[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 59 KB, 500x500, 5168DSbCuuL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20980090 No.20980090 [Reply] [Original]

Is it pro or anti war?

>> No.20980114

>>20980090
It's war-as-it-is. You cannot make an anti-war piece of art.

>> No.20980199

>>20980090
It doesn't have to be one or the other

>> No.20980212

Politics has really fried your brain huh?

>> No.20980219

>>20980090
It's not a neoliberal political statement dumb fuck

>> No.20980228

>>20980114
>You cannot make an anti-war piece of art.
There are a million stories that portray war as completely horrible in every way. Not saying I like these stories, but they are definitely anti war.
"You can't make an anti war piece of art" is the stupidest talking point I see bandied about.
What is Guernica but an anti war piece of art? Or Slaughterhouse 9.

>> No.20980239

>>20980228
It's Slaughterhouse FIVE ya DINGUS

>> No.20980248

>>20980090
I think in the time it was written violence & was was such an everyday feature of life that the idea of something being pro or anti war simply wouldn't have occurred to them.

>> No.20980258

>>20980090
It's pro-eels

>> No.20980259

>>20980239
Point still stands. I'm typing on my phone so I wasnt super carefully proofreading what I posted.

>> No.20980263

>>20980248
*and war

>> No.20980274

what is the best translation/version of the Iliad and why?

>> No.20980284
File: 60 KB, 777x448, 43534534543534534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20980284

>>20980228
The moment you make war into art you're aestheticizing it and we're talking about a poem here so that also applies.

>> No.20980306

>>20980228
>What is Guernica but an anti war piece of art?
Trash

>> No.20980377

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?

>> No.20980403

>>20980090
Neither. It takes war as a given, and goes from there.

>> No.20980405

>>20980284
>The moment you make war into art you're aestheticizing it
Right but aestheticizing does not equal idealizing.
Again how is Guernica by Picasso pro war?

>> No.20980410

>>20980306
Based

>> No.20980454

>>20980114
This. It's always quite the sting of irony when a writer creates a literary masterpiece off their own experiences with war, and then turns around to say that war is bad.

>> No.20980785
File: 46 KB, 700x641, pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20980785

Every war larper is just a dude who legit wants to kill himself or find an excuse to kill people (because they hate people). Not saying there is no good in war, but mate I don't want to die in a horrible way

>> No.20980937
File: 646 KB, 576x512, 10D126B0-FC70-4D7A-9A79-E0BC4F012363.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20980937

>>20980785
How do you want to die?

>> No.20980944

>>20980785
Were war larpers just shitposters?

>> No.20981018

>>20980937
not in war

>> No.20981054

The entire war is based on a whore. This severely ruined the book for me.
>cheating whore runs off willingly with prince
>launch a 10 year war just to get her back
>10 fucking years

That whore would be an old roastie by then and possibly even barron which for a king should be a main priority. Kings are always occupied with birthing adequate sons.
The whole "thing" about Helen is also said to be only her beauty. Shes not revered for her loving kindness or any other feminine qualities, literally just her beauty. Which, after 10 years, would also be severely on the decline.

10 years and countless warriors lost and sacrifices made for a replaceable roastie whore who willingly ran away to another kingdom. I just can't overlook that fundamental premise of the story, as good as the rest of the book is, the origin of the war kills it.

>t. veteran

>> No.20981073

>>20981054
This. There would be more dignity in it if it was simply a war of conquest or religious domination

>> No.20981092

>>20980090
It is what it is

>> No.20981097

>>20981073
Yes I whole heatedly agree.

>> No.20981113

>>20980114
the Iliad is an anti-war piece of art

>> No.20981814

>>20981018
Dying for a cause is a better way to go but dying for a cause that leads to nowhere is worse than dying while not in war

>> No.20981844

>>20981054
I don't really think you can apply present rationality to myth.
Especially when in these myths the people involved don't have a lot of free will.
The woman in question had zero choice in the matter of cheating because the goddess Aphrodite promised Paris the most beautiful woman in the world. That woman appended to be Helen that was already engaged. I don't really know how you cannot understand how in a myth a mortal can do something against a god

