dun dun duuun @june-sunsets - Tumblr Blog

Emily Wilson intro

You gotta love it how Wilson tries to persuade us that Odysseus is an unreliable narrator (she makes it very clear when she randomly adds the title "lord of lies" to the 9th rhapsody out of thin air to sweeten the deal) but ironically this passage shows me exactly why Odysseus is not an unreliable narrator, at least in my opinion

He could have said that the Cyclops was abusing his animals and leave them out to waste. He didn't

He could have said he built nothing. On the contrary he says how the things Polyphemus built gave him the benefit of doubt enough so that he did not allow his men steal him blind

He could have said that Polyphemus has no feelings at all. He doesn't

He could have said no one came to Polyphemus assistance (even if they didn't really come to his assistance 100% unlike what Wilson says yes they arrived when he called for help but didn't sit around in his distress. Once they heard "nobody" hurt him they said "well suck it up then and be quiet" instead of coming in to heal him or help him out with his animals the next morning)

He could have said that he never did nothing wrong. He didn't

So...I am sorry how does that make him unreliable narrator? In fact Odysseus seems to address himself more evil than Polyphemus to the second half (If you remember I had made an analysis about it in the past -please forgive my translation mistakes!-) and he even explains to his public how much in pain Polyphemus was and how much he was enjoying his pain

Of course that could also be seen as a triumph to his listeners but still Odysseus hides nothing from them which makes it the total opposite of unreliable narrator

katerinaaqu

I'm sorry Emily but....what?! He makes no moral implications!? The narrative is not given you that morality doesn't guarantee you a better life?! I am sorry what!?

I guess the piousness to the gods then (ὃς περὶ μὲν νόον ἐστὶ βροτῶν, περὶ δ᾽ ἱρὰ θεοῖσιν ἀθανάτοισιν ἔδωκε, τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν; = the one among the mortals who has offered more sacrifices to the immortals than dwell the sky) is no longer a moral implication in the story?! The honoring of Xenia, helping those in need that beg for their food, not being boastful, trying your best to save those you can save...do what you can to erase your mistake. Gee I guess there is absolutely no moral implications to the behavior of humans that can give them a better life. Nah is all about the gods giving favor to those they like...

I am sorry but....what? Odysseus is...more sensible?! Huh?... "lying self interested sacker of cities"!?

Why doesn't Wilson state that she hates the heroes then? Even if we take this intro as a humorous take, even if we take that as sarcasm even if we use that for any other context it still is to me "tell me you do not understand homeric heroes without understanding homeric heroes"

Also Athena never tried to prove that Odysseus was morally superior than the rest of the heroes because quite frankly that is not her objective? Athena did not say that Odysseus never did nothing wrong and that he doesn't deserve his fate at all. She was implying he has suffered enough. That this punishment doesn't match the crime and that the time has come for him to go home. Odysseus's morality as pious and helpful to others is very much established. Zeus doesn't need to hear it because as he himself said it, he knows it Athena would have no reason NOT to tell Zeus about Odysseus sacking cities. In fact him being a sacker of cities is a good thing for a warrior society. He is a good warrior, he honors Athena the goddess of strategy and he follows the gods during his conquests he did prior to that. None of that is having any issue with Athenas "admitting it"

Also "self centered"...yeah I guess the whole intro of the Odyssey she claims to translate and the part that it says ἀρνύμενος ἥν τε ψυχὴν καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων. "wishing to save himself and assure the return of his men" goes to hell then? Literally the first lines of the Odyssey imply his objective is not self-centered to begin with. Is 100% human. Of course he wants to save himself but he also wants to save his men (νόστον ἑταίρων) like half the Odyssey is revolving around how much Odysseus cared for others and his friends returned that with loyalty and love for him

I am not sure why Wilson wishes to erase that...

