Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Sorry Arthur C. Clarke, Homer was there first . . . Kinda . . . Well not really, but it doesn't matter . . . Does it?

Hello, once again, my loyal readers and literary appreciators, today I have a good one for you. I have pulled myself away from a stack of books I'm sure Emma Lazarus would have a word or two for, and found the glorious time to reconvene with you. I have been thinking quite a bit about how some authors are deified in the minds of some readers as members of an almost supernatural pantheon of writers, and, to put it bluntly, it disgusts me. Now I'm not saying its wrong to have a favorite, or even a number of favorite writers who inspire you or blah blah blah, I'm just asking people to question why these certain writers are or should or should not be immortalized. Specifically, I am thinking of Homer, a name near and dear to every reader from sixth grade on up. . . except to one E.W. Strege. Yep, you guessed it, a literary rant is on the way so batten down the hatches, Put beeswax in your ear, and for God's sake don't eat the lotus root, because we're a long way from Ithaca on today's blog. God's speed, and I hope to see you on the other side.

***As I sit and meditate ever so pensively next to the belching stacks of Taco Bell’s deep fryers, it occurs to me that a certain amount of hypocrisy exists between the way we (contemporary appreciators and scholars of literature) deem authors “worthy” of positive attention and adoration. The general consensus amongst my peers – at least the ones to whom I have spoken – has been that The Odyssey is a retelling of a tale through a textual medium. I both validate and understand this view, but am still puzzled as to why we view Homer as a canonical writer worthy of our attention, seeing as all he did was transcribe a common tale without any remarkable attention to poetic form. On the other hand, Virgil adapted a tale and expressed it quite sophisticatedly with great poetic erudition. I hope this is not coming across too cynical, but if I were to write down the story of Star Wars with the occasional superficial change here and there, I am not a brilliant writer because I am “ripping” off Star Wars, I am not a genius, George Lucas is. Likewise, just because the enigma we know as “Homer” wrote down the Odyssey, it doesn’t change the fact that the true genius stems from the originator of the tale, who is probably some nameless, faceless, Greek who lived ages even before “Homer”. I want to be put on record as saying that I, by no means, mean any disrespect to anyone who adores Homer, or even to Homer himself, I aim to merely develop an interesting topic for discussion which will, with any luck, help to elucidate some of the deeply important – if not a bit too philosophical – issues in literature. ***

Okay, there you have it folks, my brief musings on Homer fueled by burnt coffee and a dish which had altogether too many tortillas involved.

I most earnestly implore you to comment, discuss, and actively participate in the dialogue we here at AFLM tirelessly endeavor to initiate. Many thanks to all who have been commenting on my blogs, I deeply appreciate your time and attention to my work and hope that your interest continues in what I am sure will be a wonderfully colorful exploration of literary issues.

One more thing (I'm curious to see if this works) I am currently taking requests for blog topics by you, the readers! I am always trying to discuss things that are viewed as thought provoking by myself and others, and what better way to do it than answer directly to the people for whom I am writing . So, If you have any recommendations, leave them as a comment in the designated space directly under this blog and I will address them in the order they are received.


With all due respect,

Eric W. Strege

5 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dammit Eric, again with the Homer thing?

    Well then, take this into account. Homer lived in a time where the written word was more or less a new thing. If you would keep up on other peoples blogs (you self centered bastard) then you would know that the thought processes between people of an oral culture and a written culture work significantly differently. The repetition and mnemonics that it takes to memorize every word of an epic does not allow for the speaker to variate the story consciously but Homer, on the other hand, did exercise authorial control.
    Putting this story on to paper may not have been as easy as we think, there was no manuscript that he could read out of the air, Homer had to filter the voices of a multitude of different variations on the story and he had to arrange them in a chronological and thematic sequence that honestly doesn't exist inherently in the Odyssey. Didn't hear the story about Odysseus' sweet sixteen? You can thank Homer for that. The fact is that Homer defined the canon through his creative judgement and did something with the stories that hadn't been done before.

    It was much easier for Virgil to add poetic content to his poetry because... well... written poetry had been established for a long time by then. Plus, he was working from the the text of his precursors, like Homer.

    But don't think I'm bashing Virgil, at the end of the day I still love the hell out of that guy. But give some credit to Homer, he really set the standard.

    Also, I had to remove that last comment because I noticed some errors that made me look like an idiot. Revision is good kids.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I, of course, respect your comment, Rainamoinen, but I still take issue with Homer's works being more or less solely dependent on oral tradition. Obviously Homer's contribution to literature is notable, if only for his being one of the first authors to proliferate written text, so I am not completely discounting him, merely saying that his historical significance cannot neatly be compared with the artistic adulation merited by Joyce, Eliot, Faulkner, Steinbeck, or (this one is for you) John Banville.

    Let's just agree to continue this conversation over a bowl of ramen and an episode of Death Note or two.

    P.s. I'm having Arkham City withdrawals, darn Kevin and his video game goodness!

    Sleepily, EWS

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eric, I hate your obsession with the modernists. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it.

    The modernists didn't solve this problem - which, by the way, persisted in literature up till the turn of the 20th century and continues to exist today (seriously, anything based on a folk tale, which is everything, is based in an oral tradition) - instead they threw loads of gibberish at a page. I may be the only English major who ever attended Cal Poly and hated Eliot with a passion, but that is what I remain - he didn't tell stories, he created textures, which is great if you're looking for a wall hanging but is bollocks if you're looking for something to latch onto in the chaotic world he so gloriously described. Same for Joyce and Faulkner (Banville and Steinbeck get a pass here.)

    So chill out on Homer because pretty much all of Chaucer is based on oral tradition (folktales), as is all of Shakespeare, as are all of Spencer and Mallory, and why? Because 90% of people in even the richest of nations didn't know how to read until the last 100 years. Literature changed for the modernists because they actually had a literate audience, something that is still a novelty, historically speaking.

    Ahem. Now I've completed my rant.
    Testily,
    Alli

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can I provoke discussion or what?

    ReplyDelete