AFFC is the toughest read of them all. I'm a huge fan and that book even had me a little frustrated. I compare it to the Tree Beard chapter in The Hobbit; if you can get past it everything else is amazing. It's really a book to bring in other houses and characters so when you read about them in the next book you're not confused. I'd get through AFFC and immediately start a Dance with Dragons after; it will get your interest back in the series.
I loved the first three! The fourth book(A Feast for Crows) really turned me off the series though -- I just could not get through it. Now I just watch the show. Once the final book is out(so like 5-10 years from now?), I may give it another go.
The problem with Tolkien is that while he was the driving force behind modern fantasy, other writers have far surpassed him now. Middle-Eart… moreh is a big place but lacks character and detail, everyone is either lawful good or chaotic evil, or neutral, and the plot is a straight forward white vs black storyline. GRRM has a world full of detail and character where everyone is a wild card.
I don't like GRRM's style of english, but as a Classics graduate I've become obsessed with finding the exact right words to express ideas, brought about by years and years of tedious translation, so it's very much a personal preference.
Ahaha comments like this are so ridiculous and over the top.
The only people who could possible know that are firstly people who are fluent in all written languages and secondly people who've read basically every book.
Even saying 'it's just my opinion' doesn't work: you can't eat 2 flavours of crisp and deduce that all ten flavours of crisp a manufacturer makes are awesome, and its the same with negative statements.
Ahaha comments like this are so ridiculous and over the top.
The only people who could possible know that are firstly people who are flue… morent in all written languages and secondly people who've read basically every book.
Even saying 'it's just my opinion' doesn't work: you can't eat 2 flavours of crisp and deduce that all ten flavours of crisp a manufacturer makes are awesome, and its the same with negative statements.
If his fiction is still read in 3000 years time, then I'll consider him more.
As it stands, Homer's Iliad kind of has him beaten.
"Sing, my goddess, of the anger of Peleus' son Achilleus
and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians,
hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades, being strong souls
of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting
of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished
since that time when first there stood in division of conflict
Atreus' son the lord of men and brilliant Achilleus.
What god was it then set them together in bitter collision?
Zeus' son and Leto's, Apollo, who in anger at the king drove
the foul pestilence along the camp, and the people perished,
since Atreus' son had dishonoured Chryses, priest of Apollo,
when he came beside the fast ships of the Achaians to ransom
back his daughter, carrying gifts beyond count and holding
in his hands wound on a staff of gold the ribbons of Apollo
who strikes from afar, and supplicated all the Achaians,"
is far far far far far far far more intricate, considered, and full to the brim of theoretical analysis than "The morning had dawned clear and cold, with a crispness that hinted at the end of summer. They set forth at daybreak to see a man beheaded, twenty in all, and Bran rode among them, nervous with excitement. This was the first time he had been deemed old enough to go with his lord father and his brothers to see the king's justice done. It was the ninth year of summer, and the seventh of Bran's life."
And the Iliad isn't even in its source language, which has even more intricacies on meaning.
I was dissappointed with Feast myself when it came out. What was it.. five years waiting for it? The pace was very different to A Storm of Swords, and the infamous lengthy descriptions of inconsequential things were lengthier than ever, and we spent most of Brienne and Arianne's chapters following storylines that didn't seem to go anywhere. Frustration describes it well.
But it's grown on me through successive reads. There are some great, vivid chapters that stick in the memory, many important events occur, and we're introduced to some of the most interesting characters in the series. So aye, I'd certainly suggest re-reading it.
I loved the first three! The fourth book(A Feast for Crows) really turned me off the series though -- I just could not get through it. Now I just watch the show. Once the final book is out(so like 5-10 years from now?), I may give it another go.
Yeah.
If his fiction is still read in 3000 years time, then I'll consider him more.
As it stands, Homer's Iliad kind of has him beaten… more.
"Sing, my goddess, of the anger of Peleus' son Achilleus
and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians,
hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades, being strong souls
of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting
of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished
since that time when first there stood in division of conflict
Atreus' son the lord of men and brilliant Achilleus.
What god was it then set them together in bitter collision?
Zeus' son and Leto's, Apollo, who in anger at the king drove
the foul pestilence along the camp, and the people perished,
since Atreus' son had dishonoured Chryses, priest of Apollo,
when he came beside the fast ships of the Achaians to ransom
back his daughter, carrying gifts beyo… [view original content]
Something being easier for the general population to understand does not make it higher quality from an analytical perspective.
Harry Potter is more accessible than War and Peace. Does that make it better art? No, it just makes it better entertainment at a basic level, and worse entertainment at an enlightened one.
The Iliad is an example of narrative that goes beyond simply entertainment and actually raises extremely important questions, contrasts and devastating realities of human existence.
It is not 'Then, as wind rushes through an open door, her sword stabbed [enter crap generic fantasy name here] [let's go with Richh] Richh in his heart, and he toppled, blood oozing from his exposed flesh'.
True analytical essays cannot be written to nearly the depth as The Iliad.
Here's one of my university essays, about just one chapter of Homer, to get the idea of scale across.
The Ending of the Iliad
Macleod states definitively that ‘Iliad 24 is not a happy ending’. While it is true that there are positives within it – most specifically Akhilleus’ character turning to a more positive, restrained direction, and hints of him challenging the ‘hero system’ – the inevitable events to happen after the conclusion remain a constant, nagging idea in the background, which leaves us uneasy as Hektor’s funeral concludes. However, this does not make the ending any less fitting or satisfying in the narrative.
