Epic Poetry

[mortalterror]

If there really is a shortage of good contemporary epic, I see this less as a democratic problem, a crisis of cynicism, or a difficulty in adapting realism to the epic so much as there's been a trend in serious literature toward internalization of conflict. The characters in a traditional epic tend to be men of action who externalize conflict, battling monsters and other heroes. These days, what passes for good writing is bloodless, ineffectual, effete males struggling with their souls.

I didn't like The Odyssey when I read it but I got how other people would. The whole thing is like an action blockbuster of the ancient world with over the top fight sequences, and larger than life machismo, testosterone pumping, bragging, boxing, sword swinging demigods. That type of character really only gets used in pulp or genre fiction these days. I don't just mean fantasy and science fiction. I bemoan the fate of some of our nation's greatest heroes, destined to be passed around by hacks writing for a juvenile audience. Bat and the Man I Sing, anyone?

However, and I know I'm reversing myself here, I would be interested in reading an epic with a completely internalized conflict, just to see how it could be done.

I may be over stretching myself here, but since epyllia have already been mentioned, what does everybody think of mock epics?

[Virgil]

If there really is a shortage of good contemporary epic, I see this less as a democratic problem, a crisis of cynicism, or a difficulty in adapting realism to the epic so much as there's been a trend in serious literature toward internalization of conflict. The characters in a traditional epic tend to be men of action who externalize conflict, battling monsters and other heroes. These days, what passes for good writing is bloodless, ineffectual, effete males struggling with their souls.

Yes, actually I meant to add another factor and that is the increasing subjectivity limited to a character rather than a shared communal view. I think by limiting the scope of the work to the thoughts and feelings of a single character the rationale for an epic is also undermined.

[JBI]

I don't think I like your reading of the Odyssey. The travels of Odysseus are only 1/6 of the story. The real story seems just an extension of Homer's thoughts on Arete.

[Petrarch's Love]

I don't think I like your reading of the Odyssey. The travels of Odysseus are only 1/6 of the story. The real story seems just an extension of Homer's thoughts on Arete.

I can only assume that this is in reference to my blog entry, which was intended, not as a comprehensive reading of the Odyssey, which does indeed include other elements in addition to the voyages (and even other elements in addition to Arete ), but as a reading specifically about the elements of fantasy in Homer, which were in turn immensely influential on countless works of literature in the western tradition.

[Virgil]

I can only assume that this is in reference to my blog entry, which was intended, not as a comprehensive reading of the Odyssey, which does indeed include other elements in addition to the voyages (and even other elements in addition to Arete ), but as a reading specifically about the elements of fantasy in Homer, which were in turn immensely influential on countless works of literature in the western tradition.

Petrarch, I think he posted before you put out your blog. I thought he was referring to Mortalterror who had posted before me.

[Petrarch's Love]

Ah, well, if that's the case then I retract the above. I somehow missed that Mortal Terror referenced the Odyssey in that post and thought no one but me had referenced it on this thread. Did Mortal actually mean to say the Iliad, since that's the one with most of the over the top fight scenes? Regardless, this was a great observation, Mortal:

These days, what passes for good writing is bloodless, ineffectual, effete males struggling with their souls.

I think it's time to bring back the epic!

[bluevictim]

I do still think that Virg. was possibly bringing up a good point in suggesting that democracy problematizes some traditional features of epic, most obviously the celebration of a noble class of warrior. American national stories like to base themselves on the premise of celebrating the "common man" (even when it is an uncommon man, we love to find common roots for him). This does mean a shift in the kind of epic stories that can be told and the way they will be told.

Absolutely. I guess I just kind of latched on to the suggestion that these differences are a significant hindrance to the creation of epics. Anyways, there are already established epics that do not celebrate the traditional noble class of warrior, like Paradise Lost and the Divine Comedy.

I also think people on this thread have been right to point out that, particularly within the last hundred years or so, there's also been a significant shift toward a more global culture, and that there is some sense that explicitly celebrating empire is not going to fly. I find this aspect of our current age very interesting and exciting in terms of the type of epic stories it could potentially produce. Perhaps, though, we should say that this is simply a new additional factor in our current age, and not one that necessarily obliterates the possibility of a work that identifies with one particular nation or culture.