#homer #odysseus #the odyssey #emily wilson

katerinaaqu

Alright people since color in Homer was not effective enough to persuade people that color words existing or not is not determined by poetic language here are some examples from Linear B

𐀁-𐀬-𐀲-𐀨 (e-ru-ta-ra) => red 𐀡-𐀢-𐀩-𐀊 (po-pu-re-ja) => purple/crimson 𐀩-𐀄-𐀒 (re-u-ko) => white 𐀞-𐀨-𐀓-𐀊 (pa-ra-ku-ja) => bluish green/emerald [𐀓-𐀬-𐀰-𐀍 (ku-ru-so-jo) => golden] 𐀏-𐀭-𐀵 (ka-sa-to) => yellow/xanthos 𐀓-𐀷-𐀜 (ku-wa-no) => blue/cyan/lapis lazuri

Disclaimer: some of these words indicate materials too for instance crimson indicates the crimson cloths or the blue/cyan indicates potentially the lapis lazuri itself or lazuri colored inlaid glass etc or could indicate material like "golden". Word ku-ro-so meaning "made of gold" while the end suffix "jo" indicates produce (also used for humans to indicate "child of") others can indicate materials too for instance "emerald" can be also the material itself It can be ambiguous so forgive my mistakes! ^_^

Despite the ambiguity though since the linear b tablets are logistics books we can see that the poetic language doesn't apply here nor the language one typically would follow for the written long texts so you can see a bit more literal leaning towards naming colors and their usage Also their use in actual products such as lapis lazuri so the color itself represents the product and the other way round

#ancient greek #mycenaean #mycenaean greek #linear b

katerinaaqu

The Wine-Dark Sea

🌊

Honestly people wonder why Homer names the sea like that but you can probably notice there is something in common between the photo of the sea under the clouds and the wine in a cup especially a ceramic one (yeah I had poured myself a cup of wine to make a point to another friend some time ago! XD)

All one needs to do is to observe the red wine within the ceramic vessel to understand; This dark and almost bottomless feeling is probably what pushed Homer to describe the sea in such a poetic manner. The fact that wine looks dark in the cup resembles the sea that looks dark, almost black whenever there is no bottom visible from a ship. What is more, it looks even darker and deeper on cloudy days where the dark sky reflects on the sea.

At dawn or at dusk you also see the sea taking reddish hues from the sun that rises or sets

Homer you truly were a genius...

#greek mythology #the odyssey #the iliad #homer #homeric epics

katerinaaqu

I swear to God if I see one more person just straight out mocking Homeric text for naming the sea "wine-dark" instead of "blue" or why he says that the dark haired sheep are "violet" or honey "greenish" I am gonna flip

Like, it is a poem dammit! The words are not supposed to be plain!

I haven't seen anyone complaining about the average fanfiction describing eyes as "shiny" (last time I checked eyes don't shine, they just glisten under the light hitting them) or hair as "silky" (yeah hair is not made out of silk we know that right?) or that someone's face "darkens" and so on and so forth

It is a freaking poem! It is poetic language!

xxx-theartofsuicide-xxx

Skill issue

katerinaaqu

Among others indeed...

let-us-cultivate-our-garden

Homeric epithets are so evocative that they stir the imagination thousands of years later (rosy fingered Dawn, swift footed Achilles, ox-eyed Hera, Agamemnon, breaker of horses). Plus, these stories were told orally so these epithets served as a mnemonic device to aid in memory.

katerinaaqu

Precisely

Poetic language was never about just stating facts and be done with it. They wanted to create sounds, taste, feeling just by words and music.

People also obsess over the choices of the language for texts and say "oh they didn't use x y or z so that means they didn't see the colors or didn't have words for them" while sometimes I wonder if that is actually true or if it just seems too over simplifying everything and we do not give ancient language enough credit at this point

ulises-aithon

all of this!

And also, Polyphemus club is not green, it means it's still has sap. Green wood is moist wood with sap recently taken out. 🫶 like it all makes sense now.

Do you Greeks have the term of green wood for recently wood? Also colour can also be like part of an idiom? Green of envy, white of terror, in the blues etc...why do we give license to this but when it appears in ancient tect the common take is lol they didn't know etc....like come on. Being a green one here does not mean you are green but means you are young or inexperience or horny asf and there's no moment in which that person looks like Miller's oil.

katerinaaqu

Absolutely. It essentially meant that he had just cut the tree and used it for some reason (which also comes in contrast to let's say the kingly scepter that Achilles was holding in the Iliad that not only was properly cut dried and refined but also dipped in metal with added details so it was another contrast with human civilization and "savage nature")

Exactly. As I said to someone is like reading the song "am I blue" and be like "the poet clearly didn't know the word for depressed so he added stuff"

Yeah people allow poetic license only to modern shit apparently hahahaha 😆

#greek mythology #homer

june-sunsets

So the tagline for Nolan's movie is 'Defy the Gods'.

