the US Navy ships, travelling to Sofia, a lot of activity, using my mother’s two bedrooms flat as office and warehouse, all for the grand total of $250, raised after a lot of persuasion to the staggering $400…with retirement ahead, there are no benefits, nothing…it is a longer story, but if you can help get the mastodont to pay some dues, or have an idea how it can happen, let me know
As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...
Some favorite quotes from To The Heritage and other works
‘Fiction is infinitely preferable to real life...As long as you avoid the books of Kafka or Beckett, the everlasting plot of fiction has fewer futile experiences than the careless plot of reality...Fiction's people are fuller, deeper, cleverer, more moving than those in real life…Its actions are more intricate, illuminating, noble, profound…There are many more dramas, climaxes, romantic fulfillment, twists, turns, gratified resolutions…Unlike reality, all of this you can experience without leaving the house or even getting out of bed…What's more, books are a form of intelligent human greatness, as stories are a higher order of sense…As random life is to destiny, so stories are to great authors, who provided us with some of the highest pleasures and the most wonderful mystifications we can find…Few stories are greater than Anna Karenina, that wise epic by an often foolish author…’
‚Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus’
“From Monty Python - The Meaning of Life...Well, it's nothing very special...Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.”
Alexey Navalny as Bellerophon
9 out of 10
Because the leader of the opposition in Russia, Alexey Navalny, has been killed a few days ago, the under signed is under that overwhelming impression, and this note will be from the perspective of the martyr as Bellerophon, listening to the legend, it seemed to me that there are aspects that bring the two together, somewhat
Navalny has tried to kill the Chimera of our times, Putin, The Butcher in the Kremlin, but his crashing end looks like what has happened to the Greek figure – it is so good that there is no need to include spoiler alerts here, except to warn a potential reader that he might find the lines dull, and could be better off on other pastures…
Another trait that the martyred politician has in common with Bellerophon is that they have darkness in the past, Navalny has been participating in marches with the extreme right, and has had xenophobic and some racist stands in his history, but he seemed to have grown and with flaws, he got as close to a hero as one (Russian) can get
Bellerophon was the grandson of Sisyphus, the one condemned by Zeus to carry a huge rock, in perpetuity, and then the legend of Bellerophon starts with a murder, which is actually stigmatized in his name, he kills his brother, instead of a stag, and has to pay for that, the gates of the city will be closed for a killer
Ergo, the anti-hero (for now) travels to Proetus, a king who is married to Stheneboea, the latter comes to the bed of the guest one night, ready to commit adultery with him, but the exiled man rejects the advances, unwilling to betray his host, hence incurring the wrath of the repudiated woman, who seeks revenge
To interpose in here the parallels with the late leader of the opposition – you would be well advised to watch the Oscar Winning Documentary Navalny – he had been poisoned with Novichok, a few years back, and this is a military grade material, nobody has it except the state employed killers, thus this is equivalent with having Putin’s signature on the attempted murder, the investigation proved what happened…
Navalny gets sick on a flight, they land, a doctor injects a substance and saves him, he is taken to a hospital, where the worry is that they need to keep him for as long as it takes for the traces to disappear from the body, only when they release the victim, and allow him to fly to Germany, they discover there what was the poison
Bellerophon is accused by Stheneboea that he had tried to kill her, only the king cannot break the law of hospitality and have his guest murdered, he decides to send him to his father-in-law, king Iobates, who spends days with the guest, and then reads the message from Proetus, which instructs the reader to eliminate the visitor
However, the same laws of hospitality work for Iobates, who has other solutions to the conundrum, he asks Bellerophon to murder The Chimera, a monster that was just as abominable as Putin - another reason for the resemblance between the story of the dead Russian hero and the legend…by the way, our city might change the name of the street on which the Russian Consulate is to…Navalny, it would be magnificent!
