Blog 1: Gender Roles/Hypocritical Justice
Through the trilogy of plays in “The Oresteia”, which are “Agamemnon”,” The Libation Bearers”, and “The Eumenides”, there are a few core themes and prominent ideals being shown. One of them being gender roles and how women were viewed in Greek/Athenian society. In “Agamemnon”, the daughter Iphigenia was treated as a sacrificial pawn, her death being overlooked and accepted by all of the kingdom besides her mother. Even her own siblings showed no remorse or outrage at this matter, believing it was just and necessary. Later on in “The Libation Bearers”, there was a group of women who were treated as slaves and were overlooked by Clytemnestra and her new co-ruler. Only her daughter and son, Elektra and Orestes, hear these women out, but only barely. It was more so to get information, not them actually caring what they had to say or thought. Finally, in “The Eumenides”, the role of women and them being mothers was completely overshadowed by the man, stating that the man is above all and the woman is only a carrier of life, while man creates it. This characterization completely underhands women and their equal part in society, stating that it is not nearly as important as the role of the man, even going as far as to use the powerful female goddess Athena to portray this message. They characterize women by having a woman state this, which only works to prop the male gender onto a pedestal with a greater importance. In the same play, the rights of Clytemnestra were easily overlooked and Orestes was able to walk free. Her claim to matricide and justice was paraded by the Furies, yet quickly overlooked in Athenas ruling.
Another core theme shown throughout the trilogy, would be the hypocritical nature of reasons for revenge and vengeance seeking. Clytemnestra and Orestes, when a comparison is made between their reasoning for killing who they killed, they overlap several times. In overlapping their reasonings, one sees how power and irrationality prevails through these murderous acts. Clytemnestra killed her husband for the murder of their daughter, yet is mad at Orestes for committing the same act. He killed her for killing his father, his blood, yet she is unable to see this reasoning. Orestes is also at wrong for hypocrisy, believing his right to kill Clytemnestra is greater than her right to kill his father. They killed their respective victims for the same reasons, yet each state theirs is different and greater. Having this hypocrisy highlights how often hypocrisy and irrationality intermingles in situations of revenge and justice. People often only believe rules or rights apply to their justice seeking, not others. This also shows how justice is often different from each perspective. Clytemnestra and the Furries views justice differently than Elektra, Apollo, and Orestes. Justice, at least how it relates to the play, depends on ones perspective. Anyone of these characters can be thought of “in the right” or “in the wrong”, it all depends on perspective.
Another core theme shown throughout the trilogy, would be the hypocritical nature of reasons for revenge and vengeance seeking. Clytemnestra and Orestes, when a comparison is made between their reasoning for killing who they killed, they overlap several times. In overlapping their reasonings, one sees how power and irrationality prevails through these murderous acts. Clytemnestra killed her husband for the murder of their daughter, yet is mad at Orestes for committing the same act. He killed her for killing his father, his blood, yet she is unable to see this reasoning. Orestes is also at wrong for hypocrisy, believing his right to kill Clytemnestra is greater than her right to kill his father. They killed their respective victims for the same reasons, yet each state theirs is different and greater. Having this hypocrisy highlights how often hypocrisy and irrationality intermingles in situations of revenge and justice. People often only believe rules or rights apply to their justice seeking, not others. This also shows how justice is often different from each perspective. Clytemnestra and the Furries views justice differently than Elektra, Apollo, and Orestes. Justice, at least how it relates to the play, depends on ones perspective. Anyone of these characters can be thought of “in the right” or “in the wrong”, it all depends on perspective.
Blog 2 : Censorship and Bystander
The novel written by Christa Wolf titled Cassandra, tells a revised/modernized contemporary version of the classic Greek myth of Cassandra. The premise of the novel holds true to the myth, her background remains unchanged and the passing of the Trojan War remains largely unchanged, however the perspective of Cassandra herself is given in this version, unlike retellings of the past. Her situation was largely discarded and not told, which has to do with how women were viewed in Greek society. With that, there were two main core themes prevalent in Christa Wolf’s retelling. That being woman and and their perceived place in society, and a reflection on the nature of war.