Hey, Nolan? Tell me you didn't read the Odyssey without telling me you didn't read the Odyssey.

katerinaaqu

"Nothing will stand between me and my home! Not even the gods"

Yup...tell me you haven't read the Odyssey without telling me you haven't read the Odyssey.

Tell me you don't know shit about Odysseus without telling me you don't know shit about Odysseus...

little-miss-heather

And his version of the Odyssey is based on Emily fricking Wilson 😭

Don't get me wrong, I think she's fine as a translator but I much prefer Fitzgerald's version.

katerinaaqu

That's what he claims to at least but sometimes I wonder like "yeah I dislike that translation and some of the author's notes but it couldn't have been THAT bad!

I personally disagree. Although I have heard from people who worked with Wilson's translations on other things before while she was still cooperating with other scholars that her attic geeek translations were pretty good I am deeply concerned by the way the homeric poems are being transferred. Plus her own personal comments in the interviews, in the note before the text (even if some of it is actually good ngl) and sometimes even the trabslation itself by adding things to the know it all narrator parts (as opposed to others like Feagles who also is not perfect but at least he adds some stuff to interpret characters thoughts to their dialogs or emotions instead of the general aspect of the text and despite his issues he also technically moves within the possibilities of the ancient text from the little I worked with him)

So yeah dunno about her other works but from what I saw from her so far I am disappointed at how the Homeric texts are being transferred. I mean yes not retelling of course. It is still a translation and an accessible one for that matter but no not a recommendation I would make. At least not if one wants to have understanding of the text. Good for light reading I guess.

june-sunsets

@little-miss-heather @katerinaaqu

Apparently she was frustrated that all the translations she worked with did not "provide any equivalent for the regular meter of the originals".

But she sacrificed half of the context and made the text sound prosaic and simple and devoid of what made the original sound 'heroic'. So was it worth it?

Also her translation is affected by her own biases towards the characters and the story, and because (like Miller) she makes the mistake of viewing it through a modern lense. Which again, wastes a lot of its context.

Like I'm thinking, someone who wants to read the story for the first time and picks up Wilson's translation will not get to experience what Homer had in mind. Not even close

june-sunsets

So the tagline for Nolan's movie is 'Defy the Gods'.

Hey, Nolan? Tell me you didn't read the Odyssey without telling me you didn't read the Odyssey.

june-sunsets

I rest my case

#the odyssey #anti christopher nolan #anti nolan

So the tagline for Nolan's movie is 'Defy the Gods'.

Hey, Nolan? Tell me you didn't read the Odyssey without telling me you didn't read the Odyssey.

#the odyssey #anti christopher nolan #anti nolan

just-1-scorpio

So Madeline Miller is writing a Persephone retelling. So let's make our bets about the book.

The winners will win this picture of a brick.

So let's make a bet.

A.) She will potray Demeter as an abusive mother, whaile the kidnapping will be ereased, and Hades will be baby boyfied.

B.) Hades will be potrayd as eveil incarnate, and Demeter will be potrayd as a poor poor blorbo (similar to how she potrayd Circe)

C.) Both will be potrayd as the worst. Demeter, and Hades will be potrayd as abusive, and Persephone will be potrayd as a poor poor girl who always has to suffer.

My bet is that it will be C.).

callmealioness

… Was this level of vitriol necessary?

Madeline Miller is a classicist and a teacher, I promise you that she has done her research.

Also, I have no idea how you can read Circe and reach the conclusion that she was portrayed as a “poor poor blorbo” when she has monologues about how much she enjoys torturing people, compare that to the Circe from the Odyssey who bathes sailors with her own hands lmao

I think you guys are going into these retellings with a preconceived idea and trash them regardless of the actual content of the books

lez-exclude-men

People have been doing retelling of the myth of Perephone and Demeter since the myth was born. There's so many variations and it's one of my favorite myths because of how many perspectives and allegories people find or make in it. The three "options" listed above do exist of course, but there's a plethora of other options and varieties.