Rutherford says of the numerous patterns and parallels between book 24 and book 1 that ‘These undoubted correspondences may, besides their aesthetic value, have helped to provide the Iliad with a discrete unit amid the mass of episodes surrounding the Trojan War’. That is to say, the similarities tie together the narrative of the poem and prevent it from being lost in the lengthy war scenes. These are numerous: 1.493 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἐκ τοῖο δυωδεκάτη γένετ᾽ ἠώς, corresponds exactly with 24.31 , where the anger of Akhilleus and indignation of the pro-Greek gods respectfully last for 11 days, both leading to divine assemblies; in book 1 the gods feast for 12 days (1.423-425 Ζεὺς γὰρ ἐς Ὠκεανὸν μετ᾽ ἀμύμονας Αἰθιοπῆας χθιζὸς ἔβη κατὰ δαῖτα, θεοὶ δ᾽ ἅμα πάντες ἕποντο: δωδεκάτῃ δέ τοι αὖτις ἐλεύσεται Οὔλυμπον δέ,) while Priam describes the funeral arrangements for Hektor, including a feast, to last 12 days (24.664-667 ἐννῆμαρ μέν κ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐνὶ μεγάροις γοάοιμεν, τῇ δεκάτῃ δέ κε θάπτοιμεν δαινῦτό τε λαός, ἑνδεκάτῃ δέ κε τύμβον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ποιήσαιμεν, τῇ δὲ δυωδεκάτῃ πολεμίξομεν εἴ περ ἀνάγκη.); the 9 days of plague (1.53 ἐννῆμαρ μὲν ἀνὰ στρατὸν ᾤχετο κῆλα θεοῖο) could match with the 9 days of mourning for Hektor (24.664, quoted above); the phraseἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς appears only twice in the Iliad, in books 1 (1.477) and 24 (24.788); there is a great deal of similar language between the discussion about Chryseis and that about Hektor, including but not limited to 1.12-3 ὃ γὰρ ἦλθε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν λυσόμενός τε θύγατρα φέρων τ᾽ ἀπερείσι᾽ ἄποινα, vs 24.501-502 τοῦ νῦν εἵνεχ᾽ ἱκάνω νῆας Ἀχαιῶνλυσόμενος παρὰ σεῖο, φέρω δ᾽ ἀπερείσι᾽ ἄποινα and 1.26,28 μή σε γέρον κοίλῃσιν ἐγὼ παρὰ νηυσὶ κιχείω…μή νύ τοι οὐ χραίσμῃ σκῆπτρον καὶ στέμμα θεοῖο vs 24.569-70 τὼ νῦν μή μοι μᾶλλον ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς, μή σε γέρον οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν ἐάσω; and finally, and arguably most notably, there are key story similarities between the two books. In the first book Thetis is sent by Akhilleus to make requests to Zeus in secret that the gods should make allowances for him and change their behaviour, Hera gets annoyed at this, Zeus imposes his well regardless, and quarrel is ultimately avoided because the gods decide that mortals are not worth the trouble (1.573-575 ἦ δὴ λοίγια ἔργα τάδ᾽ ἔσσεται οὐδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἀνεκτά, εἰ δὴ σφὼ ἕνεκα θνητῶν ἐριδαίνετον ὧδε, ἐν δὲ θεοῖσι κολῳὸν ἐλαύνετον). In book 24, Apollo complains about the current situation, Hera complains about his proposed solution, eventually the gods show care for humanity (24.66-68 οὐ μὲν γὰρ τιμή γε μί᾽ ἔσσεται: ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἕκτωρ φίλτατος ἔσκε θεοῖσι βροτῶν οἳ ἐν Ἰλίῳ εἰσίν: ὣς γὰρ ἔμοιγ᾽, ἐπεὶ οὔ τι φίλων ἡμάρτανε δώρων), Zeus orders Thetis to him openly as opposed to secretly, and she is sent down to Akhilleus and convinces him to make allowances for another person. Not only are there present similarities with the beginning, but contrasting ideas are ultimately conveyed, whereas the beginning both Akhilleus and the gods are focused on the self, and in book 24 they are focused largely on the other (Hera even greets Thetis warmly, 24.101-102 Ἥρη δὲ χρύσεον καλὸν δέπας ἐν χερὶ θῆκε
καί ῥ᾽ εὔφρην᾽ ἐπέεσσι: Θέτις δ᾽ ὤρεξε πιοῦσα). As such, selfishness and selflessness respectively open and close the Iliad. From these parallels and contrasts between the first and final books of the Iliad, we can see truth in Macleod’s statement that ‘The grand design of the Iliad, which culminates in the reversal of book 24, is prepared with subtlety and in detail from the beginning of the poem’.
Other parallels and contrasts with the final book are present outside of book 1. In book 22, Priam’s attempt to go down to supplicate Akhilleus is prevented completely (22.412-15 λαοὶ μέν ῥα γέροντα μόγις ἔχον ἀσχαλόωντα ἐξελθεῖν μεμαῶτα πυλάων Δαρδανιάων. πάντας δ᾽ ἐλλιτάνευε κυλινδόμενος κατὰ κόπρον, ἐξονομακλήδην ὀνομάζων ἄνδρα ἕκαστον) due to the restraints of others, but in book 24 (24.247-8 ἦ καὶ σκηπανίῳ δίεπ᾽ ἀνέρας: οἳ δ᾽ ἴσαν ἔξω σπερχομένοιο γέροντος) he sets out authoritatively, even striking those who would stop him with a stick. The mostly peaceful interaction between Akhilleus and Priam is similar to the speeches of Glaukos and Diomedes: two men from opposing sides manage to exchange items (for the latter exchange, armour, for the former, Hektor and his ransom) without conflict (‘Here, as in the speeches of Glaukos and Diomede, there is endurance and sadness, but no bitterness, no railing or cringing’ Macleod states, although he perhaps is a little excessive here, as Akhilleus does threaten Priam at one point). Supplications provide an interesting case of contrast: every mortal supplication in the Iliad fails before book 24 (such as 10.454-457 ἦ, καὶ ὃ μέν μιν ἔμελλε γενείου χειρὶ παχείῃ ἁψάμενος λίσσεσθαι, ὃ δ᾽ αὐχένα μέσσον ἔλασσε φασγάνῳ ἀΐξας, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ἄμφω κέρσε τένοντε: φθεγγομένου δ᾽ ἄρα τοῦ γε κάρη κονίῃσιν ἐμίχθη., 20.467ff, 21.98 ἀμείλικτον δ᾽ ὄπ᾽ ἄκουσε, 22.338ff). This contrast, as with the others, adds a great deal of power to the final, successful supplication of Priam: Rutherford expresses effectively that ‘It can hardly be overemphasised that in Homer…the poignancy and urgency of the appeal to pity lie in the ease in which the entreaty is often ignored’.
These parallels and contrasts are important to our reading of the poem. They serve to both tie the story together thematically and to end it with the conclusion of the greatest of these themes. As with the increased emotional impact of Priam’s supplication by its uniqueness, so Hera warmly welcoming Thetis, so the contrast of plague and mourning and so the change from focus on the self to focus on the other are all powerful and defining of the poem’s narrative intent. Beyond all these, however, the character development of Akhilleus in book 24 is the most decisive, not for what it says about him, but for what conclusions he comes to about humanity.
As mentioned above, the story of the Trojan War does not end in the Iliad. This is not merely a side effect of where Homer happens to decide to end his work, but it is heavily and consistently stated in the final book that the war has not reached its conclusion (24.656-658 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον, ποσσῆμαρ μέμονας κτερεϊζέμεν Ἕκτορα δῖον, ὄφρα τέως αὐτός τε μένω καὶ λαὸν ἐρύκω, 781 μὴ πρὶν πημανέειν πρὶν δωδεκάτη μόλῃ ἠώς, 799-800 ῥίμφα δὲ σῆμ᾽ ἔχεαν, περὶ δὲ σκοποὶ ἥατο πάντῃ, μὴ πρὶν ἐφορμηθεῖεν ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί). This in itself tells us the most important fact to remember when considering the poem’s ending: the purpose of the Iliad was not to tell the story of Troy’s fall, nor even to tell the completed story of Akhilleus, as his death is never seen. What its true intent is more up for debate, however the changes in outlook and attitude by the end of the poem, backed up by the contrast of selfishness and selflessness discussed above, create the picture of a story focusing on humanity itself rather than on specific events of its history. Macleod states that the subject of the Iliad is ‘not honour and glory, but suffering and death’ , but I believe this does not go far enough: its central theme is not merely suffering and death and the atrocities of war, but more specifically the effects they have and the reactions they inspire. Thus Akhilleus’ development is crucial to the overall narrative of the story (despite being absent for large portions of the poem, he is present for its most crucial moments) and the poem ending with the laments of a city over the death of its greatest hero, as opposed to merely the death of said hero itself, is logical.