Cassandra finds herself reflecting on what has taken place around her, and resulted in her upcoming demise by the hands of Clytemnestra. Reflecting on the Trojan War, and the common themes surrounding it. Due to Christa Wolf’s upbringing in East Germany right after World War Two, commonalities can be drawn and seen that many of the political themes and tensions were modernized ideals from Christa’s climate. One such idea was censorship. Being a writer in East Germany, Christa Wolf faced stark censorship, finding one of her writings banned from East Germany book stores do to a somewhat controversial political stance as it relates to East German/ Communist perspectives. This idea was shown through Cassandra being silenced by the royal family when she tried to speak out about the killing of Achilles and the lie of Helen being in Troy. She was shut out, told to stay quiet, and was forced to watch the consequences of those actions, that being the fall of her country. Another part of war shown through the novel, would be how one gets caught in the war machine and swept into its consuming nature. Reflecting on the continuous nature of the last World War and the ensuing Cold War, the characters in the novel were shown as bystanders to the machine itself. Cassandra wanted no part of this, yet her abdication from participating still resulted in her being a victim of war. She became a prisoner and slaughtered by the enemy, even though she tried her best to stay out of the political and war mongering nature of her brethren. When war strikes, one cannot “abdicate” from participating, they are participating whether they like it or not. Either as a casualty, or a perpetuator.
Another theme showcased was the stance of woman in Greek society. Cassandra’s myth originally had come from male viewpoints, and on the off chance it was not the case, it still was given in a taste that was poorly reflected towards women. Christa Wolf’s rendition showed how poorly Cassandra’s place in society truly was, and how little grasp on her own personal circumstances she had. She was a victim of the men around her, having a voice, a prophetic voice even, but still silenced when she was right. This reflected well to, at the time, climate surrounding women’s place in modernized society and their rights to participate. It showcased how in most instances, women were a casualty of war, and often times were not participators in what caused them to be so.
In all, Christa Wolf’s retelling of Cassandra’s myth was done so with modernized themes thrown into the story, which helped to show the problems in today’s society, while also giving historical groupings through a story in how this problem has been standing throughout centuries. It was not just a problem in Christa Wolf’s time, but throughout most of human history.
Cassandra finds herself reflecting on what has taken place around her, and resulted in her upcoming demise by the hands of Clytemnestra. Reflecting on the Trojan War, and the common themes surrounding it. Due to Christa Wolf’s upbringing in East Germany right after World War Two, commonalities can be drawn and seen that many of the political themes and tensions were modernized ideals from Christa’s climate. One such idea was censorship. Being a writer in East Germany, Christa Wolf faced stark censorship, finding one of her writings banned from East Germany book stores do to a somewhat controversial political stance as it relates to East German/ Communist perspectives. This idea was shown through Cassandra being silenced by the royal family when she tried to speak out about the killing of Achilles and the lie of Helen being in Troy. She was shut out, told to stay quiet, and was forced to watch the consequences of those actions, that being the fall of her country. Another part of war shown through the novel, would be how one gets caught in the war machine and swept into its consuming nature. Reflecting on the continuous nature of the last World War and the ensuing Cold War, the characters in the novel were shown as bystanders to the machine itself. Cassandra wanted no part of this, yet her abdication from participating still resulted in her being a victim of war. She became a prisoner and slaughtered by the enemy, even though she tried her best to stay out of the political and war mongering nature of her brethren. When war strikes, one cannot “abdicate” from participating, they are participating whether they like it or not. Either as a casualty, or a perpetuator.
Another theme showcased was the stance of woman in Greek society. Cassandra’s myth originally had come from male viewpoints, and on the off chance it was not the case, it still was given in a taste that was poorly reflected towards women. Christa Wolf’s rendition showed how poorly Cassandra’s place in society truly was, and how little grasp on her own personal circumstances she had. She was a victim of the men around her, having a voice, a prophetic voice even, but still silenced when she was right. This reflected well to, at the time, climate surrounding women’s place in modernized society and their rights to participate. It showcased how in most instances, women were a casualty of war, and often times were not participators in what caused them to be so.
