/lit/ - Literature

They're good fucking stories.

>>15800935
At least read Joseph Campbell or Edith Hamilton, anon. You are probably losing a lot of stuff. I need to check them out too.

>>15800935
Homer is literally the basis for your entire civilization

>>15800938
Good fucking stories told by someone a couple millennia and some change before people made an effort towards studying what makes good story telling.

>>15800968
and those who did all studied Homer

>>15801041
Yeah okay but what about the rest of us not trying to be big brain literature experts

>>15801067
They're fun and interesting and if you like philosophy and particularly greeks then you'll love it

>>15801067
Why did you make this thread you fucking retard? Read the stories or not. They're very good, societally/historically important, and required reading if you're going to start reading the Greeks. It doesn't take some huge brain to read Homer and it doesn't make you a "literature expert," if you don't want to then fuck off back to your home board.

>>15801104
I'm halfway through the Iliad for the singular purpose of understanding the greeks better and I can firmly say this is some boring ass shit. I read Hamilton's Mythology and Strauss's The Trojan War so I have a very decent idea of what actually and supposedly happened, and the stories themselves are indeed fun and interesting. But Homer is a shitfucked storyteller. He has no concept of pacing, of setting a scene, of dialogue, of scale. Do you think there's any benefit to reading him over just learning the stories themselves?

>>15801124
>What's the point of reading Homer?
>"Good stories"
>But I can get those same stories somewhere else from better storytellers
>"But all those storytellers studied Homer"
>I'm not trying to become a storyteller
>"WHY ARE YOU EVEN ASKING THEN YOU FUCKING RETARD?!?!?!? READ HIM OR DON'T FUCK OFF TO ANOTHER BOARD THIS IS MY BOARD"
Calm down, buddy. You got so excited you forgot to finish building the strawman before you began tearing it apart.

>>15801221
>Calm down, buddy. You got so excited you forgot to finish building the strawman before you began tearing it apart.
First of all, that's not a strawman in any way. I argued why it's important to read Homer, which is what the thread is about. In fact, it's you who's using a strawman, by implying that I argued that other story tellers studied Homer when I never said anything like that.
Secondly, no, there aren't the "same stories somewhere else from better storytellers". This is the only Iliad and Odyssey. There might be better stories, there aren't "the same stories but written by someone else". The idea that things only get better over time and can't get worse, because people inherently get better over time through increased knowledge, is post-modern Marxist bullshit. I never said anything about other story tellers studying Homer. Here, I'll repeat what I said:
>they're good
>they're historically and societally important
>they're required reading if you're going to start with the Greeks
It's like you're saying "dude why read Steinbeck when you can just read Fitzgerald? Why read Dostoevsky when you can just read Tolstoy?" Well, because they have all different writing styles and discuss different ideas, as well as set the stage for many other writers and historical texts/events/etc.

>>15801290
tl;dr

>>15801293
Keep shitting up 4channel

>>15801293
Why do you people make such a point to come to this board and shit it up? Don't you have anything better to do?

>>15801301
This board is for fucking worthless unemployable dweebs. I hate all of you.

>>15801290
>Secondly, no, there aren't the "same stories somewhere else from better storytellers".
Yes there is, anyone can just write the same shit over again. If you're a better storyteller, you can write the same story but better. That's what editing is. You telling me it's impossible to edit books for the better?
>The idea that things only get better over time and can't get worse, because people inherently get better over time through increased knowledge, is post-modern Marxist bullshit
I don't know how you define this nebulous term of "things" but I can say many things are getting better. Cinema is a lot better than it was a century ago, and if I were to tell you that Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat still holds up today you would rightly say I'm talking bullshit.
>It's like you're saying "dude why read Steinbeck when you can just read Fitzgerald? Why read Dostoevsky when you can just read Tolstoy?"
It would be like me saying that if you fundamentally failed to understand my question, which you clearly have. I'm not asking you "What's the point in knowing what happens in the Iliad and Odyssey?" I'm asking you "What's the point in reading the Iliad and Odyssey if you already know what happens in them?".

>>15801221
I'm always a secondary > primary person but at some point I'm going to have to. It's more for ppl who are starting to read plato and need a good example of plato vs Aristotle (odyssey)

>>15801358
You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're just a complete drooling retard

>>15801379
Not an argument.

>>15801290
I agree w u, not him, but can you defend reading it on the literature instead of contextual grounds?

