"However, the Iliad is hardly a romance. The abduction scene is only alluded to in the poem. The major theme is war, with the conflict approaching its tenth year."
You already know the article is going wrong when it's making the same mistake that the movie adaptation did in assuming the story was about the Trojan war. Literally the first line of the poem lays out that it's about the wrath of Achilles.
"There is an acute consciousness of the natural world in the Iliad. of its flux and fragility."
The purpose of the descriptions of nature and the pastoral life are supposed to serve as a contrast to the war. The mention of the pastoral life is key in the poem because that's how life was in the bronze age. It's like when Tolkien based the Shire in LOTR after the countryside of England. Every other interpretation that the article goes on about in regards to nature and the environment through the modern activist's lens is null.
"Of course, war means massive destruction to the environment, as illustrated by the deep trench the Greeks dig to defend their ships -- an encroachment which provokes the gods."
Talk about inserting your own agenda. It is stated outright in Book VII that the gods were angry because the Achaeans didn't offer sacrifices while constructing it and because they feared that its glory would outshine the walls of Troy, which Poseidon and Apollo built.
"The lion is a frequent simile in Homer and particularly apt because the European lion population had been ravaged during the classical period. So Hector's revenge is more complete when he is viewed through this imagery as an instrument of nature, contrasting human mortality with the boundlessness of the natural world."
So Homer, a pre-classical poet, mentioned lions not because they used to roam in antiquity and in his lifetime, but because they are a symbol of nature's revenge? So what does that mean when Homer mentions lions as trying to kill livestock? I guess the sheep deserved it huh?
"Achilles carries the onslaught into the river Scamander, which becomes glutted with corpses. The Scamander is also a god and objects to the violation, but Achilles continues in his frenzy... The mortal enemy cannot stop Achilles, but Scamander swamps him and he has to be bailed out by allied gods. Almost drowned by the angry river, a bedraggled Achilles trudges through fields disfigured by corpses and discarded armour, and recognises that the forces of nature are inviolable so should remain unviolated."
Scamander wasn't angry because Achilles was violating nature or whatever else this article is insinuating. He was angry because he supported Troy and took the opportunity to try to take out Achilles who was killing off the Trojan army at this point, using the whole corpses in the river situation as a pretext to get rid of Troy's most dangerous foe. Notice also how the author of this article conveniently leaves out the fact that Hera and Hephaestus did more damage to the river than Achilles ever did in Book XXI when they burned it up to subdue Scamander. Nature on Nature violence then? Also, the article makes it seem like Achilles was reflecting on his "violation" of nature when really he thought he was unjustly being robbed of his glory which had been promised to him. Funny also how the article leaves out that bit of info where right after he is saved from the river, the gods themselves encourage and help out Achilles further during the battle even though he is supposedly violating nature according to this article.
If this is how modern academics and the like are interpreting the classics, paired with the need to make everything a political or social commentary nowadays with a splash of diversity, I have no faith for any of the adaptations that will inevitably come.
Everything is so corporate and gay.
Isn’t Christopher Nolan going to make a movie based on Odyssey?
Yup. I like Nolan. It should have been good, but of course he had to diversify it.
What the fuck…
…is wrong with these people
"However, the Iliad is hardly a romance. The abduction scene is only alluded to in the poem. The major theme is war, with the conflict approaching its tenth year."
You already know the article is going wrong when it's making the same mistake that the movie adaptation did in assuming the story was about the Trojan war. Literally the first line of the poem lays out that it's about the wrath of Achilles.
"There is an acute consciousness of the natural world in the Iliad. of its flux and fragility."
The purpose of the descriptions of nature and the pastoral life are supposed to serve as a contrast to the war. The mention of the pastoral life is key in the poem because that's how life was in the bronze age. It's like when Tolkien based the Shire in LOTR after the countryside of England. Every other interpretation that the article goes on about in regards to nature and the environment through the modern activist's lens is null.
"Of course, war means massive destruction to the environment, as illustrated by the deep trench the Greeks dig to defend their ships -- an encroachment which provokes the gods."
Talk about inserting your own agenda. It is stated outright in Book VII that the gods were angry because the Achaeans didn't offer sacrifices while constructing it and because they feared that its glory would outshine the walls of Troy, which Poseidon and Apollo built.
"The lion is a frequent simile in Homer and particularly apt because the European lion population had been ravaged during the classical period. So Hector's revenge is more complete when he is viewed through this imagery as an instrument of nature, contrasting human mortality with the boundlessness of the natural world."
So Homer, a pre-classical poet, mentioned lions not because they used to roam in antiquity and in his lifetime, but because they are a symbol of nature's revenge? So what does that mean when Homer mentions lions as trying to kill livestock? I guess the sheep deserved it huh?
"Achilles carries the onslaught into the river Scamander, which becomes glutted with corpses. The Scamander is also a god and objects to the violation, but Achilles continues in his frenzy... The mortal enemy cannot stop Achilles, but Scamander swamps him and he has to be bailed out by allied gods. Almost drowned by the angry river, a bedraggled Achilles trudges through fields disfigured by corpses and discarded armour, and recognises that the forces of nature are inviolable so should remain unviolated."
Scamander wasn't angry because Achilles was violating nature or whatever else this article is insinuating. He was angry because he supported Troy and took the opportunity to try to take out Achilles who was killing off the Trojan army at this point, using the whole corpses in the river situation as a pretext to get rid of Troy's most dangerous foe. Notice also how the author of this article conveniently leaves out the fact that Hera and Hephaestus did more damage to the river than Achilles ever did in Book XXI when they burned it up to subdue Scamander. Nature on Nature violence then? Also, the article makes it seem like Achilles was reflecting on his "violation" of nature when really he thought he was unjustly being robbed of his glory which had been promised to him. Funny also how the article leaves out that bit of info where right after he is saved from the river, the gods themselves encourage and help out Achilles further during the battle even though he is supposedly violating nature according to this article.
If this is how modern academics and the like are interpreting the classics, paired with the need to make everything a political or social commentary nowadays with a splash of diversity, I have no faith for any of the adaptations that will inevitably come.