In all, Christa Wolf’s retelling of Cassandra’s myth was done so with modernized themes thrown into the story, which helped to show the problems in today’s society, while also giving historical groupings through a story in how this problem has been standing throughout centuries. It was not just a problem in Christa Wolf’s time, but throughout most of human history.
Blog 3 : Manipulation and Never Ending Cycles
Through a modernized lens and themes, the Oresteia has been born again in House of Names by Colm Tóibín. In this interpretation of the classic Greek myth, Tóibín has taken taken the story to the next level by giving more of a voice to Clytemnestra and Electra, while also giving a background and a greater understanding (in his own version of the story) of Orestes. This new rendition highlights central themes of manipulation, cycles of similar tragedy, the voices of women, and corruption of power.
Firstly, this new take dove into a great deal of manipulation, which mostly surrounded the idea of Orestes being the victim. Being that Orestes was a child when he was sent away, a sense of belonging was absent, instilling in him a need to do anything in order to be with a family, his family. With that, when he finally came back home he was willing to do anything to live with them, however there were people who wished to prey on this feeling. His older sister Electra saw this vulnerability, and approached him with an offer of familiar ties, while using this to manipulate him to kill their mother for her. The want to kill his mother, was coming directly from Electra. This will was not of his own. His weakness was preyed upon, his lack of understanding and youthful ignorance were tools for someone else’s bidding. The idea of him being manipulated, was even shown through how Tóibín structured the book. He wrote Electra and Clytemnestra and Electra’s portion in first person, while Orestes was in third. Doing this, helped to show how much Orestes was missing out, and how everything was confusing him. The reader saw what was moving around him, but he could not.
Going back to how the book was structured, that being first person perspective was given to the two dominant female leads, shows how powerful a female character was, giving them a voice. Often times Greek myths left out the importance of the voices of women, believing they were not important to the story. However, Tóibín worked to break this cycle, giving classic already established Greek characters, a story and voice. In doing so, this shows a push for female empowerment and lean towards realizing the importance of all voices in literature. Sticking to one archetype does nothing but leave out other important parts, it is an incomplete story. By using all people, inclusively, a complete story can be created.
Another prominent theme throughout the novel was the idea of tragedy going through cycles. Agamemnon killed Iphigenia, Clytemnestra killed him for doing so, and Orestes (pushed by Electra) killed Clytemnestra, and then Orestes was wanted to be killed for committing this act. It was one murder following another murder, on and on. Showing this, made the nature of these types of acts known; they are never ending. Once it starts, it will keep going and going, because one will always find a reason to kill the murderer, over and over again. Murder calls for murder, it is a story that writes itself, a self-fulfilling prophecy. In addition to this, the idea of power corrupting people was highlighted as well. The people who did these acts, were those who sought power and status. It almost made the connection that power corrupted the mind, which in turned called for murder as a result of another murder. They played off of each other, fueling and sparking one another on and on, driving one mad.
House of Names aimed to take a classical Greek myth, modernize it, and showcase important thematic lessons.
Firstly, this new take dove into a great deal of manipulation, which mostly surrounded the idea of Orestes being the victim. Being that Orestes was a child when he was sent away, a sense of belonging was absent, instilling in him a need to do anything in order to be with a family, his family. With that, when he finally came back home he was willing to do anything to live with them, however there were people who wished to prey on this feeling. His older sister Electra saw this vulnerability, and approached him with an offer of familiar ties, while using this to manipulate him to kill their mother for her. The want to kill his mother, was coming directly from Electra. This will was not of his own. His weakness was preyed upon, his lack of understanding and youthful ignorance were tools for someone else’s bidding. The idea of him being manipulated, was even shown through how Tóibín structured the book. He wrote Electra and Clytemnestra and Electra’s portion in first person, while Orestes was in third. Doing this, helped to show how much Orestes was missing out, and how everything was confusing him. The reader saw what was moving around him, but he could not.
Going back to how the book was structured, that being first person perspective was given to the two dominant female leads, shows how powerful a female character was, giving them a voice. Often times Greek myths left out the importance of the voices of women, believing they were not important to the story. However, Tóibín worked to break this cycle, giving classic already established Greek characters, a story and voice. In doing so, this shows a push for female empowerment and lean towards realizing the importance of all voices in literature. Sticking to one archetype does nothing but leave out other important parts, it is an incomplete story. By using all people, inclusively, a complete story can be created.
