Response Assignment #6
Posted by kscott on March 8, 2007
In the class blog for next Thursday, compare and contrast the two texts you are assigned to read for next week:
-
excerpt from “The Illiad” (handout)
-
excerpt from “An Illiad” by Alessandro Barrico (handout)
Do the stylistic choices of each narrative change the event it narrates? If so, describe how so. Which one has a more powerful impact on you, and why do you think it does? Is the event rendered authentic? Why/ why not, and, if yes, how? Be prepared to also elaborate on your opinions when we discuss the texts in class.
Feel free to blog about anything that you believe is relevant in the reading of these two texts, but please be sure to address the above questions, as well.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
The two texts, though both relating the story of Hector’s demise from Homer’s The Iliad, have very different stylistic choices. The original Iliad is written in the third person omniscient, an all-seeing, all-knowing outside party. We see Hector’s last fight from the perspective of a television set, complete with narration. We know what each man and woman in the story is thinking as well as doing. We see each man’s strengths and their weaknesses equally. Achille’s is not presented as an evil man. In Baricco’s An Iliad, the story is told from the perspective of Hector’s wife. It is more like a diary entry, seeing everything from the perspective of one person who lived through it, and loved Hector. The tone toward Achilles victimizes Hector. The audience feels more compelled to sympathize with him, because we see the story from the perspective of his grieving widow who obviously held much love for him.
The texts differ in syntax and grammar style as well. The original is written in the lyrical form of spoken word, as it was originally performed aloud. The language is complex, utilizing complicated metaphors. Baricco’s version is a much watered down version of the Iliad. It explains all of Homer’s original metaphors so their meanings are no longer open to such a variety of interpretation. While Homer describes Hector’s young son’s plight in society by comparing it to the son’s position of an outcast at a feast, Baricco says of the son, “he will tug on the cloaks of other fathers for protection, and maybe someone will glance at him with pity.” It is a much more generalized statement than the metaphorical description of the child at a feast.
To me, Baricco’s version of the Iliad is like the way the Bible has become watered down over the centuries. The original language of the Bible is much more convoluted than the Bibles of today. Though the second story recounts most of the details of the original, other than the intervening of the gods on Achilles’ behalf, the open-ended interpretations are streamlined into something that must be basically taken at face value. It seems like a young-adult interpretation of the Iliad for people who haven’t been educated enough to understand all of the underlying meanings.
I don’t think the story is completely changed by the second version, but the point of view definitely adapts the reader’s perception of the story, causing them to side more with Hector. The original seems more unbiased, giving it a more authentic feel. I like the original language better, because of the way thoughts develop from it. You can take a sentence, and think about it in several different ways to find the interpretation you think is correct, such as the case was with Hector’s son and the feast. The poetic nature of the language adds to this effect, and also makes it more interesting to read. Though the addition of point of view in the second version adds an interesting perspective, I think Homer had it right the first time.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
After reading both handouts, I am more drawn to An Iliad, rather than The Death of Hector. Idiotically enough, the reason being is because The Death of Hector was just too long. Not really understanding every word of the Death of Hector made me lost in the details, re-reading each sentence trying to make sense of it all. The way it was written was easier for people to read back in that era. Whereas An Iliad was short and to the point. I understood what was happening when it was happening.
I am more moved by An Iliad also because it was written by Hectors lover, after her husband was killed by his sworn enemy. “Your face was so beautiful/Beside the black ships now, you are preyed on by worms, and your naked body, which I so loved, is a mean for the dogs”. Her heart was poured into writing this. Same for The Death of Hector when you hear his mother and father beg him not to fight Achilles. His father tearing the gray hair from his head, and his mother begging him to come back to her breast because she still thinks of her loved son as her baby, her child. It’s obvious that they fear his life. In both excerpts I am inclined to read more, but in An Iliad I got more of a visual of his fight, and his triumph.