>> No.20981889

>>20981844
I actually considered this point and I think its a very good one my friend. I actually think its one of the best arguments against my comment. However, I came to the conclusion that that fact actually makes my original critique all the worse.
Because its based so heavily in mythology and the intermingling of the Gods and the mortals is such a constant (I will be the first to admit I have a very rudimentary understanding of Greek mythology but I have read that this is quite a consistent theme), Homer effectively had an infinite list of possibilities to him. Effectively nothing was outside the realm of realism to him, and his "pen" could craft a narrative that, as you say, had all the power of the Gods and beyond.
He took this literary potential, and then still crafted the cheating whore.
I'm not quite sure I'm conveying my point well there, but do you see what I mean ?
The fact that, when the "blank pages" lay there, open for any and all possibilities, any catalyst for one of the most prolific wars civilisation will ever know, under all the powers of humanity and Olympus combined, and Homer still made the choice to incorporate the cheating whore as the fundamental catalyst. The fact that it was compelled by the Gods makes it worse.

You could even argue that its meant to be a "deep" point about the nature of man; lust, jealousy etc etc etc. But I still think the fact remains that >10 years and countless warriors lost and sacrifices made for a replaceable roastie whore who willingly ran away to another kingdom. I just can't overlook that fundamental premise of the story, as good as the rest of the book is, the origin of the war kills it.

Even by the premise of your comment you say Helen effectively had no conscious choice, then scrub the word willingly from my above sentence. That doesn't address starting the subsequent 10 year war over her which my gripe is really aimed at.

>> No.20981910

>>20980284
why would they give him some unimpressive hunting rifle with a damn scope when the real life chad used a proper kar98k and didn't need anything but high quality german iron sights

>> No.20981940

>>20981889
Homer didn't invent the myth, he is the guy that better told the story.
Aside for this the myth usually represent the culture of ancient Greeks and thus we can say that this story could represent something but still I think I get what you mean.
Can we say the reason for the war is really stupid? Yes but in the end a lot of Greek myth do happen for stupid reason, they seem to really love to portray unnecessary tragedies

>> No.20982184

>>20980090
anti war

>> No.20982243

>>20981940
I knew you were going to say Homer didn't make up the story. Such an asinine point. For the purposes of our discussion and this book, he is the author.
Replace the word "Homer" in my statement with "the people who originally created the story" if that makes you feel better but none of that matters to my original point. Strawman.

>love to portray unnecessary tragedies
This is the best thing you've said. Fair point, if that's what they're going for then they fucking nailed it. However, I don't think that's the an accurate reasoning at all of why they chose that intro narrative, for creating a larger tragedy to the story. It doesn't seem in keeping with the feeling of the book to just create pointless tragedy for tragedy sake. There's always a deeper meaning and point about the nature of man I think.
Out of all the things in the universe that could be the catalyst for a war, I just think a cheating whore is amongst the worst possible to chose is essentially what I'm getting at.

>> No.20982282

>>20981814
90% of all wars weren't about the people fighting them. It was some bullshit manipulation of those fighting in it. In war there are only two sides, those who fight in the wars and those who started the wars.

>> No.20982359

>>20980937
What the hell, is this the most beautiful pepe of all time?

>> No.20982370

>>20981054
Read Herodotus, at the beginning of the History, he mentions that the Persians hold the exact same opinion as you do towards the Trojan War.

>> No.20982380

>>20981889
I haven’t read the book, but in the movie (yeah the one with Brad Pitt) it’s explicitly stated that Agammemnon uses the rapt of Helen as a pretext for destroying Troy, which had been his ambition for a long time

>> No.20982381

>>20982370
That's extremely interesting. Thank you friend.

>> No.20982389

>>20982380
I haven't seen the movie but the Fagles intro specifically talks about how the narrative around Helen is distorted in other tellings of the story to make her not seem like such a whore. Some versions say she was unwillingly kidnapped and didn't go voluntarily etc. I am only familiar with the Fagles version and its clear from that she willingly goes as a cheating whore. She refers to herself even as a whore in I think book 3

>> No.20982429

>>20981814
PRINCE HENRY
Why, thou owest God a death.

Exit PRINCE HENRY
FALSTAFF
‘Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before
his day. What need I be so forward with him that
calls not on me? Well, ’tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is
honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. ‘Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I’ll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism.

