What I got from The Iliad:
Pantheon of Greek gods was one big hell of dysfunctional family.
Zeus was the most indecisive god ever and a terrible father who won't saved his son for fear of losing his face, so he rather just killed all of them.
The only difference between mortals and gods was just immortality and power.
Every moment of your life was literary on the whims of gods.
Heroes were only heroes if gods willed it.
One could be irrational or brave or filled by fear, weak or strong from second to second as how gods made you felt.
The admirable struggle of men and their endurance in life even as gods doomed them.
Women, mortal and immortal alike were decoration or prize or spoil of wars that could only, maybe got their way by manipulation.
Men were only worthy if they were warriors who got fame by sacking cities, stolen, enslaved and raped women and basically a mass murderer.
Women, once captured developed a severe case of stockholm syndrome that they wailed for the death of their captors.
A captured woman skilled in all arts worth 4 oxen while a tripod worth 12 oxen.
Gods was how you cheated in a game.
Never, ever bragged in front of gods, or you and your whole family will suffered the most terrible death.

To read a work of over 2000 years was in itself a fortune. To travelled back in time that far ago and glimpsed the culture and values that people hold, the life and the belief that shaped their literature was a privilege. The fact that it used to be passed orally from multiple generations and persisted to today was just majestic and in itself contained the question of why? And what it said about us.

51 ημέρες που συγκλόνισαν τον κόσμο!

There is something I want to address right off the top. Me giving the Iliad 4 stars instead of 5 is not meant as a way of diminishing or detracting from its classification as a classic of Western literature. I fully endorse it as a classic, and as an important work that contributed significantly to Western civilization. That said, I cannot in good conscience give it a top rating when it comes to its content as a whole. I will explain why.

This work glorifies violence, death and destruction on almost every page. Homer was not shy about providing graphic and gratuitous detail when describing death. I, of course, do realize that he was a poet of his time and that glory in battle, bravery, honor, etc, were all valued more highly than almost anything else. Me acknowledging the former doesn't make the content any less disturbing; nor does it make it any more beautiful. One also should take into account that this was originally considered a religious work. In all probability, the violence was considered glorious and an acceptable spectacle for the deities of ancient Greece (i.e. blood offering/human sacrifice). The Achaeans and the Trojans are not even the main actors, really; they are simply the pawns in a divine game of chess: from Paris' stealing of Helen, to Agamemnon's stealing of Briseis from Achilles, to Achilles' resentment and refusal to fight, to Hector's blood lust, vainglory and eventual death, etc etc--all are laid at the feet of the will of the Greek deities. The Greek deities are of course incredibly capricious and egomaniacal (one can understand why some Greek philosophers thought that Homer was guilty of blasphemy); they are suspicious of one another and all secretly jealous of Zeus. They often conspire against Zeus when they happen to favor a certain side in the war. Zeus is also not omniscient, nor omnipresent; he does get tricked by other deities and does not always have full control over events. At first, one is lead to believe Zeus favors the Trojans, but as I hinted at above, he capriciously turns against them in the end. One is left to extrapolate that the deities' favoritism is tied in with how many sacrifices and offerings they received, but certain actions that they take offense at can also cause them to abandon a side or a particular fighter. In some cases, it isn't really clear why Zeus or the other deities do what they do or allow what they allow.

One notices a theme with two notable epics of polytheistic religion: like the Mahabharata, the Iliad is a kind of mytho-theological work set within the backdrop of a war. Like the gods of the Iliad, Krishna is also notably capricious. There must be some lesson in futility that polytheistic religions meant to get across by making death and destruction the springboard for theology. It also could be that fate/karma is best illustrated through human suffering and death. That is only a guess; as a Christian I reject such things as fatalism.

I couldn't find anyone I identified with in the Iliad. I didn't like Hector or Achilles. I certainly didn't like Agamemnon or Menelaus. I also found the Greek deities to be rather repugnant. I was left with thinking that the whole story is rather more like a tragedy. People fighting over things that really seem trivial. They are being influenced by a bunch of numinous beings that have their own agenda for what they do, and the best interests of the human players is not foremost on their lists of concerns. I suppose I am biased as a Christian, but I am incredibly glad that works like this lost their religious significance.

This translation was done in the 19th century. The translator opted for the Latin equivalent of Greek divine names, e.g. Jove instead of Zeus, Minerva instead of Athena, etc. The translation was good as far as I could tell, so I don't have any criticisms as far as that goes. As I said, I recognize that this work is a classic. I could only read it as a work of tragedy to honestly appreciate it. Life and religion in ancient Greece was tragic.

