Does Odysseus in America work?

Authors who write books about war have to be very careful. The first thing to consider is, why a writer would choose to write about war. Clearly there is some message he is trying to convey. With regards to a book about war, this message is usually amplified by the content of the novel; the gruesome, harsh, bitter reality of war has to move us and unsettle us into wanting to read the rest of the book. In Shay's case, he wants us to have some respect for our veterans. His repeated use of the term "mind-fuck" really keeps his argument alive because it really sums up how the veteran returning from a traumatic experience is going to feel. The message is powerful. Shay poses the following question: how can you remove a civilian from his civilized society, dehumanize, mechanize, and harden him in every way possible, and then expect him to integrate himself, once again, into that civilized society?

This is all very well. We, as people, do need to wonder why war veterans who were sent to war as a result of being drafted are treated like shit by the political and social systems. However, as readers, we're hard to get to. Authors write that something is disturbing, something is surprising, something is unappealing but until they show us how it's disturbing, surprising, or unappealing, we won't care--that's why we have banned adjectives in English classes. It's best to let the reader infer based on telling details. Shay's novel is full of telling details, but he gives us the inferences too. This leaves no room for pondering, or coming to any particular realization about anything. I am currently enrolled in EGL 206, The Survey of British Literature, and often I am unable to engage in the discussion because it's a 100 people lecture hall and I end up having to listen to the same ten people talking. Oftentimes, I feel a little self-conscious when it comes to contributing and having 100 people looking at me, and at other times, I lack incentive. Anyway, the point is, there are some people who would prefer to sit through an 80 minute lecture and not say a word, and there are others, such as myself, who cannot sit in one spot for 80 minutes listening to a few people talk about their interpretations. It can lead to new insight, but usually it's boring. Similarly, Shay's book is full of insight, but it's boring because it's a 250 page essay which makes the inferences for us.

I picked up this book and expected to be dazzled by an authentic, unconventional discourse paralleling Odysseus and war veterans. I was thoroughly disappointed. As a reader, I want to read something I haven't read before. Style matters. I'm not against books about war. It just so happens to be that The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, one of my favorite books, is also about warfare. I would read this book over and over again. O'Brien says his book is fiction, but then again, it's not. The experience is real though the people are not. And he really captures the essence of the human sentiments running through a soldier's mind. His diction is eloquent and compelling. He sort of blends fiction and non-fiction in his novel.

I found that Shay's novel ultimately does not work and genre has nothing to do with it. Non-fiction can be terrific. Unfortunately this book is not terrific. For one thing, I thought the Odysseus allusion was really cool at first. I was stricken by Shay's take on Odysseus's interaction with the Phaecians. I hadn't thought about the fact that Odysseus could have been offended by the atmosphere and the Demodocus's singing. Another thing I hadn't thought about was how Odysseus's introduction of himself to the King is rather ridiculous and strange. He introduces himself as a wily man. Shay asks why someone who seeks shelter and help from strangers would introduce himself as a conman to imply that perhaps, Odysseus isn't as calm, collected and in control as we thought he was. As I read on, I began to feel as though the repeated parallels between Odysseus and the veterans become annoying and tedious. For one thing, I realized that this parallel stopped working. The Odyssey is about coming home and how hard it is to come home, but Odysseus is not a warrior. If there was a way around the fight that will lead to the same end, he'd be the one to contrive it. The troops however, are taught to reason less, and act more. Alas, Odysseus's experience is not exactly the same as the army veterans. And knowing Odysseus, his decision to introduce himself as a wily man seems to be well thought out rather than an instance in which he loses control. After all, the Phaecians seek to be entertained and entertainment is what they get. Maybe, Odysseus's way of introducing himself is his way of intriguing them. Yes, he does seek thrills in his episode with the Cyclops, but this does not have any physical implications. The war veterans have gone through physical torture primarily and seen physical torture which has left them emotionally scarred. It all boils down to how effective Shay's Odyssey theme is.

This is the problem with referring to a classic. One has to really consider the counterarguments which reveal the ways in which drawing such parallels doesn't work. If they outweigh the reasons why they do work, then it's best to leave the classic alone. Shay makes his point very clear. It just doesn't move the reader into buying it.

Also, not to sound as though I've been desensetized to the atrocities of war, I feel as though Shay's use of language is bland and uninteresting. As a person who loves words and believes in the potential of word choice and syntax to have an enormous impact on the quality of a written work, I am not moved at all by Shay's novel. From the perspective of someone who has a Chemistry and Calculus final to be tortured by, the tediousness of this book really begins to irritate. I'd rather be reading something that lets me think rather than doing all the thinking for me. I guess ultimately, Shay's book does get us to think, but not about what the content of his book is. Instead, we find ourselves wondering whether his argument and method works or doesn't work which is also a useful thing for it's own reasons, I guess. We have to read things which we find to be not so great or we wouldn't appreciate things that are great. In the end it's all about perspective.