Both excerpts make me believe the event was authentic. One event written in detail by two different people. They make me feel the impact of the past in two different views of how it happened and how it effected many people. Whether or not one is short and sweet, or one is flooded with detail in a literary dialect that I don’t completely understand, I still feel the pain that was experienced by the people of Troy, and the people who loved Hector. And even after his death, it’s obvious that even Achilles felt bad for what he had done, even though it had to be done. Although the orginal excerpt is more difficult to read, I still find it interesting. Trying to interpret what was written was a challenge that helped me understand An Iliad better.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:56 am
I do like reading An Iliad, Alessandro Baricco’s version of The Iliad. It’s perfect for our (as the newest issue of Wired magazine puts it) ‘Snack Culture’, where everything is turned in to ‘small servings’. Everything is shortened, and ‘bite sized’ now-a-days, which brings up the ubiquitous question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are we just getting bits and pieces instead large chunks of video, music, communication, i.e. text messaging, to keep up with our constantly shortening attention span, or is our attention span becoming shorter because of new technology, where everything is faster and there’s no time to read a full book anymore?
The concern I have though is that An Iliad makes me think of when we use to make a copy of a VHS/cassette tape and the next generation loses some of the quality compared to the original. I don’t think anyone would argue that we’re losing quality in An Iliad. Homer’s voice has been taken away, for example my favorite line from the excerpt, ‘Moreover, have pity on miserable Me, wretched but still quite able to feel!’ is no where to be found in An Iliad. It’s like a movie review that only reviews the plot of the movie, if you’re interested, then you have to actually watch the real thing. Baricco’s ‘translation’ into the language of ‘pop-culture’ could be called, ‘A dumbed down version’ of Homer’s classic. And again, the question is asked, If this is a ‘dumbed down’ version and we’re getting dumber, was this book written to help us dumb people, or is the book contributing to the dumbed down, attention span losing culture that this blog is suggesting we’ve become.
I’ll be the first to admit that enjoyed An Iliad because it was a lot easier to read than The Iliad. Though, (again with my endless array of pop-culture metaphors), isn’t it a little like when you were a kid and you had this hard video game, and you could spend all you’re time trying to beat a level, but instead you put in a code that gave you invincibility and you basically cheated your way to victory. If you just would have kept trying, you would have mastered the level you were on, and then eventually beaten the game, producing a better feeling than the one you received when you beat the game using a code. It’s like anything, if you keep at it, you’ll eventually get it. I had to read The Iliad numerous times before I started to understand what was going on, and though I still didn’t fully understand it before I read An Iliad, if I would have keep rereading it, I feel I would have eventually got it. Like contemporary TV shows, you have to watch for maybe 4 or 5 episodes before you really start getting into the characters and understand what’s going on. Most people can relate to first watching a show that they love now, but at first were like, ‘this is what everyone’s been raving about?’ So a part of me feels like, by reading An Iliad, it was like I was reading trivia questions on the back of a cereal box and I couldn’t help but glance down at the upside down answers at the bottom of the box and ruin the whole game.
I do appreciate An Iliad though because like I said above, there were things that weren’t making sense after rereading The Iliad, so I’m glad I was able to get a more clear and precise understanding. The whole story makes a lot more sense now that the small details that I was confused about have been made clear. Also, the way the piece was written is definitely an era long gone, the speech and writing style is out-dated. In keeping with contemporary culture, Baricco just went and gave The Iliad an Extreme Make Over, and who hasn’t dreamt of that happening to them. Keep dreaming, or with our snack culture in full swing, I guess I should say, keep daydreaming. (get it? Cause it’s shorter than a dream) (Neill, don’t patronize your readers) (sorry)
March 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I am not sure that a stylistic choice changes an event, but it certainly changes the way it is perceived by the reader. The Iliad, even when translated well (or perhaps I should say especially when it is translated well), produces an archaic language that imposes over 2500 years on the reader. It would be impossible to deny that an Iliad is much more comprehensible. Although I understand perfectly each and every word of Homer’s Iliad, the way the words are used does not produce quite the same effect as the modern version. Homer’s grandiose and dramatic style is perfectly suited to describe the actions of heroes and gods, but it just doesn’t sit as well with someone accustomed to much simpler language (me). Instead of producing grandness, it is a bit alienating. Lets compare. “He saw him approach, running, radiant in his armor as the rising sun. He saw him stop, the spear raised above his right shoulder, terrible as no man could appear, but only a god. And fear seized his heart.” (Baricco) Now Homer:
“Achilles, peer of the plume-waving War-god, loomed up
Before him hefting his spear of Pelian ash,
That awesome bronze-bladed shaft, above his right shoulder,
While all about him his marvelous armor was flashing
Like leaping flames or the rising sun. Then Hector
Took but one look before trembling seized him all over,” etc.
