odysseus refuses immortality. he refuses it after seeing the land of the dead and knowing what waits for him. odysseus refuses peace in stagnation, and he refuses it after a journey that brought nothing but horror and loss. and what's crazy is that i think he couldn't have chosen otherwise, manyturningmuchturned man as he is, because if he chooses immortality he gives up being that man. he is odysseus because he is odysseus because he is odysseus
I stg if I see one more person confidently state about “what happens in the odyssey” or “after Odysseus gets home” and they are talking about Circe and Odysseus having a kid and Penelope marrying that kid after he kills Odysseus…y’all are talking about The Telegony, not The Odyssey, and talking about them the same way you would a modern author who wrote a direct sequel to their own series, and that’s just not how it works with these stories. I am far from an expert, but I still know these things. I am begging you to stop acting like you know what you’re talking about.
oh Christ ALWAYS people reducing things like the telegony to "fanfiction" or acting like homer is "the canon" and anything not written by homer is a LIE and should be BURNED on a PYRE like have you ever heard that there can be *keels over in pain* DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF A MYTH? That's how storytelling fucking works.
I mean, the Telegony might not be any less valid than the Odyssey as a myth. It’s just likely different than what Homer intended. By Odyssey, she I assume she specifically meant Homer’s Odyssey
So.. there’s something that’s has been itching my brain for a while now. It’s the situation with Polyphemus in the original myths.
I’m not denying that Polyphemus’ rage towards Odysseus was understandable (regardless of whether or not he overreacted) given that Odysseus broke into his house.
But people are taking it all the way up to portraying him as otherwise good natured, and I’m like… isn’t that a stretch??
Like, are there a whole bunch of myths where he is good natured because the only other myths I’ve seen with Polyphemus are the ones you showed me where crushes his love rival with a rock and nearly SA’s someone when inebriated.
Even in Homer’s Odyssey I believe it’s stated that the Phaecians had to migrate to escape the Cyclopes’ harassment. Polyphemus even says that he doesn’t care about Xenia because the Cyclopes are more powerful than the gods.
To me that doesn’t point to Polyphemus only getting violent when wronged.
Okay one by one the points here;
I am not convinced that the Odyssey is aiming to make Polyphemus "rightfully rage" in that essence. Sure we can speak about the unorthodox to say the very least entrance to the cave or in future sources like Apollodorous, unless I am mistaken, who seem to interpret the scene of the sacrifice as Odysseus and his men actually even eating one of his kids that were in the pen (Homer doesn't seem to directly imply that but it is on the table too) and we see the first reaction of Polyphemus as understandable but I think that the reason why Odysseus seems to make him react as if it was an invasion was because he was inhospitable to begin with
As I said in the past Odysseus even seemed to be testing the waters by bringing hospitality gift much superior than the things they took (cheese) so he would be like "if he truly respect xenia he will take the payment and we shall part friends, if he doesn't then he is a savage"
To which up to one point he was proven right
The essence also of size is important. Polyphemus could easily have them so he was abusing his own strength as well as his relation to Poseidon etc
But yeah it is clear what the Cyclopes represent in general or Polyphemus in particular. We do have the essence of savagery; the people who do not fit in what Greeks perceived as a civilized society (which sometimes was not necessarily tied to Greek customs as we see from other sources but at least those who understand the importance of helping someone in need)
Cyclopes do not build civilization. They carve their houses in caves. They do not cultivate plants even if the land is fertile which is used as a parallel to animalistic ways of life and behaviors. However they still do not get the free pass of animal-like creatures because they have cognitive ability, human speech and up to one point have tamed their environment for example by building shelter or having animals well-kept etc
They also show true essence of wishing to invade others just like any human for example as you said the example of the Phaeakes. Show a kind that doesn't really fit in to a functional society based on the standards that the texts wish to built.
They also hardly fit with each other. As I mentioned to another post or answer of mine, if you were screaming in pain because you broke your arm, your neighbors came to you and ask you what's wrong and you told them that you fell down and broke your arm and they told you "if no one then attacked you shut the fuck up and deal with it" and left, hardly what I call neighboring behavior.
They seem interested only when it comes to someone stealing cattle or attacking them because quite frankly that would make THEM look bad too aka that one of them was overpowered by whatever threat. Ironically Polyphemus in his pain and distress DID try and seek help which could imply that at least he compared to the rest might have some tad of more need for emotional support if we see his ram too and all but still he is far from being an innocent baby boy either
Now I have made an analysis in regards to the moment where we can be somehow sympathetic to Polyphemus here (please forgive me I made some bad and hasty translation here);
💬 6 🔁 15 ❤️ 44 · Odysseus and Polyphemus: The Brilliance of Homeric writing (an analysis based on rhapsody/book 9 of Odyssey) · This is wh
Here's also an interesting conversation I had in the past
💬 0 🔁 4 ❤️ 19 · Post by @katerinaaqu · 1 link · Oh undoubtedly so and it is that question that Polyphemus asks that basically make the who
The Cyclopes by no means were innocent. In fact they were seen as man-eating monsters who are a threat to everyone. There are some exceptions of course aka the Cyclopes appearing in Hesiodic Theogony that are in charge of the thunderbolts Zeus is using for instance.
Anyways I think it is as I said this modern obsession to constantly justify the monster of the story
The Minotaur is not a man-eating monster without human emotion but a suppressed soul trapped in the darkness by evil people
Medusa was just a poor victim that was minding her business before some evil people targeted her
and so on and so forth till nowadays we also turned that to Polyphemus that he is just a poor innocent shepherd who was only minding his business till evil Odysseus permanently damaged him and he did nothing wrong and if he did it was justified because Odysseus is a pirate and a scoundrel and oh he is unreliable narrator anyways so what if Polyphemus truly was just minding his business?
That last one I think is the most prominent in Wilson's translation and more specifically her intro of which I made a separate post about;
💬 5 🔁 17 ❤️ 38 · I'm sorry Emily but....what?! He makes no moral implications!? The narrative is not given you that morality doesn't guara
she seems to perpetuate the idea that "what if Odysseus lied" on the savagery of Polyphemus and all. Many people follow these ideas and interpretations like a bible and honestly I see why;
People are obsessed with the idea of "correcting history". Anything you are taught is a lie. Any victim you knew is in fact a villain and any villain was a victim presented so because some evil people wanted to alter history
And what is better to make a visualization out of than the monsters of popular Greek mythology whose sole purpose was to be in the way of our heroes and be defeated by them? Especially since sources like Ovid also popularized versions of the story that assist their narrative?
I think this is part of the root of this. The projection of people who did bad deeds now present themselves as victims that could not do anything else but hurt someone while their counterparts that were on average relatively to be rooted for or at least seen from their perspectives are now turned to villains or at least people to criticize.
most adaptations just ignore the hanging of the maids entirely because it's so uncomfortable to modern audiences but this is just baffling, and feels so offensive to the characters.
Melantho may have betrayed Penelope (who actually betrayed the secret of the shroud is ambiguous, but sure, she slept with the suitors) but Penelope raised her like a daughter, i can't imagine her killing her in cold blood.
and Penelope can be ruthless when she has to be, but she isn't violent (the review also mentions that the iconic bed scene is cut, diminishing her cunning).