Would The Iliad receive anything near the acclaim and popularity it has if it was made today?Yes, I know, this changes the nature of modern literature and culture completely bla bla stfu faggot answer the question
>>25287523The Iliad's acclaim derives substantially from its 2,800-year accretion of interpretive scholarship, pedagogical canonization, and intertextual influence. None of which would exist for a contemporary work. Furthermore, the dactylic hexameter's mnemonic optimization for oral performance is utterly irrelevant in a print-digital culture, rendering the formal structure meaningless to modern audiences who lack the neurological conditioning for auditory epic reception. The work's assumed familiarity with Bronze Age material culture, theological frameworks, and honor-shame social dynamics would require extensive paratextual apparatus that would immediately disqualify it from popular contemporary reception. Any undergraduate studying reception theory could explain that literary acclaim is temporally inseparable from cultural context, making your counterfactual question analytically void from first principles.The question itself represents a catastrophic failure to understand basic literary historiography.
>>25287529>Yes, I know, this changes the nature of modern literature and culture completely bla bla stfu faggot answer the question
>>25287531The answer is obviously "no" as I just explained in a post that apparently exceeded your attentional capacity, which itself suggests you lack the sustained focus required to appreciate 15,693 lines of archaic Greek narrative, proving my point about contemporary audience inadequacy.
>>25287523>Yes, I know, this changes the nature of modern literature and culture completely Then why would you ask a question so demonstrably stupid as to be defeated by its own premise?
>>25287523Meaningles question. It couldn't be made today.
>>25287523Maybe, depending on how it was presented. The Odyssey movie is gonna make at least hundreds of millions. Hollywood still milks Homer's plot points and character dilemmas. People don't realize that not only is the poetry itself phenomenal but that Homer pretty much perfected structure and storytelling. This is why learned men call him "GOATmer."
>>25287539A bit rich trying to put him down for not reading carefully, when you just answered no for reasons he already said he doesn’t need explained - demonstrating you haven’t read carefully. >>25287529Very pedestrian and literal-minded answer to OP’s question which was clearly more about the eternal nature of art. The answer is of course yes. People (admittedly fewer) still read and enjoy Homer voluntarily, he’s still bringing profit to Hollywood producers, writers still raid him to considerable success. Picasso said if a work of art cannot live forever in the present it must not be considered at all. Homer might not be surprised his work is still known today, but he would be greatly surprised, however, to know it is studied in classrooms, conned by scholars, dissected by pedants and fed in synthetic and quite distasteful doses to students.
>>25288258>but he would be greatly surprised, however, to know it is studied in classroomsI've never heard this argument but from the mouth of midwits
>Would The Iliad receive anything near the acclaim and popularity it has if it was made today?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneid
>>25288280Propounded by those famous midwits, Montaigne and Samuel Butler.
Gilgamesh derivative. Snooze
It's like Weird Al said. There's no point in doing parodies anymore because we no longer have the central focal point that MTV gave us where there was generally just one or few few big things that everyone knew. That ubiquity whcih once made such parodies relatable to such a wide audience is no longer there. It just wouldn't make sense. I am perhaps paraphrasing a bit.Regardless, The Iliad was written in the 8th century BCE to preserve a rich oral tradition and celebrate the legendary exploits of the Mycenaean civilization. Attributed to the poet Homer, it served to define ancient Greek cultural identity, explore the tragic realities of war, and establish the heroic code.It had shared meaning which was already pervading the consciousness of the people, their very way of life, before pen was ever put to paper.That is why Sam Hyde is the closest to a modern day Homer. He speaks as the voice of a collective of people who are experiencing the same thing. It is not that what he says is new, but that as he speaks the truth of what we already know is remembered.Like Homer, his work is not that of a grand new creation. It serves more as a reminder of who we are as a people.
>>25288310>reductionist Wikipedia analysis of the Iliad>followed by ‘Sam Hyde is the modern day Homer’>followed by the unimaginably basic mawkishness of ‘a reminder of who we are as a people.’
>>25287523The trojan war and Homer’s Iliad were widely popularized in Elizabethan England. There was great interest when George Chapman began publishing the first major english translations of Homer’s epic in 1598. Billy Shakes held a highly skeptical, cynical, and "anti-Homeric" view of the iliad. He used his play Troilus and Cressida to systematically strip away the romance of war and deconstruct the concept of ancient heroism. We live in a similar time where war is anything but romantic.
>>25287529Moreover, people these days feel poetry is for fags
>>25287540>but I DID have breakfast this morning!
Books released today face huge hurdles to receiving recognitionBut the Iliad is uniquely bad, even if it were released in 1880 it would be rightly viewed as the trash it is and relegated to the dustbin of literatureThe only value the Iliad has is historical, it's not even good compared to other ancient Greek literature, which all pales in comparison to the stuff the romans wrotePretty much everyone who claims they like the Iliad is a larper, it's objectively a pretty terrible book. Like there's an entire book that's just describing the minor characters that make up some fleet.
>>25287523I think people would enjoy it pretty much the same as they already do. People today consider it great no matter how many anachronistic elements it includes - and these are many. The Iliad is a proven timeless masterpiece.
>>25287523There's no way to make it today. Cultural touchstones don't work that way. You can go back to pre-printing press times and find some analogies, something like Beowulf perhaps, or the early Arthurian legends, something that becomes ingrained with mythology and people's idea of identity. Song of Roland is a candidate, El Cid. The Sagas are an edge case because while they're important for defining a people, they weren't really adopted by the now christianized regions, who might have liked the stories but were now alienated from them given the "barbaric" and "pagan" origins. I think you could also see a revivalist version of this, not super realistic, but consider how the jews managed to revive Hebrew to sell a nationalist idea of Israel. Now imagine Iranians revived the persian identity, and formed it around their zoroastrian heritage. Or imagine an Iraq returning to monke and embracing Gilgamesh as their origin story. How they manage to shitcan the third leg of judaism I'll leave to better imaginations, but for another analogy of what it might look like consider the Hindu nationalists weaponizing their religion and myths to form the identity of their heritage.
>>25288423Homer knew as well as anyone the correct response to war was not romance. A careful reading suggests his implicit attitude seemed to be a loathing of war. The battles were cartoons to sate reactionary and anti-intellectual audience. He barely bothered to get his military background accurate, his fighting is a careless muddle and he indiscriminately mixed up modern and outmoded weapons. He was really contemptuous of the stupidities of war.