Another prominent theme throughout the novel was the idea of tragedy going through cycles. Agamemnon killed Iphigenia, Clytemnestra killed him for doing so, and Orestes (pushed by Electra) killed Clytemnestra, and then Orestes was wanted to be killed for committing this act. It was one murder following another murder, on and on. Showing this, made the nature of these types of acts known; they are never ending. Once it starts, it will keep going and going, because one will always find a reason to kill the murderer, over and over again. Murder calls for murder, it is a story that writes itself, a self-fulfilling prophecy. In addition to this, the idea of power corrupting people was highlighted as well. The people who did these acts, were those who sought power and status. It almost made the connection that power corrupted the mind, which in turned called for murder as a result of another murder. They played off of each other, fueling and sparking one another on and on, driving one mad.
House of Names aimed to take a classical Greek myth, modernize it, and showcase important thematic lessons.
Blog 4 : A Hero's Journey
The journey of Odysseus has been told through Homer’s The Odyssey, which was told from a collection of oral traditional stories passed down generation to generation in the times of the Greeks. However, Homer’s story only tells a interpretation of the events. The Lost Books of the Odyssey by Zachary Mason has tried to emulate the original method of storytelling in where the characters and stories are every changing, like a game of telephone. By doing this, he has effectively showed a plethora of versions of Odysseus, his family and travelers, and other characters met throughout the tale. A lot of the chapters are a about Odysseus, however a different one. Same core character traits, but still different. With this, Mason was able to add alternative views to the hero archetypes, break down what it means to be heroic, and also worked against the grain of how stories are told, structure wise and narratively. Breaking the timeline, changing perspective, and even reworking the same idea over again and again, changing in itself.
For starters, Mason has taken an already dubbed hero, and shown all the angles and sides of this character. He dove past the common archetype of loyalty, perfection, and being powerful. Instead, showing the traits that are not favorable in being a hero, which in turn makes Odysseus as a person more believable and realistic. Odysseus was shown to be selfish and self serving in how he held himself, while still fighting for his men and team, he was always looking out with what was best for him. Shown through how he would even risk his men for “the greater good”, which could be argued as being only the greater good for him. He also was shown to be reckless, with a mighty ego. Often times in hero caricatures their ego will be shown as something to be revered and thought as powerful, it being beneficial to the journey as a whole. However, here his ego was shown to be what it actually is, a bad character trait. It blinded him, gave him a reckless sense of confidence, choosing to do harder or more roundabout “adventures” if it meant it worked into stroking his ego. By showing the other side of the hero, Mason drew up a more relatable rendition of Odysseus, while the differing versions throughout the chapters also worked to make sure most readers could find an Odysseus they connected with. If one chapter’s picture didn’t fit, just keep reading, a later chapter might fit that puzzle piece.
Mason also changed how stories are told, breaking the more favorable approach of linear storytelling in narratives. One chapter might be in the middle of the journey, the next could be years before, the next after that might be at the end of the journey. By doing this he worked into the idea of oral traditional storytelling even more. Oral stories are not always linear, they could jump back in forth, changing timeline, characters, personality, etc. In writing it in a similar manner, Mason yet agains pays homage to the stories origin, while keeping the ideas of its alive in that stories are ever changing. The same character’s story can be told over and over again by different authors, and every time it will be a different and unique story.
As a whole, Mason wrote these different chapters as if they were pieces to different books, hence the title of the work. In doing this, he could show all the sides of the idea of a hero, while still staying true to the common conception that Odysseus was good in most senses of the word. It was not to bash or hate the character, but to make it relatable and more digestible for readers. Something they can connect with.