Let us then look at the character of Akhilleus as it is in book 24 more detail. The frequent failure of supplications has already been mentioned: it is noteworthy that the character who most commonly turns these down is Akhilleus. This fact makes his acceptance of Priam’s all the more significant for his character: a change in attitude must have occurred somewhere. He demonstrates more awareness of his actions in 24.540-542 οὐδέ νυ τόν γε γηράσκοντα κομίζω, ἐπεὶ μάλα τηλόθι πάτρης ἧμαι ἐνὶ Τροίῃ, σέ τε κήδων ἠδὲ σὰ τέκνα, and he has grown from being motivated by rage to being motivated by pity (9.612-3 μή μοι σύγχει θυμὸν ὀδυρόμενος καὶ ἀχεύων Ἀτρεΐδῃ ἥρωϊ φέρων χάριν: vs 24.560-1 μηκέτι νῦν μ᾽ ἐρέθιζε γέρον: νοέω δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς Ἕκτορά τοι λῦσαι, and 24.568 τὼ νῦν μή μοι μᾶλλον ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς). He offers Priam food 24.618-619 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δὴ καὶ νῶϊ μεδώμεθα δῖε γεραιὲ σίτου while he refused it for himself in 19.305-308 λίσσομαι, εἴ τις ἔμοιγε φίλων ἐπιπείθεθ᾽ ἑταίρων, μή με πρὶν σίτοιο κελεύετε μηδὲ ποτῆτος ἄσασθαι φίλον ἦτορ, ἐπεί μ᾽ ἄχος αἰνὸν ἱκάνει: δύντα δ᾽ ἐς ἠέλιον μενέω καὶ τλήσομαι ἔμπης. He is led down a path of empathy by Priam, with the mention of Peleus bringing him to tears as he mourns together with the man who should be one of his greatest enemies (24.507-512 αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς κλαῖεν ἑὸν πατέρ᾽, ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖτε Πάτροκλον: τῶν δὲ στοναχὴ κατὰ δώματ᾽ ὀρώρει.). Macleod notes that ‘What characterises [Akhilleus] from the beginning is a ferocious pride’ and here we see that almost entirely absent. This could arguably due to his increased security in his future: previously he has been worried about his dual fate of honour and death or life without honour, but by book 19 his security in his future contrasts with Hektor’s lack of it (compare Akhilleus 19.421-2 εὖ νυ τὸ οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸς ὅ μοι μόρος ἐνθάδ᾽ ὀλέσθαι νόσφι φίλου πατρὸς καὶ μητέρος with Hektor 16.859-61 ‘Πατρόκλεις τί νύ μοι μαντεύεαι αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον; τίς δ᾽ οἶδ᾽ εἴ κ᾽ Ἀχιλεὺς Θέτιδος πάϊς ἠϋκόμοιο φθήῃ ἐμῷ ὑπὸ δουρὶ τυπεὶς ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι’). With his future certain, perhaps Akhilleus now feels stable enough that he can control his anger, not in the least because he has now gained the honour he has to before he dies. We must question, however, whether Akhilleus is truly demonstrating a large change in character, or whether he is merely acquiescing to the wishes of the divines: he is of course aware that Priam has been sent by the gods: Thetis explained to him what the gods are planning about Hektor, and he sees that Priam has come with the help of a god (24.561-564 Διόθεν δέ μοι ἄγγελος ἦλθε μήτηρ, ἥ μ᾽ ἔτεκεν, θυγάτηρ ἁλίοιο γέροντος. καὶ δέ σε γιγνώσκω Πρίαμε φρεσίν, οὐδέ με λήθεις, ὅττι θεῶν τίς σ᾽ ἦγε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν). However, his threats to Priam (24.567-570 ῥεῖα μετοχλίσσειε θυράων ἡμετεράων. τὼ νῦν μή μοι μᾶλλον ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς, μή σε γέρον οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν ἐάσω καὶ ἱκέτην περ ἐόντα, Διὸς δ᾽ ἀλίτωμαι ἐφετμάς) imply that he does have some control over whether he allows Priam to do this or not even if it will cause him harm by the gods, which implies that he is supportive of his desires beyond merely the request of Zeus. His mother’s words lead him to hear Priam out: it is Priam’s use of Peleus which has the profoundest effect on his mood. His threats in book 22 form a stark contrast from his actual actions in 24: 22.349ff is far more dramatic and violent than it ends up being, and this shows that he must have some form of growth between the books, some change of heart. Does the full funeral of Patroklos in book 23 allows for him to put aside this anger more absolutely? No: in 24.14ff he treats the body of Hektor brutally. Only when led to empathy by Priam does he restrain himself.
I would not, however, argue that book 24 demonstrates a journey away from Akhilleus’ identity as a proud and rage-filled man: he threatens Priam, as above, and stresses his divine connections almost in order to scare or impress him (24.561-562 Διόθεν δέ μοι ἄγγελος ἦλθε μήτηρ, ἥ μ᾽ ἔτεκεν, θυγάτηρ ἁλίοιο γέροντος). It is, in my opinion, a common misconception that book 24 serves as a conclusion to the ‘rage of Akhilleus’ at all, for not only is this too simplified for such a complexly developed character, but also focuses entirely on the book as a removal or reduction of rage as opposed to the acquisition or development of another character trait. Firstly, Akhilleus’ rage in the Iliad is not one single emotion and reaction, but several tied together by the term, each of which conclude at separate times and each of which gives birth to a new incarnation of it. The argument between him and Agamemnon causes ‘rage’. He then mourns and this rage is put to rest, and new rage burns inside of him directed against the life of Hektor. He then mourns Patroklos again, and then his rage resurfaces which is now so powerful that he expresses it by heavily mistreating Hektor’s corpse. In book 24, yes, Hektor accepts Priam’s supplication, but he still threatens him as noted above. We have no reason to believe that Akhilleus as a character is now less prone to anger. What is crucial is that Akhilleus not only withholds his anger (as he has already done this is book 1) but that he continues to be helpful after it, instead of refusing to help. The rage of Akhilleus is not gone; the way he deals with it has been changed. He has gained the Greek virtue of σωφροσύνη: self-restraint and prudence. Akhilleus has realised by the end of book 24 that, as Murnahan points out, ‘on the battlefield a hero’s attempts to repair past losses only invite new ones’. Macleod’s statement that ‘if the Iliad had moved in a straight line from Hektor’s death to Akhilleus’, it would have stopped; as it is, it is completed’ is, at least with regard to the characterisation of Akhilleus, abundantly true. The supplication scene is a final vision of relief and hope for Akhilleus as he accepts a) his fate, such that he is affected by Priam’s appeal to Peleus’ reaction when he shall lose his son, and b) his mortality, as he understands that the gods wishes are important at the same time as understanding that mistreating Priam isn’t going to make a difference to his own life. It is thus true that nothing Akhilleus does here affects either the greater events of Troy neither himself directly, but Rutherford points out that ‘it would be wrong to see [his reception of Priam’s supplication] as any less admirable or precious for that reason’.
Akhilleus does also seem to grow in a negative direction, however: he asks the corpse of Patroklos for forgiveness when he hands over Hektor (24.592 μή μοι Πάτροκλε σκυδμαινέμεν). While addressing dead men is not totally uncommon, Akhilleus also says that he shall share the ransom with him (24.595 σοὶ δ᾽ αὖ ἐγὼ καὶ τῶνδ᾽ ἀποδάσσομαι ὅσσ᾽ ἐπέοικεν), and talking about a corpse as if it were alive is not common. His sorrow is certainly not over, but he expresses this is a very different manner to the rage it caused him earlier. Perhaps, we might even suggest, his expression of sharing the items with Patroklos says less that he thinks of Patroklos as alive and more that he views himself as already dead, having accepted his fate at last? It seems that from the death of Patroklos to his own, Akhilleus will, as Seaford proposes, ‘never emerge from his death-like-sorrow’. The decreasing doublet, pointed out by Kelly, of the smaller burial of Hektor compared to that of Patroklos may tell us something about the growth of Akhilleus as well. For Patroklos, there are large funeral games ‘with all their renewed antagonism and barely-concealed rivalry over τιμη’, , whereas for Hektor there is a communal feast, and the mourning is done by women who had a personal connection to him rather than the glorified slaves of Akhilleus. Perhaps the rage and conflict which encircles the entire funeral proceedings of Patroklos, from his death right up until the start of book 24 symbolises the rage of Akhilleus being expressed in a deadly and brutal manner. The rage he experiences is shown through the funeral full of the same fighting and bickering we have seen throughout the whole poem; his reaction of sympathy and refusal to give in to said rage in book 24 leads to a personal and communal funeral by which the story closes.
