In Ong's book Orality and Literacy he talks about Homer's readings and how it is controversial whether he actually wrote them. In Homer's time people were polytheistic and piety toward the gods was important which is the important part of the debate. Whether Homer wrote them or if it was a collection of people or someone unaccredited, doesn't really seem to matter. The culture that we take from it and the story behind it is the only part that we should be focusing on. This is much like Shakespeare's writing.
I bring this up because oral people didn't seem concerned about where their stories started from, they accepted them as truth. I think our overly high criticism of who the author is is important, but I think that in a lot of readings we should just accept the overarching meaning of the traditions. To make an analogy, its like watching a philosophically charged movie. First you need to understand the storyline and all the intricacy within the plot and characters before you should start picking apart the theories. To enjoy it you must relax and take it in.
I doubt Ong would agree with me on these points, but to argue about Homer seems utterly pointless. The Odyssey and Iliad were and still are revered works. Enjoy them for the story, not who wrote it.
No comments:
Post a Comment