I had a quick check, looking for an overview about Achilles, and in seconds it was obvious I was looking at cringe seethe. Moderns bitterly resent Achilles - which is an impressive commitment to Envy, considering Homer's Achilles is a fictional character. Like, you gonna whine at Superman for stealing your job next? "Batman, y u no vigilance mai streeeet?" How unfair.
Seems Achilles was, like, actually heroic. He has the right enemies.
Although rather more flawed than suits my personal taste. As if he was strongly based on a real person, perhaps. E.g. Achilles is very excitable, almost as if young vital men are often excitable or impulsive. His record of partial successes also seems to have painful levels of verisimilitude.
By contrast, let's check in with how Cliff describes Achilles. I find Cliff to be an excellent communicator of the Akademic dogma. "Agamemnon, of course, is as guilty of creating the ensuing disorder as Achilles is, but Achilles seems petulant and argumentative. He is undermining the little harmony that does exist."
Cliff wants to take all responsibility away from Agamemnon - the king - and put it on Achilles, in a futile, counter-productive attempt to diminish Achilles. "Poor little king couldn't possible handle one of his soldier who happened to be youthful." Cliff wants this because he's accurately conveying what Akademia has decided shall be the Orthodox view of Achilles.
Why are Akademics like this? Because Agamemnon was a traitor. Akedemics love traitors, because of course they do.
Unlike e.g. Frodo, Achilles is a genuine protagonist. He drives events. He accomplishes goals. He stops a plague, and he defeats his rival. He breaks the Trojan army's back to clear the way for the Acheans. He even demonstrates pursuit of virtue, with a commitment to growth despite having reached his full physical height.
No wonder Akademics and voters hate him so.
No comments:
Post a Comment