The language is exceptionally elaborate and flowery. it almost become difficult for me to keep visualizing what is going on, not to mention that these words are so rarely used in my everyday life (plume/ hefting/ loomed) that this kind of language appears almost as dead as Greek. Baricco’s an Iliad is much more personable. All the metaphors and language are simplified. I can see Hector dashing around the city walls, scared out of his mind of Achilles. The absurdity of the scene hits me at once. That immediacy is lost on me in Homer’s elaborate language.
That being said, I hate it. It feels like a cheapened version, abridged, or even Cliff noted into unrecognizable shape. It is no longer what it was. It’s essence, I think is so diluted, it is completely lost. Homer’s, is a tale of men who are larger than life (though they don’t always act like it), of gods, and a woman so beautiful, a war that lasted over ten years was fought over her. The intricate language is the main element that holds this fabulous world together. Baricco makes me see these people as actual men, and that destroys all the magic. Homer’s world is constructed within the language, the magic woven into the tale with words. I don’t want this elaborateness simplified, just as I don’t want to know what Helen actually looked like.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
After reading Homer’s Iliad, I didn’t expect the next version to compare, unless it was spun in a new way or something. All I asked for was something. But he didn’t do it for me, unless watering it down counts as a spin. If only Barrico could have managed to extract a never before seen essence, or shed light on a different aspect of the story that Homer didn’t, I would have appreciated it more. The story itself is great, as I was entertained by both, but in entirely different ways. When you compare the beautiful writings of Homer to Barrico, the pacing of Barrico’s feels all too similar to the abridgment status of Cliffnotes, which takes me back to high school when I couldn’t finish The Grapes of Wrath. So in that sense, An Iliad isn’t so bad. Not everyone is into the details and not everyone is going have the mindset to dive into the actual Iliad, when they can have it “to go” instead.
Barrico sums up some of the most exciting and dramatic parts with a mere sentence, such as when Achilles chases Hector around the city, which is a nail biting sequence told by Homer; synopsized by Barrico. “Three times they circled Troy, like horses given their head in a race.” (that’s about it) He rushes it through, which doesn’t help when building suspense before the big fight. Although Barrico does succeed in covering most of the concrete happenings of the story, his version falls short when it comes to description. Where Homer elaborates, Barrico summarizes. Barrico’s is also told in first person from the perspective of Hector’s wife Andromache, which I suppose could be his excuse for the lack of detail. But even with this new angle, he fails to delve into the mind of Andromache’s character, which could have been the big spin I was waiting for.
All in all, Homer’s Iliad had a more powerful impact on me. With his plentiful metaphors and lush imagery I was allowed to find my own interpretations within the story, making it much more of a personal experience. He walked me through it, forcing me to see and feel every last detail. With An Iliad, I felt like even though I understood what happened, it was all too similar to watching a movie montage. First this happen, and then this happened, and next this happened… and everyone was sad.
The real Iliad is really just a big poem, and when someone tries to summarize a poem they’re bound to fall short of the original.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Jonathan Binder
Both The Illiad and An Illiad were enjoyable to read, but for different reasons. From my perspective, I do not feel the event changes from one story to another, but rather the tone or mood. I think stories can be told in a variety of ways, which directly affects the way an audience will accept it.
In our culture today, I feel the majority of people are focused on action and getting to the point. An Illiad does just that. Many of the drawn out speeches that appeared in The Illiad were cut down and translated in a more straightforward manner. I took this into consideration when deciding which one had a more powerful impact on me.
Visually, I felt An Illiad had a much more appealing style when it came to telling a serious, epic story. It just seemed the dialogue and action was more realistic and fit better with the emotion that might be associated with that particular scene. If I were about to kill someone, I don’t think I would want drag it out any longer by making a speech. And the speeches in the The Illiad made by Achilles seemed as if he was trying to show power and strength. I’m pretty sure killing someone would show just as much power and strength, if not more.
