Let’s all face the Fact: the Odyssey is written in a non-chronological format, in which the story begins in the middle, and jumps around time, eventually letting us arrive at the ending. Now, why on earth would Homer, the eloquent epithet creator, make a story that is only semi-confluent, and lacks linear time? In Mr. Ialacci’s Humanities class, we wrote down the two different orders that the story has; Chronological and Narrative order. The Chronological order is essentially the order of events that happen, regardless of when they happen according to the Narrator. The Narrative order, however, consists of the events of the story as told by the Narrator. So, Why would Homer resort to writing a story that is in Narrative format? My Personal Hypothesis is that Homer wrote the course of the story in a coagulated way in order to better show Odysseus and other character’s developments, by displaying their faults, and then displaying various ways that they overcome said faults. For example, take a look at the mutinous shipmates of Odysseus ungrateful twats that they are who, in the beginning of the story, seem to be loyal to him. However, as the Narrative time line goes on, Odysseus's men eventually become more hostile towards Odysseus, creating mutinies left and right. If we look at the Crew's development on the Chronological time line though, them seem schizophrenic sporadic in their mutinies.
-Nick
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Order of Events
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Homer didn't go in chronological order, but instead, started towards the middle of the story, so he could flash back to the past to allude to what could possibly happen in the future. I came to this conclusion through our discussion in class, about agamemnon and his story. Agamemnon goes off to war for 10 years. In that period, his wife, Clytamnestra cheats on him. His son, orestes, knows of this, and feels that he has to do something. When Agamemnon returns, Clytamnestra and the person she is cheating with kill Agamemnon. When orestes sees his father killed after not seeing him for 10 years, he is enraged, and he kills his mother and Ageisthus. Homer talks about this in the beginning of the book. This event takes place years before Odysseus returns to Ithica. Homer does this to get the reader thinking about if the same thing will happen with Oysseus (agamemnon), Penelope (Clytamnestra), the suitors (aegesthus), and Telemachus (orestes). This is just one example of HOmer "flashing back" in the Odyssey while alluding to the future. Another example of this is when Calypso tells odysseus he is free to leave, Odysseus doesn't believe her. This is shown again later in the book w/ Telemachus, when odysseus reveals is true identity to Telemachus. Telemachus doesn't believe him, so Homer was trying to put the thought that the entire family of Odysseus is reluctant to trust people.
ReplyDeleteI dare to present perhaps the simplest answer to your question. Homer was, as we have discovered through his book, most certainly an artist in the truest sense of the word. His stories were passed down by word of mouth until they were at last put into print, and now, many many years later are still being read by modern day intellects such as ourselves. His work was clearly noteworthy. I believe that Homer wrote his story in this format simply because of the intrigue it creates. By starting the book almost near the end, and then working backwards, Homer puts us in an interesting place where we long to know exactly what happened to our dear friend Odysseus. By revealing piece by piece he keeps the reader/listener enthralled and curious. I believe that Homer, as a master storyteller, knew what effect his narrative order would create, and did it on purpose to further draw in the reader/listener.
ReplyDeleteThis question is perhaps best answered with another question: Did Homer think of all of this before telling the story, and how much was made up on the spot? Homer, who clearly and unarguably had a firm grasp on the human character and the gods as he perceived them, was a blind poet who apparently spent his days thinking about and telling stories. It is almost inconceivable to assume that Homer thought of this story in its entirety before telling it to anyone. He must have thought of at least some of it while telling it, which means he could tell any part whenever he thought of it. Perhaps he even told it in episodes, so as to keep the reader engaged. This would be a particular challenge for Homer, since his status as a blind poet didn't exactly vouch for his abilities in any field.
ReplyDeleteIf we assume that Homer thought of most of his story while narrating, that it is also safe to assume that he told it narratively for a reason. Since he needed to retain his audiences' attention, telling the story out of chronological order makes sense; it would force the audience to ask questions, keeping them engaged in the story.
