Talk:Odyssey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to the WikiProject Poetry. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. Visit the Poetry Portal.
	Current activities:	Shakespeare's Sonnets - Blake's Mythology - Jacopone da Todi - List of years in poetry
	Poetry stubs:	Finnish poetry - Golden Age of Russian Poetry - Italian poetry - Persian poetry Edit

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Odyssey article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Archive 2 B.C. changed to B.C.E. 3 Plot outline 4 Bard 5 Additional derivative works

[edit] Archive

For previous discussion, please see the archive.

[edit] B.C. changed to B.C.E.

I changed circa ... BC to BCE "B.C.E./C.E. ... do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B.C./A.D." Seems more fitting for an encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aka khan (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia accepts both systems. WP:DATE is the applicable guideline. WP:DATE also tells us to stay with whatever system was used first, which in this article seems to be BC/AD. So let's stick with that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot outline

The book numbers should be discreetly restored. There is still no mention in the article of the famous episode called Nekyia that is book 11. --Wetman 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a start, I put in cross-references between this article and Nekyia. Yes, what would be the "discreet" way to add the book numbers? Perhaps in bold (Book 2.) but without breaking up the text? The present outline is relatively short, so to divide it into 24 separately-headed sections would not be very "discreet". Andrew Dalby 12:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bard

i thought the old version explained how wandering bards would sing. this version just calls Homer by the two more precise terms. i would contest that bard, though introduced by the celtic tradition, is the generic term in English for any such singing wordsmith. The Jackal God 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that some people use the word in that way; the problem arose (in my mind) because, when you follow the link to bard, you find no support for that usage. It's about Celtic bards alone. If reverting, to be helpful to the user, I think you'd have to take out the link to bard or edit that article.

Some who write about Homer (including me) don't use the word "bard", or other culturally specific terms, because they carry baggage. Celtic bards (a) had a training that is described in detail in the sources, and (b) didn't mainly or normally compose epic poetry. They aren't wholly comparable either with epic singers in general, or with archaic Greek ones in particular. I (and some others) use the word "singer", and one could use it here -- I was trying to be more helpful, making a couple of links which would indicate what these singers may have been. Andrew Dalby 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a further problem, which was why I found myself rewriting some more words. The poem is far too long to have been originally composed at an oral performance. Andrew Dalby 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using the word "bard", but I think it's more helpful to direct readers to aoidos. As Andrew points out, archaic Greek epic was (probably) composed in a different way than Irish/Celtic poetry, and the subject is complex enough that it should be covered at Homer or in a separate article (maybe aoidos), since it concerns not just the Odyssey but the Iliad, and is of some interest in relation to the Theogony and other archaic poetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe use the word bard but have it linked to the article on aoidos. use of the word bard does not imply any relation to celtic or irish poetry. the wiki entry on bard is marginal and lacking. as for the length of poem compromising a performance, that is non sequiter. bards didn't recite it all at one sitting, but over the course of several days. the earlier version alluded to that, at least in my mind, lol. The Jackal God 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only at a much later period that there is evidence for "recital over several days"; "recital" in itself implies that a fixed text already exists. As I see it, the sentence is talking about the origin of that text. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

then don't use the word "recital"? the version i learned is that there were a number of wandering bards (Homer was neither the first or sole one) telling these stories known from myths. Homer didn't invent the myths he sang about; rather, it was the way in which he recited them. so yes, there was a body of oral work before Homer, which he made use of and adapted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs).

That may well be true. But the article's about the Odyssey, a text we can read in writing, and the question that particular sentence has to deal with -- by all means have another stab at it -- is how the text was composed. Andrew Dalby 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it is relevant to the school of thought that determines authorship of a work according to the person who composed it, not the one who turned an oral work into a graphic work. the odyssey existed orally before it existed graphically. i noticed the sly little argument under aoidos that follows another route, perhaps mistakenly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs).

Yes, perhaps mistakenly. I wish we knew! But why do you say sly? Andrew Dalby 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it attempts to redefine the parameters of the debate. frankly it smells like desperate skepticism, or skepticism, part II, but i do appreciate the craftiness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs).

Jackal, could you please sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ That will automatically convert to a signature with a timestamp. Signing your posts makes discussions much easier to follow.

Speaking of which, I don't really understand what you're saying: are you accusing Andrew of writing the article in an underhanded manner? Are there important sources you feel are being left out? I don't really get the drift of your remarks. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

no i'm not accusing andrew of any indecency, and sorry about the tildes, working on that. i just stated a preference for the word "bard" and dismissed the reasons for not using it. as for the "sly argument" that is in reference to another talk page referenced here, which end which a conjectural conclusion that it states is undisputedly true. The Jackal God 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think that very little in archaic Greek literary history is undisputedly true. I try not to be sly or crafty, but of course I have opinions, like others, and they may emerge in what I write. Luckily Wikipedia allows others to correct them! I have suggested, over at Talk:Aoidos, some changes to subheading or text or references that might resolve this particular problem. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC) again, i didn't in any way mean to insult you, i was referring to the structure of the argument, that is all. i respect your contributions and opinions. The Jackal God 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional derivative works

• The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes discusses self-awareness in the Odyssey that is absent in the Illiad.

• Homer's Daughter by Robert Graves retells the Odyssey from the perspective of Nausicaa, a suggestion of Samuel Butler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.159.149.162 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Jaynes' book is not really a derivative work. It's a secondary source, whereas things like Homer's Daughter are works of art that are inspired by the Odyssey. In my opinion, the Jaynes book is not worth including in the article. While it garnered a bit of publicity when it came out, it hasn't been very influential on subsequent Homeric scholarship--for instance, it is not cited in Morris & Powell's New Companion to Homer. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)