Forums » Reading Corner » Read Thread

Hello friends,

In 2025, I am planning on hosting an Iliad book club. Everyone is welcome to participate: the more people we have, the more fun. Helpfully, there are 12 months in a year, and 24 books of the Iliad. That breaks down to two books a month, which is an extremely manageable pace. 

When we begin, I'll start a thread for discussion, and a new subthread every two weeks. I'll try to produce discussion threads. Also, I have institutional library access, so I may post some optional secondary readings if you guys like. 

We will be using the new Emily Wilson translation. I will try to find PDFs and distribute them on Discord to anyone who wants one, but if you would like to acquire your own hard copy, that would be good. I think it's best if everyone goes off the same translation. 

I'll post a thread on every second Saturday. If you'd like to join in, have Book 1 read by January 11 2025, and come to the thread armed with your opinions and observations. 

I'm in, but keeping attention spans around this place for an entire year is going to be a tall order. Worth a try to run the most ambitious CYS book club ever though.

Well, if it comes down to it, I'll run it for just you and I if I have to. 

I can also increase the pace if people are burning through it at a crazy rate. I wanted to keep things nice and achievable to begin with though. 

Got the ebook and audiobook, to honor both the oral and written traditions.

You fool. Don't you know the Iliad is worthless acoustic propaganda?

Is that something Fluttershy said? I wasn't paying close attention to that portion of the thread.

He wasn't very familiar with Homer's works, but anything composed before the line he drew was apparently "not interesting" and not really significant due to being only the product of panicked and unreasoning tribal terror or whatever.

You could try to read the storygame, this is all explained by Merlin. (Who himself is the product of the oral storytelling of pagan Celts, but shhh.)

Seriously glad he made Malk so mad though, now we get an epic year of Iliad.

I'm immediately greeted by a quote from Linkara.

I have other stuff to read.

I'm interested. I've honestly never read any of the classics that weren't school assigned readings. Looking forward to expanding my horizons.

I have my copy right here, which I got to see if this new translation was good, and I'm only in the middle of Book II.  Let's do this.

I cannot promise intelligent discussion or consistency, but I would like to express interest in this club. I've gained access to the book, so it should work out.

I will be joining. My library even has that translation.

I will join. My time can sometimes be limited but will see what I can do.

Procured a copy. Going to stay productive during my winter break.

Done my homework early. Might go over it again while taking notes.

Fresh sends an offering:

that's me, fresh

Perfection

Beautiful.

I've got the specified translation and will be joining. 

I really need to get back into hobbies like book clubs and I've also been planning on reading the Iliad since forever so I will try to find an audiobook of the Emily Wilson version so that I can listen to it on the way to and from work. ^_^

Just got myself an audible account and just bought the Emily Wilson translation of The Iliad, so I have no excuses now. ^_^

Having finished Book 2, I'm yearning for a pronunciation guide. I've been reading parts of the book out loud and I just know that I'm fucking up some of these names. Does such a thing even exist? Any help would be appreciated!

https://www.emilyrcwilson.com/iliad-pronunciation-1

Legendary, thanks!

I'm in! May I have a link. Been wanting to read the Iliad for a while. I'm looking into buying an e version but will probably add it to my list of books to buy real copies of once I get to setting up the library of doge

So I've read at how Homer was the first one known to have assigned the most widely accepted imagery and appearances to the Greek gods. That is so ridiculously cool that someone just with the spoken word could compose a work of fiction that had that level of impact on public consciousness that is then sustained for 3000 years.

So it's basically like (hey guys watch me fill Malk with disgust) the gods were these ancient Marvel characters with varying interpretations and looks over the years and from many different writers and artists, and then Homer was the MCU who solidified them in what came to be regarded as canon?

You can get pretty far by writing "Homer is the first one known to have ____________________ in Greek literature/mythology" and filling in any reasonable thing.  At the same time, a lot of the stuff we think of just part of major characters is post Homeric, like the Achilles heel thing.

Book One has been an interesting read. The hinge point so far seems to be based off something I once read about thr Greek culture at the time, which was that the proper response to insilts to one's honor was to satisfy it verbally or one way or another. Which in itself isn't anything really new but seems like an easy thing to lose when looking into the time when there's so many things that stand out. 

But it's kind of funny that it all seems to have started over arguing over a concubine as far as I can tell. Agamemnon seems pretty greedy. Not lacking for wealth or concubines, but Achilles said that Agamemnon often took from the other pals of his anytime something didn't go his way. So he seems to like throwing his weight around. 

 

I can honestly say I struggled through much of that portion, but once it got to the gods at Olympus and some of the arguing between them I started getting into it more. I like the setup of that and that Jove tries to do things privately and in his own way. And his wife and the other gods are spying on him and cricizing him. 

 

I thought it was cool how Homer showed us first, the tyrant Agamemnon who routinely mistreat his companions and subordinates but is given the utmost respect by them and they mostly like to try not to pass him off. 

 

On the flip side, Jove is mostly just except for beating the shit out of his family, or at least seems to be reasonable in how he handles out things. But despite him trying to be reasonable, the other gods sort of hackle him. 

