Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The visit to the underworld. I have always found this one of the more interesting but also more mysterious books of the Odyssey. I'll be interested in hearing the thoughts of others on it.

Relevant to the discussion of Odysseus's merits (or lack thereof) as a leader, though, is the conversation with Tiresias, both the prophecy of his eventual return home, and the warning not to touch the flocks of the Sun.

We see in Book 12 how successful that warning was; Odysseus tried, but he didn't have leadership respect to keep his men under control.

We also have Odysseus's report of the final adventures, including the famous episodes of the Sirens and of Scylla and Charybdis. (It says something more about Odysseus that while he did take the advice to be tied to the mast during the passage by the Sirens, he didn't join his crew in stopping his ears, but just had to listen.)

Is there anything cohesive which unifies the various adventures of Odysseus around some core theme or idea, or are they merely a sequence of episodes with no particular relationship to each other?

I think the episode of the Siren demonstrates further how much Odysseys' his driven by his curiosity as well as his need to obtain knowledge of which other men do not have. To be perhaps one of the only men to hear the sirens and live to tell about it.

And it demonstrates further how to satisfy his own curiosity he takes reckless risks which puts the lives of others in danger. While granted he does have himself tied up, and tells him men to release him no matter what, as well as ordering themselves to stop their ears. He is dealing with a group of men who are notoriously disobedient.

So in a way it was just a stroke of luck that one of his men did not either cave under the pressure and untie, or think to himself, why should Odysseus be the only one to hear, and take it upon himself to unstop his own ears to listen.

He puts his life, and the lives of the entire ship in the hands of unreliable men.

It makes me think. Odysseus might be clever in some ways, he may be deceptive, a trickster, and a skilled liar, but is he in fact truly wise?

Everyman wrote: "Is there anything cohesive which unifies the various adventures of Odysseus around some core theme or idea, or are they merely a sequence of episodes with no particular relationship to each other? "

Great question ... the "Catalog of Women" (9.260-330) O. encounters in Hades after he speaks with Anticleia, his mother, has mystified many readers, including me. Interestingly, the narrative breaks off here with Arete, a woman, addressing the Phaeacians before O. returns to his story.

Why the focus on all of these famous women and how does this connect with the rest of the poem? There are, indeed, many famous women in the poem itself. Some have suggested an influence of Hesiod, a contemporary of Homer (one of Hesiod's poems was a "Catalog of Women,") but to point this out does not answer the question of what purpose it serves.

Also, in his speech to Anticleia (164-179), O. asks about Anticleia herself, Laertes, Telemachus, and Penelope (in that order). In her response, she tells him in exactly the reverse order about Penelope, Telemachus, Laertes and herself. This (chiastic) structure is called "ring technique" (since the inner back-to-back items are surrounded by symmetrical, surrounding pairs of identical or similar items). It is a common feature of Homeric epic that appears in various forms in many places throughout the poem.

Silver wrote: "I think the episode of the Siren demonstrates further how much Odysseus' is driven by his curiosity as well as his need to obtain knowledge of which other men do not have..."

O.'s encounter with Eurylochus at 10.429 is interesting. After his reception by Circe, he goes back to his ship to tell his companions to pull the ship ashore and return, all of them, to Circe's dwelling. Eurylochus refuses, and O. considers lopping off his head (even though the man is related to him by marriage, which O. mentions). His other companions talk him into leaving E. there, but E. ultimately makes the journey back to the home of Circe.

Also interesting is the death of Elpenor, the companion of O. who got drunk and passed out on the roof of Circe's house. He fell off, broke his neck and died. This is a very unheroic way to die, and Elpenor is the first to confront O. in Hades, begging O. to bury him properly when he returns to the realm of the living.

What is Homer trying to tell us about this character and his somewhat comical death? I have a few vaguely formed ideas but welcome your take on it.

max wrote: "What is Homer trying to tell us about this character and his somewhat comical death? I have a few vaguely formed ideas but welcome your take on it. .."

That did seem like a very curious episode.

Elpenor is described as thus:

Among them all the youngest was Elpenor
no mainstay in a fight, nor very clever

The main qualities of which Odysseus depends upon for his survival, Elpenor is lacking, and without skill in either arms, nor being able to use his wits, he does not appear to be very heroic, and thus perhaps this is way he is fated to have a rather unheroic death. He lacks what it needed to survive within this world of the Greeks.

