Sincere question. Sure, there were some interesting scenes, but I couldn’t really bring myself to give a shit about much of anything that happened.
Felt like a definite step down from the literature I was reading before; it was as if I’d went from watching critically acclaimed thrillers, to then watching a cheesy action film
But that’s just my opinion, and I’m making the thread to ask for others’ views
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Filtered
Yawn. So predictable. Of course, you were totally unable to explain why you enjoyed the story, which I presume is due to you being the ones that were filtered. Does reading something that you don’t understand or enjoy make you feel like a big boy?
It's not about "enjoyment" you absolutely braindead bugman. You made a thread claiming that a classic is shit, because you didn't "enjoy" the "story". You deserve nothing but insults. Frick your "sincere" questions. If you had the right attitude, then maybe you could be educated, but you're a hopeless case. You're not even looking for the right things. Keep living a meaningless life full of movie metaphors and get the frick out of my IQfy.
>It's not about "enjoyment" you absolutely braindead bugman
So you didn’t enjoy either, then. Glad to see that I’m not alone in this
>It's not about "enjoyment"
lol, Aristotle would beg to differ
I enjoyed it. I liked living in that culture while reading, the petty human type behavior and politics of the gods, loved all the nature-inspired analogies. What I didn't enjoy was the laundry list of proper nouns, but I soon learned to skim over that, partially at least. Initially I thought I needed to be considering each character as essential and tried to keep the list of characters and their backgrounds in my memory. Above all, I enjoyed the ethos of the culture, where being athletic, tact, self-less and honor-driven was the pinnacle of man.
never saw the point in reading really old shit like this unless you know the original language for it. you're guaranteed getting a bastardization. i'd prefer to just never touch it tbdesu.
I enjoyed it. but then all I really read before it of my own free will was Lovecraft (and his friends), Poe, Vonnegut and Bukowski (outside of school assignments anyway) so I probably didnt have the craziest background in great fiction. who did you read before you read the iliad?
I've always found it hard to get into ancient literature. Everything feels flat and characters behave in strange ways.
Probably because it’s so fricking old. You can argue that modern stories already use the innovative themes of these old stories. If you go into reading these with some specific goal or aim, “to figure out X” or “how they used to conceive of Y” then the story is probably engaging. I think you would need an explanation of what makes this story so famous and go from there. I personally knew I’d find it boring so I never finished it. I think the aesthetic is interesting but I know I wouldn’t get much from the story
This. Having a guide help contextualize things a bit would make it easier to understand and provide more to enjoy.
what version did you read? I read some prose translation the first time and didnt like it nears as much as I like the gayles version.
Butler. Seems to be most popular translation, but yeah, I think it could be a lot more enjoyable in verse
a million times better. verse makes the name and lineage dropping much more tolerable. But Im willing to bet you are also just not into ancient myth. have you read any mythology that you did like?
>Why you didn't like it
Who knows why or why not that you weren't able to like something. It could be that your subconscious found these epic heroes attractive and since being a closet gay you pushed away the novel. Or maybe your lack of English comprehension caused subconscious dismissal since you did not want to admit that you are moronic. The above and much more could explain your dislike but you would never acknowledge it. So would you still dislike the Iliad even if its because of homosexual reasons? Yes. Is the Iliad still a fine epic? Yes.
I also do not enjoy the Butler prose version and would really prefer not to read it.
Is gayles a lot better?
gayles + Pope
The only way to go
I read this because I also want to read The Odyssey before reading Ulysses together with IQfy. It's honestly just boring and pathetically pompous. Makes me feel sleepy. Is the Odyssey the same?
the iliad > the odyssey in my opinion. the conflict is more interesting, there is more variation in characters and there are some actually thrilling parts. also a lot of the bits in the odyssey about telamachus visiting people to learn of his fathers deeds are way to drawn out.
I agree. The Odyssey feels more silly as well.
thats what it is. I was trying to figure out what it was about the bits with the cyclops and the lady that turned his men to animals (mythological things I can usually get behind) that made them less impactful than the contests celebrating the death of hector or the fight to protect patroclus' body from looters. they have mo gravitas because they are a bit silly.
*no gravitas
I can also get behind myth, especially greek myth, just fine. But if I'm comparing Homer's complete epics, I think it's completely reasonable to call The Illiad better unless we are looking for mythical insight.
Is it fricking April Fool's Day or some shit? Why is the board filled with people calling the Iliad of all things pretentious old trash?