>>15801358
You can skip it if you're getting nothing out of it. The point isn't to read it as a story but as the output of a particular metaphysics

>>15801358
>Yes there is, anyone can just write the same shit over again.
You just responded to that one sentence, then ignored the rest of the argument that was inherent to it. Why do you keep doing this? Also, editing isn't the same as writing.
>I don't know how you define this nebulous term of "things"
You know how I'm defining it, don't get lost in semantics. Literature in this specific argument.
>It would be like me saying that if you fundamentally failed to understand my question, which you clearly have.
No, you're intentionally failing to understand my arguments, because I've already proven you wrong and you didn't make this thread to figure out whether or not it's worth it to read the books, but just as bait to make a thread.
>>15801390
Yes, literally just by the fact that it's a well written book and an interesting story. That is of course opinionated, but the simple fact that it's stood the test of time for 2300+ years should be pretty good evidence. Books simply don't last that long if they're either not good or don't have some very important material (themes, arguments, etc.).

>>15801411
Sure I agree but that's just an overview. What particularly is solely brought out in the two, particularly iliad, that is unique besides context?

>>15800935
>wearing a xiphos on one's back

>>15801421
>particularly iliad
The importance of staying your anger and honoring others even in death, for one. For example, Achilles giving Priam back the body of Hector (I realize it's the Gods that make him do this, but that's the driver of the moral I'm talking about, not Achilles himself) in an act of compassion for Priam, and allowing them to bury him, despite the hate that the Greeks had for Hector himself. It also talks about the choice between glory in death or living a long but uneventful life, faith, accepting your given situation/consequences in stride, and more.

>>15801411
>You just responded to that one sentence, then ignored the rest of the argument that was inherent to it.
Yes, I saved the effort of arguing on behalf of a point I'm not actually making. You said "This is the only Iliad and Odyssey. There might be better stories, there aren't "the same stories but written by someone else"." and I countered that by saying, I thought very clearly, that asking someone what happens in the Iliad is itself the same story told by someone else. You seem to be under the impression that I'm looking to read a different story altogether and get what you or others got out of reading the Iliad, implied by your "dude why read Steinbeck when you can just read Fitzgerald?" comment. That's not what I'm saying, as I've previously clarified, and that is why I didn't bother to counter your argument on that point. This is me clarifying it a SECOND time, I'm not asking you "What's the point in knowing what happens in the Iliad and Odyssey?" I'm asking you "What's the point in reading the Iliad and Odyssey if you already know what happens in them?".
>You know how I'm defining it, don't get lost in semantics. Literature in this specific argument.
Then just say "literature". Is it so difficult to be precise in your communication?
>No, you're intentionally failing to understand my arguments
I understand them perfectly, you're failing to understand that your arguments are perfect counters to a point I've already said I'm not making. I've asked "What's two minus two?" and you've rolled up and said "Two plus two is four", and when I respond "No, I'm not talking about addition, I'm talking about subtraction" you keep repeating "Two plus two is obviously four, why are you being obtuse?"
>you didn't make this thread to figure out whether or not it's worth it to read the books, but just as bait to make a thread.
Yes, clearly, anyone who manages to still disagree with you after you've shat your divine diarrhea of wisdom all over the place must be faking ignorance just to rile you up.

>>15801501
>I'm asking you "What's the point in reading the Iliad and Odyssey if you already know what happens in them?".
The enjoyment from reading the fucking story, retard, along with the other things I've already stated, like historical context (there are many allegories made to The Iliad and the Odyssey in even the most basic Greek philosophy which you wouldn't be familiar with even if you know what the ending of the Iliad and the Odyssey are, and the themes in them). It's still enjoyable even if you already know what happens. I was gonna add an allegory to this, but I know you'll just focus on the perceived flaws in the allegory I would have put here instead of realizing what I'm saying and attacking that.
>Is it so difficult to be precise in your communication?
Is it so difficult to realize the subject we're talking about and assume that's what I mean? I say 'things' because that's the generalization of what Post-Modernists think, that things (perhaps more accurately, 'intellectual pursuits', but then what does intellectual mean and what does it mean for one to pursue something intellectual? Maybe you'd prefer to argue about this instead of actually discussing the matter we're talking about, since that might be easier?) are constantly evolving to be better, and in our case, literature being the subset of 'things' we're talking about was implied and obvious.