 

Just thought it was an interesting observation. 

 

The image of Jove flying off the hook and suplexing people is a funny image. 

It's an interesting dynamic:  a lot of times you'll see Agamemmnon called "King of the Greeks," and that just isn't so.  He's the war-leader of this particular expedition, and so commands a sort of military obedience, but at the same time, all of these guys, from Ajax the Greater to Achilles to Idomeneus to Achilles, are sovereign kings in their own right.  Agamemmnon isn't their king, he's their peer.

As far as "Agamemnon routinely mistreating his companions and subordinates," I'm not sure that I see that at the start of Book I so much as seeing what purpose these guys are fighting for.  They are fighting for glory (kleos) and honor (tîmê) just as much as redressing the wrongs that Paris did to Menalaos, and Agamemmnon straight up refuses to be the bigger man.  Maybe he should have, but I don't think Achilles' response is that different.  There's a reason Nestor says, talking about the heroes of old, "I never saw their like.  I do not now."

 

Not in the club officially, but just wanted to ask. This might be a really reductive interpretation of the Illiad, and if so I apologize, but why is Nestor being such a dick to all the heroes? As a matter of fact, why is he even there? Agamemnon already has pretty good counselors like Odysesseus who can fight as well. Meanwhile, Nestor's way too old to fight. His advice seems to be negative and bringing everybody down with boomer stories of "back in my day...", or "if I and the heroes of my generation had been here we would have licked them just like that".

Yet for some reason Agammemnon always praises Nestor. I think I'm missing something in his character and I would really love to see what other people thought about Nestor.

Firstly, all are welcome in the Homer club and we have no formal membership. 

Nestor is an interesting character. I don't think he's being a boomer, necessarily; I think part of his M.O. is to try to inspire the Greeks by connecting them with the heroic past. He's held in high regard because of his status as an elder, and also because of his status as a king: he has successfully ruled over Pylos for three generations. 

Roisman argues that Nestor has a special quality as an advisor that because "manner and matter come together in an orderly whole" (Roisman 25) in his discourse: he is characterized as well-spoken, but the contents of his speech are also useful and constitute good counsel. In Book 1, he's trying to leverage his status as this kind of elder statesman of the Greeks; I think his appeal to having known Theseus is, essentially, trying to shame Agammemnon and Achilles into some kind of reconciliation. 

In any case, he's a complicated guy. Following Nestor's advice does actually lead to disaster a few times, as you'll see. You might want to check out the cited article for futher readings on Nestor's character. If you like, you can shoot me a DM for a pdf. 

Roisman, Hanna M. “Nestor the Good Counsellor.” The Classical Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 1, 2005, pp. 17–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556237. Accessed 11 Jan. 2025.

Thank you for responding to me Malk.

I didn't think of it that way, but I see that you're right. I think it felt like shaming because I felt resentful that he was lecturing/shaming the Greeks without himself putting his life on the line since he's too old to fight, but you're right that his efforts in reconciling Agamemnon and Achilles was admirable and in the right direction. He is really well-spoken, but also very verbose, with his speeches stretching across several pages at a time, which is why the character bothered me. Your points make sense however.

Thank you for providing me with the link, I'll check it out right now, seems interesting!

As it turns out, RK is the only one with formal membership.

that's really nice of you, thank you Mizal!

I finished the supplementary article by Hannah Roisman titled "Nestor the good counselor" and found it to be quite interesting.

I was about to PM Malk for a pdf copy of the article, but I found that my university gave me institutional access.

I found the contrast views of Nestor that Roisman presents in the introduction to be quite interesting. The first viewpoint is Nestor as the epitome of wisdom and scholarship, being the best war counsellor one can have in this situation. The other viewpoint argues that his advice is irrelevant to the situation, and from a completely different time. It's often excessively wordy, which makes some scholars think Homer was intentionally mocking Nestor or showing him as ridiculous.

Roisman says that both these viewpoints are flawed because she believes both of them can be true at the same time. Roisman argues that Nestor's flaws can be acknowledged while also acknowledging that he is a bastion of good advice.

The article does delve into spoilers that I don't want to get into in this post, since this post is for Book 1 only, and I don't want to spoil anything for people who haven't read the illiad, but I found it quite fascinating.

I should also reiterate and make clear that my negative view of Nestor isn't just from Book 1, but rather from an overall perspective taking the book as a whole. I read the Illiad before(fagles translation) and remember being annoyed by Nestor's advice that does lead to disaster, as Roisman and Malk point out.

In book 1, I actually think he was right, and I didn't have problems with him here because yes Agamemnon should return Briseis, while at the same time, Achilles's arrogance, which stems from him being son of Zeus and overall top dog, dictates his actions and his spurning of his brothers in arms. He has a problem with Agamemmnon, but takes it out on the rest of his brothers, which is a theme that plays out throughout the rest of the work.