For starters, Mason has taken an already dubbed hero, and shown all the angles and sides of this character. He dove past the common archetype of loyalty, perfection, and being powerful. Instead, showing the traits that are not favorable in being a hero, which in turn makes Odysseus as a person more believable and realistic. Odysseus was shown to be selfish and self serving in how he held himself, while still fighting for his men and team, he was always looking out with what was best for him. Shown through how he would even risk his men for “the greater good”, which could be argued as being only the greater good for him. He also was shown to be reckless, with a mighty ego. Often times in hero caricatures their ego will be shown as something to be revered and thought as powerful, it being beneficial to the journey as a whole. However, here his ego was shown to be what it actually is, a bad character trait. It blinded him, gave him a reckless sense of confidence, choosing to do harder or more roundabout “adventures” if it meant it worked into stroking his ego. By showing the other side of the hero, Mason drew up a more relatable rendition of Odysseus, while the differing versions throughout the chapters also worked to make sure most readers could find an Odysseus they connected with. If one chapter’s picture didn’t fit, just keep reading, a later chapter might fit that puzzle piece.
Mason also changed how stories are told, breaking the more favorable approach of linear storytelling in narratives. One chapter might be in the middle of the journey, the next could be years before, the next after that might be at the end of the journey. By doing this he worked into the idea of oral traditional storytelling even more. Oral stories are not always linear, they could jump back in forth, changing timeline, characters, personality, etc. In writing it in a similar manner, Mason yet agains pays homage to the stories origin, while keeping the ideas of its alive in that stories are ever changing. The same character’s story can be told over and over again by different authors, and every time it will be a different and unique story.
As a whole, Mason wrote these different chapters as if they were pieces to different books, hence the title of the work. In doing this, he could show all the sides of the idea of a hero, while still staying true to the common conception that Odysseus was good in most senses of the word. It was not to bash or hate the character, but to make it relatable and more digestible for readers. Something they can connect with.
Blog 5 : Mortal Empowerment
Circe by Madeline Miller does an excellent job in revising the life of the greek character Circe by giving her own point of view and narrative a story. Before, Circe was a side character in other people’s journeys and lives. However in this story, she is the main protagonist, the one who all the focus is directed towards. In a way, Circe has taken the myth of Circe and greek characters that surround her and her family, and modernized it in a way in which to promote more progressive and feminist motifs. Breaking the stereotype of common values placed on women in greek myths.
Firstly, when discussing greek myth and the place and status that women have in society, one must understand that in most cases they were overlooked, overshadowed, and forgotten. There was no importance placed on them in literature, other than the female gods. Even though, they still bow down to their “male superiors”. Understanding this common greek trope, one can see the distinct break in Madeline Miller’s rendition using greek myth and literature as her draw of inspiration. Circe was not just a “evil witch”, one who was looked at as crazy and emotionless. No, in this story she was given a life, emotions relationships, reasons for why she does what she did. Instead of just saying, for example, that she turned men into pigs with no explanation as to why she would be doing so, Madeline Miller created a reasoning for it. She was traumatized by men who she tried to help, she was taken advantage of. In a way, she had a sort of post traumatic stress associated with men, which resulted in her reacting the way she did. By giving a reason for why she would do the transformations that she did, it gives power to her, and humanizes her. It applies logic and reasoning to a piece of society that often times in literature, was overlooked.
In other ways, Circe was also shown as a strong individual, in charge of her own fate in the end. She had taken heat and pain from her family, living in a forced exile due to a fear of her emanating from them due to a sort of ignorance. Over time, she realized that the exile she was living, was due to her belief in the gods powers, and believing that they were right to do so, that they were right about her dangerous potential. Realizing this, she found that she did not have to bow down to them, she didn’t have to believe that they were right just because they are gods. They can be wrong, and they can be bad. Finding this, she was able to break her hold that her father had on her and end her exile. Her life was in her own hands.
Circe also does a wonderful job of romanticizing humanity in a good way. Often times humanity in novels are portrayed to be too idealistic, and only show the good portions. However, Madeline Miller shows plenty of the bad things that humanity has to offer, yet besides all that she shows how an immortal being still wishes to have humanity, to be mortal. Despite seeing the horrors of humans, and the capacity of evil they have within them, Circe sees the good portions. The hope they hold, the ability to love life and time, and to take nothing for granted. Romanticizing something can be bad, if it does not take a step back in the end and show the bad portions of it. When both are considered, then something real and tangible can be articulated.
In the end, Madeline Miller created a story that broke the common mold of female greek characters, showing strength in individuals and other untouched members of society, while also commenting on the beauty of humans. The beauty of being mortal itself.
