[ SECRET POST #5641 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5641 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #807.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Bit short on time but - I really appreciate the thoughtful nature of your replies, even if we don't agree, and I think this is a really good reply for figuring out where we differ.

Two quick points - one, I definitely don't read the Turnus material or the underworld material the way that you seem to. And I should say I absolutely love that material, I think it's great, but I definitely view those things are examples of Virgil intentionally going for literary effects and thematic points. In particular with the Turnus stuff I think there's a rich vein to mine in terms of Virgil's less sanguine, more double-edged or even pessimistic views about the Roman state, which I think his treatment of Turnus is very relevant to. Another example I would point to is the Carthaginian temple stuff, the "sunt lacrimae rerum" part of the text - that's something where Virgil is bringing back material that's relevant to the Trojan War narrative rather than to the story he's trying to tell about Aeneas. But it seems to me that his intent in doing so is to raise and to treat poetically certain thematic concerns that he has, to deal with this topic of mortality and grief and frailty counterposed against renown and fame, and so on. And I don't think that's a fanfictional attitude to take. But at the same time, this is definitely a case where the text is very much open to multiple readings!

Two - I think that there's a lot of truth to what you say about the differences between ancient and modern attitudes towards narratives and texts. But in general, I tend to view this as a reason to think that there's a break between the ancients and the moderns. I think that difference undercuts the continuity between the two periods. But I'm generally very inclined to think that there's big differences between attitudes to culture before and after the age of mass production of culture. So, I'm probably biased to see things in that direction.

[meadowphoenix]

It's been a long time since I've gotten to discuss the Aeneid with somebody so I really appreciate this discussion!

I definitely view those things are examples of Virgil intentionally going for literary effects and thematic points.
I think my point is more that it's simply not this alone. He is going for points the same way fanfics converge on style; that's the culture. His interpretations of the characters still require a perspective on the fictive nature of its original. The exchange between Aeneas and Andromache is alluding to other works but the construction is hostile (like Pro Caelio hostile) and that is characterization (especially with the lack of hostility when Helenus appears).

I think there's a rich vein to mine in terms of Virgil's less sanguine, more double-edged or even pessimistic views about the Roman state
I don't necessarily disagree with that entirely, but I don't feel this is primarily Turnus's purpose. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but Vergil's narrative of Rome's future is largely secondary to and in service of remixing and making prosaic fate/divinity in the trojan cycle.

Another example I would point to is the Carthaginian temple stuff, the "sunt lacrimae rerum" part of the text - that's something where Virgil is bringing back material that's relevant to the Trojan War narrative rather than to the story he's trying to tell about Aeneas.
I mean I completely disagree that Aeneas constantly being reminded of Troy is secondary to Aeneas's story. I think it, and all the remnants of the Trojan War he learns about and meets along the way, and Juno's ever-hating presence, and the idea that the journey is both already written future and history, and the refusal of the narrative to truly distinguish Trojans or Greeks, is essential to understanding him killing Turnus.

And I don't think that's a fanfictional attitude to take.
I think I've been in too many fandoms where exploring the human themes (touched on but not exactly developed critically or developed in the opposite direction in the media itself) in fanfiction through setting/characters/plot was indeed the point to agree.

But I'm generally very inclined to think that there's big differences between attitudes to culture before and after the age of mass production of culture.
I do think antiquity is significantly less sub-cultural about it's approach than modern fandom and I do think modern fandom developed from a sub-cultural approach. However, I think there's a lot of about the mainstreaming of fandom that is currently happening in the West at least that seems quite like its function in antiquity and while I understand why you're making that distinction, it doesn't feel necessary or "right" to me to do so. But we can definitely agree to disagree!