It's after Book 1 that I was really irritated by Nestor, which hopefully provides context to my initial post calling Nestor an out-of-touch boomer. Reading the Illiad, I didn't have the right military knowledge or actual scholarship but I just was frustrated with his advice and him as a character, but Roisman articulates these ideas and thoughts really skillfully, by providing actual instances of tactical errors, and anachronistic military advice. Furthermore, Nestor's advice on reconciliation and mending feuds leads to actual harm, and in one case, death by his misjudgment and underestimation of egos

But Roisman's article did change my mind, since these inherent contradictions in his nature make him more interesting. And it's not like all his advice is bad. Also, I completely neglected to think about the fact that our world is different than the world of the Illiad. We tend to understand how things work, so advice is oftentimes directly correlated with outcome. If the outcome is good, then advice is good. Vice versa, if the outcome is bad, then the advice was bad. But in the world of the Illiad, there is a huge emphasis to put the ultimate outcomes in the hands of the Gods; The gods show up and mess things for the humans with their politics and their problems with each other, so it's unfair to lay the blame solely at the feet of Nestor.

Roisman cites Malcolm Schofield's paper on eubolia("Eubollia in the Illiad" by M. Schofield) as a paper which also supports Roisman's contention that Nestor is a good advisor. If you want to know more about this, check out Schofield's paper.

Overall, I think Roisman has changed my mind about Nestor and this was a great read.

Thank you for the link to the Roisman article Malk, that's really cool of you to send it to me!

Part of the interesting conversation to be had is whether or not plans leading to disaster necessarily equals bad advice.  And that has to do with what we see as the Greeks' goals here in the first place.  If the goal is "win in the most efficient possible way" that's one thing; if the goal is to achieve everlasting glory, that's another thing altogether.  But we can talk more about that when we read more, and when we eventually get to the conversation with Achilles in The Odyssey next year, which Malk will also be running.

I didn’t know Malk is running an Odyssey club next year! Then again, it’s a natural segue, but still that’s awesome! Def going to join that one!

I like that interpretation, I could see Nestor still using that to make a commentary on the degredation of society/heroes relative to his time, but that sort of thing seems like it would definitely be likely to inspire the guys present to act a little more worthy of such things. 

Well, Achilles did say that Agamemmnon had a habit of taking from people that he quarreled with or for one reason or another. Which is where I get the mistreating his companions and subordinates. 

You had rather go round and rob his prizes from any man who contradicts you.

Its one page 9 of my version, right after Achilles speaks with Minerva. He also talks about how Agamemnnon, despite not facing nearly as much danger always takes the largest spoils right before that. Achilles complaint is that he is pursuing those things as you said, and getting less for it than Agamemmnon. He seems kind of greedy and maybe risk adverse to a point. 

And as for the other war leader thing, thank you for fleshing that out for me. It was apparent there was some heirarchy where the rest of the guys didnt seem beholden to him in certain ways, but were beholden to him as a war leader. I was just struggling to figure out what exactly that means. 

But I figure in that context companions is pretty fitting, and subordinates since they basically have dual functions as peers and subordinates. Agammemnon seems like a first among equals type thing.  At least Achilles makes it clear that Agamemmnon is pretty iron fisted even if he has the right to dole stuff out like that. I figure hes crossed the unreasonable point one too many times by then in Achilles book. 

That does flesh out a lot of stuff for me though thank you. That quote from Nestor is cool and makes sense. Sort of like a subtle way of calling out...I dont want to say cowardly kings because I dont think Agamemmnon is a coward. But for basically most of history generals and such were expected to get their hands dirty here and there rather than just sit back and let everyone else take the danger. But yeah AGM is definitely being a little ridiculous in htis chapter lol

Still really happy we're doing this given the struggles we've had getting the book club threads off the ground before. And it's been an issue discussed before that some of the best works are pretty thicc and venerable things that could not be tackled in the usual time frame with the way our culture of procrastination goes, so I never thought we'd actually be able to find someone to commit to hosting long term.

Really it could've only been Gower or Malk when it comes to having the love for ancient literature, and Gower already does this for a living and suffers immensely every grading time so I knew that wouldn't every be happening lmao. I do remember Malk mentioning once in passing that his dad used to read him the Iliad, so I know he's got that personal connection to it that makes him perfect for this. (And also a very based dad.)

Anyway, got a copy for my Kindle a few days ago (it was only 10bux and the actual Kindle app is free even if you don't have the tablet, if anybody is still needing to obtain a copy.)

Naturally I waited till the last minute to do the assigned reading. I'll wait till the new thread goes up to post my thoughts. If the other sections are this short though, it doesn't necessarily even have to be a year long thing, but I know a chill pace was wanted so that no one had trouble keeping up. Or catching up as the case may be if they come in late to this.

I'd like to join, but since I'm joining late, I'll catch up with everyone on Book Two. 

Hey friends, 

Sorry for my lateness in getting this thread off the ground, I ended up sleeping in more than I intended to today. Here are some discussion questions to get us off the ground, feel free to answer some, none or all of them.  I'm very interested in your thoughts and impressions so far, even if they don't correspond  at all to my questions haha.

Does the interaction between Calchas and Agammemnon tell us anything about the Homeric conception of piety? What do you think someone who honors the gods looks like? 