And in considering his youthful age, it also makes me think of there is not some comparison being drawn to Telemakhos, whom Elpenor mentions. As when we are first introduced to Telemakhos, he himself seems to be rather lacking in skill and ability for fighting, having not the benefit of his father or any other good male role models, and is incapable to looking after his father's estate and defend his mother.

But with Athena's help he is able to start to come into his own more, and become more clear headed which enables him to survive the plots made against him.

Perhaps Elpenor represents the fate Telemakhos could potentially have had.

Than of course we also have Odysseus being completely oblivious to what happened to him, and showing another way in which he was neglectful of his men, not aware that he died, and leaving his body unburied. Thinking more of his own concerns so that he is not aware of those of others.

One theme that might tie the episodes together is discipline, or moderation, a particularly Greek virtue. In all, or most, of the episodes there seems to be some kind of temptation against which Odysseus and his men must fight. Sometimes it's simple curiosity, as in the Cyclops episode; at other times the temptation is for food (the oxen of Helios) or sex (the Sirens) or simple indolence (the lotus-eaters). Kalypso even offers him immortality.

In the Scylla/Charibdis story Odysseus must choose to sacrifice some of his men, knowing that the alternative is to lose everything. Making that decision takes a kind of reasoned discipline as well.

So it seems fitting that Elpenor falls off the roof after getting drunk and falling asleep. Intemperance has consequences.

Thomas, your post makes clear to me what might be part of the poem's enduring appeal -- it is a book of virtues. And, along the way with all the cool adventures, a primer on proper human behavior: the limitations we should accept, the ways to host, to ask for help, to respect others, to make sacrifices. The goals that are worthy, like returning to wife, son, and country, versus some of those that are not. (Like eternal life with a beautiful goddess? Maybe Homer didn't get everything right!)

Separate thought: on the role of the gods, a passage in book 12 caught my eye. When Eurylochus wants them to stop and eat, instead of sailing on past the island of Hyperion, he speaks of the risks of sailing at night (295-299):

It is at night that winds rise
That wreck ships. How could we survive
If we were hit by a South Wind or a West,
Which sink ships no matter what the great gods want?
No, let's give in....

So, then, another point where a modern understanding of natural forces seems to pierce through the religion of the supernatural gods. Their powers are enormous -- but less than that of storm winds. Homer and his world accept that the heroes are contending with a real world of dangers, alongside the supra-real world of capricious, life-and-death-dealing gods. It is a confounding dual system.

Eurylochus is the one who earlier tried to convince Odysseus to stay away from Circe's dangerous palace.

Having read only excerpts of The Odyssey before and never the full text, I'm finding the chronology especially interesting. One thing that struck me at the end of Book 12 was that when Odysseus finishes his long tale and brings us back to the present and into the original chronology of the story, he says he won't go into detail about Calypso because
"Why cover the same ground again?
Just yesterday, here at hall, I told you all the rest,
you and your gracious wife. It goes against my grain
to repeat a tale told once, and told so clearly." (Fagles)
I had to go back at this point and retrace my steps. It's curious that Homer has him tell the Calypso part of the story first and then backtrack to tell the rest of his adventures. It's also an interesting choice to have him narrate this entire story himself, rather than using a third-person narrator to tell the tale. As others have mentioned, this raises the question of his reliability as a narrator. Are we to "believe" these fantastical tales? (That is, are we to view them as credible in the context of the story?)
As an aside, I couldn't help thinking of Ishmael, who himself is a sole survivor retelling a fantastic tale. I'm wondering whether Herman Melville had Odysseus in mind, although Ahab is really Odysseus' counterpart in Moby Dick--perhaps could even be thought of as the anti-Odysseus.

Patrice wrote: "...and we're having seafood for dinner tonight! ;-)"

Isn't it strange that Odysseus and his men don't eat more fish? The men claim that they must eat the oxen of Helios because they have no alternative. Isn't this odd for a seafaring people?

Maybe they were allergic. ;)

Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "...and we're having seafood for dinner tonight! ;-)"

Isn't it strange that Odysseus and his men don't eat more fish? The men claim that they must eat the oxen of Helios because the..."

Maybe they really did not have a way to catch the fish. They probably did not bring along a lot of fishing requirement on a war expedition. Or they felt they needed a more substantial diet than just eating fish all the time.

And I guess if you are really hungry a fat sheep or cattle would be more appealing, and easier to catch than waiting around trying to catch some fish.