People act like because the ancient Greeks loved their gods, then they couldn't "actually" ever be "problematic" when a) myth telling may have supplemented or gone alongside religion but it WASN'T religion (as opposed to a several modern religions that have a holy book of myth that is also the Absolute Truth) and b) just because YOU have a favorite variety of the myth doesn't mean the other versions of the myth are "invalid". That's not how myth telling works. Also c) anyone who says they know the "original myth" is lying to you. At *best* they are referring to the earliest RECORDED version of the myth that we have. Pray tell, how many times does a campfire story get told before someone actually makes a record of it? Not a one of us was alive when someone first told the first version of the story with Demeter and her daughter, Persephone, who was made the wife of Hades and became the queen of the dead. Hell, it's possible one or two of the three main characters wasn't involved in the first telling. We will simply never know.

People like to rail Miller for perceived "flaws" in her retellings of the myths. With regard to any "historical inaccuracies" I've seen people discuss, I always think, she's human. People will, no matter their amount of study and research, have blind spots and misconceptions. And there are always, always differences in interpretation. I'm frequently reminded of one of my early professors telling a story about one professor in the history department throwing a chair at another over a difference of interpretation of a 200+ year old document. People disagree. It happens.

A lot of the vitriol towards Miller seems to be based, like OP's post, on the fact that she is a woman telling the story differently than you would like it told. Go tell your own version of the myth! And if you want it to be a certain level of accurate to the history involved, get elbows deep in research!! You'll have fun. I know I do. But if you have no desire to do all that work, then maybe shut up and let the rest of us enjoy myths in all their variations.

starweaverblog

@lez-exclude-men I will highly recommend you to understand some things:

1. The “myths evolve” excuse

Yes, myths were told in different ways, but that doesn’t mean any retelling is automatically valid. When someone today changes core aspects of a myth without understanding its cultural context, that’s not “just another variation”, that’s misrepresentation. And when those misrepresentations become more popular than the originals, it actively harms cultural understanding.

2. The “original myth” argument

No one is claiming that there was only one “true” version. We always say that people should always respect what an ancient civilization wrote despite having many versions. What people also criticize is when modern retellings distort the fundamental themes, relationships, and cultural context of these myths. “We don’t know the original story” is not a free pass to make Hades a brooding misunderstood boyfriend when ancient Greek sources repeatedly show him as a god who abducts Persephone without her consent.

3. The “stop criticizing Miller” defense

Look, people criticize Madeline Miller not because she’s a woman retelling myths, but because her retellings are historically inaccurate, often feel overly modernized, and flatten complex Greek figures into clichés that fit Western literary trends. No one is saying she can’t write fiction, but pretending that Greeks have no right to call out inaccuracies in their own mythology is absurd.

4. The arrogance of “just go do your own version”

Greeks already do. But thanks to Western publishing and media, those versions are rarely the ones that gain traction. It’s frustrating to see non-Greeks dominate the conversation and then tell actual Greeks to “just write their own” as if they have equal access to international publishing power.

The bottom line? You can enjoy retellings all you want, but don’t dismiss criticism from people whose culture you’re profiting off. It’s not “just another interpretation” when it erases the history and significance of the myths it claims to celebrate.

june-sunsets

^^^^^^^ All of this.

There's a difference between 'telling your own version' of a myth, and telling a completely different story. If you need to change a pre-existing character so much that they feel like a new character, then it's simply bad writing.

Miller is especially self-righteous about her retellings in interviews. Are her retellings 'other versions' of the myths? If by 'other versions' you mean distorting the mythology and missing its point, or utilizing foreign mythology as an aesthetic to draw people in, then yeah, I guess.

Readers who are ignorant of the myths or have no respect for the culture those myths belong to, will then take Miller's distorted stories as fact, and assume that hers is the correct way of telling them. And, evidently, Miller's fans will not tolerate anyone criticizing her.

Well I promise you that her books give the opposite impression.

In fact, her characterization of Patroclus alone is enough for me to doubt her both as an academic and as a researcher.