Firstly, when discussing greek myth and the place and status that women have in society, one must understand that in most cases they were overlooked, overshadowed, and forgotten. There was no importance placed on them in literature, other than the female gods. Even though, they still bow down to their “male superiors”. Understanding this common greek trope, one can see the distinct break in Madeline Miller’s rendition using greek myth and literature as her draw of inspiration. Circe was not just a “evil witch”, one who was looked at as crazy and emotionless. No, in this story she was given a life, emotions relationships, reasons for why she does what she did. Instead of just saying, for example, that she turned men into pigs with no explanation as to why she would be doing so, Madeline Miller created a reasoning for it. She was traumatized by men who she tried to help, she was taken advantage of. In a way, she had a sort of post traumatic stress associated with men, which resulted in her reacting the way she did. By giving a reason for why she would do the transformations that she did, it gives power to her, and humanizes her. It applies logic and reasoning to a piece of society that often times in literature, was overlooked.
In other ways, Circe was also shown as a strong individual, in charge of her own fate in the end. She had taken heat and pain from her family, living in a forced exile due to a fear of her emanating from them due to a sort of ignorance. Over time, she realized that the exile she was living, was due to her belief in the gods powers, and believing that they were right to do so, that they were right about her dangerous potential. Realizing this, she found that she did not have to bow down to them, she didn’t have to believe that they were right just because they are gods. They can be wrong, and they can be bad. Finding this, she was able to break her hold that her father had on her and end her exile. Her life was in her own hands.
Circe also does a wonderful job of romanticizing humanity in a good way. Often times humanity in novels are portrayed to be too idealistic, and only show the good portions. However, Madeline Miller shows plenty of the bad things that humanity has to offer, yet besides all that she shows how an immortal being still wishes to have humanity, to be mortal. Despite seeing the horrors of humans, and the capacity of evil they have within them, Circe sees the good portions. The hope they hold, the ability to love life and time, and to take nothing for granted. Romanticizing something can be bad, if it does not take a step back in the end and show the bad portions of it. When both are considered, then something real and tangible can be articulated.
In the end, Madeline Miller created a story that broke the common mold of female greek characters, showing strength in individuals and other untouched members of society, while also commenting on the beauty of humans. The beauty of being mortal itself.
Blog 6 : Perspectives and Power
Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad tells the story of Penelope herself, in a more detailed expression as opposed to her introduction as a side minor character in Homer’s rendition. Telling the tale of her life from her own perspective and retelling of the narrative, with the added perspective from Penelope’s maids as well. Penelope and the maids both retelling the story from the dead, thousands of years in the future as a sort of retrospective reflection. The story itself was a beautiful tale made possible by Atwood’s use of varying perspective, change in prose in stylistic writing, as well as by commenting on real world systems, such as patriarchy and or corruption in power.
As it relates to perspective, Atwood had to major points of view. The first being Penelope herself. Her character introduction and story has proven that she can be an unreliable narrator, as she sometimes falls victim to her blinded love for her husband, as well as her inability to accept responsibility fully for her usage of the power she was bestowed with. However, this unreliableness makes her a great character, and a great person in which to receive a story from someone. It is realistic, as often people depict stories with personal bias. By inflicting the bias in a very blatant manner, Atwood has created a character in which we cannot fully trust, which leaves us diving deeper into the text to find the truth, which creates more engagement with the story itself. A story that creates more engagement from the reader, already is off to a good start. In addition to Penelope’s perspective, we are given the collective perspective of the maids. With this perspective, their collective memories is regarded as their reality of the situation and history. As close to an unbiased perspective one can present. By giving these wildly different perspectives, Atwood creates a battle between fact and fiction, which in turn requires the reader to look closer as to what really had been happening. Yet again, creating more engagement works in the readers favor as it relates to the take away from the read.
Atwood also made a change in the manner of which displaying the narrative when the perspective changed. Penelope’s chapters and perspectives were shown as a normal recounting of the events straight from herself, while the maids tales were written in more stylistic manner, like poem, plays/songs, even more intense manners such as through the lens of a court setting. By changing the way how the narrative is written, Atwood works to create a portion of the story for every readers more personal tastes. It reaches out to more by tapping into the certain readers likes of poetry, plays, and intensity of moments.
