Pinned post
Lewis's Abolition of Man is a manual for how education was changed from a classical/medieval model to a progressive model. It is also, therefore, a manual for how to recover the classical/medieval model. A 🧵. 1/
Matt Bianco
@mgbianc
Humanities PhD on Plato & Education, classical educator, author, husband, father, grandfather, Orthodox Christian. Instructor at St. Constantine School.
389 Following 1.8K Followers 7.6K Posts
Latest posts 5
This summer, I left my job as COO at the CiRCE Institute and became a high school great books and Latin teacher at the St. Constantine School in Houston. I am now in week 4 of teaching (I know, it's still early--honeymoon phase). Let me just say:
High school kids are amazing.
High school kids are amazing.
Annie nails it.
Several people have sent me this video by the distinguished Dr. Scott Masson asking for thoughts. In short I will say:View quoted post on X
- The order of moral action IS part of symbolic patterns.
- If you can't change the diction or moral action of the story in any way without changing the soul of the story then you cannot retell the story at all. In fact, you can't translate it into English without at least somewhat changing the meaning.
- CS Lewis argued that the essential meaning of myth transcends the particulars of poetic diction and authorial intention. I still agree.
- Athena, not Sinon, is still the moral voice guiding Odysseus and reckoning with your guilt is a part of wisdom. Sinon does not represent THE center or soul point of Odysseus's guilt; CLEARLY the Trojan horse does. In both image, action, and narrative structure the burning of Troy is the center of Odysseus's guilt, something symbolized in the embodiment and climactic presence of Athena.
- Nolan's Odysseus does not relinquish his responsibility and leave guiltily. Again, I find myself wondering if we are all watching the same movie. Odysseus takes total responsibility, sacrifices himself to restore order, and installs his son as King, leaving in peace.
- Yes, only Jesus Christ actually solves the REAL problem of guilt but you can't put Jesus in every movie. It would get very boring; you would have mass symbolic draining of the Gospel. The pattern of sacrificial death and resurrection is the way stories participate in the Myth become Fact and expand its meaning as the Gospel light flickers and dances in 10,000 places.
- Antinoos is punished for his assault on divine and domestic order - of which his sin against Sinon is a part. This is a both/and, the higher offense shown to us in the specific offense.
- Nolan's adaptation is not a replacement of Homer nor his universal meaning; it is an aesthetically potent and significant application of that universal meaning for a particular people and place and time.
- You have to evoke an emotional response to get the point across - that's how movies as a fast visual medium work.
- I agree, it is not a complete Return of the King story because it can't be. The end of Homer's Odyssey doesn't work morally in a post-Christian world. Divine fiat in a Deus ex machina ending isn't plausible. We have to find some other way to symbolize the Christ answer, which I think Nolan does brilliantly by building on the work of Girard.
- In short, Dr. Masson provides a very sophisticated version of the "It's not Homer" and "It's not what I wanted" argument. In response, it can't be Homer and it is a mark of maturity and charity to appreciate something for what it IS rather than what you wanted it to be. youtu.be/39wmVSCTCkE?si…
This is just a crazy take. You don't honor someone by slavishly copying him. You only honor someone when you respect the work and make it something new. This is why we can say Vergil honored Homer.
And therein lies the issue, @holland_tom! Think about how you ended your post:View quoted post on X
"It honours Homer while simultaneously making something new of him (The Odyssey)."
Let's play this out and see if you can recognize the inherent fallacy in such a statement.
It honours Shakespeare while simultaneously making something new of Hamlet.
It honours Dante Alighieri while simultaneously making something new of The Divine Comedy.
It honours Jane Austen while simultaneously making something new of Pride & Prejudice.
There is a reason why Peter Jackson's masterful trilogy, the Lord of the Rings did so well and continues to be revered and held as one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. Just go back and listen to the interviews he gave. They wanted to stay true to the source material and that is why it succeeded. They were not pretending the work was written yesterday. They honored the work and the history and the lineage and the fan base by staying true to the text. Conversely, the Rings of Power are almost not worthy of mentioning in the same sentence.
The moment we believe we can improve a work that has stood for thousands of years by simply injecting woke/DEI filters, you have already failed.
And, I say that with much sadness because Christopher Nolan has been one of my all-time favorite directors and there has not been a movie of his I have not loved. Part of the reason I love him is he never panders to his audience and had always demanded authenticity -- until now.