So Akhilleus restrains his rage. But the rage amongst the Greeks in general and their pursuit of glory remains, as shown by the conflict of the funeral games. Is this ever really challenged, and is there any difference in attitudes to this unhealthy pursuit by the end of the poem? Murnaghan explains the problem: ‘The warriors of the Iliad are committed to the repeated generation of death because they identify with a set of values – the heroic code – that enlists them in a quest for honour that is endless’ . Her perception that it is ‘essential to their sense of self’ is crucial: this is why Akhilleus does not find any fulfilment of his anger in receiving Briseis or killing Hektor. We have a great deal of evidence of the kind of heroic pressure enforced upon the soldiers of the Iliad, with challenges and insults abound (4.338ff, 4.370ff, 5.12-13 τώ οἱ ἀποκρινθέντε ἐναντίω ὁρμηθήτην: τὼ μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἵπποιιν, ὃ δ᾽ ἀπὸ χθονὸς ὄρνυτο πεζός., 16.242-245 θάρσυνον δέ οἱ ἦτορ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ὄφρα καὶ Ἕκτωρ εἴσεται ἤ ῥα καὶ οἶος ἐπίστηται πολεμίζειν ἡμέτερος θεράπων, ἦ οἱ τότε χεῖρες ἄαπτοι μαίνονθ᾽, ὁππότ᾽ ἐγώ περ ἴω μετὰ μῶλον Ἄρηος). None ever challenge this idea at all apart from Akhilleus. Now, this is not to say that he questions whether this pursuit is right himself – he does not, or rather, not actively – but he does raise unintentional questions about heroic mortality. When he accepts his fate, and when he accepts Priam’s supplication with reference to the gods, is he accepting that mortals should not try to emulate gods by their never-ending quest for κλεος? It is interesting that the aforementioned insults and attacks on heroism are often in relation to living up to the glory of one’s father: perhaps we can see similarities between these and Priam’s appeal to Akhilleus by using his father in order to get him to hand over Hektor. The situations are not exactly the same, as Priam expresses pity, not wonder, for Peleus, but they have the same fundamental concept at their heart. Does this imply that, by handing over Hektor, Akhilleus is just gaining another kind of glory, and so the pursuit of such a goal has never truly ended?
So we have seen that Iliad 24, while not providing a happy nor an utterly conclusive ending, provides at least one that is consistent with and relevant and important to the themes of the poem. Themes that begin the story are closed at the end, providing a narrative balance, and transition is still achieved, mainly in the progression from selfish
Yes but I'd say it's kinda questionable to compare art of today to one that is from 3000 years ago. They must be put to context of their time, I'd say. But of course I understand that you know what you're talking about since you have studied these things (or so I have understood.)
So would I, for casual pleasure.
But that's not what art is about.
Something being easier for the general population to understand doe… mores not make it higher quality from an analytical perspective.
Harry Potter is more accessible than War and Peace. Does that make it better art? No, it just makes it better entertainment at a basic level, and worse entertainment at an enlightened one.
The Iliad is an example of narrative that goes beyond simply entertainment and actually raises extremely important questions, contrasts and devastating realities of human existence.
It is not 'Then, as wind rushes through an open door, her sword stabbed [enter crap generic fantasy name here] [let's go with Richh] Richh in his heart, and he toppled, blood oozing from his exposed flesh'.
True analytical essays cannot be written to nearly the depth as The Iliad.
Here's one of my university essays, about just one chapter of Homer, to get the idea of… [view original content]
[continued]ness to selflessness. Akhilleus’ character does not lose its identity, nor does it lose its rage: instead it grows and develops unlike any other in the Iliad, in this final book. He does not lose the pride and anger that define him, but he gains a higher level of control over them, and unintentionally challenges the mechanics of the heroic armies, and the attitudes of their soldiers.
So would I, for casual pleasure.
But that's not what art is about.
Something being easier for the general population to understand doe… mores not make it higher quality from an analytical perspective.
Harry Potter is more accessible than War and Peace. Does that make it better art? No, it just makes it better entertainment at a basic level, and worse entertainment at an enlightened one.
The Iliad is an example of narrative that goes beyond simply entertainment and actually raises extremely important questions, contrasts and devastating realities of human existence.
It is not 'Then, as wind rushes through an open door, her sword stabbed [enter crap generic fantasy name here] [let's go with Richh] Richh in his heart, and he toppled, blood oozing from his exposed flesh'.
True analytical essays cannot be written to nearly the depth as The Iliad.
Here's one of my university essays, about just one chapter of Homer, to get the idea of… [view original content]
Yes but I'd say it's kinda questionable to compare art of today to one that is from 3000 years ago. They must be put to context of their tim… moree, I'd say. But of course I understand that you know what you're talking about since you have studied these things (or so I have understood.)
So would I, for casual pleasure.
But that's not what art is about.
Something being easier for the general population to understand doe… mores not make it higher quality from an analytical perspective.
Harry Potter is more accessible than War and Peace. Does that make it better art? No, it just makes it better entertainment at a basic level, and worse entertainment at an enlightened one.
The Iliad is an example of narrative that goes beyond simply entertainment and actually raises extremely important questions, contrasts and devastating realities of human existence.
It is not 'Then, as wind rushes through an open door, her sword stabbed [enter crap generic fantasy name here] [let's go with Richh] Richh in his heart, and he toppled, blood oozing from his exposed flesh'.
True analytical essays cannot be written to nearly the depth as The Iliad.
Here's one of my university essays, about just one chapter of Homer, to get the idea of… [view original content]
...why?
The context of art changes, the purpose of art rarely does: expression of concepts.
Harry Potter will never be heralded as War and Peace is because, as ASOIAF, it is written purely to entertain, not to change.
But i'll give it a chance. What important questions does it raise? Is the structure linear, or are there elements of ring composition? Is there more to the events described than what is written on the page?
Do the audience have to decide things that the book never says? What aspects of society does it challenge?
Nah, I'm not underestimating Iliad, I'm sure it's a fine piece of art and I probably will check it out at some point.
You have read ASOIAF, right? If you ask me there is a positive answer for many of those questions you put there. But don't make me debate about it because that wouldn't go well, English is not my first language and you could anyway crush me with that expertise of yours.
Oh, and I'll make it clear: when I said I'd rather read GRRM I didn't really mean that ASOIAF is better than Iliad as a work art, about that I don't have an opinion (at least not yet.)
You're most likely underestimating the Iliad :P
But i'll give it a chance. What important questions does it raise? Is the structure linea… morer, or are there elements of ring composition? Is there more to the events described than what is written on the page?
Do the audience have to decide things that the book never says? What aspects of society does it challenge?
...if you havent read even one chapter of it how can you know you're not underestimating it? :P
I've read a few chapters of the first over the past couple of days, but found it painfully generic. Can you please give me some (simple if you wish) answers to those questions
Nah, I'm not underestimating Iliad, I'm sure it's a fine piece of art and I probably will check it out at some point.