Achilles:
An Illiad – “Hector, I curse you. I will not make pacts with you. Men and lions, wolves and lambs don’t make pacts; their discord is forever. Think instead about fighting. The moment has arrived to prove that you are really the warrior you think you are.”
The Illiad – “Hector, you madman, don’t stand there babbling to me of covenants. There are no faithful oaths between lions and men, nor do wolves and lambs have any oneness of heart, but they are always at fatal odds with each other. So too it is not to be thought that we can ever be friends, nor shall there be any peace between us till one or the other has fallen and glutted with blood…(and this goes for a little while longer).
I still very much appreciate the style of The Illiad. I think it is beautifully written, but to me this style of writing is not necessarily presenting an intense, in-your-face feel. It presents to me a stunning, emotional conflict drawn out in such a way that every thought from the heads of the participants is laid out for consideration.
I am a very visual person. My head often visually creates the action of the words that I am reading or being told, no matter what the material. The Illiad had a much slower pace, and the action just wasn’t as intense as An Illiad. My mind had a much more powerful response with An Illiad. Although it was still a bit drawn out at times, I still sensed more reality while reading An Illiad. That is also where I feel our society is heading – Movies, TV, video games, etc – the more reality in which we can find or relate to, the more powerful our connection is.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
firstly, i must note that i struggled to finish both passages. i couldn’t focus my attention on either: this is probably due to the fact that i read the iliad four or five years prior, so reading it again i feel that i should already know what it’s talking about (and that i don’t recall this passage at all) and that this should have been more of a skim-over than an in-depth analysis. i did finish, though, and i do think the style changes the narrative. in fact, i think that’s one of the most important factors of any passage…story…or anything. think about it: if the style is dry, the audience is going to interpret everything that happens as dry events. most of the emotion of a piece must be conveyed through style, especially word choice & order. if someone says, “a mule is sitting on a fence,” it sounds far from extreme when, in reality, a mule sitting on a fence is a pretty big deal (in my opinion). but, if it says something like, “upon the fence droops the horse-donkey!” it just sounds as if it more embodies the feel of the event. i mean, how would a mule get on a fence? really.
as for the homework at hand, i found that the piece entitled ‘an iliad’ was far less gripping. in fact, i really disliked it. if someone handed me a copy of the entire iliad in this form, i’d refuse to read it on the basis that it’s as entertaining as reading the back of a soapbar. basically, i think it’s without emotion. even the fact that it’s called “An Iliad” instead of “THE Iliad” made an impact on me: is this not THE ILIAD, one of the most important epic poems in history? or is it just some other iliad that i’ve never heard about? and is it the entire iliad? (however, it did make me question what an iliad really is; it made it more into a noun instead of a title.) it de-emphasizes its dramatic flow; it’s flat, unnecessarily boring, dry, makes the story seem pointless…i especially took to disliking the first sentence. “They took refuge in the city like frightened fawns.” awesome. good to know. at this point, i don’t care. if this wasn’t homework, i’d have stopped there. i don’t know what a frightened fawn looks like, to be honest. sure, the next few sentences allude to the event: “…ran inside and ran up on the bastions, still covered with sweat, burning with thirst…” but the images are almost generic. it reads like a child’s story. for example, who would use the same verb in a sentence twice? children. (note: i do think the same-verb-more-than-once-in-a-sentence can be manipulated to an author’s benefit. still, it’s almost always a reference to a youthful stylistic endeavor: “so he blew, and blew, and blew the house down…”)
the other piece, however, creates this image in a much more effective and exciting way: “So throughout the city they rested like panic-worn fawns, exhausted from heat and running, slaking their thirst and cooling off as they leaned on the marvelous battlements.” now that’s writing. what a fantastic sentence. picture that scene! it’s clear without being flooded by too many adjectives and scene-descriptions. it refers to emotions/sights that are almost universally known: this doesn’t say they’re sweating, but we know they are; they are panting, looking around for whatever they’re running from; and how numerous are they if they are resting throughout the entire city? it indirectly adds so many more details with use of these references. with this, i think the event is changing from piece to piece. its basic principles and properties are still there: some guys are resting in a city, much like a frightened fawn. however, the way it’s portrayed (style) completely turns it around and adds drama.
