#why not have odysseus be the one to suggest sacrificing his men instead of him to show how far he is actually willing to go

[diskusaurus]

My biggest issue in Epic the Musical is Odysseus, actually. In this essay, I will....

[betaray-jones]

Since epic tye musical still has me in its grip and since I keep seeing takes on mutiny here are my thoughts on Odysseus sacrificing the six men to Scylla.

Firstly, how informed was the crew that they were going to face Scylla?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the crew had no idea. When the Siren told Odysseus about Scylla he immediately knew the sacrifice this path required, which in my opinion makes it reasonable to assume that at least Eurylochus would also have heard about Scylla and the fact that her six heads required the sacrifice of six men. Additionally Eurylochus calls Scylla by name at no point instead saying that "something approaches" which further suggests he didn't know where exactly they were going. Also the crew all had wax in their ears during the Siren scene so unless Odysseus told them afterwards there is no way for them to know about Scylla. So why didn't he?

I feel like Odysseus has a good grasp on the spirit of the crew and knows how disillusioned they have become. Based on Eurylochus in mutiny it's safe to assume that at least some members have given up on reaching home. Odysseus knows that if he asks this crew to now further sacrifice six men that chances are good that the crew will refuse, so he doesn't tell them and just tells them that the sirens revealed a way to make it home.

For the majority of the crew the captain not sharing the route would probably not be noteworthy but I think Eurylochus as second in command would normally have insisted on knowing. Here of course Eurylochus guilt about the last time he didn't follow orders would then play in Odysseus favor, keeping him from questioning their direction and Odysseus plan.

This leads me to the second part, the torches.

In the Lifestream it was visible that Eurylochus was originally carrying one of the torches before dropping it in order to help a crew mate implying that Odysseus intended for Scylla to kill him. Most people I've seen discussing this proposed that this was revenge for opening the windbag on Odysseus part but I disagree.

Maybe I'm giving Odysseus too much credit for intelligence but I think this man-made monster Odysseus is too calculated for quick revenge.

But Odysseus knows Eurylochus and he knows that he is willing to question him more than any other character in Epic. I think at least subconsciously he knows that if he sacrifices six men to Scylla and Eurylochus figures out that this was on purpose that his next step will be mutiny. But he also knows that Eurylochus is the voice and acting arm of the crew and their concerns. Take him out of the equation and Odysseus might be able to keep control of the crew.

Therefore I do think that Odysseus did intend to sacrifice Eurylochus to Scylla though not necessarily for revenge (though Eurylochus confession probably worked as further justification in his mind). This would also explain why he was so resigned to Eurylochuses questioning in mutiny and why he didn't even try to defend himself when called out.

In conclusion, the mutiny was essentially just the last inevitable step in the paths both characters chose up to this point.

[aikoiya]

Listen, ya'll. I understand the no-likey for Calypso.

And, honestly? Fair. Even if it isn't mentioned at all in the songs with her in them, & even if it turned out she didn't & was legit just creepy; in Homer's depiction, she did rape him.

Thing is, Odysseus wasn't a good man either. He killed a baby, sacrificed 6 of his friends to Scylla, & ultimately chose himself over his crew, even his own brother-in-law. Yes, he felt forced by Zeus, but he still killed a baby & killed his men.

If we can't recognize that Calypso's situation is complicated, then we also shouldn't recognize that Odysseus' situations with Hector's son & his crew were also complicated.

In such a case, she's a woman who raped a baby-killing traitor. So, ya know... Now the ball's in ya'll's park.

Like, don't get me wrong: Eff og Calypso.

But this isn't og Calypso.

We don't know that Calypso raped Odysseus, but we know for damn sure that Odysseus 1) killed Hector's son. 2) Sacrificed 6 of his friends to Scylla. 3) Essentially chose to save himself rather than not only the rest of his crew, but also his childhood bestfriend & the husband of his sister.

Like, yes, he had reasons & it was a moral gray area & maybe that's the point. But why should I accept a more nuanced look at his behavior if I can't give the other characters the same? Why is Circe not getting the same sort of hate when she was turning men into pigs, then cooking & possibly even eating them? Especially when she attempted to rape & kill Odysseus.

Something I'd like to point out real quick. "You're the most wonderful person that I'd ever known, because you're all that I'd ever known..."

"Alone for a hundred years, no friends but the sky & sun."

Similarly, she notes that she was wrong. Did you notice that in Ruthlessness, Odysseus did as a Greek should when he was asked to apologize. He explained his case, stated why he was justified or in the right. Or if he couldn't, then he would've given an offering.

On the other hand, Calypso... she doesn't make excuses. Instead, she just acknowledges that she was wrong for pushing & ambushing him, expressing sorrow, but also says that she didn't regret loving him. Now, I'm not going to deny the possible underhandedness of the "I'm sorry if my love's too much for you" comment, but she doesn't ask him to stay & doesn't offer eternal youth or immortality. As such, it seems more that she's getting out everything she's feeling before she never gets the chance again. As though it were a forgone conclusion.

And, I dunno. I can't help but find it interesting that so many people are choosing to hate on a woman who's been trapped on an island since the Titanomachy (which, according to my math, wasn't 100, but instead 900 years before the Odyssey) because she sided with her own father against Zeus. Did not fight in it, but sided with Atlas.

Similarly, in Homer's depiction, Zeus wasn't the one who sent Odysseus to the island. Instead, Odysseus got there by shipwreck.

Further, in the og, Calypso wasn't alone. Instead, she had slaves & Odyseus was just one of them. Also, she was the one actively keeping him there, but here, Calypso seems to suggest that she has no power over this; "no one can come or go." She also says that she'd been there "since she was young." So, depending on how young was young, she may not understand that anything she was doing was wrong because no one had taught her it was &, similarly, no real potential for much social interaction period. (Not an excuse, but something to keep in mind.) And we never see anyone else besides her, Odysseus, & the winions.

And in the og, she simply got angry with Hermes, said that the gods never let the goddesses have affairs, & offered Odysseus immortality/eternal youth if he chose to stay. Then, when he turned her down, she helped him to build a raft, & even sent a favorable wind to help him on his way. Still a rapist & horrible, but very different from how she acts in Epic.

Here, she is effing devastated & seems absolutely desperate, never once offers immortality/eternal youth, & doesn't even ask him to stay. As though she knew that he would turn her down. And, more to herself than him, she says, "I wish you would lie & say-" Because she knows he doesn't love her & she knows that if he did say it, it'd be false.

As such, I feel as though there's a very big difference between the og Homerian Odyssey & Jorge's modern reinterpretation, Epic. So, I think we should probably treat it that way.

Perhaps an actual play would show something different, but for the moment, I know nothing of that.