You need a solid foundation in Greek History to appreciate it.
Enjoyable? not really.
One of the BEST things you could ever read? 100%
Please be joking.
>Felt like a definite step down from the literature I was reading before
Saying this about the Iliad might just be one of the most moronic things i have ever read on IQfy I sincerely hope that you are joking.
I prefer reading real history like Herodotus, Livy and Plutarch. Illiad has the same problem for me that most fiction does now. It takes too long to tell the story. I'm not entertained by flowery langauge or long overwrought descriptions of irrelevant minuate. I just want the facts and story.
So you don’t like themes or morals?
learn greek
Yes, I loved it. It was hard in the beginning and, after having finished it, I will definitely take some time before reading the Odyssey, since epics do are an endeavour to read through.
It was elucidating, through the comparisons made in the book to illustrate feelings and what was unfolding, getting to know much more of what their lifes, what their surrounding and perspectives were thousands of years ago, and, for me, it is a pleasure. Futhermore, of course, we are able to get a better understanding of Greek mythology and also, through it, an understanding of Greek men.
Besides all of this, I finally completely understood somethings that recur on literature, for example, the writer or poet urging the Muses to sing in so many works...
I find it easy to take pleasure from all these things and it is definitely an worthwhile book with an interesting story, and, of course, it wasn't developed the way we are familiar with in most books.
Just to add a little bit more to my post with some personal opinion:
If you reading it purely for the plot, you would probably enjoy your time much more by reading Percy Jackson (I've never read it, so I am not certain) or whatever. As you can see by my post, what I took the most pleasure of was getting to know the culture and thoughts of these ancient men. They lived a life completely different from ours, different moral values, a life in nature and a life in which they were free to be themselves as long they were not cowards.
The poets of that time were not writers with all the technique and knowledge to unfold their stories in such an engaging way as later men. They had the story of a war to tell and that's is what they did.
So you can admit that the plot isn’t great and that the writers weren’t adept in literary technique, resulting in text that is not very engaging…
The only merit here seems to be it’s historical importance, ergo, it is not enjoyable to read (unless history fan)
All that I find enjoyable is present (I just briefly mentioned the things I could take from the book. A full analysis could take pages and pages, specially if I were to be an specialist, which I am not) on my first post and it is a LOT. Add to that the literary importance demonstrated, as an example, by how their practice recur on later literature. Plus the historical importance you mentioned.
Do not take one thing I wrote and ignore the rest. Please, take it all into consideration.
Yes, the first poets, who didn't even write their chants, were not proficient in all literary techniques, which were only previously developed.
Just to continue my monologue... Knowing how those men thought is a diamond.They were free of so many bonds we are now doomed to accept, some we don't even realise are deeply embedded in our society and minds, as if they were absolute truths, categorical, never changing. Take your time, read it and think about it. It's not just about the historical importance, which, of course, is in abundance there. It's about their perception of life, a perception that is impossible for us now, a perception that, if you are not exposed to it, you would never have. And then, you can compare how things change and how they are now (or whatever interests you). Are we the ones on the right? The ones who live a good rightful life? Why so many things, percieved as ordinary to every single man back then, are now seem as horrendous? Were they stupid men? They couldn't discern the good from the bad?
When you read a history book, you get the facts, but you don't get the priviledge to listen to what men, three thousand years ago, had to say about the world and about life.
This book is a blessing to all humanity. To all men who stumble upon it and are able to use their minds to understand all it's implications.
Great posts, anon. I've been getting into Nietzsche recently and it sounds like I need to read this.
>previously
I meant posteriorly, of course.
>epics do are an endeavour to read through.
I do not get this. epics are my favorite genre if fiction and I have yet to encounter one that I have found particularly challenging (unless you count canterbury tales but thats just because of archaic language). what is it that majes you feel this way about epics specifically?
What's everyone losing their shit for? The story wasn't enjoyable, the story's value is in its historical importance.
Only person itt who isn't a bot, whether one enjoys it is irrelevent in light of it's influence on other works
but doesnt it stand to reason that it influenced other works because other people enjoyed it? more importantly that people with strong creative faculties (at least strong enough to make something worth noting what influenced it) enjoyed it. hard to take randoms on the internet more seriously about the merit of a work than those that integrated it into their own work.