>> No.20982436

>>20980090
Anti-war

>> No.20982437

>>20981054
always found soldiers had an easier time relating this idea, personally

>> No.20982438

>>20982243
>For the purposes of our discussion and this book, he is the author.

I did this anon. I just pointed it out that he was not and still considered your point.
Just because you wrote one wrong thing your observation about the subject is still valid don't worry. Sorry if I didn't manage to express this correctly

>It doesn't seem in keeping with the feeling of the book to just create pointless tragedy for tragedy sake
>There's always a deeper meaning and point about the nature of man I think.

This is when the fact that Homer is not the author of the story may be important.
The thing is we can only speculate about this stuff but bear with me.
It could be that the deeper meaning and point about the nature of man could be something that Homer put it there and it was not part of the original myth. The thing is that in Greek mythology there can be different versions of the same story. It sounds weird but except for specific parts of a myth that cannot be changed an ancient greek author could change basically anything. So Homer could have changed some minor stuff in order to make it "better" and make the story more meaningful but he could not have changed something as important as the begging.
For example the myth that Ulysses tells Achilles in order to convince him to rejoin the war is very different from the version of the original myth. Homer change it in order to adapt it to the situation.
This is not in the Iliad but is another example about how much freedom an ancient greek author could have:
Achilles during the war killed Troilus, a Trojan prince. He had to do it because of a prophecy that said that if Troilus manage to live until a certain age Troy will never fall. In some version of the story Achilles fall in love with Troilus' sister (in those versions she then helps kill Achilles) but in another version Achilles falls in love with Troilus himself just to make the story more tragic.

>> No.20982607

>>20980090
neither, it believes war is inevitable.

>> No.20982656
File: 56 KB, 269x550, helen_troy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20982656

>>20982380
in the movie agamemnon uses the kidnapping of helen as an excuse to conquer troy, after having already conquered all of micenae. keep in mind that the movie is not accurate to the iliad. at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitors_of_Helen

in the actual iliad, the only reason agamemnon has all of greece's armies is because of the oath of tyndarus which you can read above. so that only happens after and because of helen's kidnapping. you can also argue that if someone took your wife and you just let them go that would severely impact your reputation. i mean, what kind of leader is that? it would show an immense weakness and that you can do whatever you want to the king and suffer no consequences. his empire would fall pretty fast. of course he wouldn't just let helen go.

>>20981054
>The entire war is based on a whore. This severely ruined the book for me.
that's kinda unfair that you blame it on one "whore" when actually she didn't have a choice, paris got aphrodite to give him helen. so you can argue that the entire premise of the war is not a whore, but a fuckboy. he's the one who could have just let her go and prevented all of it. this happens frequently in the real world as well, using a woman as a scapegoat for some man. you don't even notice how sexist that is? not that i expect this kind of intellectual honesty on 4chan of all places lmao.

by the way, keep also in mind that helen was a demigod, not just a roastie. she is, quite literally, described as the most beautiful woman in the world. that would make some people behave irrationally. hell, i've seen what mediocre pussy does to a mf in real life. i can't imagine begin to imagine how godlike pussy would make them act.

>> No.20982699

>>20980090
I don't know if you are asking if Homer was either anti or pro the Trojan war or war as an idea itself. Before the contemporary era there was no concept of being pro or against an idea, there were no ideologies, so a statement of being pro or against warfare makes no sense in the mind of an Hellen who listened to the recitation of the Iliad. People understood that war is cruel and violent but they also understood that the real course of nature cannot be changed so the idea of war wasn't disputed with moral judgement. Aside that, some greeks at the time of the Trojan war could have been against the attack on the city, but that is a political dispute of what's best for the greeks and not because they were against the idea of war.

>> No.20982703

>>20982656
>paris got aphrodite to give him helen

I think Aphrodite has actually a bit of fault in this story.
Aphrodite promised Paris the most beautiful woman on the world.
I don't think Paris knew at the moment Aphrodite meant Helen, but surely Aphrodite knew and also should have known that Helen was not available. Could Paris decide to not get Helen for himself after finding out? If no then it's not even Paris fault but only Aphrodite, if yes they are both at fault since you shouldn't have promised a person someone that was not available

>> No.20982718

>>20982703
I don't mean to discourage you and I might be wrong, but isn't that takeaway a pretty standard interpretation of the story?
It's regarded one of the most crucial cultural representations of Aphrodite in the entire Greek corpus

>> No.20982739

>>20982718
I don't know if my take is the standard interpretation of the story , I was just answering to the anon that said it was Paris fault because the other anon said it was Helen fault.
I surely wouldn't dream of thinking that my take is deep and original mostly because the way we are talking about it is kinda superficial since this is a myth that represents an ancient culture and not a simple story invented by a nobody.