>>15801556
>The enjoyment from reading the fucking story, retard
You know, the first post I made in this thread after the OP was me precluding this as a reason on the grounds that Homer is not a good storyteller, which is why I asked in the question in the first place. I asked "Why do this when it's not fun?" and you respond "Because it's fun." So, for all your paragraphs, everything you've posted thus far culminates in "Yeah well I like it." which is irrelevant.
>Is it so difficult to realize the subject we're talking about and assume that's what I mean?
You have a problem with people actually asking you what you mean instead of just assuming? You would seriously rather be intentionally vague and hope I just fucking intuit what you're talking about, when you have no idea who I am or what frame of reference that intuition is operating from? I'm really hoping I don't need to point out how thoroughly fucking flawed that mode of operation is. Do you talk to other people like this? Do you ask people to "hand me the thing" or "go get me the stuff" then get upset when they don't divine your intent? Are you a woman, by any chance?
>I say 'things' because that's the generalization of what Post-Modernists think
Again, irrelevant.

>>15801495
Okay but other books do this as well. What's particular about how iliad does it that makes it great?

>>15801640
>You know, the first post I made in this thread after the OP was me precluding this as a reason on the grounds that Homer is not a good storyteller
Which I refuted, by explaining the falsity in Post-Modern thought to assume that THINGS only get better and evolve over time. How can you know Homer is a bad story teller if you've never read the books? What are you even trying to argue?
>You have a problem with people actually asking you what you mean instead of just assuming?
Yes.
>Again, irrelevant.
No.

>>15801665
What other books? Again, all I can say is that it does it well. This is completely opinionated, but an opinion that is supported by many others. There's nothing else I can say to this point. The characters are enjoyable, the setting is well done, etc., but there's not much of a way for me to explain things past this.

>>15801677
Ig that's fair but that's what he's asking for

>>15801677
>Which I refuted, by explaining the falsity in Post-Modern thought to assume that THINGS only get better and evolve over time.
Arguing against the hypothesis that literature is guaranteed to improve over time isn't arguing the quality of classic literature.
>How can you know Homer is a bad story teller if you've never read the books?
I got two thirds of the way through the Iliad before coming here and starting this thread. Unless the first 380 pages I read were a complete fucking anomaly, I can say I've found Homer wanting.
>What are you even trying to argue?
That "But the writing's good" is not a sufficient answer to the question "What's the significance of this book to someone who A) already knows what happens and B) does not find the writing, itself, good?" despite how much you want it to be.
>Yes
That's stupid of you.
>No
You have no idea what's going on and yet you're certain it has to do with post-modernism.

>>15801729
>Arguing against the hypothesis that literature is guaranteed to improve over time isn't arguing the quality of classic literature.
You said Homer wasn't a good story teller. You said this was because, in relation to more modern story tellers, he doesn't have enough erudition. You've never read Homer. What other basis do you have to argue that he's a bad story teller?
>I got two thirds of the way through the Iliad before coming here and starting this thread.
Maybe you should have finished the story then, and then come made this thread. What other works have you read, that you either enjoyed or didn't enjoy?
>That "But the writing's good" is not a sufficient answer to the question "What's the significance of this book to someone who A) already knows what happens and B) does not find the writing, itself, good?"
You never said you didn't find the writing itself good, you never even said that you read the book. You just asked what the point of reading it was if you already knew what happened and there are more modern writers, which heavily, heavily implies that you've never read the book. If you've read the book and didn't find the writing good, and you don't plan on going into philosophy, then I guess there's absolutely no reason to read it then, but don't confuse this statement with me abandoning my argument.
>That's stupid of you.
Define 'stupid', and 'of'.
>You have no idea what's going on and yet you're certain it has to do with post-modernism
Because you heavily implied th you know the book isn't good because there are "better storytellers" due to the "increase erudition of modern storytellers."

>>15801775
Actually regarding that last point, my mistake. You didn't heavily imply it, you directly stated it, and this is what I meant to type.

>>15801355
Why do you feel worthless anon?

>>15801221
>He has no concept of pacing, of setting a scene, of dialogue, of scale.
Firstly, they were oral tales. Secondly, you're reading a translation. Thirdly, you're reading a prose rendition of poetry.
Start over with Alexander Pope's Iliad and imagine the stories being known by everyone and indirectly referenced in conversation almost as much as the Bible is indirectly referenced today. Also remember that the people who developed your current point of view (the language, culture and general society around you) were greatly influenced by the stories and many still view them as the basis of modernity.