I sort of suspect that fish was not considered proper fare for warriors, but I would also expect that they would be prepared in dire circumstances to catch and prepare commonplace food. But of course these are not commonplace men.

That said, after the men have exhausted their provisions in Book 12 they do go hunting, because they are "forced to it," and they go "ranging after fish and birds." So at least they give it a shot. But that is the only reference I can find to them eating fish (or contemplating such a thing.)

Thomas wrote: "I sort of suspect that fish was not considered proper fare for warriors, but I would also expect that they would be prepared in dire circumstances to catch and prepare commonplace food. But of cour..."

I was trying to do some researching about the eating of fish in Ancient Greek culture, and in the Odysseus, and within my own book it only states that Odysseus says that his men should eat from the provisions that they got from Crice, but I found some references when I looked it up stating that Odysseus told his men they should eat only fish and other things, (just not the cattle) though I could not find a reference to what translations the line might have come from.

Thomas wrote: "One theme that might tie the episodes together is discipline, or moderation, a particularly Greek virtue. In all, or most, of the episodes there seems to be some kind of temptation against which Od..."

I really like that thought. It also ties in with the concept of the Odyssey as a book which the Greeks viewed as manual for teaching virtue.

It's interesting to see how well the warnings of the Odyssey match up with the seven deadly sins of Christianity.

wrath - Poseidon
greed - the looting of the Cicones; the release of the winds
sloth - the Lotus Eaters
pride - Odysseus calling out to Polyphemus as he sails off
lust - Circe, Sirens, Calypso
envy - not sure which I would note here
gluttony - cattle of the sun

Kathy wrote: "It's also an interesting choice to have him narrate this entire story himself, rather than using a third-person narrator to tell the tale. As others have mentioned, this raises the question of his reliability as a narrator. Are we to "believe" these fantastical tales? (That is, are we to view them as credible in the context of the story?)."

There are five places in the poem where Odysseus tells rather elaborate stories that are all utterly false. All of them occur after book 12. Based on this, it seems clear that O.'s entire narration at Phaeacia is one colossal lie. There is no reason to believe that O. is doing anything other than entertaining the Phaeacians in his long story in books 9-12.

O. knew that he had to "wow" the Phaeacians with an impressive tale, and why would he not lie --- elaborately and fantastically -- in doing so? We have already seen that he is a lousy leader. He is also a serial philanderer and has disrespected Penelope even as he strives to get back to her. Recognizing the simple fact that he is a consummate liar is easy to do, and concluding that his whole story is a grand lie is perfectly logical and consistent with his character.

As Laocoon famously (and rhetorically) asks the Trojans in the Aeneid when they are about to bring the Trojan Horse inside their city, "sic notus Ulixes?" ("Is Ulysses known [to you to be] thus?") In other words, his reputation for deceit and trickery was so well established that it would have been an act of madness by the end of the war for the Trojans to believe (as Sinon told them) that the horse was intended to be a gift to Minerva that would make Troy impregnable.

All this having been said, even liars have their charm. Look at Bill Clinton.

Everyman wrote: "envy - not sure which I would note here
..."

Wouldn't that be O.'s men letting the wind out of the bag because they thought that O. had received some great gift from the Gods.
Or
Possibly all the suitors vying for Penelope because they want something that isn't theirs.

I'm having issues with the scene in Hades. Both Elpenor and Teiresias recognize O. before they drink the blood of sacrifice, but his mother does not. Teiresias tells O. that in order for the dead to recognize him, they must drink the blood first. Did I miss something that explains why both Elpenor and Teiresias recognized him without the drink?

Juliette wrote: "I'm having issues with the scene in Hades. Both Elpenor and Teiresias recognize O. before they drink the blood of sacrifice, but his mother does not. Teiresias tells O. that in order for the dead..."

The only thing I can figure is maybe with Elpenor it has something to do with the fact that he had just died, and perhaps that makes a difference, that he has not been in the underworld for very long, maybe the longer you are there, the more you begin to fade, and forget your memories and who you are. Plus Odysseys does call out to him first while he does not in fact address his mother or call her own name, he just weeps over her.

And for the Teresias maybe it has to do with the fact that he was a prophet?

Elpenor was not properly buried--maybe that keeps his spirit half-alive.

To me, the Elpenor story is about human dignity. Even the poor klutz who gets himself killed deserves a proper burial and mourning. If nothing else, he pulled his oar, so his oar becomes his tomb marker.

