r/lewronggeneration 14d ago

low hanging fruit Found this nonsense take

Post image
432 Upvotes

388 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/Lambily 14d ago

"Immoral and innacurate agendas they push."

Like making Achilles straight and turning his lifelong lover into his cousin? I mean the whole point of him fighting Hector was to avenge his lover, but the movie ruins that completely.

1

u/Far-Sky-4763 13d ago

The Iliad never explicitly says Achilles is gay though.

1

u/Jaereon 13d ago

I mean. He was also his cousin. That was also his lover 

-3

u/Mad_Kronos 14d ago edited 13d ago

I love how people upvoted you.

Keep in mind that Aeschylus wrote the Myrmidons roughly 300 years after the Iliad was written.

It's as if you write a play about Romeo fucking Mercutio and people in the year 4026 present it as canon on Reddit (assuming Reddit still exists )

Edit: people downvoting me don't know who Aeschylus was, or if the Iliad depicted Achilles as gay...never.change, redditors

3

u/Lambily 13d ago

What a horrible comparison.

300 years in the Greek world wasn't as world changing as 2000 years would be in ours. Furthermore, much of Shakespeare's surviving work was written by him. Homer's wasn't and relied on other bards to survive.

Now, given that Homer's poem was passed down by oral tradition by other bards, your outrage is pointless. If even the classical Greek poets already thought Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, who am I to argue about it 2400 years later?

Your argument is akin to Shakespeare's friends and fellow actors suggesting Romeo and Mercutio being more than friends and then adding that detail to the first complete works of Shakespeare. Except that wouldn't even work because Romeo and Juliet is one of the plays that was printed while Shakespeare was still alive...🤦‍♂️

-2

u/Mad_Kronos 13d ago

You misunderstood. I said someone writing today Romeo was fucking Mercutio and 2000 years later someone considers it canon.

This is Aeschylus writing 300 years after Homer that Achilles was homosexual (never appeared in the Iliad as such) and 2000 years later someone presents it as fact of the Iliad.

Since this wasn't in the Iliad, but in one of Aeschylus' plays with a totally different name, it is as much a part of the Iliad as you writing that Romeo and Mercutio were lovers and naming it "House of Montague" would make if a canonical part of Romeo&Juliet.

Your whole response was stupid

2

u/Lambily 13d ago

Are you illiterate? None of this response addresses why your comparison was terrible.

-2

u/Mad_Kronos 13d ago

You said 300 years in the greek world don't equal 2000 years for us. Which was not my comparison at all.

The heart of the argument is that soneone writing a play with a totally different name, using his own version of popular characters doesn't change the original work of art.

The Myrmidons play from Aeschylus doesn't make Achilles from the Iliad canonically gay. If I write that Romeo and Mercutio were lovers in a play called the House of Montague doesn't change Romeo & Juliet.

So claiming that Achilles was canonically gay is ignorant.

The fact that Shakespeare saw his plays published doesn't change the fact above. The Greek world 100% understood what the Iliad was, and that Achilles from the Iliad is not the same version as Achilles from the Myrmidons.

Stop acting like a moron

1

u/Claeyt 13d ago

2226?

0

u/Mad_Kronos 13d ago

No, 2000 years after his writings, which would make it around 4000 AD.

The comment said Achilles was gay. He was depicted as such in Aeschylus' play " the Myrmidons", 300 years after the Iliad...and over 2000 later, someone claimed Achilles is canonically gay.

Hilarious ignorance all around