You're right, but its influence may have been one of increasing the readers understanding of greek culture, not just entertainment. if OP is reading it purely for enjoyment, then when he finds he doesn't enjoy it he can't disregard its merit, because not everyone reads it for just entertainment.
true and Im not one of those seething teens that think you arent part of my elite club if you didnt enjoy it. nothing is for everybody. I just honestly enjoyed it and am trying to get my head around the comments about it somehow being pretentious or boring.
some passages are still emotionally impactful
>Don’t speak of my parents, dog. I wish the fury and the pain in me could drive me to carve and eat you raw for what you did, as surely as this is true: no living man will keep the dogs from gnawing at your skull, not if men weighed out twenty, thirty times your worth in ransom, and promised even more, not though Dardanian Priam bid them give your weight in gold, not even then will your royal mother lay you on a bier to grieve for you, the son she bore, rather shall dogs, and carrion birds, devour you utterly
>But that's just my opinion
Your opinion is gay, zoom zoom. Fix your fricked up attention span.
never saw the point in reading really old shit like this unless you know the original language for it. you're guaranteed getting a bastardization. i'd prefer to just never touch it tbdesu.
A lot of shit is philosophical in older works like Homer, whether in translation or not. If you can’t take anything away from translations, that’s on you. Not reading them seems like an excuse not to read
/lit/gays will have an aneurysm about your opinion but i felt the same way. I can appreciate it for what it is since it was written thousands of years ago. This place is filled with a bunch of pseuds who circle jerk the same shit. The Epic of Gilgamesh is better in every way yet these homosexuals never talk about it. This majority of people on here are moronic and don't read.
>people like something I don't they are a bunch of circle jerks!
>The Epic of Gilgamesh is better in every way yet these homosexuals never talk about it.
I have been daily visiting this board for a few weeks. Why didn't YOU made a thread about it? Stop being a b***h and waiting for other people to please you, seriously.
>Why didn't YOU made a thread about it? Stop being a b***h and waiting for other people to please you, seriously.
well said. most people that b***h about the quality of this board are incapable of posting anything better. unfortunately its the same problem that makes creating a new place for discussion a wasted effort.
The problem is relevant threads get swamped by off topic threads. IQfy is much faster than it used to be
that sounds like a good excuse to not try. the real problem is that shit posts get yous, the only incentive on this site to post (the only easy dopamine producer anyway). the answer is to reply and creat quality without incentive, most people are incapable of creating quality and even more are unwilling without gratification. but shit posting is something everyone can do, and it gets the validation of interaction.
I’m not the Gilgamesh anon, but I do make on topic threads. I just always make a habit of commenting when one says “do better” to sincere IQfy anons. That’s like raising prices in a store because of shoplifters. It is isn’t the honest customers, or IQfy posters, but the shoplifters, or shitposters, that should be criticized
I dont think the shit posters should be criticized only because most of the time that is giving them more yous. I think they need to lose that validation (though I agree with you). I would also like to point out that I wasnt saying that people that are already making the attempt should do better. I was saying that people that claim to want better but dont make an attempt do to some excuse (like the one I pointed out in
) should put their skin in the game (though I am skeptical that they can actually creat, let alone maintain, a steady stream of quality without the promise of validation).
I agree to a large extent, but new readers can’t effortpost yet, or at least put anything forth meaningful. Still I’d rather hear a newbie’s thoughts than the umpteenth off topic shitpost or shit thread. The newbies have to learn an not be scared off by “put forth quality, or don’t post at all” when the shitposters are ignored when the latter are the issue. There is one anon who pops up now and then who seems like he is trying to sabotage IQfy and scare off new readers with an aggressive, condescending “don’t cry like a b***h about the state of IQfy. Boo hoo. Don’t talk about change, be about it. I’ve been here since 1985. Quality post or don’t post”. I’m not saying that’s you at all, but it’s demoralizing to effortpost when it will just sink in the catalog because it’s not an off topic thread. I guess the effortposter has to just hope he reaches someone without getting validation or conversation. I’ve gotten around that by posting pages of books I love that aren’t widely known here and hoping they motivate someone to read the book. I know I’m ironically going on an off topic rant, but I think the key to improving IQfy is to ignore shitposters and comment on anything on topic even if you can’t provide much insight. Gotta get IQfy somewhat reading again and attract readers. Lastly the dunning Kruger effect is real here. Everyone thinks they can effortpost, but even the best only have a few areas of expertise usually. So even if someone wants to start a thread saying they liked Andrei in W&P, that’s fine by me.