Roger wrote: "Elpenor was not properly buried--maybe that keeps his spirit half-alive.

To me, the Elpenor story is about human dignity. Even the poor klutz who gets himself killed deserves a proper burial and ..."

I had thought I had heard or read somewhere that those who did not have a proper burial could not cross over properly. Charon would not take their souls across the river, and they remained in this sort of purgatory/suspended state neither truly dead, nor alive but stuck in between.

Silver wrote: "I had thought I had heard or read somewhere that those who did not have a proper burial could not cross over properly."

The ghost of Patroklos tells Achilles that he must be given the burial rites before he can enter Hades. He says that the other shades will not allow him to cross Styx until the rites are performed. (Iliad 23) So presumably Elpenor is in a similar fix.

Teiresias is a special case, apparently. His "senses stay unshaken within him" and Persephone has granted him "intelligence even after death, but the rest of them are flittering shadows." (10.493)

Patrice, I would love to hear more about the connections you've noticed between Moby Dick and The Odyssey. I keep thinking of Moby Dick as I read.

max wrote: "We have already seen that he is a lousy leader. He is also a serial philanderer and has disrespected Penelope even as he strives to get back to her. Recognizing the simple fact that he is a consummate liar is easy to do, and concluding that his whole story is a grand lie is perfectly logical and consistent with his character."

Maybe Odysseus is a lousy leader in our eyes. Yet Homer is constantly attaching positive adjectives to his name. For example, in Chapter Eight "good Odysseus," "great Odysseus," "tactful Odysseus," and at the end of Chapter Seven even "long-enduring great Odysseus," which would seem to suggest a disconnect between Homer (and his listeners) and us. Odysseus is also described in Chapter Eight as "wily Odysseus," an adjective that seems to be intended as positive too (191) as he defends himself against Broadsea's attack.
In any case, if it's true we're meant to think that his entire story to the Phaecians is a lie, then what purpose does that serve for us as listeners/readers? It seems a strange device for a storyteller to employ.

Kathy wrote: ... "if it's true we're meant to think that his entire story to the Phaeacians is a lie, then what purpose does that serve for us as listeners/readers? It seems a strange device for a storyteller to employ.

I agree it is strange, especially since, as you point out, Homer clearly celebrates O. on every page. He is anything but a base character and embodies many deeply noble qualities (many of which come into play later in the poem): tact, generosity, kindness, loyalty, bravery, and above all, intelligence.

But O. has a very different take on truth telling than, say, Benjamin Franklin or George Washington (recall the cherry tree). It is perhaps a mark of the Greek culture of Homer's time or of Homer's own brilliance that he can take a character who is an outright liar whenever it is convenient for him, and make it seem that his deception is a positive character trait.

On a deeper level, Homer is perhaps sharing with us -- through O.'s long tale -- his view on the nature of fiction. O. is a warrior, athlete, king, counselor, strategist, diplomat, lover, and, at Phaeacia, the quintessential bard. Storytelling by definition involves making stuff up. Is it credible to think O. would give his audience (and us, by extension) a straight factual recitation? The storyteller's art is not unlike what Hephaestus does (e.g. in creating Achilles' shield in Iliad 18). The entire poem (Odyssey) is a fictive world, and Odysseus' tale is an elaborate fiction within a fiction.

I may have been overly provocative in suggesting that his whole story was a complete fabrication. On the other hand, given all that we know of O., it does seem entirely reasonable to believe that at a minimum, he was engaging in a great deal of embellishment! I also don't think Homer means for us to take a lesser view of his main character if we conclude that he pulled one over on the Phaeacians. or gave them a "tale tale."

Thomas wrote: "Silver wrote: "I had thought I had heard or read somewhere that those who did not have a proper burial could not cross over properly."

The ghost of Patroklos tells Achilles that he must be given t..."

I had thought that something of that sort was brought up in the Iliad, but I could not recall. Thank you for confirming.

Is Odysseus' lying necessarily a bad thing? By what standard are we holding him?

There is a very short dialogue attributed to Plato called Lesser Hippias, in which Socrates argues that Odysseus is a greater man than Achilles precisely because he has the intelligence to lie. For Socrates (in this case anyway) it isn't a question of morality or justice, but ability. In short, his argument is that the person who knows the truth but deliberately lies is better than the person who is honest but ignorant of the truth.

