You could probably find Marxist analyses that come at the Iliad from a class-conflict position, I think. A brief search reveals it has been written on but not sure how much time you want to spend following up on this--Marxists have written a lot about *everything*.
I think your description of how propaganda evolves fits what we see today, though. Look at how the white guy is always the bad guy in modern TV shows and movies and so on (unless he's gay, like in Knives Out, or it's a legacy property like Superman). It started out of a desire to avoid offending various groups (blacks, Latinos, women, etc.) that could make trouble for you on the left and became a sincere desire among the artistic class to overturn hierarchies and piss off the rural white people they grew up among who didn't like them. But in our case there's no overarching power structure that would punish them for this, so they keep making more of it.
Fascinating analysis, but I suspect it's wrong, and before I had to give it any credence, I would need to see comparisons with other civilizationally impactful literature from the same lens of "propaganda justifying aristocratic rule."
My guess is you would find that such literature generally praises rulers as exemplars of virtue, though clumsily because virtue wasn't well understood.
If so, what stands out about The Iliad would be that it is so lucid about the indefensible vices of the ruling class. That helped to pave the way for democracy. And yet the Greek heroes are very brave, plunging into the fight again and again with gusto. That, too, set a pattern that undergirded Greek greatness.
The Greeks had fine role models of courage, even if they were morally inept to an incredible degree, taken holistically.
It's telling when you consider it in the context of Frank Miller's other work, like Sin City (criminals with a heart of gold beat each other and occasionally the corrupt ruling class up to defend prostitutes), Holy Terror (vigilante fights al-Qaeda terrorists after an attack on not-NYC), and of course, The Dark Knight Returns, which involves Batman in late middle age coming back and beating up Two-Face, mutant gangs (in a likely swipe at Marvel), the Joker (who's implied to be attracted to him), and Superman doing Reagan's bidding. The last was almost singlehandedly responsible (with Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen) for ushering in the Dark Age of Comics in 1986.
Guy is *really* into the heroic outsider doing violence trope.
Suddenly, I have an insight into the relationship between Epstein and our current ruling class oligarchs!
You could probably find Marxist analyses that come at the Iliad from a class-conflict position, I think. A brief search reveals it has been written on but not sure how much time you want to spend following up on this--Marxists have written a lot about *everything*.
I think your description of how propaganda evolves fits what we see today, though. Look at how the white guy is always the bad guy in modern TV shows and movies and so on (unless he's gay, like in Knives Out, or it's a legacy property like Superman). It started out of a desire to avoid offending various groups (blacks, Latinos, women, etc.) that could make trouble for you on the left and became a sincere desire among the artistic class to overturn hierarchies and piss off the rural white people they grew up among who didn't like them. But in our case there's no overarching power structure that would punish them for this, so they keep making more of it.
If you look at all the epics surrounding the war of Troy, you will realize that all of the aristocracy paid a price.
Enjoyed this one!
Fascinating analysis, but I suspect it's wrong, and before I had to give it any credence, I would need to see comparisons with other civilizationally impactful literature from the same lens of "propaganda justifying aristocratic rule."
My guess is you would find that such literature generally praises rulers as exemplars of virtue, though clumsily because virtue wasn't well understood.
If so, what stands out about The Iliad would be that it is so lucid about the indefensible vices of the ruling class. That helped to pave the way for democracy. And yet the Greek heroes are very brave, plunging into the fight again and again with gusto. That, too, set a pattern that undergirded Greek greatness.
The Greeks had fine role models of courage, even if they were morally inept to an incredible degree, taken holistically.
You think this is bad, you should see 300.
It's telling when you consider it in the context of Frank Miller's other work, like Sin City (criminals with a heart of gold beat each other and occasionally the corrupt ruling class up to defend prostitutes), Holy Terror (vigilante fights al-Qaeda terrorists after an attack on not-NYC), and of course, The Dark Knight Returns, which involves Batman in late middle age coming back and beating up Two-Face, mutant gangs (in a likely swipe at Marvel), the Joker (who's implied to be attracted to him), and Superman doing Reagan's bidding. The last was almost singlehandedly responsible (with Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen) for ushering in the Dark Age of Comics in 1986.
Guy is *really* into the heroic outsider doing violence trope.