oh yeah I agree about new readers /posters. when I say post quality I dont mean post things I like. I mean post things that you think are quality. Im also not against lamenting in containment threads (though they could be kicking other threads and shitposters can still derive dopamine from them if they are specific enough). Im more against giving yous to shitposts in the form of complaints. things like "stop posting low effort shit" and the like. my philosophy here is basically "ignore things you think are shit, validate things you think are good, and post things that meet your own standards." my problem is with people coming up with excuses to not take action, resigning to wining instead, especially when they complain about other people making threads that are in good faith but not their specific interest (like
pointed out).
Yeah. I wasn’t criticizing you, I was just replying to your post to go on a little rant. At the end of the day, I think those who come here for the right reasons have to discern what posts are in good faith(even in disagreement), and what are in bad faith, and not reply to the latter. It can be hard sometimes, but as you said, shitposters live off of you’s. Don’t give it to them. I also try to start a thread on what I’m reading even if I don’t have much to say. Sometimes a more knowledgeable poster will enlighten me or give a good recommendation. So I guess to summarize, I think real readers should:
>ignore shiposts and those in bad faith
>create a thread on what are reading, even if it’s just to give an opinion
>comment on threads that are about a book you’ve read to bump it, even if it’s just giving an opinion
>Why didn't YOU made a thread about it?
>This place is filled with a bunch of pseuds
There's your answer, moron. I have to sift through shit like Catcher in the Rye and DFW/Pynchon/Ulysses threads just to find decent book recommendations/discussions. This place is a circle jerk and half of the homosexuals on here contribute to it because they want to "fit in". Go check out the shelf threads and see how many people have nearly identical shelves. It's embarrassing.
Shelf threads are dying which is a sign that IQfy is dying. Even the IQfy memes and mainstays don’t get discussed that much anymore compared to the past. Post in a shelf thread and see if someone comments on a more niche book. Go from there an maybe a discussion will commence
>why dont you post about things you like?
>because no one else does and I need validation
good one. and everyone else are the pseuds right?
>waaahhhh IQfy doesnt discuss literature enough
>lmao everyone's shelf is the same what a fricking pseud-board
Do you not see the problem with your thinking?
Reading classics should be encouraged not put down, even if the "takes" by posters are a bit shallow.
If you want recommendations and discussion make your own thread and put some effort into your OP about what you're looking for and why.
But the janny should do a better job of cleaning up the board. I agree with those sentiments.
I cant believe Homer is such a hack fraud!
Enjoyed it more than The Odyssey, maybe because I had read The Odyssey once before when I was much younger. I also read them both along side companion books, and I read the Lattimore translation, which I consider to be the best one, as he wrote it as close to the original style and meaning as he could, which is not disputed.
I was surprised by how real the characters were. I went in expecting much flatter characters, but the little subtleties in how certain characters act was amazing to see in something so old. I also liked the style of writing and cool dialogues characters had, shit talking each other on the battlefield, alongside the varied descriptions of death. And then there's the incredibly cool scenes when gods intervene or help in the battles. So much of it was cool to read, and again, amazing for something written so long ago. Even the famous Catalogue of ships was fun to read in an ironic way. Maybe the companion book helped me contextualize the epic, and in that case, I would recommend anyone wanting to enjoy Homer to read the Lattimore translation and/or at least read a companion book alongside his work with your preferred translation.
>I was surprised by how real the characters were.
Not so surprising when you understand that they were real people made immortal by poetry.
The contrarian cycle of lit. Everyone either loves or hates a book until the reverse happens. Rinse and repeat
I enjoyed it because I like reading the Greeks/History and there are some good things to take to heart that have also inspired/influenced some of the greatest figures and writers through the ages.
I can see why people would find it tedious, but I think it's worth the effort.
Why did you find that it was a step-down from your other reads?
>do people enjoy reading one of the oldest surviving and universally heralded works of literature
before mass media everyone at least knew The Iliad. Try reading any work of classic fiction that doesn't reference it. That should demonstrate to you how ubiquitous Homer once was
This guy's right and probably a couple of other posts are too.
I just scrolled to the bottom after a while to say that this thread is autism and bots.
Most of the time it isn't bots but an ESL that just got internet access
it's old and influential, it's an fascinating cultural artefact more than it is an engaging work of literature
>ancient egyptian hieroglyphs are uncovered
>Wtf do people actually READ this garbage????