The gods play favourites in the Iliad; hundreds of Greeks die because of the impiety of their commanders. What kind of attitude towards the divine might this suggest in the author? 

Achilles remarks that Agamemnon styles himself “the best, by far, of all the Greeks” (Book 1, Line 91): is this true?  Who might really be the best of the Greeks, based on what we’ve read so far? 

How are notions of property associated with status and battlefield glory among the heroes? 

On Olympus the god Hephaestus says to his mother: “it would be terrible, unbearable if you two fight like this because of mortals, and cause a ruckus, ruining our pleasure in noble feasting” (Book 1, Line 735-74). Do the Olympians mostly seem concerned with their own pleasures, desires and whims? 

I will tackle these soon. But is there any kind of companion reading you might suggest though? I feel like I'm going to struggle from not having a lot of the context on various ideas or concepts the original audience would have had. I've been skimming over a few Wiki articles but I'm not sure how useful that really will be.

Honestly, I would start with the introduction. Wilson, I think, set out to make an extremely accessible translation, which is part of why I picked it. In the front material she talks about what a hero is, what expectations are upon the men of status who the poem is about, etc. She also helpfully includes a bunch of maps. 

I had started to look at it briefly but concluded it was meant for people who had already read the Iliad, or at least that I should take in the content myself before reading someone else describing it. Can't be having SPOILERS on this 3000 year old story now.

I'm considering whether I might block off some time over the next week to burn through the whole thing, and then go through the introduction stuff and THEN follow through with more focused reading at the thread pace in order to come to the discussion questions armed for a B plus.

But perhaps I'm overthinking this.

Feels good to revisit this material again in a new translation. I hadn't read the Iliad in a while, so it still feels fresh to me :)

A1: Piety is contrasted against human pride. Calchas is characterized as humble and cautious while saying anything that might be  seen negatively, even if it comes from the gods. Agamemnon has no issue throwing around his weight and disregarding divine warnings. He certainly also doesn't want to take responsibility for how he brought down Apollo's wrath. One who is pious to the gods has no room for pride in his mortality or the things of earth. In my mind's eye, I imagine someone like Calchas to look worn by even dealing with the world, certainly not dressed decadently, lean and possibly blind (to complete the look.

A2:The divine favor the champions and give them attention first and foremost. Those who distinguish themselves in virtue or deeds are those who have lives worth living. Those who are follow along subordinate to champions are usually considered to be extensions of their leaders are just as culpable as them. It would be no fun of course to immediately punish a leader in isolation if he was proud, he has to lose face before all others first before true pain can begin. As other stories tell, Agamemnon will face further punishment in the future.

A3: Many would consider Achilles to the best of the Greeks, but what truly defines best? Is Calchas best because he is most pious? Is Nestor best because of his wisdom? Is Odysseus best because of his cunning, and the fact that he actually gave the personal appeasement to Apollo? I would still vote for Achilles because of the attention the narrative gives to him, but some could argue otherwise.

A4: Property indicates power. If you can hold and defend your property, it indicates your strength. Taking people as trophies indicates a lot of power, and having to give up a "trophy" is a direct attack to a person's pride. Achilles "earned" Briseis. For Agamemnon to use leverage to take Briseis is to show great disrespect  and so that he can impress his own strength over Achilles. If Agamemnon can use his power to appropriate a prize of Achilles, he can repair his pride from having lost face with Apollo.

A5: Generally yes. Many of the gods and goddesses do have interest in mortals, but usually in the context of particular people they have blessed as champions or because of sexual relations, or both. Those in Olympus are constantly in conflict with each other over, usually over minor squabbles. In the background, it was a debate between three goddesses over who was the fairest that became the inciting force for the Trojan War in the first place, but they will not hold themselves accountable to mortals for their reckless decisions.

Anybody have a favorite member of the pantheon?

I think mine is still Athena, even knowing some of her less than stellar moments.

Eris is one my favorites! But I also like Mnemosyne, and Nyx. 

Zeus! He's the most fascinating to me. His ill behaviour is the most egregious of the pantheon (except for maybe Ares, who in the Iliad gets stuck with the epithets "City-Sacking", "Man-Killing" and "Woman-Raping"), but he's also Zeus Xenios: the protector of guests, and the patron of ritual guest-friendship. I think he has a kind of dual character that's very psychologically interesting.

I actually didn't know that about Ares with the protection towards guests, but I'm no so surprised. Warriors do need some sense of honor and being able to protect your guests shows your strength by having a secure home.

Zeus is the protector of guests, not Ares. Apologies if I was unclear there. 

The Ares bit was an aside about how Ares might be even nastier than Zeus. 

I read through that way too quickly lol

Made myself look kind of dumb there.

 

But yes, Zeus is extremely interesting. He is very self-absorbed, but he's also very conscious and kind to mortals as well in many occasions.

But I thought there was no criticism of the gods until Ovid, this can't be right.

I gotta say mine's Hephaestus. His backstory is my favorite out of them all.