This flies in the face of Socrates' criticism of poets in the Republic (where Homer gets singled out repeatedly) but I think it's an interesting argument. It forces the question: why is Odysseus lying? What is the point of all this story telling anyway? Is it something that we should be judging ethically, and if so, by what standard?

Thomas wrote: "Is it something that we should be judging ethically, and if so, by what standard?
..."

I've been mulling this over wondering if we aren't putting our own standards of truth to judge Odysseus. I find it impossible not to make my own judgments about characters, otherwise I can't get into the story. So while I am judging Odysseus, I still keep an open mind to what an audience of that time would think. I do like him, he reminds me of the sly coyote or fox from Native American legends who tricks the Gods (or other creatures) into getting what he wants.

Thomas wrote: "Is Odysseus' lying necessarily a bad thing? By what standard are we holding him?

There is a very short dialogue attributed to Plato called Lesser Hippias, in which Socrates argues that Odysseus ..."

In some ways there seems to be certain contradictory views in regards to lying and truth within this book. While on the one hand Odysseus is much praised for his cleverness in his own acts of trickery and deceit, and there does not necessarily seem to be a negative view on lying, on the other hand there are certain points in which an emphasis is placed on the importance, and desire for the truth.

The Teiresias tells Odysseus that when the spirits drink of the blood they will speak to him the truth. In this way it is acknowledge that Odysseus himself has no desire to be lied to by others. As well Telemakos is told that Menelaus will speak the truth to him because he is too wise to lie.

It seems that truth still has a value, and the fact that they are both reassured they will be told by the truth by others seems to suggest the have no desire to be lied to and think the truth is important.

So if one acknowledges they themselves do not want to be lied to and that there is value, goodness, and wisdom in truth, can one also completely justify lying altogether?

If lying was considered to be completely acceptable, than could any value or significance still be placed upon the idea of truth? If lying was just a part of the accepted cultural than could anyone have any expectation of ever receiving the truth?

Back in Book 2, Homer tells us that the son of one of the Ithacan assemblyment had been eaten by the cyclops. So Homer seems to believe Odysseus's story. Personally I think it's all a bunch of malarkey, though.

max wrote: "There are five places in the poem where Odysseus tells rather elaborate stories that are all utterly false. All of them occur after book 12. Based on this, it seems clear that O.'s entire narration at Phaeacia is one colossal lie."

I'm not sure that necessarily follows. After all, something happened during those ten years. If Odysseus had spent it wandering around the known world, you would think the Phaeacians, who were after all sea-faring peoples and therefore presumably roaming around the Mediterranean themselves, would have heard something about him -- he was a pretty well known character, it seems, and people who had seen him would probably gossip about it.

I don't have time to go back through the text to look for places where Homer or Athena validate parts of his story, but one obvious place is right in the beginning when Athena is talking to Zeus. She confirms that Odysseus is being held by Calypso against his will, and also "it is Poseidon, the earth-enfolder, who is ever filled with stubborn wrath because of the Cyclops, whom Odysseus blinded of his eye" (Butler 1.68), so at least those two situations are confirmed (unless you think Athena is lying to Zeus, which I think is a bit far fetched).

Certainly Odysseus is able to stretch a story about even a true event, as he does about his trip from Calypso's island (verified by Hermes and Athena). But that doesn't mean that the basic underpinnings of his adventures as he tells them are untrue, does it?

Silver wrote: "In some ways there seems to be certain contradictory views in regards to lying and truth within this book."

What a neat series of posts.

And to add to this, a question is not only what we as modern readers make of this issue of truth telling vs. lying, when and why each is good or bad, but we have to wonder how this struck the Greeks themselves as they taught these seminal works to their children.

I like Juliette bringing in the Native American legends of the sly coyote or fox, but we can also go to Aesop for the same idea, where animals benefit from lies or deceptions. Aesop was post-Homer by maybe 100-200 years, but he was well known by the time of the classical Greek period when Homer had become an established authority for learning how to conduct oneself.

Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: "In some ways there seems to be certain contradictory views in regards to lying and truth within this book."

What a neat series of posts.

And to add to this, a question is not onl..."

There is a quote in another book I am reading that I think is relevant to this discussion. When I read it I could not help but think of Odysseus and the discussion which has been taking place here.