The hero is told that the only way to succeed would be to get the mythical Pegasus, and for that, he has some help, in a dream, coming from Athena, who gives the gift of a golden bridle, that is essential in taming Pegasus, the latter is crucial in the fight with the monster, and in the Greek story, he wins, in Russia, the Tyrant Chimera kills the angel of justice
Bellerophon is sent on other tasks, to fight the Amazons (who were cruel and vile, albeit Woke culture might have that scrapped from the books) and this looks to this reader as the narrative where Alexey Navalny has had to fight against the most powerful enemy, and his demise was not a defeat, as he stated before his death
In the fabulous documentary, Navalny says that he could be killed (he was aware of the danger, he was not a stupid fool, as say Orange Jesus, who never condemned the death, did not mention the Kremlin despot, but chose instead to make it about Trump, himself, which is what he always does, this sick bastard, suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder)
‘If I am murdered, then this means that we are extraordinarily strong’ says the martyr, also brave enough to travel back from Germany to Russia – we have had some disputes at the Downtown sauna, where the Kremlin butcher has admirers, like everywhere, there are Satanists, people who worship evil, the Orange Jesus…
One young man said that this was stupid (using the word that comes from Yiddish, ‘freier’) coming back, when the outcome was predictable, but the hero could not be at the top of the opposition from a safe distance…we have had this here, right after the fall of Ceausescu, in 1989, and you have a link down here, to show my contribution to the demise of our despot, and when the diaspora came back, they were attacked and verbally abused, but there were masses of the hoi polloi that wanted to kill the exiled, because ‘ they had not eaten the salami with soyabean’, in other words, they had no claim, if they had not shared the depravity, hunger, destitution, abuses of the Ceausescu regime with the rest of the population, which is what would have happened to Navalny, had he decided to stay safe in Germany, where he would still be alive, on the other hand…
Now for my standard closing of the note with a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/02/u... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se
There is also the small matter of working for AT&T – this huge company asked me to be its Representative for Romania and Bulgaria, on the Calling Card side, which meant sailing into the Black Sea wo meet the US Navy ships, travelling to Sofia, a lot of activity, using my mother’s two bedrooms flat as office and warehouse, all for the grand total of $250, raised after a lot of persuasion to the staggering $400…with retirement ahead, there are no benefits, nothing…it is a longer story, but if you can help get the mastodont to pay some dues, or have an idea how it can happen, let me know
As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...
Some favorite quotes from To The Heritage and other works
‘Fiction is infinitely preferable to real life...As long as you avoid the books of Kafka or Beckett, the everlasting plot of fiction has fewer futile experiences than the careless plot of reality...Fiction's people are fuller, deeper, cleverer, more moving than those in real life…Its actions are more intricate, illuminating, noble, profound…There are many more dramas, climaxes, romantic fulfillment, twists, turns, gratified resolutions…Unlike reality, all of this you can experience without leaving the house or even getting out of bed…What's more, books are a form of intelligent human greatness, as stories are a higher order of sense…As random life is to destiny, so stories are to great authors, who provided us with some of the highest pleasures and the most wonderful mystifications we can find…Few stories are greater than Anna Karenina, that wise epic by an often foolish author…’
‚Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus’
“From Monty Python - The Meaning of Life...Well, it's nothing very special...Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.”
January 10, 2018
Oh, I liked this book. There's a lot to unpack, though. On one level, I really enjoyed the close readings of three of my favourite works - The Iliad, Ajax, and Hecuba - which have given me a new perspective, or rather, have articulated things that are on second thought quite obvious. The author painstakingly draws out from these ancient texts a very useful commentary on the destructive power of rage, and shows that the original authors were not glorifying this violence, but showing their audience the toxic nature of those responses. One point I found particularly fascinating was the difference between 'good' and 'bad' fame - "Greek has two words that can be translated as “glory”: kudos, the glory that the gods bestow, and kleos, the glory that human beings confer (i.e., the glory that epic poetry celebrates and commemorates)." Pursuing the first, that is, striving for glory for its own sake without caring for the impact on others, can strip a person of their essential humanity. I'll be reading this one again, when I've had some time to consider its messages.
October 19, 2019
When I read the Greek myths years back (the Robert Graves versions) I looked upon them as tales of heroes, heroines and heroics. I did not read any lessons into the telling of these old myths.
We do live in troubled times, and I find that this retelling by Emily Katz Anhalt is extremely relevant to our modern age. There is a lot of anger these days, and this puts us in the danger of being on the edge of deep trouble.
The manner in which she has systematically chosen the tales, the retelling and the lessons she brings forth thereof, are very relevant to today's times.
The final chapter, before the conclusion, about the abuse of power is especially relevant, as is the concluding section where she draws out how the Greeks modified the rules of their society over time, to make it more democratic.
I also like how she highlights the moral ambiguity in the myths, something that the old authors did not shy away from.