Apollo, he becomes a major player later on. He’s also just really cool. It’s also crazy how the Greeks are trying to curry Apollos favor by returning the priests daughter, but the god ultimately has his own agenda beyond humans to know and understand

First time reading the Iliad. Been a while since I did any serious lit analysis, which I'm not very good at, anyway. I'm here to learn new things, and also for fun!

The introduction was long (there were parts I skimmed over a bit, admittedly), but marvelously helpful. I appreciated how Wilson explains some of the storytellng mechanisms - like using descriptions to indicate more than simply appearance. The example I remember was how long white arms and beautifully braided hair could communicate beauty, but also status or wealth. I also liked how some characters' names will have descriptors attached, like "swift-footed Lord Achilles". Seems like a helpful way for an oral storyteller to remind listeners who the characters are, and what they're like. And man, how fancy :)

The concept of Trophies fascinated me. Wilson discusses this in the introduction, as well. The thought that a man could take a woman and convert her into a living, moving symbol of victory is very interesting. All she really is, is a woman uprooted and used in a conqueror's home. But whenever he looks at her, or touches her hair, or displays her for others to see, anyone around is reminded not just that the victor won this girl ... He also won whatever scuffle he obtained her from. Do the women ever get much say? Do they recognize the fact that however they carry themselves, they also symbolize the conqueror who took them? While dehumanizing to become someone's property and lose their freedom, I wonder if any women in the "trophy" role could have used their position to their advantage somehow.

I enjoyed the early bit where Agamemnon and Achilles throw insults at each other. I want to use these! "Leader of nonentites!" "You have the heart and courage of a deer!"

The gods do seem mostly occupied with their own whims - I like how Milton brought up the apple incident. Aphrodite offered up someone else's wife just so she could be named the Fairest. And in short, war resulted! So many lives lost. One exception I might mention is Thetis. Achilles comes to her upset about his dispute with Agememnon, and she's willing to do anything for him - even approach Zeus on his behalf. I do know Achilles is her son though. So maybe this doesn't really count as a selfless act, but she does genuinely care about Achilles's well-being and wants to make him happy.

Hi hi! Sorry for a really late reply, I wanted to have time to reread with your questions specifically in mind, and also make sure I had a good idea of what I was saying. I still don't really know, but I think it makes sense.
I also apologize for any incredibly stupid comments I make.

1- I agree with Milton on the first point. Someone with love and respect for the gods (characterized by Calchas) looks humble and careful/wise. Meanwhile Agamemnon is brash, rude, disliked, and haughty. He places much emphasis on being the best, and on having the most stuff. He thinks he deserves everything he can get and more.
Calchas is an unassuming man who doesn't hold himself in a high regard. Agamemnon is a prideful prick; though, it could be said that Calchas is fearful and lets himself get walked over a bit. He doesn't really stand up for himself.

2- The gods only care about the people who have made themselves known, which makes sense. I mean, there are a lot of people; thinking that any higher being would only have time for the bravest and the loudest, or on the other side the most pious and devoted is logical. 
Achilles, when he's praying or asking his mother to pray, talks about the things he's done for the gods (or what she's done for Zeus) and uses that as a kind of leverage to get what he's asking for. Chryses does the same thing in his prayers to Apollo. Homer seems to be stressing that the gods care for those who honor them and do good for them.

3- I'm sure Agamemnon styles himself the best, but I've come to the conclusion that Achilles is the main character. He's got more likable traits and is the greatest Greek warrior (which is stated several times). Athena knew he could easily kill Agamemnon and had to go down and stop him. The people respect him more; Calchas asked him for protection from Agamemnon, fearing that he'd retaliate if he speaks the truth. That means he knows which one is more powerful.

4- People with a higher status are given more (like Achilles not receiving the best spoils after a battle, but rather them going to Agamemnon), but also people who have more have a higher status (hence Agamemnon saying Achilles wants to take everything away from him so that he can be the biggest news in Greece).
The amount of glory a person has on a battlefield is directly showed by what they receive from it.

5- The gods care little for mortal struggles. They're occasionally dragged away by the prayers of the faithful, but they definitely value their own comfort more than the lives of any group of mortals. Sometimes they get involved in mortal affairs just for the fun of it, taking women and stirring up trouble.
They care more when a devoted follower of theirs is struggling because they like the praise and the sacrifices; I think they rarely care about the individual. Though I will say the "female" Olympians (in quotes because the genders of the gods are not as set in stone as people's) are usually more prone to becoming actually attached to mortals. 

I've never read this before (as I'm sure you can tell), but I am vaguely familiar with Achilles' story and it's super cool to actually read about him in a tale written by a prolific Greek writer. Thank you for hosting this book club!

"Attached" is a pretty good word for what some of the gods do, regarding mortals they are interested in, but yes, for the most part, you can get really tripped up by using the word "god" for these characters.  They aren't omnipotent or omninescient or omnipresent, and they sure aren't all-loving.  They eat and sleep and bleed are frequently stupid and misled by emotion.  They are like us, but bigger.

