I am still too dumb to enjoy and understand the Iliad. Should I still force myself to power through...

I am still too dumb to enjoy and understand the Iliad. Should I still force myself to power through ? About 100 pages in, but I don't get any pleasure from it.

Attached: A1sXol13HML.jpg (1769x2560, 1.09M)

No one is too dumb to understand the Illiad on a surface level. You probably didn't go into it with proper background knowledge on Greek mythology, you are reading a poor translation, or a mix of the two.

The translation is fine I think, it's just really difficult to read and I find myself having to look up a recap of each chapter after reading them to understand what is going on. I just want to get on with the more philosophical stuff.

It’s wirth it even if you dont like it because with it you’ll have a more complex understanding of western literature.

If you're struggling with the Iliad you're not going to make it far with "the more philosophical stuff". I advise that you read some secondary sources on Greek literature and history before proceeding.

Other Greek texts are much more dense than the Iliad, so you should power through. I would recommend the Anthony Varity translation from Oxford, it has a great introduction, helpful notes, and a glossary.

Platon thinks Homer's work is degenerate which is the reason I won't be wasting my time with Homer's books anytime soon

The Iliad isn't a book that throws ideas in your face page after page. Its thematic content develops slowly over the course of the poem. Not a lot *happens* in the first 15-25 percent of the Iliad other than exposition.

If you're not getting any pleasure from the first 100 pages, it means you're just not picking up what Homer is putting down.. It likely means that you don't have enough background in areas like the portrayal of war or the role of the epic in ancient societies.

The first 100 pages of the Iliad speak volumes on the nature of war, though. I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I'd recommend watching / rewatching / reconsidering action movies you've watched and compared their portrayal of violence to that presented in the Iliad. If you try to do that and don't really find the task meaningful or insightful, I don't think you'll be able to get a whole lot out of the Iliad, and that's okay. Not going to tell you what to do either way but I hope this helps you figure out where you stand with respect to the Iliad's complexity.

Play Age of Mythology.

What translation are you reading?

Fagles' and Shewring's feels like biting the leathery sole of an old shoe, Lattimore is passable

I'd recommend reading the Odyssey first. It's much more direct than the Iliad imo, and has an easier narrative to follow. Doing this, plus reading some secondary literature of just finding some lectures on the internet about the background should help you a lot.

i only read shit i find interesting. if i understand something has worth but it isn't connecting after a proper try i stick it on the shelf for later. fuck reading 100 pages of pure nothing

>he's not thoroughly enjoying the ship catalogue
You're never going to make it

In all seriousness, use this map and keep using extra information like the ones you are using and others are suggesting itt. Also yes do keep powering through, it's worth it.

Oh fugg

Attached: homer-iliad-map.jpg (1400x1168, 383K)

Never force yourself to like a book. It's not worth it.

In my experience, reading the Greeks is easier with two useful tools next to you.

1. A Dictionary, for all those slice of life objects greeks used to have, just like we have computers or HDMI wires.

2. Google to search and delve on characters, places and traditions of Greek Mythology. Sometimes it seems they changed the name of a character, but they usually just named them by one of their three nicknames.

It could be a little difficult and dull to read like this, but once you passed the first chapter, it gets easier and easier, and then you will follow the story without problems even without these two tools.

Remember, we no need historical context to get the Greeks, but we need it to get the plot.

I agree with this.

Source for this

Plato thought literally all poetry was degenerate didn't he

don't remember exactly, but i think it was in the republic when he talks about art

Only blasphemous people get shocked by blasphemy.

Plato was, in my opinion, near neurosis.

plato centers his thoughts with homer,it is his standard he looks to in order to see where his thoughts stand

plato references homer to everything.

He’s really just referencing cultural norms/tropes. Like we would be referencing common sayings.

That’s how popular Homer was at the time. Homer is not even one person.

if you're not a homeric unitarian then your probably a giant faggot

He criticizes how Homer describes gods and sons of gods. For example, he says that a son of a god like Achilles should never be depicted as a whiny bitch as he was in the Iliad, because then people will think being a whiny bitch is ok. Thats the problem that Plato has with poetry