>> No.20982782

>>20982703
i believe that before the war even started, helen was already known as "most beautiful woman in the world" along with the story of her birth by her father zeus already being a known myth. so paris may have known very well whom aphrodite was talking about when she promised him the msot beautiful woman in the world, or at the very least, may have had a clue. you could also argue that if it really was the most beautiful woman in the world, chances are, she would be wed. it's not like women were independent back then. to be honest though, i don't claim to know enough about ancient mythology so this is just my take as well.

as far as aphrodite being at fault in the story, it may technically be true to some degree. but at the same time gods in ancient myths didn't give a shit about any consequence of their actions, to them mortals were pretty much ants. so it's coherent in that sense to pretty much all other myths and stories with gods involved.

>> No.20982800

>>20980274
Learn ancient Greek and read the closest version to the original.

>> No.20982826
File: 1.32 MB, 666x692, sneed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20982826

>>20980274
boustrophedic Attic
autismmaxxing

>> No.20984021

>>20980785
>Every war larper is just a dude who legit wants to kill himself
t. read Mishima once

Wanting to fight and wanting to die are two completely separate things, though the former prepares you for the latter.

>> No.20984036

>>20982282
>It was some bullshit manipulation of those fighting in it.
Subversive leftist babble, the ancient men were very open about their feelings on war (they loved it).

>> No.20984048

>>20981054
Achilles going to war over his trophy is fucking based, sorry a giga-cuck incel like you can't relate.

>> No.20984063

>>20984048
Achilles literally had nothing to do with Helen. He didn't even make the oath about it

>> No.20984082

>>20981054
retard

>> No.20984098

>>20984063
The first lines of the story are Achilles bemoaning the loss of his girl.

>> No.20984110

>>20984098
His girl is not Helen tho and we are talking about her

>> No.20984144

>>20984110
I don't care, bitch. You complain about the war being fought over a woman, Achilles (the man who singlehandedly set the catalyst for the entirety of the Iliad) fought the war over a woman, put two and two together.

>> No.20984175

>>20984144
I'm not that anon genius
I'm just telling you that Achilles never cared about Helen and if you think that all the stuff that Achilles did I was just for that stupid slave then please grow a brain it was never actually about her but the lack of respect people showed him by taking her away.
It was about his honour not about the girl

>> No.20984368

>>20980090
Anti. Homer was an Anatolian and clearly had symphatised with Trojan side.

>> No.20984392

>>20980090
I would say it's pro-warrior. Characters like Achilles and Ajax are clearly held up as heroic figures. Scenes depicting aristeia are glorifications of the warrior-hero ideal. Achilles going on a rampage is sometimes borderline gore porn, but dramatizations of violence have always been portrayed for entertainment. People still watch the beach landing scenes from Saving Private Ryan and other war movies for entertainment.

>> No.20984396

>>20980274
Lattimore is the best translation. Very accurate, exceptionally beautiful, and matches the original line numbering almost exactly. Useful if you want to check the Homeric Greek of a section (if you're a greekfag). I don't think there's been a lovelier, accurate translation since.

>> No.20984534

>>20981054
>>20984048
In both of those cases the point was not a women, but a man's pride.

Trojan War started because all of Helen's suitors made an oath that they would fight and die to protect Helen's marriage. First, they could not live with a fact that someone else could take a roastie instead of them and they'll just swallow it without a honourable solemn oath propping up their egos, and later they could not live with the fact that they would beak their oaths and others would know it and think they are pussies for that. Plus Agamemnon being greedy for the loot, Diomedes being greedy for glory, Nestor being greedy for the last hurrah in his own life and the young dudes wanting to prove themselves. Menelaus was basically the only one in it for the coochie, and even then - it was at least as much for him knowing that everyone will see him as the cuckest cuck to ever cuck when EVERYBODY except maybe Odysseus is up to go and fuck Paris and Troy up but he - the guy who personally got cucked - backs the fuck down.