They do get attached, but I always think of it as getting attached the way you might get attached to an interesting bug that you see trying to do something like cross a puddle or lift a big leaf.  You watch them, you might move a stick to help them, and you might move them somewhere else, but in the end, they are a bug to you.  Then you leave, and you might step on them by accident as you go.  The gods are, at the end of the day, going to be around forever.  So many of the very closest, famous relationships between gods and mortals are marked by the inability to have any sense of what it means to be mortal even when they are close--I'm thinking of Athena and Odysseus here.  *But* the relationship between Thetis and Achilles is something kind of different in The Iliad.  I wonder if it's because Thetis isn't a big shot Olympian.

Iirc, Aphrodite and Adonis had a special kind of relationship too. She even cried about his death.

Thetis's abnormal bond with Achilles is probably due to her not being a really big deal, yeah.

Also that's a really good analogy for how the gods view mortals. I'd say another good word for it is "fond". Not really too invested, but they're rooting for them in the moments they come to their attention

It's been a while since I've read it, but IIRC, the serious romantic drama between Aphrodite and Adonis is largely Roman, from Ovid.  I think the Greek version (in Apollodorus) is way, way, way less emotionally invested.  But I may be misremembering.

I'd trust your memory over mine ten times out of ten

This is some cool shit so far! ^_^

Summary:

So they Greeks and the Trojans have been butting heads for about nine years now, and Agammemnon and his posse recently sacked a village near Troy and took all the bitches home as trophies. All the best soldiers got a bitch, but Agammemnon, being the leader, got dibs on the hottest bitch of all! Luckily for the bitch though, her father, Chryses, happens to be a priest of Apollo and also filthy rich, so he goes to Agammemnon and says, "Hey, can I have my daughter back, please? I'll give you loads of treasure and shit!"

Agammemnon's advisors are like, "Oh loads of treasure and shit for one bitch? That's a great deal. Agammemnon, you should totally trade the beauty for the booty!" but Agammemnon's like. "Fuck that! I've got loads of treasure already, but I only got one bitch and this is the hottest bitch I ever had! She's WAY hotter than my wife! Sorry Chryses, but I'm going to pork your daughter raw until my old heart gives out. Now off you fuck and don't bother me again!"

Chryses fucks off, but after he leaves, he yells, "Apollo! Agammemnon won't give me my daughter back! Be a homie and get her back for me, will you?" Apollo says, "Don't worry, bro, I got you." And so Apollo goes into the Greek army and starts shooting them with his magic plague arrows.

The Greek army, for some reason, know that it's Apollo who's giving them the plague and they're like, "Oh fuck, Apollo's pissed at us! What do we do?" So they start asking all the prophets and soothsayers, "Hey, why is Apollo pissed at us? Is it because we didn't sacrifice enough goats to him? We can totally sacrifice more goats!" But no one seems to know what Apollo's pissed about.

Eventually, Achilles, the greatest hero in Greece, goes to Calchas, the most powerful soothsayer, and asks what Apollo's so pissed about. Calchas says, "Uhh... I don't want to tell you." Achilles says, "Oh, come on! You can tell me!" Calchas says, "I don't wanna!" Achilles says, "Oh, come on, pretty please!" Calchas says, "But Agammemnon will be pissed at me!" Achilles says, "Hey, don't worry about it, I'll deal with Agammemnon, cross my heart!" Calchas says, "Okay, Apollo is pissed because Agammemnon won't give his bitch back to her father." Achiles says, "Oh for fucks sake, how many Greek soldiers just died of plague so that Agammemnon can get his dick went?" annd he marches off to confront Agammemnon.

Achilles goes to Agammemnon and says, "Hey, good news! I know how to make the plague go away! All you need to do is give your bitch back to her father and everything will be hunky dory!" But Agammemnon says! "But that's not fair! She's MY bitch! When we sacked the city, all the heros got a bitch. If I give her away, I'll be the only one who doesn't have a bitch and everyone will make fun of me!" Achilles says, "... Well, that's the only way you can make the plague go away. Thousands of Greek soldiers dying of plague every day, doesn't really seem worth it for one bitch, does it?" But Agammemnon says, "Well there's no way I'm going to be the only leader in the army who doesn't have a bitch... Hey, Achilles, you've got a bitch, don't you? Briseis! She's a fine little piece of ass! Tell you what, I'll send my bitch back to her father if you give me your bitch instead."

Achilles says, "What? No! She's my bitch! You can't just take her!" But Agammemnon says, "Well, that's the deal. Either you give me your bitch or all the Greek soldiers die of plague. It's up to you." Achilles is pissed now and says, "You know what, Agammemnon, you are a cunt! You are the cuntiest cunt I ever met! There are literally thousands of Greek soldiers dying of plague right now, all because you didn't want to give up your bitch, and now you want to steal MY bitch? Fuck you! I'm leaving! You can fight the Trojans without me!" Agammemnon says, "Fine, go, I never liked you anyway, you smell! But before you go, I'm taking your bitch!" Achilles says, "Fine!" Agammemnon says, "Fine!" and they both storm off in a huff.