O desenvolvimento do ser humano, sobretudo enquanto felizes petizes, baseia-se no percepcionado pelo meio envolvente, num processo de engrenagem que, iniciado pela visão, a transmuta e trabalha, para modelar peças de conduta. Um animal mecanizado, nesta era industrial, vive, pois, de associações e modelos, numa tentativa constante de aprimorar o produto final. Deste modo, os primeiros gestos são meras tentativas de reprodução daqueles apreendidos, as primeiras palavras as que mais repetidas vezes se escutam. Neste retorno à idade do embalo, torna-se claro que os progenitores sejam considerados como os primeiros heróis, esse título tão apregoado pelos cânones da literatura e massificado pelas histórias dos que, não se cingindo ao mero terreno, lhe adicionam um “super” inabalável.

Este modelo tem vindo a ser cinzelado por benfazejos artífices, desde os primórdios da história, bem exemplificado pelas epopeias trágicas de Homero. Na “Ilíada”, canta-se, numa laúde imensa, a refrega empreendida pelos Aqueus, contra Troianos, fruto das emoções que sempre comandam as, pouco reflectidas, reacções humanas – a paixão fogosa, a cobiça sedenta, o orgulho cego. No centro da batalha, deitando por terra qualquer véu branco que a recobrisse, jaz Helena que, com toda a sua formosura coisificada, é disputada por estes adversários, personificados nos dois protagonistas, Aquiles e Heitor. Heróis em título, encontram-se em pólos opostos, não apenas na batalha, mas também na sua essência – se o primeiro é semideus, por herança (filho de deusa e de mortal), mas se entrega aos vícios e às emoções humanas; já o segundo, sendo humano, é divinizado pelas suas atitudes, colocado no púlpito glorificado, pelos seus congéneres. Partilham as características fundamentais dos heróis – o sentimento de justiça, a valentia brava e o espírito de sacrifício – e isso os aproxima. A tal ponto que, ao bramirem umas nas outras, as armas criam um som que se mantém como eco, por todas as eras, chegando à actualidade.

A mestria de Homero é inabalável, por mais espadas que a tentem ferir, pois suas cnémides são densas como bronze. Com uma escrita minunciosa, digna de um argumento de cinema, ao invés de convidar o leitor a uma experiência meramente contemplativa, o autor suga-o, veste-o das melhores armaduras possíveis, adaptadas a cada um, e entrega-o ao combate. Vai, pois, digladiando-se frente às diferentes personagens citadas, numa tarefa quase hercúlea, mas facilitada pelos bons ares emanados por Homero – ele planta verdadeiras árvores genealógicas, nas suas descrições, criando florestas densas, passiveis de serem desbravadas. Repetições também as há que, podendo ser recriminadas, funcionam como um elo cíclico manufacturado pelo ourives Hefesto, pejado das melhores pedras luzentes. Para além disso, acaricia as nossas faces, sujas no embate, com belas comparações entre homens e os mais diversos elementos da Natureza, relativizando a vil raiva cantada – algo tão natural, como a busca de alimento. Na mesma medida, faz descer, dos altos céus, os deuses olímpicos que demonstram ser tão humanos, como os que pisam a terra sulcada a mortos.

Por mais férrea que seja a camada protectora, o medo permanece porque, nesta luta, os corpos se embrenham e o sangue conflui para uma nascente de um rio escarlate, numa mortandade palpável. A foz? Porventura a mente de quem lê estas palavras apetrechadas de asas que, entre a retaliação final, são decepadas de um qualquer corpo, para as colocar noutro – o nosso, alado literato, que se deixa levar no encantamento. O estatuto de herói é, assim, generalizado, tocando homens, mesmo aqueles que tenham defeitos – também eles inspiram combates terrenos. Vitória ou derrota são relativas. Deparamo-nos, sim, com um processo catártico que exige, a um amante da mitologia grega, enunciar estas palavras, para dar a um desafio portentoso, um funeral digno como ele merece.

"Quando dois se põem a caminho, um discerne antes do doutro
o que é mais proveitoso; ao passo que quando é só um
a discernir, curto é o pensamento e ténue a astúcia."

Rating:⭐⭐⭐⭐



I have only a few things to say.