(Not to mention her tendency to invent unnecessary details, things that don't happen in the myths, like Circe getting assaulted, which was specifically added to 'justify' Circe's behaviour in the Odyssey. A+ writing, how very progressive)

A classicist like Miller should know that when you apply modern standards to an ancient myth, essentially removing it from the era in which it was written, and ignoring the reasons the myth was created, then you're missing half of the context.

Either she

has severely misunderstood the characters in the Homeric epics and Greek mythology in general (which doesn't say much about her as a classicist), or

she does understand the characters in the myths, but she cares more about what kind of story will 'sell'. She's thinking, "Let's see, if I frame Homer as problematic, and promote my books as the solution to the 'Homer problem', then of course people will prefer my stories."

If it's the latter, it's not a surprise, and she's not the first person to do it, and unfortunately she won't be the last.

@rightwheretheyleftme I think you're going into these retellings without fully grasping the purpose and cultural value of Greek mythology. I think you're glorifying these retellings regardless of how off the mark they are when it comes to characterization.

@lez-exclude-men If you're enjoying Miller's books that much, then I hate to break it to you, but you are the one who needs to get 'elbows deep' in research. But if you have no desire to do all that work, maybe you shut up and let people express their opinions? Miller's work is flawed, and we are allowed to point it out.

This isn't about Miller being a woman, and it isn't about all retellings being inherently bad. This is about Miller not respecting and not understanding the mythology she's so eager to 'fix'.

callmealioness

This entire rambling reeks of anti-art beliefs.

> If you need to change a preexisting character so much that they feel like a new character, then it's simply bad writing.

Why? Why is giving an existing character a new personality “bad writing”? Plenty of our greatest works of art are books, tv shows, and movies that take pre-established characters and twist them in some way. I’m curious to hear an explanation of why reinventing a character is singularly shameful.

> Readers who are ignorant of the myths or who have no respect for the culture those myths belong to, will then take Miller's distorted stories as fact, and assume that hers is the correct way of telling them.

And how is that her fault? Anybody who buys a retelling and becomes convinced that they are reading the true and original version of the story is an idiot. Madeline Miller’s books are advertised towards adults.

> I think you're going into these retellings without fully grasping the purpose and cultural value of Greek mythology.

How nice of you to accuse me of xenophobia because I believe that a book that hasn’t even been published shouldn’t be ridiculized. Very rational.

If you believe that the concept of ancient greek mythology retellings as a whole is disrespectful, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I just find it completely unnecessary to insult this woman’s intelligence and speak of her as if she’s an idiot to be led by the nose.

I’m more than happy to read criticisms of MM’s work. OP couldn’t recall basic details of the book, so I highly doubt that they’ve read it. I don’t care for misinformed reviews.

june-sunsets

Your response reeks of 'I will twist every sentence into something else'. First of all;

'How nice of you to accuse me of xenophobia because I believe that a book that hasn’t even been published shouldn’t be ridiculized. Very rational.'

I did not accuse you of xenophobia. Where on earth did I accuse you of xenophobia? You read 'you're going into these retellings without fully grasping the purpose and cultural value of Greek mythology' and what you got from it was 'xenophobia'? Are you kidding me? What I wrote is literally what it says on the tin (which is not xenophobia). And OP did not ridiculize anything; they made a humorous speculation on a future book and you couldn't handle it. Very mature.

'If you believe that the concept of ancient greek mythology retellings as a whole is disrespectful, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I just find it completely unnecessary to insult this woman’s intelligence and speak of her as if she’s an idiot to be led by the nose.'

In the conclusion of my 'rambling' I state that this isn't about all retellings being inherently bad:

I believe a good retelling can be done. It's possible. Unfortunately, they are extremely hard to find (or, apparently, extremely hard to write). Most myth retelling writers do the same mistake Miller does; looking at ancient myths through a modern lense, and judging them based on that. Then they claim they can 'fix' them (which is another level of insulting) and they end up distorting those myths to the point where they are completely different stories, unrelated to the original source.

Also no one insulted Miller's intelligence? No one called her an idiot. In fact, she might know exactly what she's doing. I just don't agree with it, I think it's wrong and she's being disrespectful to the mythology and the culture it originated from.