Later that day, Agammemnon sends his bitch back to Chryses, but he sends some of his soldiers to pick up Achilles's bitch. While Achilles is packing, they awkwardly tap on the tent flap and say, "Hey, Achilles, Agammemnon sent us to fetch your bitch. Please don't kill us." Achilles says, "Don't piss your pants, I'm mad at Agemmemnon, not you." He fetches Briseis and says, "Here's the bitch, you can take her." The bitch says, "I don't wanna go!" Achilles says, "Tough titties," and the soldiers take her away.

As soon as they're gone though, Achilles starts bawling like a baby and cries, "MUMMY!!!" His mother, who happens to be the Goddess Thetis, hears his wailing and appears, gives him a little pat on the shoulder and says, "Awh! My poor baby! What happened?" Achilles cries, "Agammemnon stole my bitch!" Thetis says, "Oh, there, there, my sugarplum dumpling! Mummy will make it all better!"

So Thetis goes to Zeus and says, "Hey, boss man. That twatwaffle Agammemnon made my baby boy cry. Could you be a doll and just sort of... Help the Trojans win the war until he apologises and gives Achilles his bitch back?" Zeus says, "I don't know... Hera will be pissed." Thetis says, "As pissed as she was when she caught you porking Alcmene? ... And Danae? ... And Callisto... And Europa... And Leda... And -" Zeus says, "I get your point. I'll do it."

Thetis leaves and Hera arrives soon after. Hera asks, "What were you and Thetis talking about?" Zeus says, "Wouldn't you like to know?" Hera says, "I bet she was asking you to help the Trojans out until Agammemnon gives Achilles his bitch back." Zeus says, "Gods damn it woman, you suck the fun out of everything!"

Analysis:

This chapter really shows the importance of bitches in ancient Greek society... Not as human beings that the Greek heroes actually love or care about or respect or anything ridiculous like that, but as a status symbol. You can tell who is the greatest warrior or the most well respected leader based on who has the hottest bitch. If you don't have a bitch, you're a nobody and everybody will make fun of you and call you a pansy ass, sissy pants! With this in mind, you can understand why Agammemnon was so reluctant to give up his bitch, and just how deeply he insulted Achilles when he demanded he give up his bitch. While Achilles is still the strongest, fastest and all around most badass Greek hero alive, it don't mean shit if he doesn't have a hot ass bitch to show off to his homies. Like the great Achilles said himself, "I got 99 problems now my bitch is gone." ... Or something along those lines. It's a rough translation.

This is my first time reading any of the Homer stories/ poems. I have no background in any of this literature and I'm not reading any responses as to not influence my own comprehension/ opinion on what I've read so far. After I post this, I'll be reading any additional links/ others thoughts. 

 

1. With these names, I had to go back and skim through until I found the interaction. Calchas is this wise seer type who, "was by far the best interpreter of signs from birds. He knew the past, present, and the future". That sort of intro alone really puts the significance of what he has to say into perspective. It goes on to say he brought the fleet to Troy etc. Calchas and his piety is what I'm going to call the "correct" path. While we have arrogant Agammemnon with his "screw you, I'll do whatever I want" attitude. In this type of society, it appears that the wise old sages tend to be the most pious and can easily see the Gods' intentions/ needs.

2. The author is suggesting that those who are in command, need to - more than most - revere the gods. There are gods are war and earning their favor will obviously benefit the commander and those in their armies.(This is a weak answer, but I'm actually going to look into Homer more after I respond to them all).

3. Not at all. By far, Agamemnon is just the figure head at the top that started all of this. It is Achilles and the other commanders that actually fight for glory and get the tasks accomplished. We see Achilles list his deeds in service to Agamemnon in Book 1. 

4. This part was actually pretty silly imo. You got these fighters - heroes and favorites of the gods - squabbling over the fairness of spoils of war. Fight, kill, and steal is the name of the game and the higher you are on the totem pole, the bigger the spoils you get. This is portrayed through the verbal disagreement between Achilles and Agamemnon about how to appease Apollo.

5. They are "above" mortals and thus causing a fight among gods because of the them would be seen as beneath them. Yes, they play favorites. Yes, they mingle with the mortals. But most Gods may see the mortals has just playthings and not worth their time and effort.

Id say in my opnion that Nestor is the best of the greeks. Having been a hero of untold renown in his day and ruled for three generations. It shows hes got a wide variety of skills and knows when to use them. I feel like anyone staying in such a position that long in a pretty war filled and perilous time is no one to joke with. 

 

As far as the Olympians I cant be sure. Because we see them often considering the matters of mortals and taking petitions and all. But I could see there would be a bit of carelessness too since...well, they're gods. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and probably depends on the god in question. Some are probably more concerned than others, some are probably closer to being outright negligent. 

I dont know for sure, but for me it seemed like maybe the remark was sort of just reminding them of the place and the time. Like theres a time to decide the matters of mortals and a time for bickering and fighting and a time for chilling and eating. Although I dont know what the Olympians schedules are like. 

Im gonna assume though the ones in the middle probably tend to err more on thier own matters and whims most of the time would make sense. 