I think that Homer made a story that is only semi-confluent, and lacks linear time for a number of reasons. I agree with Baui in one of the reasons being that Homer is hinting at events that might happen in the future. I think one of the main reasons is that he is trying to engage the audience. By starting at the end, Homer sets up suspense for the whereabouts of Odysseus. At the very beginning of the story we do not know if Odysseus is even alive and after that is revealed to us we are longing to know how he came to be located on Calypso’s island. This definitely makes the story more interesting then the contrary technique. This would be Homer telling us that Odysseus fought in a war, then he went to an island and killed people, then he went to an island with lotus eating people and then…As you can see this would create a very boring story.
ReplyDeleteThis format also allows the story to be condensed. The epic is very long to begin with. If the events of Odysseus’s journey home had been told to us chronologically rather than having Odysseus reveal them in a story, they would have occupied much more than four chapters. By having the hardships of Odysseus take up a smaller portion of the book, the emphasis of the book can be placed on the triumph of him returning home rather than the hardships of his journey. This method also allows for there to be skepticism about whether or not Odysseus is being completely truthful, when he is telling the Phaecian’s his story.
I have read a version of the Odyssey in the past that was actually in chronological and not narrative order. The Odyssey has been published in multiple versions that have slightly different orders. I noticed back when I was reading the chronological version that there is heavy emphasis on Odysseus's journey. The version did not include the Telemachiad at all. It started with Odysseus's departure from troy and continues from there in a chronological fashion until the end of the story. A lot of the narrative story is lost, most notably the suspense from knowing that the suitors at home want to kill Odysseus and take his home. It is a less artistic version with a great deal of back-story left out. Who knows what order the Odyssey was in when it existed only as an oral tradition, but I think Homer purposely put it in a non-chronological order to make the Odyssey a richer story with much more suspense than if it were in chronological. The other major reason to change it is to make the journey home a lesser part of the book and his return the most important thing. When I was reading the chronological version, I did not think that his return was such a big deal. Here he had fought gods and monsters and returns home to have to face a bunch of drunken suitors. They did not seem like such a big threat. With the Telemachiad included, they seem much more dangerous. They are crafty and ruthless. Knowing that they want to kill Telemachus also adds to their reputation. The suitors really become the main antagonist in the narrative version, whereas Poseidon is the main antagonist in the chronological retelling.
ReplyDeleteBy not following a chronological order, the reader becomes more interested and intrigued by Odysseus’ story. The narrator initially introduces Odysseus as a hero of the Trojan War who after ten years still has not returned home, but instead is being held prisoner by Calypso. Immediately the reader wonders how did Odysseus get to this place, and what has happened these past ten years since the Trojan War. The suspense of what happened to Odysseus during those years builds up so that by the time Odysseus tells the Phaeacians his story, the reader is completely absorbed in his tale. Also, by introducing Penelope and Telemachus, Odysseus’ wife and son, before the telling of Odysseus’ journey back to Ithaca, we see how much Odysseus is loved and missed by his family. This makes us care more for Odysseus so that when we do hear his story we are much more invested in it.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, by starting the story in medias res with Penelope and Telemachus, we immediately come to care for them and their dire predicament. Penelope is the heartbroken wife of Odysseus who is being forced to choose another husband among the rude suitors who have taken up residence in her home. Telemachus is the loyal son of Odysseus whom the suitors are plotting to kill. By being aware of their troubling situation, the reader’s interest in Odysseus when he finally tells his story of his return from Troy is heightened because the reader is aware of the stakes involved if Odysseus does not return. Thus, even if some of Odysseus’ actions bother the reader such as his arrogance in telling Polyphemus his name, resulting in his father Poseidon hindering Odysseus’ trip home, the reader continues to root for Odysseus’ safe return so that he can come to the aid of his beloved wife and son.