>come to lit
>see this thread
>leave
Yea this thread is truly embarrassing. There was a thread a few days back when some guy complained about someone having read 68 books from the 2014 top 100. I was happy that everyone in that thread gave him massive shit. It made me believe maybe this place wasn't filled with plebs. Then this thread happens.
>There was a thread a few days back when some guy complained about someone having read 68 books from the 2014 top 100. I was happy that everyone in that thread gave him massive shit.
I don't get it; what was the nature of his complaint? If he said the books sucked, why did it make you happy when others gave him shit?
His complaint was he thinks people who actually read as a hobby are pseuds. He talked about how people reading a book a week makes it impossible to remember anything, and he thought that anyone who had read more than a couple dozen books from the 2014 was only reading books to seem smart, while at the same time implying that classics aren't that enjoyable to read.
It made me happy that everyone gave him shit because I don't want lit infested with people who barely read and who think that classics are for try hard pseuds.
Some people can just get more out of those 10-20 books (read in a year) than a person who read them combined with 20 or so more (in that same period). The rare ones are those who provide original takes on a small amount of material. Reading a lot of pages may be impressive but it doesn't mean very much if your take is "I get it now" instead of "I don't get it because...."
Except that wasn't that guys position, hence the shitting on him. Lits been shit for years at this point but the last thing it needs are people who are openly anti-intellectual, who denigrate those that read consistently enough that you can truthfully call the activity a hobby, and those who derive genuine enjoyment from classics.
>no one!
You sound like a pretentious condescending snob so I think that needed to be pointed out either way.
i liked it when it described all those random characters dying horribly. i felt it demonstrated the futility of the warmongering and nationalism the characters expressed.
Yes. I find it lyrically beautiful in its various translations, and I find its depiction of humanity very moving, in particular its depiction of male strength, brotherhood, and character
Just watch Avengers, same stuff
Personally I think literature in general is not that satisfying until the Victorians. With Homer specifically, like OP said, "I couldn't really bring myself to give a shit about much of anything that happened." I could read it "academically" and acknowledge its influence or ponder the relations between the mortals and the gods and its implications, but as a story itself there was no immersive quality or any of the qualities that make me enjoy lit. That said I really like the Ancient Greek recording on Youtube of one of the chapters, there's something magical about it.
>but as a story itself there was no immersive quality or any of the qualities that make me enjoy lit
Did you seriously feel nothing at the funeral games for Achilles? What about Priam begging Achilles for his son's body back? The rage of Achilles leading the desecration of Hector's body? I fricking teared up in this book. This is easily, EASILY in my top 5.
Nothing struck deeply in such a way that it haunts my life or my reading of other works. All other epics and narrative poems I've read left me cold too, I could never get anything out of the sagas, or the Arthurian stuff I've read either.
Good response btw, actually referring to parts of the book that moved you, and not just yelling filtered!! like many others. Hopefully the dissenting views will lead fans of the book to express their enthusiasm for it, rather than their anger at others for not agreeing.
I honestly don't know how you can think this. When it comes to fiction I would say 80% is before the 1800's and about half of that is Greco-Roman.
>but as a story itself there was no immersive quality or any of the qualities that make me enjoy lit
I just don't understand how someone can read the poetry of Catullus and feel the hand of friendship travel two millennium to clasp you on the shoulder: or how one can read Terence and not see yourself and those you know in the characters and to laugh at their follies identical to your own, to read Sophocles and not be moved by the pain and torment told in such beautiful language that even in translation it transfixes me
>rather than their anger at others for not agreeing
tbf it's not like the people who don't like it are saying anything other than they don't like it. If you want a good conversation you need to say more than it didn't move me or I wasn't engaged with the characters.
>I honestly don't know how you can think this.
She's beautiful, man!
>tbf it's not like the people who don't like it are saying anything other than they don't like it.
I already answered this in the above post. The guy who thinks the girl is stunningly beautiful and is head-over-heels in love with her obviously will be far more prolix than his friend who thinks she's "eh". I own three copies of the Iliad, I've tried but my response is "eh". Perosnally I'd rather read the posts from the persepctive the lover than the apathetic.
I don't read translated poetry or plays so I can't comment on the others. I read Euripides long ago, it was "eh", the translation I read was far too reliant on refering back to the endnotes to immerse me, and since then I understand far more what I like and dislike in lit, thus avoiding the latter.