It's definitely worth reading (duh) but you need to brace yourself for a slow-paced, overly detailed writing. (Like all the classics.) There's so much description and I found the dialogue pretty complex and long. (Again like all the classics.)

Agamemnon is unlikable and the only reason I hate Hector is because he killed Patroclus and he was my favourite. Achilles and Patroclus were meant as a couple, I've never been more convinced. The Song of Achilles had it right.

The whole thing reminded my of an Ancient Greek version of The Desperate Housewives or literally any other reality Tv show. Also, on a side note the gods reminded me of myself whenever I play The Sims.

For first-time readers of Homer or those wanting to check out or simply immerse themselves in the Classics canon, Robert Fagles is your man. An immensely readable and bloody account of treacherous mortals and Gods, with a fine introduction by Bernard Knox and plenty of helpful support (cast list, orientation and pronunciation).

Fagles really makes this fabulous epic sing and his translation is a marvel of scholarship and beauty. A magnificent achievement.

nasıl anlatsam, nerden başlasam, mmm.

öncelikle şunu söyleyeyim: bu kitapta neler oluyor, kim ölüyor kim kalıyor, kim ne tanrısı... bunların hiçbir önemi yok ve ben de bunu anlatmayacağım zaten. bunların hepsine özet formunda erişmek çok kolay ve kimsenin ilyada'yla ilgili yorum olarak bunu dinlemek istediğini sanmıyorum. üstelik ilyada'nın olayı da bu değil.

ilyada'nın olayı şu: yaklaşık üç bin önce yazılmış bir şeyin, ondan sonra yazılmış her şeyden ileride olması. adam (homeros'a adam dedim hfdkgjh) milattan önce 800'de varoluşumuzun özünü anlamış, anlatmış, ne kadar insani duygu varsa hepsini yaşatmış. inanamadım okurken. yani bir savaş sahnesindeki coşkuyu da, sevdiği birinin ölüm haberini alınca yaşanan kederi de, aşkı da, kıskançlığı da, pişmanlığı da... her şeyi yazmış, HER ŞEYİ. dolayısıyla ilyada okumaya niyetlenirken derdimiz fakültenin karşısındaki kırtasiyeden mitoloji 101 ders notları fotokopisini almak değil, çok daha duygusal, insani bir yerden, üç bin yıl önceki insanlardan aslında pek de farklı olmadığımızı idrak etmek olmalı diye düşünüyorum ben. ve bir açıdan bakınca da bunun üzerine çok az şey koymuşuz insanlık olarak. edebiyattan, sanattan, her şeyden beklentim yükseldi ilyada okuyunca. dengem bozuldu, ama iyi bir yönde.

bir diğer değinmem gereken şey de şu: azra erhat ve a. kadir'in varlığına ne kadar şükretsek az. hele ki birçok konuda dezavantajlı bir coğrafyada yaşadığımızı düşününce bu işi böyle tutkuyla sevip nesillerce okur için böyle bir çeviri yapmak, böyle bir eser bırakmak... diyecek, övecek kelime bulamıyorum, sonsuz hayranlıkları hak ediyorlar. metnin güzelliğinden zerre götürmedikleri gibi daha da güzelleştirmişler. o ritmli şiirsellik olduğu gibi duruyor.

kitabı bir ayda, hiç acele etmeden, iki ayrı mitoloji sözlüğüne bakarak, tadını çıkara çıkara okudum. ve sık sık şunu düşündüm: şimdiye kadar gezdiğim tüm antik kentleri, tüm avrupa şehirlerini, müzeleri baştan gezmem gerek. hiçbir şey anlamamışım. dünyayı algılama şeklimi değiştirdi homeros. iyi ki iyi ki iyi ki. (ağlıyor)

This is a story of battles. It begins with a battle of principles between Achilles and Agamemnon, and as stubborn as they both are, I could sympathize with both views. I enjoyed that.

I appreciated the depiction of the gods and goddesses. They were a dysfunctional family, deeply flawed, and yet human lives were subject to their whims. And although the gods could choose to ignore a prophecy, they’d usually adhere to one with respect. It made for an integrated unfolding of free will and fate.

I could also see clearly how classic story structure was built in this poem, each action causing a reaction that created an inevitable outcome or conclusion. I appreciated how neither the Trojans nor the Greeks were depicted as evil or wrong (each had their reasons), and in the end I grieved their losses equally.