Achilles was explicitly more pissed at Agamemnon taking his shit without any care while Achilles has been carrying the game while being all humble about the loot and glory - he's insulted and dismayed at how his stellar performance earned him absolute 0 respect from the asshole in charge.

Very little of it is specifically about the roastie. Much more of it is about how dudes center their feelings of wounded pride and personal image on an incident involving a roastie.

>> No.20984566

>>20981054
>>20981073
What were you fucking expecting? This is late bronze age civilization. Every single major character of Trojan War is a plunderer. It's not a story about conquest and passion but a simple tale of looting under the pretext of returning Helen back to Menelaos. The tale of Troy was probably a single narration of numerous raiding campaigns of Achaeans during Hittitte period.

>> No.20984567

>>20984534
>Achilles was explicitly more pissed at Agamemnon taking his shit without any care
I mean, there's a specific part where Agamemnon is begging Achilles to go and help and offers to return Briseid AND give him literally ALL of Agamemnon's own loot and publicly apologize and admit that he was totally in the wrong, but Achilles still refuses because he wants Agamemnon to suffer. At that point, it is definitely no longer about Briseid.

>>20984392
>I would say it's pro-warrior
Eh, it's more complicated than that. Odysseus is the only guy who is never portrayed as willingly getting up to his neck into shit for the war and glory and loot, and he's the guy that everyone knows just wants to get out of the whole business. Everyone else explicitly suffers for their warrior ways and would definitely be better off without the war. The war itself is portrayed as an inevitable, but nevertheless a folly for both sides.

>> No.20984581

>>20984567
>Odysseus is the only guy who is never portrayed as willingly getting up to his neck into shit for the war and glory and loot, and he's the guy that everyone knows just wants to get out of the whole business.
Thersites would like to have a word with you.

>> No.20984591

>>20984581
Odysseus is smart enough to know that once he's there, the only way back is though the Trojan gates - arguing retreat or desertion can only lead to death, eternal shame, or a literal curse from an Olympian.

>> No.20984630

>>20984591
Now that I'm remembering it - wasn't it Athena herself who specifically ordered him to go and dunk on Thersites?

>> No.20984704

>>20984567
>I mean
>Eh
Reddit phrasing, check yourself brother

>> No.20984837

>>20984567
>I mean, there's a specific part where Agamemnon is begging Achilles to go and help and offers to return Briseid AND give him literally ALL of Agamemnon's own loot and publicly apologize and admit that he was totally in the wrong, but Achilles still refuses because he wants Agamemnon to suffer. At that point, it is definitely no longer about Briseid.
are you disagreeing with the anon you're responding to? i don't get why you replied to him when your post is agreeing with what he said

>> No.20985097

>>20980090
War was a fact of life. If it had to slant to one side, it's ultimately anti-war. Everyone complains about the war, no one is happy about it. Zeus viciously chastises Ares for sowing destruction. Aggaememnon tries to leave at one point. The ending of the Iliad is its highest note, and that is a moment of peace.

So it's anti-war, while celebrating things about war, because the Greeks were appreciators of reality and all its darkest and brightest parts. The Iliad is not moralizing except for the sake of heroism and nobility.

>> No.20985473

>>20984048
>>20984098
Kek I'm the first anon and you obviously haven't even read it and if you did that's worse and means you're genuinely full blown retarded because all the points you make are incorrect. Then when anon points them out you just say "I don't care" like an insufferable fool.
The baseless ad hominem is also another classic tactic of the retard.

>> No.20985642

>>20980090
Definitely anti. A lot of characters also let pride hurt them

>> No.20985681

>>20980090
The Greeks wrote stories in a “this is” way, while modern writing is more “I think this”

>> No.20985983

>>20980090
It wasn't antiwar. It just highlighted the horrible aspects of war in a way that makes it appear antiwar to the modern reader. The more conscious theme of poem was probably something like the inability of man to ascend to godhood.

>> No.20986137
File: 132 KB, 640x640, 1662930495930958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20986137

>>20980785
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive

>> No.20986629

>>20980090
Pro-war

>> No.20986651

The illiad was in favour of democratic socialism. If all the men shared the goods fairly there would be no quarrel between them. If women were equal they wouldn't have to protect Helen like property.