u/WinterizedGWA

I was reading Dan Jones' War of the Roses book, and was struck with the impression that the speed everything went to shit after Normandy fell in 1450 with the Yorkist reform party basically becoming a thing within months. I'm wondering, to what extent might someone describe the Wars of the Roses' dominant (not monocause) as directly being: "England bet the farm on trying to conquer France and when they lost the blowback was so bad they descended into civil war".

Like, I get Henry being bad at his job was a factor. But, Henry was bad at his job in 1448 and his government wasnt collapsing? And the crisis had started before his catatonia in 1453.

Just got out of The Odyssey. It's a good time at the movies, an incredible film, a fascinating piece of technical film making. I want to stop for a second and highlight something completely unique it does that I'm not sure I've entirely seen before.

This is a post about the genuinely unique way that Nolan adapts The Odyssey. Not just as a story, not just as a history, but as a unique surviving thing from history. The final thing an entire civilization ever made.

So, the original Homeric Epic was originally regarded as historical in ancient times, was relegated to myth as time went on and people stopped believing in Athena. But, today it's treated as both a story and an artifact of history. That's because The Odyssey isn't talking about the Classic Greeks that we know today. It's a story about the Mycenean Greeks. A civilization ages prior that were almost entirely destroyed. Greece fell into a dark age, and one of the only records we have that preserve historical memory of that period of collapse are the Homeric Epics. So even if they're bad history, Historians troll through all the time for details. For example, we now know that Troy was a real city.

There is also a (Minority) school of analysis of The Odyssey that takes it a step further and suggests that the war being depicted was actually PART of that collapse. It happened as states began more violent wars with each other, and what's actually being depicted is the early stages of an Aegean sea being picked clean by marauders (Called the Sea Peoples) that would eventually destroy the whole civilization.

Most adaptations of the Homeric Epics are just adapting the story. Even Troy (2004) only innovates by trying to portray it closer to the actual war that (some decidedly not all) historians think inspired the Homerics.

Nolan is doing something different. Spoilers Ahead:

In Nolan's Odyssey, there is a prevailing sense of dread that runs over the entire film. Stories of people betraying others in moments of supposed hospitality or safety are repeated over and over. Penelope and Menelaus are paranoid about reports of "Peoples from the Sea" attacking. The suitors invading Ithaca and setting up in the Palace is treated as a severe social violation, that is constantly being litigated with the suitors mockingly accepting the law of Guest-Right (Xenia), while laughing at it and violating the principle at every turn.

Meanwhile, Odysseus' on his journey seems muddled, angry, not entirely sure if he wants to return home or not, filled with regret. He is determined to save his men, but also isn't sure if they're good men. The image of the Trojan Horse keeps being returned to. A detail that's established early is that his instinct is to give foes a fare shot (a warning with his bow string), and he's upset by the idea of not employing it.

The point the film is converging on is his first conversation with his wife Penelope upon returning home. When questioned he admits that his reluctance to return was because of a sense of guilt and a (very Nolan-esque) fear that he'd destroyed the world.

He had been the one to dream up the Trojan Horse, a profound act of trickery that violated the guest-right principle. The consequences had been horrific. And he connected it to everything bad that happened since. The raids along the coasts, the breakdown of guest rights, even the invasion of the suitors. Penelope even gasps and recognizes that "You are the Sea People". It's not really clear if she means there aren't real Sea People and they've just been hearing rumors about Troy second hand, or if there was a class of survivors from Troy who'd become raiders. The line works either way.

Which is a little heavy handed, but yes, there is a real school of thought that believes Mycenean Greeks became a core part of groups that became the Sea Peoples.

Odysseus finishes by making the connection explicitly clear. That "the actions of one man" ended "the palaces, the parties, the luxuries" and "This age of bronze". It's a bit heavy handed, a bit 21st century historian talking. However, the thesis of the film is made clear. The Trojan War was the beginning of the end of the Bronze Age which collapsed because a society based on trust learned it was easier to break the rules of hospitality.

It's a rather bleak view. A rather apocalyptic view. And Nolan is definitely not using it as dry history, but as an indictment of the casual cruelty of our current age.

As an adaptation choice though? Utterly fascinating to me.

It's not a straightforward adaptation of The Odyssey. It changes a ton, adds the apocalyptic bent. And yet, it is a fairly true reading of the text, as related to "The Odyssey" as a unique document of a civilization on the brink of catastrophic collapse.

He's presenting it like the final message from a world that's about to die. It's knowing about the coming disaster in a way I've never seen with another adaptation of the material, and foregrounds it in a way I think the text can support even if it's an improvisation. He's adapting the story AND the historical artifact.

I don't think I've seen a movie adaptation attempt something like it to the same degree. Also kudos to Nolan for getting 250 Million dollars to film his thesis on The Bronze Age Collapse. lol.

So, LotGH. One of the deepest, most revered, and debating animes of all time. I think a lot of people get the show wrong.

The Claim I Disagree With: LotGH refuses to choose wether or not it supports Democracy or Autocracy, by showing a situation where the autocrat is legitimately superior and turning it into strict Consequentialism vs Deontology.

My position: LotGH purposefully is an argument FOR democratic liberalism, that functions by giving the best possible argument for Autocracy and then saying "but it's not enoigh".

My Proof:

The core conversation of the work and, to me, the obvious point the work actually states it's true beliefs, is the one single time the co leads, Yang Wen Li and Reinhardt, actually meet face to face.

The convo basically goes like this:

R: You should serve me

Y: I'm loyal to democracy

R: Democracy fucking sucks. It rewards good talkers, stifled the spirit of the deserving, and is easily corrupted. You lost because of democracy.

Y: Yup. All true.

R: I am a much a much better ruler then anyone you served. I'm not even particularly cruel or evil.

Y: Also true.

Y: But youre exceptional. I cant hold you to the average.

R: Right back at you. You cant hold the ideal of democracy. You have to defend the version that actually exists.

Then, Yang answers with, basically the mic drop (verbatim):

"The right to violate the rights of people belongs to the people only. In other words, when the people gave power to Rudolf von Goldenbaum or to an incomparably smaller man like Job Trunicht, the responsibility belongs to the people. It belongs to no one else. That is the important point. The sin of autocracy is that the people can push off the failures of government onto one man. Compared to that cardinal sin, the accomplishments of a hundred wise rulers seem small"

Or to state it plainly. The fundamental problem of Autocracy *isnt in the ruler*. Its in the people. People in a democracy are moral agents who make bad choices. Autocracy is evil because it creates an entire system where people have pushed off moral agency."

Reinhardt never counters this argument. The discussion turns to one about epistemic certainty.

People mischarachterize the discussion as a draw. But it's actually a complete failure on Reinhardt to persuade Wen-Li to concede that his personal virtue as a leader matters more.

the entire rest of the show, top to bottom, continually reinforced this point. Time and time again, Reinhardt subordinates go rogue, do bad things in his name, create problems. He is the best possible autocrat imaginable and he spends the entire back 50 issues in a constant war with a society that does not *morally functional right*.

The point is "We have imagined the dictatorship best case scenario, and it simply not enougj"

Counter Argument id accept: proof that the work doesn't treat Yang's argument about the diffused argument about the evil of Autocracy as the ultimate point of the work.

I'm not adjudicating the claim IRL. Just wether or not the work is actually a neutral meditation. My view is about the idealogy of the work of fiction.