You have read ASOIA… moreF, right? If you ask me there is a positive answer for many of those questions you put there. But don't make me debate about it because that wouldn't go well, English is not my first language and you could anyway crush me with that expertise of yours.
Oh, and I'll make it clear: when I said I'd rather read GRRM I didn't really mean that ASOIAF is better than Iliad as a work art, about that I don't have an opinion (at least not yet.)
But I haven't underestimated it, just said that I'd prefer GRRM based on the small samples you put on the comment I replied. But yes, of course, it could be even better than I'd guess, if that's what you mean.
Okay, important questions? Well, a big theme is power. And not just this 'Who will sit on the throne' stuff but also psychology and philosophy behind ruling and power. And then there is of course questions about morality, honour and love and it's done pretty well in ASOIAF. I'm not an expert but I'd also say there are elements of ring composition. And yes, there certainly is more to the scenes than what is written on the page, at least that's how I see it. And yes, GRRM leaves questions open for the audience and gives a feeling of world that is large and full of happening but still mysterious. About the books challenging aspects of society...well, I'm not sure if that's what George wants to do with these books, fantasy is probably not the best genre for it. But I think one thing could be gender roles in society.
Anyway, as much as everyone likes the Starks, they really aren't the most interesting POVs and the first book is almost all about them. Okay Sansa and Arya will be more interesting in the later books and. The most interesting POVs are characters like Jaime and Cersei.
I know I answered very very swiftly to those questions but it's 3am here in Finland so I really am tired
...if you havent read even one chapter of it how can you know you're not underestimating it? :P
I've read a few chapters of the first ove… morer the past couple of days, but found it painfully generic. Can you please give me some (simple if you wish) answers to those questions
Characters are usually more morally ambiguous in the books. Tyrion, for example, is infamous for having been changed into a full-fledged hero in the show. In the books, he's one of the poster boys for the ambiguous morality of the setting. He may be one of the more likable Lannisters, but he is still very much a Lannister and is capable of being really ruthless.
Characters are usually more intelligent in the books compared to the show. The books have room to show off the full deviousness of some of these people, whereas the show sometimes makes them look downright daft in their decision making.
The books are much much much more detailed. Again, they have the room to be. Loads and loads of characters, some of whom make very brief appearances in one book only to show up with a much, much larger role in later books. Lookin' at you, Wyman Manderley.
Basically, if you like the show and you're smart, you'll probably like the books more.
Comments
They're worth reading but it is a commitment.
AFFC is the toughest read of them all. I'm a huge fan and that book even had me a little frustrated. I compare it to the Tree Beard chapter in The Hobbit; if you can get past it everything else is amazing. It's really a book to bring in other houses and characters so when you read about them in the next book you're not confused. I'd get through AFFC and immediately start a Dance with Dragons after; it will get your interest back in the series.
Read them, you'll be amazed at how much more there is to the story. Plus, you'll get the story as it was meant to be originally.
Sidenote: book 1 is VERY similar to season 1.
Also, I'm reading the world of ice and fire book, and it's amazing!
Hey, Lord of the Rings awesome!
I don't like GRRM's style of english, but as a Classics graduate I've become obsessed with finding the exact right words to express ideas, brought about by years and years of tedious translation, so it's very much a personal preference.
Ahaha comments like this are so ridiculous and over the top.
The only people who could possible know that are firstly people who are fluent in all written languages and secondly people who've read basically every book.
Even saying 'it's just my opinion' doesn't work: you can't eat 2 flavours of crisp and deduce that all ten flavours of crisp a manufacturer makes are awesome, and its the same with negative statements.
lel
Mos Def
It's one of my favourite series, but aye, it's most definately not the best work of fiction ever put to print. I doubt even GRRM would say as much.
Yeah.
If his fiction is still read in 3000 years time, then I'll consider him more.
As it stands, Homer's Iliad kind of has him beaten.
"Sing, my goddess, of the anger of Peleus' son Achilleus
and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians,
hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades, being strong souls
of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting
of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was accomplished
since that time when first there stood in division of conflict
Atreus' son the lord of men and brilliant Achilleus.
What god was it then set them together in bitter collision?
Zeus' son and Leto's, Apollo, who in anger at the king drove
the foul pestilence along the camp, and the people perished,
since Atreus' son had dishonoured Chryses, priest of Apollo,
when he came beside the fast ships of the Achaians to ransom
back his daughter, carrying gifts beyond count and holding
in his hands wound on a staff of gold the ribbons of Apollo
who strikes from afar, and supplicated all the Achaians,"
is far far far far far far far more intricate, considered, and full to the brim of theoretical analysis than "The morning had dawned clear and cold, with a crispness that hinted at the end of summer. They set forth at daybreak to see a man beheaded, twenty in all, and Bran rode among them, nervous with excitement. This was the first time he had been deemed old enough to go with his lord father and his brothers to see the king's justice done. It was the ninth year of summer, and the seventh of Bran's life."
And the Iliad isn't even in its source language, which has even more intricacies on meaning.
I was dissappointed with Feast myself when it came out. What was it.. five years waiting for it? The pace was very different to A Storm of Swords, and the infamous lengthy descriptions of inconsequential things were lengthier than ever, and we spent most of Brienne and Arianne's chapters following storylines that didn't seem to go anywhere. Frustration describes it well.
But it's grown on me through successive reads. There are some great, vivid chapters that stick in the memory, many important events occur, and we're introduced to some of the most interesting characters in the series. So aye, I'd certainly suggest re-reading it.
Absolutely yes. Read the books for sure! And don't forget to read book 1 as well. You don't wanna loose some Eddard Stark's memories and dreams.
I'd rather read GRRM.
So would I, for casual pleasure.
But that's not what art is about.
Something being easier for the general population to understand does not make it higher quality from an analytical perspective.
Harry Potter is more accessible than War and Peace. Does that make it better art? No, it just makes it better entertainment at a basic level, and worse entertainment at an enlightened one.
The Iliad is an example of narrative that goes beyond simply entertainment and actually raises extremely important questions, contrasts and devastating realities of human existence.
It is not 'Then, as wind rushes through an open door, her sword stabbed [enter crap generic fantasy name here] [let's go with Richh] Richh in his heart, and he toppled, blood oozing from his exposed flesh'.
True analytical essays cannot be written to nearly the depth as The Iliad.
Here's one of my university essays, about just one chapter of Homer, to get the idea of scale across.
The Ending of the Iliad
Macleod states definitively that ‘Iliad 24 is not a happy ending’. While it is true that there are positives within it – most specifically Akhilleus’ character turning to a more positive, restrained direction, and hints of him challenging the ‘hero system’ – the inevitable events to happen after the conclusion remain a constant, nagging idea in the background, which leaves us uneasy as Hektor’s funeral concludes. However, this does not make the ending any less fitting or satisfying in the narrative.