Can we draw lessons from this, to ensure we live in a more peaceful age? Or, are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?
We do live in troubled times, and I find that this retelling by Emily Katz Anhalt is extremely relevant to our modern age. There is a lot of anger these days, and this puts us in the danger of being on the edge of deep trouble.
The manner in which she has systematically chosen the tales, the retelling and the lessons she brings forth thereof, are very relevant to today's times.
The final chapter, before the conclusion, about the abuse of power is especially relevant, as is the concluding section where she draws out how the Greeks modified the rules of their society over time, to make it more democratic.
I also like how she highlights the moral ambiguity in the myths, something that the old authors did not shy away from.
Can we draw lessons from this, to ensure we live in a more peaceful age? Or, are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?
July 23, 2019
The writing in this book is terrific, and the nuanced and scholarly interpretations of the role of anger in the Iliad, Ajax, and Hecuba are fascinating. (Anhalt is a really efficient writer, manages not to get dragged down by the enormous amount of scholarly literature there is--her endnotes are impressively compendious--and yet the main text is careful to acknowledge variances in tone and argument.) That said, I'm not fully persuaded by her principal argument about how politically and personally destructive anger is; to my eyes, she too often conflates the experience of anger with violent revenge. However, her cautions about what I'd say is a modified version of her argument (the dangers of violent revenge as a political and personal motivation) are still worth reading, and very much applicable to our current times (which Anhalt mentions only very generically and in passing, naming no names).
October 15, 2017
I decided to buy the book after a recent NYT book review. One of my favorite college classes as Greek Mythology “Mythology and Man” was the course title. This was an easy dose of Greek literature. Iliad, and two plays, Ajax and Hecuba.
I really like historical non-fiction. I learned things and expand my knowledge. This book added to that knowledge. It was smooth reading. I agree with the author that this Ancient Greek writing has lessons to teach us today. It really only took me a day to read, and I didn’t want to put it down. (Admittedly, part of that is recognizing I’m a bit behind on my 2017 reading challenge, and this being Saturday was a perfect opportunity to catch up.)
I really like historical non-fiction. I learned things and expand my knowledge. This book added to that knowledge. It was smooth reading. I agree with the author that this Ancient Greek writing has lessons to teach us today. It really only took me a day to read, and I didn’t want to put it down. (Admittedly, part of that is recognizing I’m a bit behind on my 2017 reading challenge, and this being Saturday was a perfect opportunity to catch up.)
July 25, 2020
The author uses the Iliad, Ajax, and Hecuba to examine all the crazy sh*t people do when they’re in power - and through that examination we see parallels to today. Do we trust our judicial system? How do we know our election was fair? Are we glorifying violence - and in all these 3 myths she dissects how we’re shown multiple points of views and need to think about it and make our own decisions.
I really enjoyed the close look and discussion of the 3 myths.
I really enjoyed the close look and discussion of the 3 myths.
September 5, 2022
I liked the structure of framing the essay after the short retelling of the story it was about; its incredibly beginner friendly for those who haven't read the Iliad or either play mentioned, but it did get slightly repetitive when some opinion was added into the retelling that were then rehashed in the essay almost word for word.
Overall, not a bad read!
Overall, not a bad read!
January 17, 2022
An insightful book that both provokes human nature and the complex mechanisms behind it, Anhalt does not deny the reader empathy in criticizing human nature either. At times humorous, at times sorrowful, this is a deeply reflective analysis of the stories that have grown to define our society and culture. It goes to show that man and myth are /meant/ to function in tandem, that the purpose of storytelling is to push forth the very limits of the qualities embedded in each of us in order to illustrate the specific repercussions of certain (in this case) reactions to certain events.
Anhalt recognizes the intrinsic value of storytelling in shaping the human psyche, and on a most broad level, how culture forms /around/ human nature. The interactions between ancient Greek culture (according to the original stories/plays' audience and those of the Heroic Age), the stories, and the role that they play in modern life are threaded together wonderfully clearly in this book.
There is little, if any, in this book that would render it inaccessible to any audiences. Anhalt develops complex ideas without muddying them with superfluous words. Deliciously complex while not nauseatingly rich, this is the perfect book to ruminate over between reading, while reading, and after.