But so much of the text read like a list and felt very much like The Bible’s section “begat begat begat.” For example, Homer names every man from each ship on both sides of the battle. And most pages describe battle after battle, death after death, without giving the reader enough of character to care. The description of the woundings felt like they were written with the glee and remove of children in a school yard - lots of heads popping off bodies, and eyes popping from heads, which made them kind of fun. I imagine those who listened to these stories back then had prior knowledge of the personalities, and so were invested in their origins and fates. I probably should have done more research.

In the end, the story felt too impersonal to me, unlike The Odyssey, which I enjoyed. I also highly recommend Madeline Miller’s The Song of Achilles, which tells the story of The Iliad within the larger context of the tender and complex relationship between Patroclus and Achilles.

Desde que descubrí que la Ilíada tenía una frase que me iba a servir para mi trabajo de grado fijé como meta leerme el libro. Antes había tenido muchas ganas de leermelo, pero esta vez era diferente porque estaba de por medio mi salud mental, siento que si yo no me leo un libro que me tiene obsesionada no voy a poder seguir bien. Sé que puede sonar extraño, pero los libros son gran parte de mi vida, ellos dirigen cada uno de mis pasos, mis decisiones, mis pensamientos. Yo no sé qué haría en un mundo sin libros, probablemente no existiría.
La frase que me ayudó para mi tesis es la siguiente: "Nadie, pues, se dé prisa por volver a su casa hasta haber dormido con la esposa de un troyano y haber vengado la huida y los gemidos de Helena". Esta frase la relacino en mi tesis con la violación sexual utilizada como arma de guerra y otras frases que encuentro en el libro fueron igual de fructíferas cómo está. Tengo mucho que agradecer a la iliada y la Odisea porque son unos libros que me han inspirado profundamente y yo se lo recomendaría a cualquier persona con los ojos cerrados, eso sí a una persona que sea paciente y que quiera desarrollar un gusto por la mitología grecorromana. Además me han inspirado en mis escritos, resulta que los verbos encliticos son mi debilidad, los amo.
Recomiendo que primero te leas la Ilíada, luego la Odisea y después La Divina Comedia si quieres leerte específicamente estos tres libros.
En resumen: ¿Que tal es la Iliada?
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Excelente libro

Last year I attended a conference where one of the speakers stated that literature starts with Homer. I love to read so I thought that maybe I should see what the fuss is about with the cradle of the written word. I do not like poetry but I said that maybe it is time to learn how to appreciate it. Well, it didn't go well. I appreciate its worth but It was a chore to read and I had to stop after 100 pages or so. No more epic poems for me.

خواندن ایلیاد ورود من به دنیایی بود که هیچ‌چیز ازش نمی‌دونستم و راستش همیشه فکر می‌کردم که علاقه‌ای هم بهش ندارم. اما تصمیم برای سرک‌ کشیدن به این دنیا تبدیل به یک سفر طولانی شد. من نمی‌تونم برای کتابی مثل ایلیاد نقد بنویسم، پس اول میگم که ارزش خوندن این کتاب قدیمی به نظر من چیه. بعد تمام منابعی که خوندم رو با هم مقایسه می‌کنم و یک مسیر برای ورود راحت‌تر به این دنیای بی‌ سر و ته پیشنهاد میدم

ارزش خواندن کتاب سه هزار ساله‌‌ای که بیشترش توصیف جنگ و خشونته چیه؟
یک. اجازه میده به گذشته نگاه کنی
با وجود اینکه اسطوره کتاب تاریخ نیست، همچنان منعکس‌کننده‌ی باورها، سنت‌ها، آرزوها و شیوه‌ی زندگی در زمانیه که بهش تعلق داره

دو. متواضع میشی
ما انسان‌های قرن بیست و یکمی با تکنولوژی و اعتقادات مدرنمون اصولاً فکر می‌کنیم که تافته‌‌ی جدا بافته‌ای هستیم و انسان‌های گذشته‌ رو عقب‌مانده و متفاوت از خودمون تصور می‌کنیم. اما وقتی ایلیاد می‌خونی، می‌بینی که مردها سه هزار سال پیش هم سر زن‌ها با هم دعوا می‌کردند و آدم‌ها درست مثل ما خشم، غم، درماندگی، هوس و شعف رو به دلایلی بسیار مشابه ما تجربه می‌کردند. اینجا متوجه میشی که تو اونقدرها هم متفاوت نیستی‌. از طرفی این به این معنیه که عقاید تو هم روزی ممکنه همینقدر مسخره به نظر بیاد که اعتقاد یونانیان به خدایان انتقام‌جو و هوس‌بازشون عجیب به نظر میاد