Rutherford says of the numerous patterns and parallels between book 24 and book 1 that ‘These undoubted correspondences may, besides their aesthetic value, have helped to provide the Iliad with a discrete unit amid the mass of episodes surrounding the Trojan War’. That is to say, the similarities tie together the narrative of the poem and prevent it from being lost in the lengthy war scenes. These are numerous: 1.493 ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἐκ τοῖο δυωδεκάτη γένετ᾽ ἠώς, corresponds exactly with 24.31 , where the anger of Akhilleus and indignation of the pro-Greek gods respectfully last for 11 days, both leading to divine assemblies; in book 1 the gods feast for 12 days (1.423-425 Ζεὺς γὰρ ἐς Ὠκεανὸν μετ᾽ ἀμύμονας Αἰθιοπῆας χθιζὸς ἔβη κατὰ δαῖτα, θεοὶ δ᾽ ἅμα πάντες ἕποντο: δωδεκάτῃ δέ τοι αὖτις ἐλεύσεται Οὔλυμπον δέ,) while Priam describes the funeral arrangements for Hektor, including a feast, to last 12 days (24.664-667 ἐννῆμαρ μέν κ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐνὶ μεγάροις γοάοιμεν, τῇ δεκάτῃ δέ κε θάπτοιμεν δαινῦτό τε λαός, ἑνδεκάτῃ δέ κε τύμβον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ποιήσαιμεν, τῇ δὲ δυωδεκάτῃ πολεμίξομεν εἴ περ ἀνάγκη.); the 9 days of plague (1.53 ἐννῆμαρ μὲν ἀνὰ στρατὸν ᾤχετο κῆλα θεοῖο) could match with the 9 days of mourning for Hektor (24.664, quoted above); the phraseἦμος δ᾽ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς appears only twice in the Iliad, in books 1 (1.477) and 24 (24.788); there is a great deal of similar language between the discussion about Chryseis and that about Hektor, including but not limited to 1.12-3 ὃ γὰρ ἦλθε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν λυσόμενός τε θύγατρα φέρων τ᾽ ἀπερείσι᾽ ἄποινα, vs 24.501-502 τοῦ νῦν εἵνεχ᾽ ἱκάνω νῆας Ἀχαιῶνλυσόμενος παρὰ σεῖο, φέρω δ᾽ ἀπερείσι᾽ ἄποινα and 1.26,28 μή σε γέρον κοίλῃσιν ἐγὼ παρὰ νηυσὶ κιχείω…μή νύ τοι οὐ χραίσμῃ σκῆπτρον καὶ στέμμα θεοῖο vs 24.569-70 τὼ νῦν μή μοι μᾶλλον ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς, μή σε γέρον οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν ἐάσω; and finally, and arguably most notably, there are key story similarities between the two books. In the first book Thetis is sent by Akhilleus to make requests to Zeus in secret that the gods should make allowances for him and change their behaviour, Hera gets annoyed at this, Zeus imposes his well regardless, and quarrel is ultimately avoided because the gods decide that mortals are not worth the trouble (1.573-575 ἦ δὴ λοίγια ἔργα τάδ᾽ ἔσσεται οὐδ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἀνεκτά, εἰ δὴ σφὼ ἕνεκα θνητῶν ἐριδαίνετον ὧδε, ἐν δὲ θεοῖσι κολῳὸν ἐλαύνετον). In book 24, Apollo complains about the current situation, Hera complains about his proposed solution, eventually the gods show care for humanity (24.66-68 οὐ μὲν γὰρ τιμή γε μί᾽ ἔσσεται: ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἕκτωρ φίλτατος ἔσκε θεοῖσι βροτῶν οἳ ἐν Ἰλίῳ εἰσίν: ὣς γὰρ ἔμοιγ᾽, ἐπεὶ οὔ τι φίλων ἡμάρτανε δώρων), Zeus orders Thetis to him openly as opposed to secretly, and she is sent down to Akhilleus and convinces him to make allowances for another person. Not only are there present similarities with the beginning, but contrasting ideas are ultimately conveyed, whereas the beginning both Akhilleus and the gods are focused on the self, and in book 24 they are focused largely on the other (Hera even greets Thetis warmly, 24.101-102 Ἥρη δὲ χρύσεον καλὸν δέπας ἐν χερὶ θῆκε
καί ῥ᾽ εὔφρην᾽ ἐπέεσσι: Θέτις δ᾽ ὤρεξε πιοῦσα). As such, selfishness and selflessness respectively open and close the Iliad. From these parallels and contrasts between the first and final books of the Iliad, we can see truth in Macleod’s statement that ‘The grand design of the Iliad, which culminates in the reversal of book 24, is prepared with subtlety and in detail from the beginning of the poem’.
Other parallels and contrasts with the final book are present outside of book 1. In book 22, Priam’s attempt to go down to supplicate Akhilleus is prevented completely (22.412-15 λαοὶ μέν ῥα γέροντα μόγις ἔχον ἀσχαλόωντα ἐξελθεῖν μεμαῶτα πυλάων Δαρδανιάων. πάντας δ᾽ ἐλλιτάνευε κυλινδόμενος κατὰ κόπρον, ἐξονομακλήδην ὀνομάζων ἄνδρα ἕκαστον) due to the restraints of others, but in book 24 (24.247-8 ἦ καὶ σκηπανίῳ δίεπ᾽ ἀνέρας: οἳ δ᾽ ἴσαν ἔξω σπερχομένοιο γέροντος) he sets out authoritatively, even striking those who would stop him with a stick. The mostly peaceful interaction between Akhilleus and Priam is similar to the speeches of Glaukos and Diomedes: two men from opposing sides manage to exchange items (for the latter exchange, armour, for the former, Hektor and his ransom) without conflict (‘Here, as in the speeches of Glaukos and Diomede, there is endurance and sadness, but no bitterness, no railing or cringing’ Macleod states, although he perhaps is a little excessive here, as Akhilleus does threaten Priam at one point). Supplications provide an interesting case of contrast: every mortal supplication in the Iliad fails before book 24 (such as 10.454-457 ἦ, καὶ ὃ μέν μιν ἔμελλε γενείου χειρὶ παχείῃ ἁψάμενος λίσσεσθαι, ὃ δ᾽ αὐχένα μέσσον ἔλασσε φασγάνῳ ἀΐξας, ἀπὸ δ᾽ ἄμφω κέρσε τένοντε: φθεγγομένου δ᾽ ἄρα τοῦ γε κάρη κονίῃσιν ἐμίχθη., 20.467ff, 21.98 ἀμείλικτον δ᾽ ὄπ᾽ ἄκουσε, 22.338ff). This contrast, as with the others, adds a great deal of power to the final, successful supplication of Priam: Rutherford expresses effectively that ‘It can hardly be overemphasised that in Homer…the poignancy and urgency of the appeal to pity lie in the ease in which the entreaty is often ignored’.
These parallels and contrasts are important to our reading of the poem. They serve to both tie the story together thematically and to end it with the conclusion of the greatest of these themes. As with the increased emotional impact of Priam’s supplication by its uniqueness, so Hera warmly welcoming Thetis, so the contrast of plague and mourning and so the change from focus on the self to focus on the other are all powerful and defining of the poem’s narrative intent. Beyond all these, however, the character development of Akhilleus in book 24 is the most decisive, not for what it says about him, but for what conclusions he comes to about humanity.
As mentioned above, the story of the Trojan War does not end in the Iliad. This is not merely a side effect of where Homer happens to decide to end his work, but it is heavily and consistently stated in the final book that the war has not reached its conclusion (24.656-658 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον, ποσσῆμαρ μέμονας κτερεϊζέμεν Ἕκτορα δῖον, ὄφρα τέως αὐτός τε μένω καὶ λαὸν ἐρύκω, 781 μὴ πρὶν πημανέειν πρὶν δωδεκάτη μόλῃ ἠώς, 799-800 ῥίμφα δὲ σῆμ᾽ ἔχεαν, περὶ δὲ σκοποὶ ἥατο πάντῃ, μὴ πρὶν ἐφορμηθεῖεν ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί). This in itself tells us the most important fact to remember when considering the poem’s ending: the purpose of the Iliad was not to tell the story of Troy’s fall, nor even to tell the completed story of Akhilleus, as his death is never seen. What its true intent is more up for debate, however the changes in outlook and attitude by the end of the poem, backed up by the contrast of selfishness and selflessness discussed above, create the picture of a story focusing on humanity itself rather than on specific events of its history. Macleod states that the subject of the Iliad is ‘not honour and glory, but suffering and death’ , but I believe this does not go far enough: its central theme is not merely suffering and death and the atrocities of war, but more specifically the effects they have and the reactions they inspire. Thus Akhilleus’ development is crucial to the overall narrative of the story (despite being absent for large portions of the poem, he is present for its most crucial moments) and the poem ending with the laments of a city over the death of its greatest hero, as opposed to merely the death of said hero itself, is logical.