> Who might really be the best of the Greeks, based on what we’ve read so far? 

The thing I like best about this question is that you can recycle it for nearly every single one of the 24 books of The Iliad, and it's always a relevant question, and the epic is constantly revising what "best" might mean and who might qualify, and then pulling the carpet up from under you when you think you've pinned it down.  

I will read other people's comments in the morning, but I wanted to say I finally have finished Book 1 and am not a fan of Agamemnon nor Achilles. They act like toddlers who got their favorite cups taken away when they have to give up the women they stole. It's not like they can't just go and take another one later (or as if they actually consider them to be anything other than shiny new possessions). They wanted the PURPLE cup, and no other will do, and they are fine with their own people dying over it.
I am enjoying the story so far though. The translation is very easy to read.

To be fair, Agammemnon shouldn't have taken away his purple cup.

I'll give the introduction a read then. I was previously saving it for the end because of spoilers, but it's not like I don't have a vague idea of what happens in the story anyway.

"He doesn't even make the Trojans out to be evil wife stealing foreigners or anything, they have some very human portrayals in their half of the story which is where a lot of the emotional core is."

I remember reading an excerpt the death of the-Mexican-guy-censored-for-spoilers in grade school and thinking about how it made me sad for the family of a fictional guy living thousands of years ago. I never really thought about how because he was not the hero in the story, portraying him and the other Trojans as sympathetic humans rather than writing them as just some pro-Greek propaganda made it extra meaningful.

Having been at war for nearly ten years has got to have done some serious damage to these men, and at a certain point, it's about who is dishonoring whom.   It's also worth remembering that "the woman that got stolen" is the whole impetus of this war.  So there's a kind of neat thematic element there, too.  What madness and what violence and what will people go through to strut around and show that you can't take their woman/property? 

A single thing like Paris making off with Helen can escalate in steps and become a ten-year war that destroys a civilization.  What can this one single, seemingly petty, thing avalanche into?

They can't get at the Trojans (yet) to properly come to arms with them the way they want, but there's a fight RIGHT HERE they can have.  They are tired, angry, their supporters are looking on, and feel like they have to justify the blood and time they've already spent here.

Ah, yes. Helen. The paramount bitch. ^_^

Avery is victim blaming!

Hey, no one said it was the bitch's fault. If anything, it's Aphrodite's fault for just offering Paris a bitch that was already taken. 

I can't tell if she's lumpy or just wearing some really weird shaped clothes... Either way, I'd say if I wasn't being bribed with the ultimate, number 1 hottest bitch in the world, I'd have voted for the one in the middle.

This is the one I meant to be clear, looks like searches pull up a few things. (Caution, contains boobs that do not belong to Ogre): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Juicio_de_Paris_(Simonet)

I'd have picked the middle one too because at least she's wearing clothes that allow one to imagine there might be a goddess-level physique underneath.

I do like Paris there though, just hanging out with his goats, really pondering this one.

Yeah, that is very much not the one I was looking at. I was looking at this one:

The one in your picture, I think is actually pretty hot. Nothing wrong with a bit of meat on the menu. ^_^

That is a very oddly placed bulge on the one in green...

I did not notice that. Changing my vote to the one on the left. :p

I agree, I actually think the women in the other one (not so much this one lol) are all pretty. Beauty standards aren't always stick figures

That's true. I guess at the end of the day, the important thing is that they're white.

Exactly! ^_^

She kind of looks like me, physiquewise:(

You're hawt! ^_^

Glad you and Simonet think so.

"It's also worth remembering that "the woman that got stolen" is the whole impetus of this war."
That a really good parallel that I wasn't thinking so much of while reading. Either way, I feel bad for all the people who are following these leaders and heroes who value their lives so cheaply.

If Briseis is the purple cup, Helen is a cup with a picture of Bluey on it. The Trojans sealed their fate.

I understand now. A decade of war was totally worth it.

I'm not going to be able to join the club because I know I won't be around regularly enough, but you've all convinced me to read the Iliad. I had a resolution to read one claasic book a month, I'm working on the original Dracula now but I'll read this one in February.

The one I found isn't the same version as the one the thread is using, does it matter too much if I'm just reading it on my own?

No. Not allowed. Straight to jail.

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Roll doubles or pay the fine.

I mean is this one noticeably different or better from some of the others?

The one we're using is made to be readable while still staying true to the original. You should be fine, just research your translation and make sure it's legit.

It's super different, because it's in a regular iambic verse form.  So it bounces along metrically in a way that translators who use prose or a less regular form doesn't.  That's just the form.

To me, it feels more modern than Fagles' translation (which I love) and feels much easier to read in the sense that the sentences feel a little shorter and the syntax feels less complex.  It's quite good.  I'm a fan so far.

I love the fagles translation too! It's the only copy I own, and it does get long-winded at times, but for me it's perfect.

Also, thank you for the insight on form and iambic pentameter! That was interesting.

If you're affiliated with an educational institution, this Kortext version might work.

Now that I've acquired a copy of the Iliad, I'll try to catch up next week once my schedule frees up, hopefully it won't be too late then.