7. Margaret Atwood (2005), The Penelopiad

[strange_complex]

I read this book because a) it is about me my mythological namesake, b) my Mum bought it for me two Christmases ago, knowing that it would appeal to me for that reason, and c) I've always vaguely thought I ought to read something by Margaret Atwood.

It's basically Penelope's side of the story, as the title suggests. She is the narrator, speaking from the Underworld, and she tells us how she felt, what she knew when and why she did what she did from her childhood up to the return of Odysseus. There's a special emphasis on the twelve household maids which Telemachus hangs on Odysseus's orders at the end of Book 22 of the Iliad. In Homer, they've been rude and insolent to Eurycleia (Odysseus' childhood nurse) and Penelope, and have slept with several of the suitors. In The Penelopiad, they were Penelope's secret eyes and ears about the house, and most of them had been raped. So Atwood sets out to tell their side of the story, too - and in particular breaks up Penelope's narrative with a series of Greek-style dramatic Choruses, delivered by the maids in formats ranging from the ballad and the sea shanty to the idyll and the court-room trial.

Thing is, that's about it. That's the plot and structure of the book, it's all done perfectly plausibly and readably, and I really don't have anything much else to say about it. There wasn't really anything in it which surprised me, wowed me or challenged me. Well, there was one of the Maids' Choruses, done in the style of an anthropology lecture, where I had to grit my teeth a bit as I was presented with a reading of Odysseus' return as the over-throw of a matriarchal society led by Penelope - an interpretation which Atwood credits in her closing note to Robert Graves' famously *koff* 'creative' The Greek Myths. But apart from that, it was fine. Just fine. Did exactly what it said on the tin.

I suppose I was hoping for something a bit more epic and creative. Maybe the problem is that Penelope - much as I would wish otherwise - is not really the most exciting of characters. Atwood chooses to keep her basically in line with Homer's characterisation, apart from having hidden feelings and motives which Homer and his male characters overlook. So alternate possibilities like her becoming the mother of Pan are out of the window, and you're left with a pretty passive heroine, really - even if you do grant her intelligence that Homer doesn't.

Oh well - anyway, I've read it now. Whether I'll read more Atwood is likely to depend on whether anyone particularly persuasive attempts to talk me into it or not.

Comments

[white_hart]

My seminar tutor for Epic Tradition in my first year at Warwick (don't know if he was still at Warwick in your time; he is utterly ungoogleable due to having the same name as one of the actors who played Doctor Who!) was also very keen on that interpretation of the Odyssey. (His other pet theory was that the Catalogue of Ships in Book 2 of the Iliad was in fact an ancient Greek version of the shipping forecast, which didn't really make it any less dull).

I haven't read The Penelopiad yet (I seem to have got a long way behind with Atwood over the last few years), but would definitely second (or third, fourth or fifth) the recommendation of The Handmaid's Tale.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

You mean the 'overthrow of a matriarchal society' theory? In all seriousness? I like the Greek shipping forecast one, though.

Meanwhile, it looks like I am being lent The Handmaid's Tale, so maybe my opinion of Atwood will be rescued from this blow after all.

[white_hart]

Not necessarily the overthrow of the matriarchal society, but he argued quite convincingly that there were a number of pointers in the text that suggested that the story in its earliest form had been the product of a matriarchal society, although the Homeric retelling was set in the context of the later patriarchy. In particular he cited the fact that attempts to gain power in Ithaca centred on marriage to Penelope rather than bumping off Telemachus, and also questioned why Odysseus's father is still alive if Odysseus's kingship was patrilineal. I think he also mentioned the dominant influence of Nausicaa and her mother as indicative of the power of women in the Odyssey, which is particularly noticeable compared to the Iliad where women are solely acted upon by men.

The Handmaid's Tale is extremely good. It is also, if anything, even more plausible now than it was when it was written. I would also second the recommendation for Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time, which I would offer to lend to you if I wasn't currently without a copy, having lent the second one I bought to someone ages ago...

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

marriage to Penelope rather than bumping off Telemachus

Hmm, that's pretty normal in a society where marriages are used as a way of allying two powerful families, though. It's also how Oedipus gains power in Thebes, and the reason why imperial women were so important in Rome. Marrying a member of the established ruling family gives you legitimacy, and makes it look as though you have been accepted into the circles of power. Bumping off the legitimate heir merely makes you look like a war-lord, and leaves you wide open to challenge from others.

why Odysseus's father is still alive

Yes, that's an interesting aspect of the story, and certainly reflects a rather different idea of dynastic succession from the one we understand today. However, it certainly isn't proof of matrilineal succession, because Odysseus' mother, Anticleia, is also still alive when he sets out for Troy, yet he is already recognised as king. See the fifth paragraph down in this translation of book 11 (http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.11.xi.html).

As for figures such as Nausicaa - yes, she's one of many examples which show that the role of women is being explored and examined in the Odyssey. But many of Euripides' and Aristophanes' plays do the very same thing in late fifth century Athens. It doesn't mean any of these people are transmitting remnants of a real matriarchal society - only that the notion that women might break out of their established social roles was a very real fear in this context.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

(BTW, I've just realised that the above comment might come across as a bit aggressive. I'm not criticising you here - just the matriarchy theory, which I'm afraid really gets my goat).

[white_hart]

No problem. I failed to be interested enough to do any further research into the matter (and, given that my degree was in English, haven't read a wide variety of other classical texts to get a wider sense of the portrayal of women), so I'm just quoting what I can remember from a seminar that took place almost fifteen years ago! (Oh dear, that makes me feel old!)

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

Oh dear, that makes me feel old!

God, I know! It doesn't do to actually count up the years since school / Uni / whatever any more, does it? Better to just say 'a few years ago', I find!

Anyway, at least your seminar tutor had his own distinct reading of the Odyssey. He makes me want to argue with him, whereas Atwood just left me saying 'meh'. I think that if she'd gone all out for an ultra-feminist, matriarchal reading, I might actually have respected her more, since at least she'd have been doing something powerful and challenging with the story. As it was, her take just seemed kinda weak and unimportant to me.