(There is a general misconception of Greek culture in general when it comes to Western academic circles. It's frustrating.)

'And how is that her fault? Anybody who buys a retelling and becomes convinced that they are reading the true and original version of the story is an idiot. Madeline Miller’s books are advertised towards adults.'

That's true, anybody who buys a retelling thinks they are reading the true of the story is an idiot. But there's a problem in Miller's attitude towards mythology as well. How is it also not her fault, when she says things like 'the ending of the novel is a huge pushback against mythology' in her interviews? Really, Miller? Are you comparing yourself to Homer? Are you saying your retelling is on a par with this thousands-of-years-old epic? Be for real.

Ultimately, the fact that she's a Classicist means little to me when she characterizes mythological figures -mortals and gods- in a way that reduces them to caricatures; she simplifies them so they can fit the boxes of modern character tropes.

That's when retellings become direspectful. And that's an instance where changing an existing character's personality is bad writing. Especially when this character was originally pretty complex and means something to the people of this culture.

As a Greek person, I have the right to call her out on that.

I didn't accuse you of xenophobia, but I'm pretty sure you accused me of being anti-art. So no, I'm not anti-art. I'm just Greek and irritated with Miller's BS. People are allowed to express criticism on art. All art, including Miller's.

callmealioness

Acussing me of not seeing the cultural value of greek folklore is an acussation of xenophobia. I’m from what people would call a third world country, I’ll be the first person to call out when a person from an imperialist country is disrespectful against another culture’s traditions because this affects my everyday life. I’m not twisting your words, in fact, I’m taking you very seriously; I just don’t appreciate the language you’re using against me.

OP said the following:

That’s not humorous, that’s an insult.

Saying that retellings can be good but that they shouldn’t reimagine the characters is a contradiction. The purpose of retellings is to alter the original material.

The quote about “pushback against mythology” doesn’t refer to Homer. MM was talking about the ending of the Telegony where Penelope marries Telegonus and they both become immortal, she was explaining why she decided to change it. Funnily enough, MM received a lot of criticism for including the Telegony at all in her book- Most modern readers hate it and believe that it should be ignored completely.

Again, I’d love for you to explain which characters who are complex and nuanced in mythology you believe that she turned into stereotypes.

Yes, I called you anti-art because of this: “If you need to change a preexisting character so much that they feel like a new character, then it's simply bad writing.”

The idea that reimaginings are “bad writing” is restrictive of the medium and dismissive of plenty of great works. Critique MM all you want, I just fundamentally disagree with how you view artistic freedom.

june-sunsets

'I’ll be the first person to call out when a person from an imperialist country is disrespectful against another culture’s traditions because this affects my everyday life.'

I see, thank you for sharing that. I repeat, however, I did not accuse you of xenophobia.

OP's post was harmless, including the tags. They were joking, they said so themselves. You're making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.

There was an interview where Miller specifically said "I wanted to push back against Homer". That's probably what I remembered, and same logic applies. How can she compare her books to ancient writings?

As for which characters she simplified, well, I've already mentioned Patroclus. The women in 'The song of Achilles' are depicted negatively because they get in the way of Patrochilles. In general Miller sees the Gods as modern sociopaths and describes them as such. Why did Helios need to be a bad father, for example? Simply for protagonist Circe's backstory? In Circe, it often feels like all the male characters have to be abusive purely for Miller's 'feminist' narrative.

You keep forgetting what I wrote:

This isn't about all retellings being inherently bad.

Let me put it this way; I enjoy fanfiction. Fanfiction is essentially a form of retelling. But here's the thing; even in fanfiction, where you put the pre-existing characters in a story that diverges from canon, or even in an AU, the characters are still 'in character'. If their personalities are different, then what's the point? You might as well be reading about completely different characters.

'The idea that reimaginings are “bad writing” is restrictive of the medium and dismissive of plenty of great works'

I was refering to the characters' personalities. Not the entire idea of a retelling. So again, I'm not anti-art, and again, I feel you're twisting my words.

You said in your previous response 'I don’t care for misinformed reviews'. Well, I don't care for people who repeatedly distort my opinions. And I especially do not need to justify myself to them, since they will twist anything I say.