So I have a somewhat guilty secret. I sorta, kinda, like the movie Troy, at least up to the part where Hector gets killed. I know it has its problems, least of all Orlando Bloom as Paris (really, him?), but I still enjoy it.

I've always had a thing for the Trojan War. The first "grown up" program I was allowed to watch was Michael Wood's In Search of the Trojan War. I couldn't stay up to watch it, but I was allowed to watch the next day (god bless the VCR, may it rest in peace). I always tended to root for the Greeks. I guess I felt they got a bad rap or something. After all, it was all Paris' fault.

Or else I just really liked Diomedes.

Anyway, Alexander's book is a good companion, though I would suggest that the new reader to the Trojan War read the texts (be it the actual poems or glosses) before reading this book.

Alexander agrues that Homer was trying to present a "new" take on the epic form, that he was experimenting. She does this be exploring the character of Achilles. She raises several good points; I'm not sure if I whole heartedly agree with her. Alexander's thesis is that the poem examines the cost of war and is not foces on Achilles' hubris that some critics claim.

What is especially fasinating about this idea is how it can be applied to the matter of Troy that was influenced by Homer. Take for example, Shakespeare. Troilus and Cressida is consider one of Shakespeare's problem plays. Yet if viewed in light of some of the points that Alexander raises than Shakespeare's problem play looks less like a problem. Could Shakespeare have been thinking the same way? It's an interesting question.

I do wish, however, that Alexander had good into more depth about one idea. She raises the idea that perhaps Homer's view was influenced by the changing politic times. I wish she would ahve gone more into this connection.