Skip to main content

The Real Reason Why Relationships Are So Hard- Jamie Peters

    What a way to begin the semester! Six months is too long to go without seeing a new action film or a romantic tragedy, and this epic has all three! Overall, I have been captivated by this story, all of the twists and turns - I really wish we were reading it all in class! Since we aren't, unfortunately, I will have to settle with what we are reading.

    One of the most interesting things about this book thus far is the way that Homer juxtaposes the gods and the humans. Humans are messy, sure, but the gods? They are on a whole other level of messed up, and most of their actions are afflicted onto mankind. In the gods' minds, they are the most important beings in this universe, and they don't take kindly to anyone telling them otherwise. For instance, in book 3 of The Iliad, Helen refuses to go back to bed with her consort, Paris. Although it is for vain reasons that she doesn't want to be with him, Helen still has a right to refuse unwelcome advances. Aphrodite, however, only hears that her will is being denied. She threatens Helen with "...withering hate / from both sides at once, Trojans and Achaeans..." (483-484). This warning is so terrifying to Helen that she shuts up and goes with the love goddess as she commanded.

    Homer then flips to another major romance within this epic, seemingly untouched by the gods (so far), the relationship between Hector and his wife, Andromache. Their relationship, marred by the touch of war, has all readers heartbroken for their loss of peace. Hector will never stop fighting until he knows that his Andromache and his Scamandrius are safe (554-556). Andromache will never stop fearing for her husband, seeing that he is all that she has left in this life (490-510). Overall, their love for each other is so deep; it seems almost impossible for the gods not to completely screw it up with the way that Homer has portrayed them.

What is Homer's ultimate plan in writing the gods in this way, as the beings who will never do humans right? Thoughts?



I commented on Hailey Morgan's and Micah's posts.

Comments

  1. I think Homer portrayed the gods in such a way to make them more relatable. Think about it this way: Zeus is the guy who just appeases himself and is a bit of a thrill seeker, Ares is the destructive little kid on the playground who always wants to fight over everything, and Hera is the ultimate example of the "Karen" stereotype in public. Every god is written with flaws that can make for very sticky situations because Homer is "world building," or setting up the stories that we know today in greek mythology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Hera as "Karen")... Holy cow! That had me balling laughing...I mean ya ain't wrong but at the same time. Wow! I have a completely different mental picture of Hera (insert Karen meme here). I know this isn't a very constructive comment but I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

      Delete
  2. I really thought it was hilarious how Homer wrote the gods into this story. I mean, you would think them being gods, they would be a little bit more wise and understanding dealing with each other. The humans always looked to them for decisions, but it appeared to me that the gods were even more petty and unwise than the humans were. Ironic really.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think writing the gods as more relatable beings, with numerous flaws and problems(for instance, I think Aphrodite can be kind of a brat), elevates the humans. The juxtaposition of an extremely flawed immortal with a, while still flawed, honorable and strong soldier such as Hector is a great tool for elevating the reader or listener's idea of how truly strong and honorable a soldier is. Because Hector might be a great warrior, but he is still a flawed human. Showing him in comparison to a extremely flawed god helps the reader see him in the light Homer wants us to see him.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lovers of Wisdom, Not Power—Lily Caswell

In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Socrates talks about the possibility of having a well-governed city. However, he also talks about how that particular form of government is impossible to have. A well-governed city becomes a possibility only if you can discover a better way of life for your future rulers than holding office.” (Plato, p 215) Maybe his version of a better life was for those in office to not be lovers of power, since it would then become a fight among rival lovers. Socrates gets to the point that the only rulers who don’t love power are true philosophers. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and knowledge and not power, ergo they are the perfect rulers. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely, so I’m thinking that maybe the trick to being a good ruler is for you to be a philosophical person who loves wisdom and not power. I commented on Jamie’s and Isabelle’s posts.

How to Make a Clone - Clabo

I found books three and four to be very cringy. I mean, to me the idea of structurally producing good soldiers/guardians through heavy censorship is somewhat inhumane. I feel as if human beings should be allowed to experience every bit of knowledge they can at some point in their lives. To me, it seems as if the guardians are being guarded against information throughout their entire lives so they can solely fulfill the duties they were birthed into.  However, the influence and importance Plato places on poetry and music do make me wonder what it would be like if we had the same values as our military today. What if the United States military invested in the souls of its soldiers and placed within them emotional and intellectual values outside of what they have learned previously. Perhaps the military instills values and principles within soldiers to fulfill the same purpose as the guardians would in Plato's Republic and that is to only be that which the government wants you to be....

Dystopian Origins Uncovered ////// Isabelle Ferguson

  I think that ideas eventually run out of originality and circle back to the original idea. During this week's reading, many of Socrates’ suggestions for a place of perfection reminded me of some novels I’ve read depicting dystopian worlds. Disclaimer: There are spoilers ahead. You have been warned.        To begin, in  The  Giver  by Lois Lowry censorship is a major theme. The novel is centered around a boy who is receiving memories withheld from the population! The government in The Giver is especially careful to censor the memories that may cause strife, anger, fear, sadness, etc. In the adults, this society is cemented. So, the government is especially strict with the youth. Socrates talks about verses to “obliterate” to prevent the descriptions from doing “harm to our future warriors” for the better half of Book III (Plato, page 44). The warriors he speaks of are the youth. He goes on to list the multitude of verses that should be done ...