سه. تغییر رو حس می‌کنی
پینکر، از دانشمندان زمان ما، معتقده که خشونت عموماً کاهش پیدا کرده و دنیا نسبت به گذشته جای بهتری برای زندگیه. این البته چیزیه اخبار و شبکه‌های اجتماعی برعکسش‌ رو برای ما تداعی می‌کنند. ایلیاد از دنیایی می‌گه که غرق در جنگ‌های طولانیه و همه چیز با جنگ معنی پیدا می‌کنه. حتی انسانیت و شرف. چیزی که با تفکرات (اکثر) ما در مورد خشونت دیگه جور در نمیاد. در مورد تغییر تفکرات در مورد برده‌داری و حقوق زنان هم که لازم نیست توضیحی بدم. این نشون میده که بشریت چه راه طولانی‌ای اومده و این می‌تونه بارقه‌ی نوری در دنیایی باشه که خیلی تاریک به نظر میاد

چهار. بهت خوش می‌گذره
جدای صحنه‌های طولانی جنگ و کشت و کشتار که مغزت رو سِر می‌کنه، داستان واقعاً جالبه و بالا و پایین‌ زیاد داره. رابطه‌ی بین خدایان و انسان‌ها و دراماهای بینشون واقعاً خواندنیه

پنج. رفرنس‌ها رو متوجه میشی
این کتاب از قدیمی‌ترین کتاب‌هاییه که برای ما مونده و توسط افراد زیادی هم خونده شده. پس طبیعتاً ارجاعات زیادی بهش در ادبیات و حتی کتاب‌های ناداستان داده میشه. دونستن داستان مثل باز کردن قفل این تشبیه‌هاست

چطوری بخونیمش؟
من حدود ۸ کتاب مرتبط باهاش رو در این مدت خوندم و اینجا می‌خوام کتاب‌ها رو مقایسه کنم

بهترین ترجمه چیه؟
این خیلی سلیقه‌ایه که بین ترجمه‌های انگلیسی کدوم رو انتخاب کنید. من امیلی ویلسون رو انتخاب کردم چون جدیدترین و به طبع ساده‌ترین برای خوندن بود‌ و اجرای صوتی عالی‌ای هم داشت. اما خب در مقایسه با ترجمه‌های دیگه معلوم بود که بعضی‌هاشون (مثل ترجمه‌ی پُپ) نثر موزون‌تر، زیباتر و البته سخت‌خوان‌تری داشتند

از کجا شروع کنم؟
Greek Myths
ایلیاد پر از اسامی خدایان و قهرمانانه و شناختنشون و پیدا کردن روابط بینشون به فهمیدن داستان خیلی کمک می‌کنه. این کتاب زیبا همه این‌ها رو به ساده‌ترین شکل ممکن با تصویرگری‌‌های عالی توضیح میده و تازه خلاصه‌ی داستان ایلیاد رو هم داره

خلاصه‌ی سرودها و تحلیل‌هاشون رو از کجا بخونم؟
بین این چهار کتاب تحلیلی‌ای که خوندم به نظر من کیلیفس نوتس از همه بهتر بود. اما مزایا و معایب هر کتاب رو لیست می‌کنم

Cliffsnotes
داشتن لیست کاراکتر و نقشه‌ی روابطشون
توضیحات در مورد تاریخ کتاب و شاعرش
خلاصه‌های کامل‌تر و جداگانه
تحلیل‌های طولانی‌تر، دقیق‌تر و جداگانه
بخش آنالیز کاراکتر
سه مقاله در انتها که در حد متوسط بودند

SparkNotes Literature Guides
لیست کاراکتر دقیق‌تر و با جزئیات بیشتر
توضیحات تِم، موتیف و سمبل‌ها که به این شکل جای دیگه‌ای نبود
خلاصه‌های مختصر و مفید ( معمولاً چند سرود با هم یکی شده)
تحلیل‌های کوتاه، گاهی با نکات متفاوت (معمولاً چند سرود با هم یکی شده)

‌Bloom's Guide
توضیح درباره‌ی تاریخ کتاب
خلاصه و تحلیل کنار هم در یک متن طولانی که سرود رو ذکر می‌کنه اما جزئیاتی نداره
کوتاه‌ترین خلاصه و تحلیل
پانزده مقاله‌ی تحلیلی به نسبت کوتاه که بعضی‌هاشون واقعا جالبن و جوانب خاصی از داستان رو بررسی می‌کنند

