And as the economist points out this is really an interpretation of our times because in no part of the Odyssey (which I've read) there is such an emphasis, it's all about coming home.

▲

dv_dt a day ago | parent | next [-]

That's a really odd thing to point out, as even the earliest written records of the Odyssey are later interpretations of what was a story passed in oral tradition. And on top that, what most of us have read, have further passed through one ore more translations. Each of the transcriptions add interpretation, especially ones that move from ancient languages to modern.

Maybe it's the modern era with brands and so many off-the-shelf prepackaged products that there is an invisibly applied assumption that there is only one true form of a product or piece of literature. That's coming from a consumerist, marketed, branded culture. Looking with a longer perspective, most archetypal stories and myths are interesting precisely with interpretation of their time making them relevant and connectable again in the time of their retelling.

	▲	bigbadfeline 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That's a really odd thing to point out, as even the earliest written records of the Odyssey are later interpretations of what was a story passed in oral tradition. It's not at all odd to point out that a movie is at odds with the common interpretation. That interpretation and the tradition that made it common should not be tainted by incompatible takes, they should be respected in order to avoid confusion and prevent the use of well known sources as promotional vehicles for war-mongering pseudo-art. If the makers of the modern movie wanted to promote a different idea, they should've named it differently without confusing the public that the original had anything to do with their fantasies.

▲

UncleMeat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A great thing about literature is that it can be expressed in different contexts. A piece of art being about one thing at one time does not mean that we cannot use that art to explore a different thing at a different time.

▲

nephihaha a day ago | parent | prev [-]

That's my interpretation. He's trying to get back to Penelope, and has bizarre adventures on the way.

▲

amanaplanacanal a day ago | parent [-]

Wait, he cares about Penelope? I thought he just wanted to get back to his kingdom.

▲

krapp a day ago | parent [-]

I liked Angela Collier's video essay about the Odyssey[0] (ostensibly about casting a Muppet version but more generally about the issues involved with adaptations in general), where she points out that modern audiences want the Odyssey to be a romance but that just isn't how ancient Greek culture worked. Odysseus and Penelope are nobles, their relationship isn't based on romance or love, it's transactional, it's about the business of entitlement and Penelope is the currency.

Of course this is an issue with adapting all ancient myths - dealing with the cultural dissonance. Odysseus, our hero, on returning home, has his female slaves killed because they were defiled by his suitors, when their bodies were his by right. This is treated as as a virtue, part of Odysseus reestablishing his rightful authority. A modern retelling could explore that dissonance a bit, with the cruel caprice of both gods and kings, and be interesting, but not popular.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdh-sn1Ino8

	▲	watwut a day ago \| parent [-]
		> This is treated as as a virtue, part of Odysseus reestablishing his rightful authority. Treating it is a virtue is very much translation dependent aspect. Some translations treats them as guilty sluts, but not all. It is a thing he does, but not necessary "virtuous" thing. Also, Penelope is actively defending her faith to him. She did not had to, she could marry a suitor and save herself a trouble. Historical arranged marriage are not romances, but people grow to have relationships to each other. People do care, just like we care about cousins, siblings or other unchoosen groups. It can grow to hate and abuse too, but those are not present in Odyssey.