by annis » Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:07 pm
> Possibly the problem is one of definition; My impression of the <br />> reason Achilles is great is that he, since he is such a good <br />> fighter, is intrincicly glorious. To the greeks, being a badass was <br />> an acceptable end in and of itself. So who cares if you're a <br />> twit...as long as you kick trojan a**, youre a de facto hero.<br /><br />I'm not so sure about that.<br /><br />Achilles is great because he's an aristocrat. His sulkiness when slighted was probably quite familiar and understandable to Homer's original aristo audience. Of course he was a good fighter, too.<br /><br />But I don't think "understandable == acceptable" in most world views, and considering the Iliad starts off with a brief summary of the horrors caused by Achilles' wrath, I don't think Homer or his audience thought Achilles was a great guy just because he was a badass. He's responsible for many deaths, including his friend's, and Homer doesn't gloss that over.<br /><br />I mean, The Odyssey's main character isn't exactly a very nice guy either: clever, certainly, and successful, but not exactly heroic or principled.<br /><br />The best literature, even if fantastic, gives us beings with flaws. Without them, you get no story, as I mentioned earlier.<br /><br />So, Achilles' fighting prowess might have been considered a thing to emulate, but I doubt very much the Greeks thought his attitude was something to copy, any more than was Agamemnon's. Later Greek philosophers call Homer to task on things like this.<br /><br />--<br />wm<br />