Another part that worked in the books favor that makes it a quality read for many, would be its simplistic commentary on big themes, such as corruption in power and patriarchy. The idea of men in power, and the oppression some men inflict upon other members is shown throughout Penelope’s story. The suitors and their attitudes towards Penelope as well as their lust for “claiming” her and her power, shows the hierarchy clearly. Penelope holds the power, yet cannot use it completely and without dissension from others. The suitors see her as the key, nothing else. Penelope’s husband Odysseus also shows this idea of patriarchy as well. He often leaves his wife to her whims, yet will show up and demand for complete control. Like when he revealed himself, took over again, then left again. He barged in, took “his” power, and then ran off leaving Penelope in his wake. The idea of power corrupting was also shown, in that both Penelope and Odysseus felt this. Upon receiving power, they soon gained the attitude that they deserved more control over people and the system than others. As shown by Odysseus believing it is his place to murder who he pleases (the suitors and maids), as well as Penelope using the maids for her own personal plans. Both believed the power they held gave them the right to deserve to do what they did. It corrupted them.
In the end, The Penelopiad tells a story about the dangers of power and patriarchal and other like minded hierarchal systems, all the while changing and breaking the normal conventions of a linear story by breaking perspective and styles of certain chapters and formatting.
As it relates to perspective, Atwood had to major points of view. The first being Penelope herself. Her character introduction and story has proven that she can be an unreliable narrator, as she sometimes falls victim to her blinded love for her husband, as well as her inability to accept responsibility fully for her usage of the power she was bestowed with. However, this unreliableness makes her a great character, and a great person in which to receive a story from someone. It is realistic, as often people depict stories with personal bias. By inflicting the bias in a very blatant manner, Atwood has created a character in which we cannot fully trust, which leaves us diving deeper into the text to find the truth, which creates more engagement with the story itself. A story that creates more engagement from the reader, already is off to a good start. In addition to Penelope’s perspective, we are given the collective perspective of the maids. With this perspective, their collective memories is regarded as their reality of the situation and history. As close to an unbiased perspective one can present. By giving these wildly different perspectives, Atwood creates a battle between fact and fiction, which in turn requires the reader to look closer as to what really had been happening. Yet again, creating more engagement works in the readers favor as it relates to the take away from the read.
Atwood also made a change in the manner of which displaying the narrative when the perspective changed. Penelope’s chapters and perspectives were shown as a normal recounting of the events straight from herself, while the maids tales were written in more stylistic manner, like poem, plays/songs, even more intense manners such as through the lens of a court setting. By changing the way how the narrative is written, Atwood works to create a portion of the story for every readers more personal tastes. It reaches out to more by tapping into the certain readers likes of poetry, plays, and intensity of moments.
Another part that worked in the books favor that makes it a quality read for many, would be its simplistic commentary on big themes, such as corruption in power and patriarchy. The idea of men in power, and the oppression some men inflict upon other members is shown throughout Penelope’s story. The suitors and their attitudes towards Penelope as well as their lust for “claiming” her and her power, shows the hierarchy clearly. Penelope holds the power, yet cannot use it completely and without dissension from others. The suitors see her as the key, nothing else. Penelope’s husband Odysseus also shows this idea of patriarchy as well. He often leaves his wife to her whims, yet will show up and demand for complete control. Like when he revealed himself, took over again, then left again. He barged in, took “his” power, and then ran off leaving Penelope in his wake. The idea of power corrupting was also shown, in that both Penelope and Odysseus felt this. Upon receiving power, they soon gained the attitude that they deserved more control over people and the system than others. As shown by Odysseus believing it is his place to murder who he pleases (the suitors and maids), as well as Penelope using the maids for her own personal plans. Both believed the power they held gave them the right to deserve to do what they did. It corrupted them.
In the end, The Penelopiad tells a story about the dangers of power and patriarchal and other like minded hierarchal systems, all the while changing and breaking the normal conventions of a linear story by breaking perspective and styles of certain chapters and formatting.