User talk:Goodwin100956

Circe
Many thanks for your edits to the Odyssey section of Circe. During the last year it had got into a frightful, ungrammatical mess from which you largely rescued it. My main concern, per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, was that there was too much detail for an outline, as well as interpretation on your part, which is discouraged. The final statement particularly was too obviously your own reading and counted as WP:Original Research. I'm sorry I got rid of your constructive edits wholesale before; I hadn't realised just how bad that section had got in the last year. However, I hope you will agree that the new and more concentrated changes building on yours are in line with WP's stylistic outline. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this very kind response. I am very happy with the rewrite and agree that the last part was opinion (which actually I could take very much further if asked, and that clearly wouldn’t be right). I certainly didn’t wish to offend anyone, but I was surprised by the relative inadequacy of that section because, to my mind, that is the part from which all later accounts of the Circe archetype derive, and so it must provide enough detail and it must be accurate. I also suspect that it is the part most frequently referred to, other than the introductory paragraphs, and so doubly important. Best wishes Goodwin100956 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, just one last thing: I do think it is important to describe her, as Homer did, as a ‘beautiful and dreadful goddess’, an enchantress etc. The dual aspect to her character, goddess/nymph is important to later interpretations. Would you be happy for me to slip this in? Regards Goodwin100956 (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's bad style to pile up adjectives in what is supposed to be a resume, but in this case I do not find the phrase "beautiful and dreadful" in the translation, so this would be undue interpretation. The accoutrements of the palace are described as beautiful, but the most that is said of Circe's looks is that she has nice hair, "the fair-tressed goddess". I'm going by the account of Odysseus. Where does Homer say it and, more importantly since we're dealing with a translation, what is the original Greek?

One other thing; I have reformatted your replies. There's no need for seperate titles; just inset them by using a colon before them, as above. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It’s the new Emily Wilson translation that describes her as ‘the beautiful, dreadful goddess’ at Book 10, line 136. The AT Murray has her as ‘fair-tressed, dread goddess’ at the same point. Other translations I have seen mention, lovely tresses or braids and fateful or awesome power. Goodwin100956 (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It's your contention that these phrases are significant? Well they're not; exactly the same words are used of Calypso in the 8th book. What we're dealing with here are "Homeric epithets", descriptions that are thrown into the narrative to fill out the metre. It's a feature of the sung ballad tradition world-wide. If you're a translator, you have to drag them in for the sake of inclusiveness. I seem to remember that in Alexander Pope's translation he uses exactly the same wording every time they occur so as to give an idea of the repetitiousness of the text. In your case you also have to pay regard to the ambiguity of an adjective like "dreadful"; does it mean that Circe is nasty (well, she is), fearsome, awe-inspiring...is it even important? Other translators use a whole raft of alternatives because they are not vital to the meaning, they're just verbiage. This was stuff that used to be taught at school once. Take a look at Epithets in Homer for more background. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hang on, I get this, rosy-fingered dawn, and the rest of it, but I’m afraid that I can’t agree that the words are irrelevant. Each time they are repeated they conjure an image/atmosphere which might not be the same depending on the context. Translation is as much a creative act as an academic exercise. My work is concerned with meaning and ambiguities and I can’t have it that any symbol is simply a throw away. Even if Homer had put tra la at the end of every line, we could take a position on its meaning at every repetition. Goodwin100956 (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The real point is whether it is good editing on WP to perpetuate poetical formulae which are transferable between similar persons, as in the case of Calypso and Circe. "Fair-tressed" is conventionally used to mean good-looking, yes, but it would only be significant if there were ugly goddesses too - and there aren't. It would be as inappropriate and tautological here to describe a glamour star as "glamorous". My work was at one time as a translator and writer, incidentally; another time I spent two years helping edit an encyclopaedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you happy to continue this conversation, at least a little longer, as I'm interested in your thoughts and I'm learning something, not just about how Wikipedia works? It seems important to say that in the Odyssey Circe is described as a goddess, not a minor deity. Enchantress is an incomplete description because it could also refer to a nymph or a human. We might then agree that if she is a goddess, the word beautiful becomes redundant because all goddesses are beautiful. The problem is that different goddesses have different aspects - the beautiful Calypso represents a very different threat. I'm sure that when these epithets were spoken they would have conveyed many possible meanings depending on the performer and the expectations of the listeners. The words beautiful and dreadful hint at the mayhem to come, but are they spoken with reverence, fear, archly, after all, most of the listeners will know the story well? The music hall is a good example of how the same words can be manipulated by the performer but also how the words have a life of their own and act through the performer. I can't believe that things were so different in Homer's time, as alien as that culture may have been in other respects. I think that the task should be to find the right written words for each use of an epithet, that an epithet cannot be regarded as only a filler, whatever the received wisdom. How would the poet have spoken them - in mock reverence, thrusting his hips, quaking?