>bbbbbut the historical context! the banal, bland depictions of human nature and what masculine brotherhood is and other things I could find on Sparknotes! you were just filtered by the catalogue of ships!
Fricking pathetic.
>spewing a bunch of vitriol in lieu of shutting up and reading.
Pathetic.
I did read, and there wasn't anything that I didn't get from reading things with similar ideas a hundred times over.
>bbbbbut the rage X felt when
>bbbbut the human nature
>bbbbut the sorrow and grief
I'd get that in a more visceral way from a war memoir. Ah, yes, certainly not present anywhere else.
Do keep fellating yourself and calling anyone who "just doesn't get it" a hylic
>I don't understand, why do people praise this ancient work when there are countless shitty contemporary reworkings of it retreading the same ground it laid thousands of years ago?
Every genuine literary innovator of the last two centuries had a serious education in, and almost always an immense respect for, the classics. The only people who would agree with you Black folk are artless hacks like Sanderson, who I assume are the people you actually read because their plot twists and Joss Whedon quips are pretty much all you understand how to enjoy in books.
>you must like capeshit!
In the same way you will never convince me that capeBlack persony is worth watching, you'll never convince me that isolated from the Greek society it was written in, the content wildly differs from your average Marvel movie. It doesn't.
Yes, ancient literature, for most modern people (myself included) who are accustomed to modern life and modern media, comes across very simplistic, unsophisticated, repetitive/unoriginal, etc. This goes somewhat against the naive conception that "old books are challenging", when really if you can get past the first hurdle of antiquated language or whatever, the ideas of the pre-French Revolution world are vastly simpler than modern ideas, and they end up seeming very quaint to us. The thoughts and emotions expressed tend to stay within circumscribed boundaries (both in terms of how far they go in any direction, and how "far" they go within themselves in terms of detail/subtlety) and thus do not satisfy the modern taste for novelty. There are also different social norms etc which make it difficult for us to truly “feel with the characters” (however much certain teenagers on IQfy want people to believe that they totally relate to the struggle of being an ancient Greek hero, and like, manhood and stuff bro!). That being said, there is still plenty of value that can be found in them aesthetically, either for their language or their overall structure.
HOWEVER, the really important thing to realize is that the history of literature is cumulative and interconnected, and the old is what led to the new. By gaining an understanding of the roots of things you will know them better, in a way that would not be possible merely by studying the things themselves. So you don't necessarily have to read Homer firsthand, but understanding him and his time is necessary if you want to truly get the full picture of whatever books/authors you *do* enjoy reading. Of course, the pleasure of such an understanding is just one reason for reading, and it doesn't have to be your reason. You can read for reasons that are still "serious" and "intellectual", to the extent that those terms mean anything in the first place, without caring about this particular sort of understanding. You can still unravel difficult works on an individual level and understand them in a significant and satisfactory, though not complete, way. You can still read things like the war memoirs you mentioned and delve into fascinating psychological phenomena. But without historical understanding you will inevitably have certain blind spots in your mental models of at least some individual works, and of literature as a whole.
It took a lot of frustration similar to yours for me to realize this, and I see the same type of sentiment all the time on here. I might just copypaste this response with minor variations whenever it happens because it's so foundational to the type of study that people here purport to care about. Of course it's largely a cargo cult/fashion statement/etc and most don't care at all, but it's sad seeing people who might have the spark of real curiosity getting tripped up by (cont.)
the ahistorical way that literature is dealt with here and elsewhere. This, btw, is embodied very obviously by the "top 100 chart" thing, which has a flattening effect and makes people think that every book can somehow be compared directly when so many of them were written in completely different personal and historical situations for completely different reasons. The charts are fun and it’s fun to see what’s popular, it just gets taken for something other than what it is by people who are young/new.
Anyway, I’ve only read a tiny portion of this but I know T.E. Hulme’s essays in Speculations deal with the Classical/Romantic divide, and I think Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent touches on the same sort of thing, though I’m not sure it’s directly related. So those would be the authorities I’d appeal to in order to back up this point.
Good post, it's nice when someones makes a little effort. I can only write a quick response because I'm supposed to be working...
