At a superficial level, the climactic scene of The Odyssey, is very satisfying when considering the hero's journey narrative--the long awaited arrival of Odysseus and reunion with his beloved wife and son is coupled with the satisfying revenge of seeing Odysseus defeat those who have invaded his home for so many years in fast-paced combat. The battle itself causes us to favor Odysseus from a sheer numbers perspective, as we align with the underdog story of the four men who band together to take on the 99 evil suitors. In fact, throughout the entire poem we are led to look forward to the slaughter, as the numerous prophecies and foreshadowing throughout indicate that this is the event that will restore order in the palace and finally allow Odysseus to reclaim his rightful throne. As we dig deeper into the slaughter and consider the events leading up to it, however, the scene itself doesn't appear as satisfying as we were led to believe at the beginning of the poem, with the brutality of Odysseus' actions during the fight taking away from the fulfillment of the climactic scene that we have come to expect. In particular, the dynamic of the "good" Odysseus engaging in battle with the good-for-nothing suitors seems to falter towards the final moments of the poem, invalidating the good vs. evil paradigm, as not all of the suitors appear evil in these last moments and not all of Odysseus' actions can rationally be classified as good--regardless of the circumstances of revenge and "justice." This notion causes us to garner sympathy for the suitors in their final moments, which combined with the logistics of how the scene actually plays out, makes the climax of the poem appear surprisingly disturbing.
Whenever Homer points out that the suitors are engaging in some evil activity or should be condemned for occupying Odysseus' home, we only receive derogatory remarks about a few of the suitors, namely Antinous. It seems that for the most part, the suitors remain hopeful in their desires to court Penelope, but take a third party role behind the few leaders of the suitors. Some of the suitors, such as Amphinomus, appear very reasonable at times during the novel, expressing reluctance towards situations such as killing Telemachus: ""Friends, I've no desire to kill Telemachus, not I--it's a terrible thing to shed the blood of kings. Wait, sound out the will of the gods--that first" (16. 444-446). Despite his desire to court Penelope and as a result gain power and the king of Ithaca, Amphinomus remains loyal to Telemachus as the son of Odysseus, the rightful king. From an outsider perspective, we can't blame the suitors for their advances upon Penelope, as their assumption that Odysseus is not going to return after being gone for twenty long years is rational. The majority of the suitors simply acknowledge the logic in the scenario and decide to try their luck courting Penelope. It is the egregious actions of a few emphatic suitors, such as Antinous, that gets pinned on all of them, tarnishing the image of the suitors as a whole. Thus, when suitors like Amphinomus exhibit loyalty and refrain from disparaging Telemachus and Odysseus, we express a particular sympathy towards them, as the foreshadowing implies that all of the suitors must die, not just the ones who are blatantly disruptive within Odysseus' palace. As a result of this, when Odysseus starts to murder all the suitors in cold-blooded savagery, we quickly lose satisfaction with the situation and instead begin to express remorse towards those suitors who acted respectably but still met the same fate.
Apart from the disappointment we feel in the fact that all of the suitors must die, rather than just the ones who constantly exhibit malice, part of our dissatisfaction with the climactic scene simple results from the fact that it deviates fairly heavily from the contemporary method of depicting a hero in a final battle. In modern literature and film, it is common for the hero to approach all the secondary villains first, slaying them off before approaching the main villain in an attempt to create a buildup from the start of the battle to the climax. In The Odyssey, however, the exact opposite is the case. Often the killing of all the other less important villains is justified by the hero's insistence upon reaching and defeating the final boss, such as climbing up a ladder with the main villain being the top rung and the other enemies being every other rung--to get to the top, one must first pass by all the preceding rungs. The fact that the main villain, Antinous, is killed first makes the rest of the battle seem exceedingly unnecessary and harsh, as this notion of killing the rest of the suitors in order to reach the truly evil Antinous is now gone. Because the end task of defeating the biggest villain is completed so quickly, the notion of building up to the climax is completely forgotten, causing for a very instantaneous depiction of slaughter that throws off the contemporary reader. This notion remains at play throughout the rest of the battle, as the reader simply wants Odysseus to stop killing the respectable suitors like Amphinomus because the main offenders have already been taken care of. Going along with this, another aspect of modern hero's journey narratives that we come to expect in a hero is the concept of mercy. By exhibiting mercy at times during the literature/film, the hero reassures the reader that their sense of triumph over evil has not affected their humanity and regard for human life. Odysseus exhibits no semblance of mercy during the slaughter scene, causing the reader to have reservations with the fact that he essentially just committed mass homicide without even pausing to consider whether he should spare any men, who were defenseless for a good portion of the slaughter. Odysseus allows his desire for glory and satisfaction from the battle interfere with his sense of morality, preventing the reader from being able to sympathize with Odysseus and causing he or she to have very ambivalent feelings regarding the climax of the poem.
No comments:
Post a Comment