In anticipation of Odysseus murdering a bunch of ungrateful suitors (who deserve it) I would like to look at heroes getting revenge and think about how far it is really necessary to go in getting this revenge. Obviously all heroes are different and will react differently to the tragic events that often inspire the heroes. The heroes we are accustomed to generally have an aversion to killing. This is probably because they have realized that if they kill, they are just becoming as bad as the people who have had such a negative impact on their lives by, for example, killing the hero's parents. The hero then turns that anger and pain to solving bigger problems, even if they have already gotten revenge or had their original nemesis brought down. This is all very inspiring, and I think part of what makes heroes so appealing - they have overcome such a horrible event and use that to push themselves to do good. That's all fine and well, but (using batman as an example) I think that it would have of been justified if Batman went after his parents killer with an intention to kill. For sure it wouldn't have been appealing, and honestly, it probably would be better for almost everyone if he didn't, but I do believe that there is some kind of retribution that Batman can have of gained through killing his parents' killer.
Unlike the real Batman, Odysseus actually does go on a rampage and kill the people that have been against his house (except Poseidon for obvious reasons). These violent "heroes" that kill people for revenge are in some cases justified. I think that Odysseus is justified in killing the suitors for example. But some times these killings aren't necessarily justified. This makes me think of the TV show Arrow, about the Green Arrow superhero. In the first season, the protagonist wants to get revenge on the rich aristocrats who control his city through corruption and for personal gain. To get revenge, he decides that it will be a good idea to put arrows through the villains saying "You have failed this city" every time. I don't necessarily think that this is the best option, but he is doing what he can. I really only enjoyed the fact that he killed his enemies because it was so different from what all the other superheroes do. But by the end of that first season, he decides that it is no longer necessary to kill all his enemies. He will be satisfied with just uncovering the evidence needed to put them in jail for a long time. I think that this is a more heroic solution to his problem. These people definitely needed to be punished, but I don't think that killing them was necessarily the best way to do it.
I am a firm believer in "an eye for an eye". It is so logical and simple it just seems like the best plan. People should get what they have given. Punishment is generally a must, and I think that the best way to give punishment is to give back the crime that has been committed. That actually sounds a bit messed up now, but oh well.
I guess Batman embarks on a mission in a more deliberate manner than Odysseus does. Odysseus is more concerned with returning home, and it slowly unfolds into an adventure, but Batman sets out with the goal of revenge/redemption by restoring Gotham.
ReplyDeleteOne of the suitors, Eurymachus, actually proposes a sort of "eye for an eye" solution to Odysseus. He admits that the suitors have taken advantage of Odysseus's resources, and offers to pay him back in full for it. Odysseus declines, saying that no amount of money could save them getting killed. This shows that Odysseus isn't really concerned with justice in this scene, he just wants revenge and to kill people.
ReplyDeleteThis hesitation on our part as modern reader's to the suitors' harsh punishment may be indicative of modern society's sensitivity to violence. I don't think that Homer's original listeners would have as many (or any) of the qualms with Odysseus' revenge as we do. I think the ancient world must have been a much bloodier place, with revenge exacted far more literally than today. I also have a hard time really rallying behind Odysseus and his lack of mercy, but at the same time, I kind of have to accept that Homer (or whoever) is essentially delivering the narrative conclusion his audience would be accustomed to.
ReplyDeleteMy sense too is that the violence is more satisfying aesthetically than it would be from a cool, rational, legalistic perspective (because even under an "eye for an eye" calculation, justice wouldn't mean killing the suitors but something more like Odysseus going and abusing *their* hospitality, eating all their food, courting their wives, refusing to leave, etc.). But how satisfying a climax would that be, with Odysseus sitting down and negotiating some form of reparations from Eurymachus and Antinous? There's a neatness and simplicity to simply killing them all, restoring order and "cleaning house" (quite literally, at the end of book 22). There's a feeling of "poetic justice" that's satisfied by this slaughter in a way that *real* justice would recoil at.
ReplyDelete