Pre-enlightenment lit to me is like cave painting. It doesn't nothing for me, it may move others, and I'm not declaring it "bad" and discouraging others from investigating it, and I'm certain it has academic interest for those invested in the history of painting, but no argument can change my tastes. The history of lit, like the history of music, is something I'm quite familiar with, I've read several surveys and histories of its development, including region and language specific volumes, and it was very helpful in pinpointing what appeals to me personally. It's an important step in developing taste, just as I had to investigate gregorian chant and early church music before learning to give it the widest possible berth. But ultimately influence and historical development only matters, personally, in so far as it leads me to discover traces of what I already like in antecedent works. But if composer X was said to influence Bach, for example, but I hear nothing of value in his work, I'm moving on quite unsentimentally. I despise the charts btw and find them totally antithetical to a love of literature, but that's another question entirely.
Yeah ok I can see you didn't need my whole spiel, you get it. I really didn't realize the Enlightenment was such a watershed, in terms of literary ideas rather than just politics/science, until I'd read a wide enough range of pre-Enlightenment works to understand the extent to which the 1600s had more in common in some respects with Classical/biblical times than with the 1800s. I share your taste on that question for the most part, though I can get where people with more conservative mindsets would prefer the more stable, less chaotic pre-Enlightenment sensibility.
What the frick do you people even like to read if something as enduringly beautiful as the Iliad, held as a masterpiece universally for thousands of years across wildly changing cultures, has an entire thread full of moronic c**ts calling it boring and devoid of literary value?
Is your reading level so low that your eyes glaze over at anything that isn't /sffg/ written for children, or is your attention span so fried that you don't even read books anymore at all?
You are all enduring proof that gatekeeping is not just fine, but necessary. All of you tourists deserve to be bullied for being such morons and most of you should never have been taught to read in the first place. Get the frick off this board and stay off.
If we had it your way we'd be listening to plainchants and madrigals only because they were the bee's knees until the Baroque. Eat shit, homosexual.
god damn. legend.
Tell me why you enjoyed reading the Illiad.
They're a bunch of smartphone addicted zoomers raised by YouTube. The only reason they read at all is so they can add another book cover to their personality collage. It's easier to understand when you realize it's the same thing as collecting those Funko vinyl figures. The meme about IQfy not reading is real.
You're infatuated with a girl, you tell your friend she's beautiful. He's says "ehh, not really my type". You seethe. You say he's filtered. Others disagree. The consensus is she's beautiful. You tell him he's a pleb, he hasn't studied aesthetics. He's just plain wrong. He probably likes butterfaces.
With negative responses, there's not much to be said, if you don't feel it, you don't it. That's why negative literary criticism isn't very interesting beyond the cheap joy of watching someone tear something down. With positive responses there's so much more to express, even if it's impossible to really hit upon the ultimate source your love for the object. Despite this, enthusiasm can be infectious, or at least it can help us understand why others like what they like and what they possess in themselves that makes them respond to certain aesthetic objects that leave us cold.
I love it, I always come back to it every so often. I've taken a few classes in Ancient Greek. I think there are lots of good translations, I loved it before taking those classes too.
its fine to not understand poetry, but its your fault, not Poetry's.
I'm listening to a bootleg audiobook of the Alexander Pope version
It's kino even though it's a w*man reading
be honest, is this you OP?
Reading these seething replies is pure comedy
Ban all Americans from this board
Require all Americans to make at least one shitpost per day on IQfy
>Because of its influence on the ideologies of Pan-Germanism and Nordicism, israeli-Italian historian Arnaldo Momigliano in 1956 described Germania and the Iliad as "among the most dangerous books ever written".
Based
>war, bloody mutilation, death, destruction, Greek mythology, indo-european culture, wagons, a fricking river trying to take revenge
Of course I enjoyed it
for me its Andromache
>plotgay
It was on the level of a religious text in Ancient Greece and is on a similar plane as something like Paradise Lost. If you read it for action and adventure, which it still has a lot of I'd say, and your main take is it isn't exciting enough by modern standards, just go watch MCU movies. It's like saying a radio play isn't visually appealing; The Illiad so old that its original method of delivery is completely alien in a modern context and you should have thought to take that into account before expecting something comparable to "thrillers."
Embarrassing thread.
I read it in my moronic teenage years and I absolutely enjoyed it.
some very stuffy translations out there. it's meant to be entertaining yeah, it's very good
yeah, the main gayles translation that people act is the best one, is generic and soulless
I enjoyed it because it reminded me of playing Dynasty Warrirors as a kid. I definitely would main Ajax.