Notes on The Odyssey for the ignoble who come here

I think Emily Wilson defended the area of her expertise: the classical world and its literature. 

To me, Nolan is an entertainer: the sum of the parts are for the purpose of enchantment.

To Oates, he is engaged in a form of art that tends toward entertainment.

Art should be free interpretation by the artist/s’ vision to portray our experience of existence via symbol/metaphor/action/dialogue in ways that elicit an increase in consciousness either toward inspiration or judgment and reform. 

Entertainment is performance for money. 

Entertainers may perform in a medium that is art.

Classics - in this case the art form of ancient literatures - serve us in our reflection on our own moral systems in order to measure our system’s nobility/brutality. From the psychological health of society and that of its citizens and the quality of relationships between persons (like gender relations) and groups (like socioeconomic strata) to international relations and guidelines for engaging in peace and trade or war and accumulation.

And to mine the Classics for that is to pay extended attention to the language, historical setting, appropriate interpretation of ancient meaning and moral lesson making. 

Hence, Emily Wilson’s deep dissatisfaction. [Wilson also wrote, “This epic is bringing audiences back to cinemas … translations of Odyssey, including mine, are flying off the shelves … perhaps the film will persuade a few college administrators not to cut their literature, language and history departments…. Nolan is doing his best to get the general public reading again, and I am grateful.”]

Nolan isn’t giving us interpretation of a classic text of Western Civilization. He is giving us a spectacle platformed on a simulacrum of that text.

He is giving us a gladiatorial reenactment of a historio-mythic event.

__

And just in notational form:

- the Greeks and Romans staged spectacles along with literary arts. None of them were historically accurate or even in sync with each other in terms of events or who did what. They were performing for their own social delight/consideration

- boys and men played female roles; for millennia; past Shakespeare into the late 19th century; Lupita would never have a chance against Tom Holland as Helen and Clytemnestra (how much better off are we!)

- boys were castrated for chorale in the Byzantine Empire for 800 years and then again for 200 years in Italian chorale ; I guess some thinks it’s an improvement to block black people’s talent than castrate boys; I think it’s even better to celebrate real talent and skill from all artist’s than do either of those; yet, we still live in a time where that’s not the de facto common sense morality.

The discussion and reception of this movie is an opportunity for many, many lessons on morality, community, and meaning making. Half of our society’s new fashioned thrill toward nihilism becomes one of the subjects involved.