Let us then look at the character of Akhilleus as it is in book 24 more detail. The frequent failure of supplications has already been mentioned: it is noteworthy that the character who most commonly turns these down is Akhilleus. This fact makes his acceptance of Priam’s all the more significant for his character: a change in attitude must have occurred somewhere. He demonstrates more awareness of his actions in 24.540-542 οὐδέ νυ τόν γε γηράσκοντα κομίζω, ἐπεὶ μάλα τηλόθι πάτρης ἧμαι ἐνὶ Τροίῃ, σέ τε κήδων ἠδὲ σὰ τέκνα, and he has grown from being motivated by rage to being motivated by pity (9.612-3 μή μοι σύγχει θυμὸν ὀδυρόμενος καὶ ἀχεύων Ἀτρεΐδῃ ἥρωϊ φέρων χάριν: vs 24.560-1 μηκέτι νῦν μ᾽ ἐρέθιζε γέρον: νοέω δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς Ἕκτορά τοι λῦσαι, and 24.568 τὼ νῦν μή μοι μᾶλλον ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς). He offers Priam food 24.618-619 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δὴ καὶ νῶϊ μεδώμεθα δῖε γεραιὲ σίτου while he refused it for himself in 19.305-308 λίσσομαι, εἴ τις ἔμοιγε φίλων ἐπιπείθεθ᾽ ἑταίρων, μή με πρὶν σίτοιο κελεύετε μηδὲ ποτῆτος ἄσασθαι φίλον ἦτορ, ἐπεί μ᾽ ἄχος αἰνὸν ἱκάνει: δύντα δ᾽ ἐς ἠέλιον μενέω καὶ τλήσομαι ἔμπης. He is led down a path of empathy by Priam, with the mention of Peleus bringing him to tears as he mourns together with the man who should be one of his greatest enemies (24.507-512 αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς κλαῖεν ἑὸν πατέρ᾽, ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖτε Πάτροκλον: τῶν δὲ στοναχὴ κατὰ δώματ᾽ ὀρώρει.). Macleod notes that ‘What characterises [Akhilleus] from the beginning is a ferocious pride’ and here we see that almost entirely absent. This could arguably due to his increased security in his future: previously he has been worried about his dual fate of honour and death or life without honour, but by book 19 his security in his future contrasts with Hektor’s lack of it (compare Akhilleus 19.421-2 εὖ νυ τὸ οἶδα καὶ αὐτὸς ὅ μοι μόρος ἐνθάδ᾽ ὀλέσθαι νόσφι φίλου πατρὸς καὶ μητέρος with Hektor 16.859-61 ‘Πατρόκλεις τί νύ μοι μαντεύεαι αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον; τίς δ᾽ οἶδ᾽ εἴ κ᾽ Ἀχιλεὺς Θέτιδος πάϊς ἠϋκόμοιο φθήῃ ἐμῷ ὑπὸ δουρὶ τυπεὶς ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι’). With his future certain, perhaps Akhilleus now feels stable enough that he can control his anger, not in the least because he has now gained the honour he has to before he dies. We must question, however, whether Akhilleus is truly demonstrating a large change in character, or whether he is merely acquiescing to the wishes of the divines: he is of course aware that Priam has been sent by the gods: Thetis explained to him what the gods are planning about Hektor, and he sees that Priam has come with the help of a god (24.561-564 Διόθεν δέ μοι ἄγγελος ἦλθε μήτηρ, ἥ μ᾽ ἔτεκεν, θυγάτηρ ἁλίοιο γέροντος. καὶ δέ σε γιγνώσκω Πρίαμε φρεσίν, οὐδέ με λήθεις, ὅττι θεῶν τίς σ᾽ ἦγε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν). However, his threats to Priam (24.567-570 ῥεῖα μετοχλίσσειε θυράων ἡμετεράων. τὼ νῦν μή μοι μᾶλλον ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς, μή σε γέρον οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν ἐάσω καὶ ἱκέτην περ ἐόντα, Διὸς δ᾽ ἀλίτωμαι ἐφετμάς) imply that he does have some control over whether he allows Priam to do this or not even if it will cause him harm by the gods, which implies that he is supportive of his desires beyond merely the request of Zeus. His mother’s words lead him to hear Priam out: it is Priam’s use of Peleus which has the profoundest effect on his mood. His threats in book 22 form a stark contrast from his actual actions in 24: 22.349ff is far more dramatic and violent than it ends up being, and this shows that he must have some form of growth between the books, some change of heart. Does the full funeral of Patroklos in book 23 allows for him to put aside this anger more absolutely? No: in 24.14ff he treats the body of Hektor brutally. Only when led to empathy by Priam does he restrain himself.
I would not, however, argue that book 24 demonstrates a journey away from Akhilleus’ identity as a proud and rage-filled man: he threatens Priam, as above, and stresses his divine connections almost in order to scare or impress him (24.561-562 Διόθεν δέ μοι ἄγγελος ἦλθε μήτηρ, ἥ μ᾽ ἔτεκεν, θυγάτηρ ἁλίοιο γέροντος). It is, in my opinion, a common misconception that book 24 serves as a conclusion to the ‘rage of Akhilleus’ at all, for not only is this too simplified for such a complexly developed character, but also focuses entirely on the book as a removal or reduction of rage as opposed to the acquisition or development of another character trait. Firstly, Akhilleus’ rage in the Iliad is not one single emotion and reaction, but several tied together by the term, each of which conclude at separate times and each of which gives birth to a new incarnation of it. The argument between him and Agamemnon causes ‘rage’. He then mourns and this rage is put to rest, and new rage burns inside of him directed against the life of Hektor. He then mourns Patroklos again, and then his rage resurfaces which is now so powerful that he expresses it by heavily mistreating Hektor’s corpse. In book 24, yes, Hektor accepts Priam’s supplication, but he still threatens him as noted above. We have no reason to believe that Akhilleus as a character is now less prone to anger. What is crucial is that Akhilleus not only withholds his anger (as he has already done this is book 1) but that he continues to be helpful after it, instead of refusing to help. The rage of Akhilleus is not gone; the way he deals with it has been changed. He has gained the Greek virtue of σωφροσύνη: self-restraint and prudence. Akhilleus has realised by the end of book 24 that, as Murnahan points out, ‘on the battlefield a hero’s attempts to repair past losses only invite new ones’. Macleod’s statement that ‘if the Iliad had moved in a straight line from Hektor’s death to Akhilleus’, it would have stopped; as it is, it is completed’ is, at least with regard to the characterisation of Akhilleus, abundantly true. The supplication scene is a final vision of relief and hope for Akhilleus as he accepts a) his fate, such that he is affected by Priam’s appeal to Peleus’ reaction when he shall lose his son, and b) his mortality, as he understands that the gods wishes are important at the same time as understanding that mistreating Priam isn’t going to make a difference to his own life. It is thus true that nothing Akhilleus does here affects either the greater events of Troy neither himself directly, but Rutherford points out that ‘it would be wrong to see [his reception of Priam’s supplication] as any less admirable or precious for that reason’.