(side-note: what is with the last two lines of the Goldstein translation? “Only one remained outside the gates, nailed by his destiny. And it was the man I loved, and the father of my child.” what? am i missing something very important? seriously…who is telling this story?)
another reason why i am so upset with An Iliad is because it is not traditionally written as an epic poem. in fact….yeah, i’m pretty sure it’s not a poem at all. i can’t get over the fact that it seems like a children’s story…a very upsetting, unhappy children’s story. if the narrative was originally written as a poem, why change it unless you are trying to change it into something else (like if you’re making it for kids, maybe)? also, the style of “Book XXII: THE DEATH OF HECTOR” (note that title! what an impressive statement) as an entered-down poem makes everything even more dramatic. this might be based on my background of seeing epic poetry written in this style and, thus, assocating major drama with that specific structure. PLUS, i don’t think An Iliad uses exclamation marks at all. this is ridiculous! how can you take out exclamation marks? they are the most useful indicators of emotion, and removing them was a terrible idea (note: there’s one, and because it’s the only one, it seems out of place).
this can be rooted to the question of authenticity. what defines an epic poem? its narrative? its structure? its author? i think this is seriously defined somewhere, but my own personal history says that it must be extremely dramatic (probably with some unlawful killing abound) (why else would they use the word ‘epic’?) and have that nice little poem-look to it. that structure says a lot. try reading a poem without it. oh we did! it’s called An Iliad. maybe that’s why it’s not called The Iliad, because they changed (mutilated) it so much. because i dislike An Iliad so much, i think my opinion is a bit biased toward trying my hardest to blast it. for that, i apologize. i also apologize for not capitalizing, and would like to thank everyone involved for allowing me to do this without being docked points (this only applies if you don’t dock points).
March 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
The two different pieces have the same narrative however ‘The Iliad of Homer’ adds more to the narrative than ‘An Iliad’. For example in ‘The Iliad of Homer’ there is a part describing Achilles and the God Phoebus Apollo in an argument with each other. There are also many other details in ‘The Iliad of Homer’ that were excluded from ‘An Iliad’.
While I appreciated the quick narrative of ‘An Iliad’ that got to the point of the story very quickly, Homer’s version was much more poetic and while it was more challenging to read it was ultimately more satisfying and vivid. For example Homer describes Hector waiting for his fight with Achilles as “he stood and awaited the clash with gigantic Achilles. And as a bright snake of the mountains, swollen and fierce from its diet of deadly poisons, waits in his lair for a man, balefully glaring forth and coiling about within”. However in ‘An Iliad’ the author’s poetry is much leaner and more like a second-grade adaptive version of it- “as a snake, swelled with poison, waits for the man in front of his own den”.
Homer’s version is so much more comprehensive, authentic, and even cinematic as he does an excellent job of describing the sense of chaos and dread in the air as characters lives are changed forever. You also feel totally immersed in the battle and see it from different points of view such as Hector’s Father, who in Homer’s version describes in great detail all of the suffering and horrors he has witnessed in order to stop his son from fighting Achilles. All of these details and angles from different characters give weight to its authentic superiority over ‘An Iliad’.
If you don’t have much time to read I would suggest ‘An Iliad’ however if you have the time read ‘The Iliad of Homer’ which is far richer and carries so much more depth.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I liked both of these readings very much so. But i felt more of an impact from An Iliad by Alessandro Baricco. the reason why i enjoyed this one is because to me it had move of an emotoinal impact when i read the story. While reading this it took me back to the story of david and Goliath and the whole fighting scene. I also like the way the storys iare told from a different person. It gives you different emotoins and persepectives.