"I lied yes, but, that doesn't make me a liar. Lying's wrong, but when the world spins backwards, a small wrong may be a big right"

Silver wrote: ""I lied yes, but, that doesn't make me a liar. Lying's wrong, but when the world spins backwards, a small wrong may be a big right" "

I like that a lot! Except that Odysseus doesn't seem to care if lying is right or not, because right and wrong are not on his horizon. He only cares if his words are effective and work to his best advantage. Speech is a tool for him, as are outward appearances.

This thought is probably for the next chapter, but it seems to me that he's like an undercover agent. Sometimes he must lie, or disguise himself, in order to uncover the truth. And he comes by it naturally, as the best double agent does. After he lies to Athena she smiles on him and tells him, "you wretch, so devious, never weary of tricks, you would not even in your own country give over your ways of deceiving and your thievish tales. They are very near to you in your nature."

I (fairly) recently read East of Eden, and there is a quote in there that I absolutely love...

“I think the difference between a lie and a story is that a story utilizes the trappings and appearance of truth for the interest of the listener as well as of the teller. A story has in it neither gain nor loss. But a lie is a device for profit or escape. I suppose if that definition is strictly held to, then a writer of stories is a liar - if he is financially fortunate.”
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden

By these standards Odysseus is both.

Everyman wrote: "Is there anything cohesive which unifies the various adventures of Odysseus around some core theme or idea, or are they merely a sequence of episodes with no particular relationship to each?"

Your virtues schematic in post 16 ties these together in an appealing way. The discussion hasn't mentioned the transgression on Thrinacia, the island of Hyperion, where the crew finally eat the cattle despite the most explicit warning from Circe, and Odysseus's best explication of the danger.

Yet it is impossible to avoid this fate. First they need to take shelter, just for overnight (Eurylochus's plea.) Then the wrong wind blows for 30 days! By then, they've eaten every last bit of the ship's stores. Finally, Odysseus prays to the gods, but gets no answer other than being lulled to sleep. Of course, that's when Eurylochus prevails -- although with full knowledge that it might ruin them. Better a watery death than starving on the island, he says. If they eat and then make it home, they can try to atone with big sacrifices and temple-construction.

Odysseus awakens from his nap and the deed has been done. There was simply no escaping it, even with the complete awareness of all on the risks. I don't know if it struck any other readers this same way, but it seemed different in kind from most of the other episodes, to me. While the men seemed to think it might be possible to appease the gods and have some other outcome, the inexorable nature of their fates was most clearly shown here. Nor did this seem to reflect badly on Odysseus, to me. He did everything he could, but the crew was not completely submissive to him (here or ever), and they seemed to seek out their final destruction. They were doomed; there was no alternative to it, no escape from it. It was partly due to their characters, which played right into the unrelenting will of the gods.

Juliette wrote: "I (fairly) recently read East of Eden, and there is a quote in there that I absolutely love...

“I think the difference between a lie and a story is that a story utilizes the trappings and appearan..."

This is terrific! I was considering this same issue, about the difference between "storytelling" and "lying," as I read this thread. I would have to go with the reading that Odysseus is a great storyteller, at least in the case of the long story he tells the Phaecians, as opposed to a liar. While he may profit from his embellishments, I think they're offered up in great part for the benefit of his audience--both the Phaecians and us!

In response to Patrice, I haven't read Moby Dick in a very long time. I was just thinking about the long sea voyage ending in disaster and a sole survivor to tell his version of the tale. In Moby Dick, the crew is on a madman's personal quest, heading farther and farther from home, which seems, again, to be almost the antithesis of what's happening in The Odyssey. Ahab is absolutely driven, whereas Odysseus does seem to get sidetracked on his mission to return home. I know Melville was inspired by the true-life wreck of the Essex, but it does seem that Odysseus is somewhere in the DNA of the book. On a side note, a colleague presented a workshop last week on a class he taught about the Charles Frazier novel Cold Mountain, which is more clearly a retelling of The Odyssey. I don't recall that being mentioned when the book came out, but of course it is!

Patrice wrote: "I read somewhere that every book is either the Odyssey or the Iliad. Not sure that that's true but it must apply to a lot of books.

I googled Moby dick/Odyssey and came up with an interesting le..."

You might be interested in checking out his book, written with Sean Kelly (another philosopher and former student of Dreyfus): All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age. Their perspective is framed somewhat by existentialism -- they're both established Heidegger scholars -- but it's an interesting view.

Dreyfus' lectures on Being and Time are tremendous, btw. Heidegger is heavy lifting though.

Just got back from a week of vacation where I got no reading done (unless you include the audio book my husband and I listened to for the long trip).