Akhilleus does also seem to grow in a negative direction, however: he asks the corpse of Patroklos for forgiveness when he hands over Hektor (24.592 μή μοι Πάτροκλε σκυδμαινέμεν). While addressing dead men is not totally uncommon, Akhilleus also says that he shall share the ransom with him (24.595 σοὶ δ᾽ αὖ ἐγὼ καὶ τῶνδ᾽ ἀποδάσσομαι ὅσσ᾽ ἐπέοικεν), and talking about a corpse as if it were alive is not common. His sorrow is certainly not over, but he expresses this is a very different manner to the rage it caused him earlier. Perhaps, we might even suggest, his expression of sharing the items with Patroklos says less that he thinks of Patroklos as alive and more that he views himself as already dead, having accepted his fate at last? It seems that from the death of Patroklos to his own, Akhilleus will, as Seaford proposes, ‘never emerge from his death-like-sorrow’. The decreasing doublet, pointed out by Kelly, of the smaller burial of Hektor compared to that of Patroklos may tell us something about the growth of Akhilleus as well. For Patroklos, there are large funeral games ‘with all their renewed antagonism and barely-concealed rivalry over τιμη’, , whereas for Hektor there is a communal feast, and the mourning is done by women who had a personal connection to him rather than the glorified slaves of Akhilleus. Perhaps the rage and conflict which encircles the entire funeral proceedings of Patroklos, from his death right up until the start of book 24 symbolises the rage of Akhilleus being expressed in a deadly and brutal manner. The rage he experiences is shown through the funeral full of the same fighting and bickering we have seen throughout the whole poem; his reaction of sympathy and refusal to give in to said rage in book 24 leads to a personal and communal funeral by which the story closes.
So Akhilleus restrains his rage. But the rage amongst the Greeks in general and their pursuit of glory remains, as shown by the conflict of the funeral games. Is this ever really challenged, and is there any difference in attitudes to this unhealthy pursuit by the end of the poem? Murnaghan explains the problem: ‘The warriors of the Iliad are committed to the repeated generation of death because they identify with a set of values – the heroic code – that enlists them in a quest for honour that is endless’ . Her perception that it is ‘essential to their sense of self’ is crucial: this is why Akhilleus does not find any fulfilment of his anger in receiving Briseis or killing Hektor. We have a great deal of evidence of the kind of heroic pressure enforced upon the soldiers of the Iliad, with challenges and insults abound (4.338ff, 4.370ff, 5.12-13 τώ οἱ ἀποκρινθέντε ἐναντίω ὁρμηθήτην: τὼ μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἵπποιιν, ὃ δ᾽ ἀπὸ χθονὸς ὄρνυτο πεζός., 16.242-245 θάρσυνον δέ οἱ ἦτορ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ὄφρα καὶ Ἕκτωρ εἴσεται ἤ ῥα καὶ οἶος ἐπίστηται πολεμίζειν ἡμέτερος θεράπων, ἦ οἱ τότε χεῖρες ἄαπτοι μαίνονθ᾽, ὁππότ᾽ ἐγώ περ ἴω μετὰ μῶλον Ἄρηος). None ever challenge this idea at all apart from Akhilleus. Now, this is not to say that he questions whether this pursuit is right himself – he does not, or rather, not actively – but he does raise unintentional questions about heroic mortality. When he accepts his fate, and when he accepts Priam’s supplication with reference to the gods, is he accepting that mortals should not try to emulate gods by their never-ending quest for κλεος? It is interesting that the aforementioned insults and attacks on heroism are often in relation to living up to the glory of one’s father: perhaps we can see similarities between these and Priam’s appeal to Akhilleus by using his father in order to get him to hand over Hektor. The situations are not exactly the same, as Priam expresses pity, not wonder, for Peleus, but they have the same fundamental concept at their heart. Does this imply that, by handing over Hektor, Akhilleus is just gaining another kind of glory, and so the pursuit of such a goal has never truly ended?
So we have seen that Iliad 24, while not providing a happy nor an utterly conclusive ending, provides at least one that is consistent with and relevant and important to the themes of the poem. Themes that begin the story are closed at the end, providing a narrative balance, and transition is still achieved, mainly in the progression from selfish
Yes but I'd say it's kinda questionable to compare art of today to one that is from 3000 years ago. They must be put to context of their time, I'd say. But of course I understand that you know what you're talking about since you have studied these things (or so I have understood.)
[continued]ness to selflessness. Akhilleus’ character does not lose its identity, nor does it lose its rage: instead it grows and develops unlike any other in the Iliad, in this final book. He does not lose the pride and anger that define him, but he gains a higher level of control over them, and unintentionally challenges the mechanics of the heroic armies, and the attitudes of their soldiers.
...why?
The context of art changes, the purpose of art rarely does: expression of concepts.
Harry Potter will never be heralded as War and Peace is because, as ASOIAF, it is written purely to entertain, not to change.
Casual pleasure, if you say so.... "Even his manhood was ugly, thick and veined, with a bulbous purple head." That's ART
In all seriousness i only usually read for casual pleasure but ASOIAF has become an obsession
Definitely check out the books. They are a pleasure to read.
Hey, I'm not the one talking about Harry Potter here
And tbh I think you are underrating ASOIAF. I'm not mad about it, just mentioning.
You're most likely underestimating the Iliad :P
But i'll give it a chance. What important questions does it raise? Is the structure linear, or are there elements of ring composition? Is there more to the events described than what is written on the page?
Do the audience have to decide things that the book never says? What aspects of society does it challenge?
Nah, I'm not underestimating Iliad, I'm sure it's a fine piece of art and I probably will check it out at some point.
You have read ASOIAF, right? If you ask me there is a positive answer for many of those questions you put there. But don't make me debate about it because that wouldn't go well, English is not my first language and you could anyway crush me with that expertise of yours.
Oh, and I'll make it clear: when I said I'd rather read GRRM I didn't really mean that ASOIAF is better than Iliad as a work art, about that I don't have an opinion (at least not yet.)
...if you havent read even one chapter of it how can you know you're not underestimating it? :P
I've read a few chapters of the first over the past couple of days, but found it painfully generic. Can you please give me some (simple if you wish) answers to those questions
But I haven't underestimated it, just said that I'd prefer GRRM based on the small samples you put on the comment I replied. But yes, of course, it could be even better than I'd guess, if that's what you mean.
Okay, important questions? Well, a big theme is power. And not just this 'Who will sit on the throne' stuff but also psychology and philosophy behind ruling and power. And then there is of course questions about morality, honour and love and it's done pretty well in ASOIAF. I'm not an expert but I'd also say there are elements of ring composition. And yes, there certainly is more to the scenes than what is written on the page, at least that's how I see it. And yes, GRRM leaves questions open for the audience and gives a feeling of world that is large and full of happening but still mysterious. About the books challenging aspects of society...well, I'm not sure if that's what George wants to do with these books, fantasy is probably not the best genre for it. But I think one thing could be gender roles in society.
Anyway, as much as everyone likes the Starks, they really aren't the most interesting POVs and the first book is almost all about them. Okay Sansa and Arya will be more interesting in the later books and. The most interesting POVs are characters like Jaime and Cersei.
I know I answered very very swiftly to those questions but it's 3am here in Finland so I really am tired
The differences between the show and the books:
Basically, if you like the show and you're smart, you'll probably like the books more.
Absolutely, way better than the show, as books always are