Even though i do not tend to read these kinds of storys after my high school days. I enjoyed reading this short story becuse it was as long as other sotrys and it gave you the certain points that are needed for the story and it makes it easier to follow and understand for people who do not read these types of stories. I like the part towards the end of how when he stripped off his armor and how every one began to stike him gave me such a visual that i was picturing theat scene in my head and i was total trapped in that part. After reading this story i am more interested and would like to follow up on some of these types of stories.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I constantly find myself (somewhat) amazed but mainly perplexed and slightly disgusted not only with myself these days but with humanity for how far things have come and gone; i.e. (for lack of a better classification) the “single-serving” element that some(-)thing(s) have taken on and the concept of “disposability” has become the new black.
Originally, I found myself leaning towards “An Iliad” as opposed to “The Iliad” partly due to the fact that I had already read the later numerous times in the past, but mainly because the latter’s girth far out-weighed (sized?) the prior’s. But then I remembered something that I’ve found (& been told) is naturally inherent in me: NO “watered-down” version of ANYTHING will ever suffice.
Now, as to answering the question of whether or not the stylistic choices of each narrative change(s) the event(s) it narrates, I would have to be inclined to say that yes it does and I can argue this allegorically via the complex simplicity of dimensionality and metaphysics regarding photography vs. holography. Now in photography, we’re presented with a three-dimensional existence two-dimensionally, whereas in holography, we’re presented with the same three-dimensional existence three-dimensionally; if one were to cut a hologram in two, then they would have two holograms of the same object and if the same were to be done with a photograph, all they would be left with is half a photograph or in this case half a story. In this case, “The Iliad” would be a hologram and “An Iliad” would be a photograph and where the latter is concerned, we are missing half the story. But then again you’re asking the question of stylistic choices (re: writing) to someone who wants to see Samuel Beckett go nine rounds with Poppy Z. Brite…
As to whether either “The Iliad” or “An Iliad” had more of a powerful impact on me, the answer is completely dependent on from where (and what) I am measuring. Homer’s tale impacted me more positively than Baricco’s version, whereas Homer’s was definitely more time-consuming however more positively engrossing than Baricco’s. Even though “The Iliad” is a wordier and (possibly more) difficult read than “An Iliad” the imagery presented for the escapist mentality is that much more rich and textural – and that is (I believe) what fiction should be…hell, it the reason 90% of the populace reads (unless illiterate) when the act is committed for sheer leisure.
Due to the vicarious nature of humanity I will say that the richer in content something is, the more authentically rendered the event is, albeit it a falsehood. But due to the evolutionary turn humanity has taken, accessibility and comprehension are strange bedfellows even more so when the prior was minimal and the latter nil (i.e. pre-Guttenberg’s press). Accessibility has become so plentiful in fact that (almost) anyone can gather information about (almost) anything however, where comprehension is concerned is a different story. The existence of a (partially/supposedly) unbiased media is paramount to something’s accessibility but most of aforementioned said media (when presented textually) is written on a 4th to 5th grade reading level. Now, the difference between “The Iliad” and “An Iliad” being similar to the conundrum behind mass media is much greater than one might necessarily believe and this idea is based upon the visual evidence that what Homer said in three paragraphs, Baricco said in one (roughly). By condensing something one is inevitably reducing (and ultimately taking away from) the original. In this case, where the reduction is (virtually) exponential, the result is that much less emphatic. True, the gist of the story is there, but the spirit in which its characters interact is without any dynamics whatsoever. …For lack of a better example: would you rather someone just says to you that, “I love you”? Or would you rather that individual hold you, look deep into your eyes, tell you that they would move the stars and the heavens for you, and then kiss you passionately? …Outside of the scenario created, a few adjectives and a descriptive phrase make ALL the difference; yes, (where this scenario is concerned) each one of the acts mentioned is just as important as the other, but there is a time and place for everything and the same thing can be said for the readings. I (personally) feel that Baricco did nothing more than dilute Homer, giving the reader nothing more than (mockingly) “THE ILIAD! NOW IN BASTARD ENGLISH!” and that I was presented with nothing more than an even more condensed version of the cliff notes that of which one could witness individuals frantically cramming before “the big literature essay”…
In short, I was able to forget that I was on a train with soul-sucking, lifeless invertebrates with “The Iliad” whereas I didn’t even make it to the Chicago stop from Jackson on the red line with “An Iliad”.