Indeed, I agree that an epic celebrating empire these days would not be very popular, but I don't see celebration of empire as a very essential feature even of traditional epics. For example, I don't think the Homeric epics celebrate empire. I don't know that the shift toward a global culture is all that significant; it seems to me that nationalism is very strong today all around the world.

So, you bring up a good point, but to suggest that history books (even popular and well written ones) could function as epic is to miss the profound importance of both fiction and elements of the fantastical that are intrinsic to the epic tradition. If popular history could replace the function of epic, then we could all throw out our Virgil and read Livy instead.

Hopefully it was duly noted that, when I claim popular history books are "a little closer to the spirit of epic" than fantasy and at the same time say that fantasy is a poor substitute for epic, it consequently means that I don't think popular history books are a good substitute for epic poetry, either. Of course we shouldn't throw out Virgil and read Livy instead, but neither should we throw out Virgil for Heliodorus.

Actually, some works of art today that I think come even closer to serving the function of epics are movies like The Right Stuff. It portrays larger than life national heroes who embody many of the characteristics that Americans admire (with enough artistic license to make the point) in a national story that is a source of pride for America, set in something of a golden age of American unity and prosperity. There are even other-worldly (literally) scenes that function somewhat like the fantastic elements of an epic.

[JBI]

The Lay of the Cid seems to break all of what you have said about the required (fantastical elements). To me, the only thing constant is the concept of Arete, in one form or another. History cannot be read as an epic, because people historically don't possess Arete. It is an ideal which cannot be completely met.

[Kafka's Crow]

In his A Preface to Paradise Lost C S Lewis divides the epic tradition in two sub-traditions:

a) Primary or Homeric epic
b) Secondary or Virgilian epic

Primary epic deals with the universal whereas secondary epic deals with national themes. He puts Milton's poem in the first category.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195...pt#reader-link

[JBI]

Strange. Primary, as I seem to remember it being called, was meant to define it as stemming from the oral tradition, and therefore containing formula, and reoccurring phrases, as well as an unpolished sound, because of the repetitiveness of certain things.

Beowulf, The Lay of the Cid, Homer's Epics, and the Song of Roland seem to fall in this category, by this definition.

Secondary as I seem to remember it being called, was meant to define the property of it being written, and therefore not entirely contained within the composer/reciter's memory. Because of this, there is more freedom, and less reliance on formula, and other memory-trigger techniques.

This is at least what I remember reading in a series of criticism on the epic form. I guess though that Lewis' criticism is stemming from a period of interest in Jungian criticism, and therefore he is trying to create a form of archetypal, structuralist code for epic, based on his views. Still, even with this, I can't help but think his religious views may have decided to include Milton in primary, rather than secondary, according to his definition. To me Milton seems far more Virgilian, I being an atheist Jew.

[Virgil]

No you're correct JBI. Those are the definitions of primary and secondary epics as I understand it.

[NickAdams]

Where would you place John Gardner's Jason and Medeia?

[JBI]

I haven't read it, but I wouldn't place it as an epic, but assuming it is like Grendel, a form of criticism on an Epic, the epic being Argonautica.

[Virgil]

Where would you place John Gardner's Jason and Medeia?

I didn't know about that, nor obviously have I read it. You know he also wrote Grendel, a remake of Beowulf from the point of view of Grendel.

[NickAdams]

I haven't read it, but I wouldn't place it as an epic, but assuming it is like Grendel, a form of criticism on an Epic, the epic being Argonautica.

It's another retelling, but in verse.

What do you think about The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel by Nikos Kazantzakis?

I didn't know about that, nor obviously have I read it. You know he also wrote Grendel, a remake of Beowulf from the point of view of Grendel.

Grendel is on my list of things to read, but I want to read Beowulf first. I hope to finish The Aeneid soon, then it's on to Gilgamesh. I will follow it with Beowulf. I want to read as many epics as possible.