Thursday, August 15, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Is Odysseus a Heroic Individual?
Having just finished up teaching another unit on Homer's Odyssey, the perennial questions arise as to what we as modern readers are supposed to make of Odysseus as a character and possible role model. No doubt Odysseus comes across as a noble, charismatic, larger-than-life individual, the one who is "never at a loss" and therefore "ready for any challenge" that Life may throw his way. Granted, he does carry with him his share of "baggage" when it comes to bad decisions and reckless deeds; these are somewhat mitigated by the fact that he finds himself in one extreme situation after another and always emerges with some priceless morsel of wisdom extracted at a high price. I maintain that Odysseus presents as a new kind of hero - vastly different in character from the traditional warrior heroes of which the two most famous examples were Achilles and Agamemnon. Whereas these two Greek alpha-males were "difficult" to say the least, not to mention: proud, brash, arrogant, stubborn, inflexible, vain, petty, demanding, snobbish, cruel and ruthlessly single-minded - their main focus being "victory on the battlefield" and "winning respect from their inferiors" - i.e. not the sort one would enjoy keeping company with - Odysseus, by contrast, is a kinder, gentler, more well-rounded individual - a survivor of many settings who overcomes adversity by using his wits (metis). Odysseus is concerned with homecoming (nostos) - return from a protracted struggle at Troy to a strife-filled domestic sphere; because of this, his adventures span the extremes of war and peace. Yet, while soldierly types like Achilles would prefer fighting-to-the-death to suffering any sort of slight or humiliation, and would shun manual exertions for their own sake as base and plebeian, Odysseus - like Hercules before him - is willing to undergo such "labors" for the sake of adventure, and endures all sorts of embarrassing situations. Where Achilles is a somewhat static character who never changes, never learns, never grows as a person, Odysseus is dynamic, innovative, and resourceful - someone who is always learning from his mistakes and adapting to new situations. Notwithstanding his appeal, charisma and larger-than-life status, Odysseus is nevertheless someone who has been known, on occasion, to lie, cheat, steal, pillage, maim, kill, offend, deceive, betray, threaten and exploit both men and gods alike. Comparing O's virtues with his vices (see below), the question remains as to whether and to what degree he measures up to our modern standards of heroism.
On the plus side for Odysseus, I have listed the following "good qualities":
+
"never-at-a-loss"
"always-ready-for-any-challenge"
brave/dauntless/courageous
curious/open-minded
receptive-to-change
open-to-new-experiences
flexible/adaptable
resilient
resourceful
smart/clever
charming
practical
patient
long-suffering
hard-working
willing-to-suffer-setbacks-and-humiliations
On the minus side, I list the following "bad qualities":
_
selfish
egotistical
arrogant
vain
over-confident
negligent
duplicitous
deceptive
dissembling
reckless
thieving
threatening
harassing
heartless (willing-to-kill-and-maim)
unfaithful
vengeful
vindictive
unforgiving
noxious
Thursday, April 25, 2013
John Henry Newman - Prose Stylist
One of the most remarkable sentences in English non-fiction and one of the most deceptively simple yet inexhaustibly complex:
"On the whole then I conclude as follows:—if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue;—a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith;—a religion which impresses on the serious mind very distressing views of the guilt and consequences of sin, sets upon the minute acts of the day, one by one, their definite value for praise or blame, and thus casts a grave shadow over the future;—a religion which holds up to admiration the surrender of wealth, and disables serious persons from enjoying it if they would;—a religion, the doctrines of which, be they good or bad, are to the generality of men unknown; which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous; which is felt to be so simply bad, that it may be calumniated at hazard and at pleasure, it being nothing but absurdity to stand upon the accurate distribution of its guilt among its particular acts, or painfully to determine how far this or that story concerning it is literally true, or what has to be allowed in candour, or what is improbable, or what cuts two ways, or what is not proved, or what may be plausibly defended;—a religion such, that men look at a convert to it with a feeling which no other denomination raises except Judaism, Socialism, or Mormonism, viz. with curiosity, suspicion, fear, disgust, as the case may be, as if something strange had befallen him, as if he had had an initiation into a mystery, and had come into communion with dreadful influences, as if he were now one of a confederacy which claimed him, absorbed him, stripped him of his personality, reduced him to a mere organ or instrument of a whole;—a religion which men hate as proselytizing, anti-social, revolutionary, as dividing families, separating chief friends, corrupting the maxims of government, making a mock at law, dissolving the empire, the enemy of human nature, and a "conspirator against its rights and privileges;" [Note 53]—a religion which they consider the champion and instrument of darkness, and a pollution calling down upon the land the anger of heaven;—a religion which they associate with intrigue and conspiracy, which they speak about in whispers, which they detect by anticipation in whatever goes wrong, and to which they impute whatever is unaccountable;—a religion, the very name of which they cast out as evil, and use simply as a bad epithet, and which from the impulse of self-preservation they would persecute if they could;—if there be such a religion now in the world, it is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author." - John Henry Newman from The Development of Christian Doctrine, Ch 6
"On the whole then I conclude as follows:—if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue;—a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith;—a religion which impresses on the serious mind very distressing views of the guilt and consequences of sin, sets upon the minute acts of the day, one by one, their definite value for praise or blame, and thus casts a grave shadow over the future;—a religion which holds up to admiration the surrender of wealth, and disables serious persons from enjoying it if they would;—a religion, the doctrines of which, be they good or bad, are to the generality of men unknown; which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous; which is felt to be so simply bad, that it may be calumniated at hazard and at pleasure, it being nothing but absurdity to stand upon the accurate distribution of its guilt among its particular acts, or painfully to determine how far this or that story concerning it is literally true, or what has to be allowed in candour, or what is improbable, or what cuts two ways, or what is not proved, or what may be plausibly defended;—a religion such, that men look at a convert to it with a feeling which no other denomination raises except Judaism, Socialism, or Mormonism, viz. with curiosity, suspicion, fear, disgust, as the case may be, as if something strange had befallen him, as if he had had an initiation into a mystery, and had come into communion with dreadful influences, as if he were now one of a confederacy which claimed him, absorbed him, stripped him of his personality, reduced him to a mere organ or instrument of a whole;—a religion which men hate as proselytizing, anti-social, revolutionary, as dividing families, separating chief friends, corrupting the maxims of government, making a mock at law, dissolving the empire, the enemy of human nature, and a "conspirator against its rights and privileges;" [Note 53]—a religion which they consider the champion and instrument of darkness, and a pollution calling down upon the land the anger of heaven;—a religion which they associate with intrigue and conspiracy, which they speak about in whispers, which they detect by anticipation in whatever goes wrong, and to which they impute whatever is unaccountable;—a religion, the very name of which they cast out as evil, and use simply as a bad epithet, and which from the impulse of self-preservation they would persecute if they could;—if there be such a religion now in the world, it is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author." - John Henry Newman from The Development of Christian Doctrine, Ch 6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)