Starting in the middle of an epic is known as In media res. I believe that Homer told the Odyssey in media res because it creates more suspense for the reader, rather than simply telling a story in chronological order. If he starts in the middle than the reader has no knowledge of what happened before, or what will happen at the end, particularly with the many fates of Odysseus that were possible. From telling the story from the middle we can see how people are dealing with an issue that the reader does not know about, so we cannot determine if the characters are dealing with the problem in the right way, only by common sense. Also, similarly to Baui, it is more suspenseful if situations similar to the one present are given, such as the story of Agamemnon, to not know if it will happen. The reader by knowing that story will for the rest of the book as the stories become similar and the reader learns about the suitors will think that the stories are bound to end up the same way. They will think that Odysseus will be killed when he returns home, especially when in his fate he is told that even if he makes it home alive, he is due for a life of pain at home in Ithaca. However, if the reader pays attention to the little details, the stories are not the same. For example the wives are different. Clytemnestra, Agamemnon’s wife, is unfaithful and marries another noble waiting for Agamemnon to return from Troy. However, at the other end of the spectrum, Penelope, Odysseus’s wife wants to wait and tries to delay the suitors using trickery. The reader will be more intrigued if they know more about what is happening and keep the reading wondering what will happen. The reader learns about what occurred in the beginning by context and retelling of people’s stories. Starting in the middle was a smarter choice because it is more gripping than going in chronological order.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHomer wrote the story in a narrative format to emphasize the father-son relationship, and to introduce the reader to the suitors before Odysseus’ return to Ithaca. The father-son relationship is crucial to this story and also helps develop the characters, Odysseus and Telemachus. Throughout the epic, Odysseus demonstrates a sharp and quick-witted outlook, particularly when leaving Calypso’s island. In Book 5, Hermes delivers a message to Calypso to release Odysseus. Upon telling Odysseus the news however, he jumps to the conclusion that she is insincere and not trustworthy. He protests, “Passage home? Never. Surely you’re plotting something else, goddess, urging me- in a raft- to cross the ocean’s mighty gulfs. I won’t set food on a raft until you show good faith, until you consent to swear, goddess, a binding oath you’ll never plot some new intrigue to harm me!” (Page 157-8 lines 190-9). In this quotation, Odysseus demonstrates his sharp outlook by thinking ahead to the possible outcomes if he were to leave the island. He is skeptical to trust Calypso and declares that she must win his trust before he will leave.
ReplyDeleteBook 16, titled “Father and Son,” also focuses on this relationship as Odysseus reveals himself to Telemachus. Athena removes Odysseus’ disguise in order for him to begin planning his revenge with his son, but Telemachus is not convinced that it is his father. Telemachus reacts disbelievingly, “No, you’re not Odysseus! Not my father! Just some spirit spellbinding me now – to make me ache with sorrow all the more. Impossible for a mortal to work such marvels!” (Page 344-5, lines 220-8). In this quotation, Telemachus argues that the stranger cannot possibly be his father because he acts like a god. His reaction is quite skeptical and disbelieving, showing he is thinking ahead; just like his father. He is not quick to believe everything he is told, just like Odysseus is not when Calypso tells him he can leave. Homer purposefully makes this connection between father and son to show the idea of “growing up” where Telemachus grows up to be just like his father despite Odysseus’ absence throughout his childhood.
Homer also writes the story in a narrative format in order to introduce the reader to the suitors prior to Odysseus’ return. In the Telemachiad, the reader learns of the suitors’ cruel ways and it builds great suspense for Odysseus’ return. As Mr. Iallacci mentioned in class, the suspense built up in the story is similar to the suspense of a horror film, where the viewer has a hint of what lies ahead for the protagonist, but the protagonist remains clueless. When the viewer sees the antagonist before their encounter with the protagonist in the film, there is much more anxiety and it also allows the viewer to think of possible outcomes for that protagonist. This concept works the same for the Odyssey because the reader knows about the suitors and about the fate of Agamemnon when he returned home. This prior knowledge allows the reader to infer and create parallels to the various stories and then await the outcome of Odysseus.