‌Bloom's Modern Critical interpretations
مجموعه‌ای از ده مقاله‌ی طولانی که بینشون هم عالی هست، هم فوق‌العاده‌ بی‌معنی و حوصله سربر

اگر بخوام همه‌ی این تحلیل‌ها رو‌ نخونم و بشینم یکی برام مهم‌ترین‌هاش رو توضیح بده چی؟
‌The Iliad of Homer
صد در صد دوره‌ی ایلیاد گریت کورسز. با خیال راحت سر کلاس یک استاد وارد می‌شینی و به گلچین تحلیل‌ها گوش می‌کنی

اگر بخوام کل داستان جنگ‌ تروی رو‌ بدونم چی؟
‌Troy: The Greek Myths Reimagined
ایلیاد داستان بخش کوتاهی از جنگه و نه دلیل شروع جنگ رو توضیح میده، نه میگه در آخر چی‌ میشه. برای این باید تکه‌های پازل رو از آثار دیگه جمع کرد که استفن فرای در کتاب تروی زحمتش رو کشیده. فرای از اولِ اول، از تولد پدران قهرمانان کتاب، داستان رو با نهایت جذابیت تعریف می‌کنه و با پایان جنگ تمومش می‌کنه. این کتاب رو میشه قبل از ایلیاد هم خوند که همه‌ی داستان رو بدونی و بعد به سراغ ایلیاد بیای

تصویری چی؟
‌Marvel Illustrated: The Iliad
مجموعه‌ی‌ کمیک مارول به نسبت خوبه‌. تصویرگری معمولی‌ای داره ولی به داستان وفاداره. میشه قبل کتاب خوندش و با داستان آشنا شد. میشه همراهش خوند که مروری بشه و بیشتر از شخصیت‌ها سر درآورد

صوتی چی؟
من نسخه‌ی جدیدتر آدیبل رو گوش دادم که از روی ترجمه‌ی امیلی ویلسون اجرا شده. باید بگم که یکی از دلایل لذت بردن از کتاب همین بود. جملات تو ذهن خودم خیلی بی‌احساس و رباتی بودند. اما وقتی کتاب رو همزمان خوندم و گوش دادم، اجرای حماسی این نسخه خیلی کیفیت مطالعه‌م رو بالا برد

Pro tip:
خودتون رو وارد گروهی از کتاب خون‌های حسابی بکنید که خیلی بیشتر ازتون می‌دونن، حوصله‌ی صحبت کردن دارند و بی‌دریغ به اشتراک می‌گذارند. به خاطر اونا من این کتاب رو شروع کردم و کنارشون کلی یاد گرفتم‌. ازشون ممنونم

همه‌ی این منابع به انگلیسی هستند و به جز خود ایلیاد از اینکه ترجمه شدن یا نه اطلاعی ندارم. در آینده اگر منابع بهتری پیدا کنم حتماً به این لیست اضافه می‌کنم. در ضمن مثل همیشه همشون رو می‌تونید از اینجا دانلود کنید
Maede's Books

۱۴۰۳/۱/۲۱

I enjoyed this very much. This story is one of those ubiquitous works of art that are commonly known before they've even been read. The story of this war has been adapted in many films, referenced for centuries in other works and spawned retellings as well, so that by the time I came to read it I already had certain ideas (true and false) about the book.

It's a story of two warring factions and one of the preconceived ideas I had about this book was that it's mostly glorification of war, and while there is some glorifying of certain heros and passages of war, it mostly deplores the murder and slaughtering and loss caused by war. The humanizing of both warring parties (Achaians and Trojans, and their supporters among them gods) was incredible to read and unexpected on my part. For instance in a certain passage Hektor goes back to his city and meets his wife and child to bid them farewell, the child, still a baby, doesn't recognize his father because of the war gear and begins to cry while his father laughs. Such touching passages between all that murder and killing gave a deeper effect to the story.

Also, as mentioned there's lots of warring. The meticulous descriptions of the weapons of the age this story happens in was fascinating and the people here kill each other with arrows, spears and stones in ways I never thought possible. Think of any way a person might die of these weapons and they most likely did in the story. And in all this the exploration of the human experience, and the contradictions that occur in life, the stories of adventure and courage, and no wonder this story has endured and enthralled readers for centuries as it has.