>>15800968
I'll pray for this retard

>>15801775
>You said Homer wasn't a good story teller. You said this was because, in relation to more modern story tellers, he doesn't have enough erudition.
I said that his stories lack much of what constitutes a well told story, elements that in between then and now we have learned are important story elements and why. I was implying that his stories were better received when they were because of how little there was to compare him to, and that now with the abundance of literature we have to study we can indeed measure how lacking he truly was.
>You've never read Homer.
Wrong.
>What other basis do you have to argue that he's a bad story teller?
His poor grasp of the elements of storytelling.
>Maybe you should have finished the story then, and then come made this thread.
Why, were they better written?
>What other works have you read, that you either enjoyed or didn't enjoy?
Irrelevant.
>You never said you didn't find the writing itself good,
I did, repeatedly, read the thread.
>you never even said that you read the book.
Why didn't you just assume I did from the discussion? According to you, that's what would have made sense to do.
>You just asked what the point of reading it was if you already knew what happened and there are more modern writers, which heavily, heavily implies that you've never read the book. If you've read the book and didn't find the writing good, and you don't plan on going into philosophy, then I guess there's absolutely no reason to read it then
Literally read what I said in this post >>15801221 where I explain my situation very clearly, elaborating on what I've read and why. See? This is what assumptions do. You skip all the reading, fill in the blanks in your head, then make an ass of yourself.
>Define 'stupid', and 'of'.
You seem upset.
>Because you heavily implied th you know the book isn't good because there are "better storytellers" due to the "increase erudition of modern storytellers."
I know the book isn't good because I started reading it and saw for myself every way in which it was not good, which I have explained several times now.

>>15801889
>I said that his stories lack much of what constitutes a well told story, elements that in between then and now we have learned are important story elements and why.
Yes, this is a proper rephrasing of what I said.
>Wrong.
I know, I read the part where you said you read SOME Homer after I made that part of the response.
>His poor grasp of the elements of storytelling.
Prove this.
>Why, were they better written?
The Odyssey is a much better story in my opinion, but I like them both, and you might enjoy the Odyssey more than The Iliad. Most people prefer one or the other.
>Irrelevant.
No, it's not irrelevant. If you don't read a lot then the reason you aren't enjoying the story is most likely because you're not good at reading fiction, i.e not good at placing yourself in the story.
>I did, repeatedly, read the thread.
No, you repeatedly said that the book is not good while implying that you've never read it the entire thread. It was only your last post where you stated that you've actually read the book, albeit only part of the Iliad.
>Why didn't you just assume I did from the discussion? According to you, that's what would have made sense to do
You heavily implied that you hadn't read the book, and that your basis for it being bad was Homer's lack of studying proper story telling. At least, in your responses to me.
>You skip all the reading, fill in the blanks in your head, then make an ass of yourself.
Except, you wrote that response to someone else, only the second one was addressed to me. I only read the one addressed to me. Maybe you should assume I've read your diary, too?
>You seem upset.
Define 'You' and 'upset'.
>I know the book isn't good because I started reading it and saw for myself every way in which it was not good, which I have explained several times now.
No, you've explained it once to me in your last post. You might have explained this to others, but not to me before that last post. I'm not going to go through the thread and read every single post, only the ones addressed to me.

If you even have to ask this question you should honestly stick to video games and Netflix. This board seriously attracts the most mindless drivelling morons.

this might be more your level op :)

>>15800935
Don't think you're cut out for reading bud

>>15802002
That movie was actually good in its own lane

OP is just a faggot

>>15802002
wtf I love this movie now

>>15800968
This makes me so angry I can even type all the reasons it makes me angry

>>15800968
Lol Homer literally defined good storytelling retard.

Yes, I would think that people who post on a literature board would at least enjoy and appreciate homer.

>>15800964
I'm not a westerner

>>15800968
What do you think they studied you absolute prod
I suggest you begone from this place, the timeless power of the classics is wasted on you

>>15802803
Ah, enjoy the United states

>>15802937
Kek

>>15802937
This works on multiple levels

>>15802937
Best post of the week

Best translation? I just started Richard lattimore, but it doesn't even feel like a poem. Should I just read Chapman's?

OP is right. The Iliad is not a good story at all. It’s literally superhero comic tier childishness.

>>15803962
Pope is objectively the best translation.

>>15804619
>literally
found the zoomer

>>15802937