I'll be catching up in the next few days (though it takes a while to get through all those posts).

Anyhow... while on vacation I caught a bit of "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" on A&E (I think) with production notes added. I wish I had gotten to watch the whole thing. It was really interesting reading the notes on how the movie was inspired by the Odyssey (John Goodman playing the cyclops....). Will have to see if I can catch it again now that I'm home. Awesome soundtrack.

I enjoy a retold classic, but only if the name is changed. If the name is "The Odyssey", it better be true to the original.

Juliette wrote: "Just got back from a week of vacation where I got no reading done (unless you include the audio book my husband and I listened to for the long trip).

I'll be catching up in the next few days (th..."

I think that movie is great fun, especially for anyone who knows Homer. I love the music!

But I don't think Odysseus has an equivalent for Dapper Dan Hair Jelly. (Or does he?)

Makes me wonder though... how many times has the Odyssey been "retold"? Cold Mountain was a good one from the past decade or so. I'm sure there are many more, and more forthcoming.

It may have been AMC. They are showing it the 16th and 17th. I'll record it and hope it's the one with the notes. If not, I'll just get to watch it again.

Patrice wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I got the book, All Things Shining and I'm loving it.
I'm almost done with the Moby dick essay and next I'll read the Odyssey essay. It's an inexpensive paperback and was on the sh..."

I came away with the same thing, more or less. They really focus on the immediacy of experience rather than contemplation of it. I think this is a reasonable approach to Homer, though I'm not sure that it works so well with the other authors. (I think they love Melville because Melville hates Plato.) In the end I think they want to preserve the pre-Socratic way of looking at the universe, which is fine, but by avoiding the Platonic response to immediacy -- which is to question mood and attunement and poetry and the gods -- they take the easy way out. They dwell on the loss of immediacy without acknowledging the importance of contemplation. And that leads to some other problems...

This is probably not the place for an extended discussion of ATS, but send me a message when you're done with the book and let me know what you think! Maybe we could set up a side-thread if others are interested.

Patrice wrote: "When I think of Moby Dick and the Odyssey together, it seems obvious that being on the sea, the ground is literally shifting beneath your feet at all times..."

I love this observation about the sea, and the interpretation it led you to about Ahab vs. Odysseus. This is a keeper! It also seems a more useful way of thinking of Odysseus--a "flexible twister and turner" rather than a "liar."

I feel like Odysseus in being continuously unemployed and sometimes unable to afford my bills. There was a time when I had a good paying job with consistent work and my manager didn't want me to leave because I was a good employee, but I chose to leave the job anyway and ever since it's been a downhill journey. Now I'm lucky to get over the first hurdle of the climb (unemployment). It's like how Odysseus is prevented from going home. I wish to find myself in a good financial standing once again just as Odysseus wants to return home.

Ah, I quote the user Silver:

[quote]To be perhaps one of the only men to hear the sirens and live to tell about it.

And it demonstrates further how to satisfy his own curiosity he takes reckless risks which puts the lives of others in danger.[/quote]

This is one of the reasons why I quit the good job. I was curious and just had to see what else was out there, blissfully unaware of the consequences of doing that. I mean even the saying "Curiosity killed the cat" can be followed by "and Satisfaction brought it back"; sometimes curiosity pays off and sometimes it does not.

Justin wrote: "I feel like Odysseus in being continuously unemployed and sometimes unable to afford my bills. There was a time when I had a good paying job with consistent work and my manager didn't want me to le..."

Justin, your connection between The Odyssey and your own journey is something I can relate to. Odysseus’ struggle to return home mirrors the challenges I think many people face in seeking stability.

Your reflection on the curiosity of hearing the sirens and surviving is powerful. Odysseus took risks, often recklessly, and unfortunately to the detriment of his relatives and crew, yet it was through those experiences that he grew. The lesson might be that we become our journey. As Odysseus’ hardships ultimately sharpened his resolve, perhaps your challenges are preparing you for the satisfaction you seek.

Do you think The Odyssey teaches perseverance, or does the influence of the gods and fate make Odysseus’ journey too far removed from us?

David wrote: "Justin wrote: "I feel like Odysseus in being continuously unemployed and sometimes unable to afford my bills. There was a time when I had a good paying job with consistent work and my manager didn'..."

It worked out for Odysseus, but it was a close thing, and he was a hero with gods on his side. I think the lesson is be careful of the risks you take.