I see you've learned how to format a conversation thread at last. Congratulations! I have a confession to make now; I'm not sure all goddesses are beautiful: the Furies count as goddesses and I've seen ugly portrayals of them; Gorgons are described as "immortals" - that probably puts them in the minor goddess class. A way to edit those rather ridiculous adjectives also exists; one need only mention that Homer (or Odysseus, since he's the narrator) describes the enchantress using the conventional epithets "fair-tressed Circe, a dread goddess of human speech". I'm not sure I like "fair", makes her sound like a blonde bombshell. For me the most interesting thing in the description is the bit about "of human speech"; I'm still puzzling why that distinction is made but I guess there's a commentary on it somewhere.

You're quite wrong about how traditional poets and performers present their work; they're not the self-conscious modern showman, nor yet the intense academic type. About 1980 I once saw a traditional performer out in Kirghizia declaiming their million-lined epic Manas - it was almost shamanistic, the way he allowed those long, loping lines to master him, perform themselves using him as an instrument. Now I come to think of it, that's how modern Finnish poets think of their compositions; they make themselves the medium for their poetry, allow themselves to be surprised into it. (I'm not speaking of the Kalevala, I've never seen a performance of that but suspect the same thing happens there).

One final example, since you assert (against the evidence) that conventional phrases are not used as fillers. You're thinking about a literate culture and that's comparatively recent. Buddhist scriptures are full of stock phrases used as a means of memorizing long blocks of 'text'. Faeroese extemporising ballad-makers have whole blocks of ready made phases to help the narrative along: "He took a step, a step he took, and then another, until he came to the shepherd's bothie on the moor". Forget books, try and project yourself into a purely oral culture in which Homer was a blind performer. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That’s all very interesting. There’s a problem in that the recording of Homer’s work assumes that at least some members of the culture are literate and bring to bear on their work their own interpretations and conventions. Even if Homer took part in the transcription something new would have been created, and who knows, Homer May even have been interested in the process himself and found that this new form required an eye to a different audience including others who might now perform the works from the text rather than memory. I think this has been found to be a problem with recent transcriptions of orally-transmitted works,  that they are re-organised and re-interpreted in the process.


 * I still stick with my contention that epithets are not redundant fillers. Much of ordinary speech contains cliches, shortcuts, linkages used so commonly that we might conclude that nothing is being said, yet there is always something new and that’s before any consideration of their unconscious meaning. Someone I knew professionally used the phrase ‘to be fair’ so frequently that it could be maddening. We could have referred to this person as fair-minded X. What was most troubling was that the person had never been treated well and was often using this phrase as a filler in accounts of obvious unfairness towards him. More troubling still was that he was far from being able to examine his own unfair treatment of others including those who had to listen to this stuff - all of this was quite unconscious. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that Nestor is sometimes described by an epithet concerning good counsel, and others clearly revere him, but he always seems to give crap advice. Goodwin100956 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing the discussion. You don't seem to be interested in Homeric scholarship, only in your own unsourced speculations. And in spite of what I said earlier, you still fail to format properly. Take a look at some of the WP editing guidelines before you do any more. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a shame; I've been interested in all you have to say. I genuinely am interested in Homeric scholarship but I'm clearly not an Homeric scholar. I do, however, know one or two things about projective processes, intersubjectivity and how groups function, which I could reference, and I spend a lot of time listening to patients and only speaking when I feel I've understood something between us and have something to offer; I also know something about academic silos (I'm a doctor, after general training first specialising in psychiatry and then psychoanalysis and group analysis. In my time I have seen psychiatry as a discipline paint itself into a corner having focused too greatly on the biological sciences; in contrast, psychoanalysis almost withered on the vine until it embraced neurobiology - now there is some very exciting and productive cross-talk). I'm sure Homeric scholars talk to and borrow from other disciplines and would agree that it is often better to look over ones shoulder and share knowledge.


 * As yet, my speculations about Homeric epithets may seem crude and uninformed, but I can assure you that they stem from long experience of scientific method and clinical practice in which speculation is welcomed as a starting point. As such, they are not my own unsourced speculations but might be shared with other members of my discipline, or at least we could come to some synthesis. I am genuinely surprised that an epithet can be considered as verbiage. Whatever the intentions of the poet, whether to fill the metre, a mnemonic aid, or to assign a description of some constant quality, and no matter how many times they're used or passed down through the ages, once they're out of the mouth or on the page their effect on the listener/reader is beyond the poet's control. Such a dynamic can be considered to have operated between people through all time and does not depend on sophistication or literacy - it is a basic function of symbols to approximate reality or to deceive. As example, in my discipline, it is all too common to find that some patients, potentially highly creative people, never perform or publish their work because to do so would put it "out there", so to speak, where others would be free to do with it what they will.


 * In my view (because I am the receiver, not the initiator), rather than being verbiage, the constant repetition of certain epithets seems to enrich the story. Rosy-fingered dawn is a good example: it can convey a range of impressions depending on where it comes in the narrative, sometimes seeming like a relief (a new day, danger past, fair weather), sometimes seeming to mock Odysseus (yet another day of torment) and sometimes foreshadowing some new danger. I don't think that I would be alone in having this experience. This is why I give importance to the epithets associated with Circe whether or not the same epithets might be used for other goddesses. Inconstant, constant qualities? Goodwin100956 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)