However, I do have slight grievances with the book (hence the 4-star rating as opposed to 5-star), with the 2nd person often being used to guide/impose expectations of readers' thoughts (and I understand the purpose of this is to lead readers from the original stories to Anhalt's points). I felt that this erased some of the nuance that Anhalt seems to wish of the reader.
Another point I'd raise is that some of the narrative sections contain dialogue which feels jarring against the historical backdrop. I understand Anhalt is not a storyteller and is trying to convey ideas through direct argument instead; however, I will not say that this was so off-putting that it shook my line of thought, but it certainly would've benefited from a little more polishing.
I cannot say I agreed with all of Anhalt's points either (though this is not reason for a lower rating), but she takes care to thoroughly develop them and provide reasoning upon which I could further develop my own ideas. As such, I felt that this was a delightful book to read and would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in how stories impact our behavior and what stories go to show about human behavior.
Anhalt recognizes the intrinsic value of storytelling in shaping the human psyche, and on a most broad level, how culture forms /around/ human nature. The interactions between ancient Greek culture (according to the original stories/plays' audience and those of the Heroic Age), the stories, and the role that they play in modern life are threaded together wonderfully clearly in this book.
There is little, if any, in this book that would render it inaccessible to any audiences. Anhalt develops complex ideas without muddying them with superfluous words. Deliciously complex while not nauseatingly rich, this is the perfect book to ruminate over between reading, while reading, and after.
However, I do have slight grievances with the book (hence the 4-star rating as opposed to 5-star), with the 2nd person often being used to guide/impose expectations of readers' thoughts (and I understand the purpose of this is to lead readers from the original stories to Anhalt's points). I felt that this erased some of the nuance that Anhalt seems to wish of the reader.
Another point I'd raise is that some of the narrative sections contain dialogue which feels jarring against the historical backdrop. I understand Anhalt is not a storyteller and is trying to convey ideas through direct argument instead; however, I will not say that this was so off-putting that it shook my line of thought, but it certainly would've benefited from a little more polishing.
I cannot say I agreed with all of Anhalt's points either (though this is not reason for a lower rating), but she takes care to thoroughly develop them and provide reasoning upon which I could further develop my own ideas. As such, I felt that this was a delightful book to read and would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in how stories impact our behavior and what stories go to show about human behavior.
March 23, 2024
I thought this had a really interesting premise, but I wasn't entirely convinced all the way through. There were certainly many points I agreed with and could see for myself in the evidence, but on the other hand there were a lot of points that I felt needed more evidence and clarification, so I could better understand where Katz Anhalt was coming from. I personally didn't like the style of phrasing most points like questions, as it seemed (to me) to detract from the larger arguments. That being said, it is a great conversation starter and it made me think about a lot of things I hadn't previously considered. That's why it's a solid 3 stars for me, because there were as many things I liked as things I didn't like. Still a worthy read!
December 17, 2023
3.5 ✨ A very relevant theme to our modern day society and the three classic works that were chosen were well explained. Her conclusions were good and very interesting to read about. That being said, it ended up being quite repetitive. I think some further editing could have been beneficial to assure that her points were more straight forward and that she didn’t need to repeat herself so much. Out of 196 pages, I think it could’ve been edited down to 150, which would have made it more enjoyable and less dragging in its pace. I also think it would have helped to include actual comparisons to our “violent times”. But overall, a super interesting theme and debate!
May 30, 2022
Unfortunately this book is all too relevant now. This is one of the thoughts from the book: Ancient Greek myths suggest that we should have no illusions about what it takes to preserve a successful society. Moderation, tolerance and equality have always been and will, I think, always be attacked by the forces of extremism, intolerance and inequality.
May 4, 2020
This was a really interesting literary analysis of the Iliad and subsequent works. It slowed for me a bit at the end but that is probably due to the fact that I am more familiar with the Iliad than the other works. The author had a very interesting take and a good writing style.
November 10, 2020
How to find a basis to found a society, and to process anger, and what would a society based on honor require. But indeed Freedom and Tolerance are delicate flowers
February 27, 2023
Read for class. Helped explain what was happening in the Iliad
October 31, 2023
A compelling glimpse at rage as a driving force in Greek myths. Some of the summary needed to be halved, but the analysis is fantastic.
April 4, 2024
some interesting insights but got tired of the author telling the reader what to thing, the constant "you notice" or "you think."
Read
May 25, 2019all in all i liked it but she certainly tended to repeat herself i thought
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews