It seems logical and it ends up being specially alluring since it is true literature changed as a result of the ideas changing in the mind of a big bunch of human beings. And as we perfectly know (or not), editors and writers used to be the scouts at front lines. With their antennae ready to imagine the world. However… Yes, there is a slight “but”…
The tale of Jason and the golden fleece , with all and its hero type actions, as it matches a Greek myt has feelings in it too. Underneath, of course, the rule “show, don’t tell”.
After all, Jason starts his quests of the golden fleece a naïve boy who calls on the usurper, asking him to give back a throne. Boy turned into sly king(along his trip) who is aware no one is going to give back a usurped throne just because he is asked to. He does need to be a fox and murder the king and its subjects with Medusa’s head or it is going to be him, the murdered one. I mean, he doesn’t end up being the way he used to. A gentleman ofchivalrous ideas. Since he started a chivalrous guy and ended being a pragmatic gentleman.
But, what about feelings?
FEELINGS AND THEIR METHAMORPHOSIS
Just that, along the many times this tale was told; it acquired this quality of the sea polished glass’s beauty. Free of any rough or sharp end. The feelings became invisible, not inexistent. After all, what came with a twist, was the way to present things.
Harari doesn’t tangle himself in the subtle art of weaving a plot —after all, he is a Historian and his book is not trying to convince us how to write tales or novels.
Here, the worthy stuff is: the shape given to the plot comes inherent to the style and mental drive of the time. A character can’t say anything they won’t believe,
So, Jason can’t open his mouth to utter his exhaustion. He feels overwhelmed but he doesn’t say so. IS like what Hillary Mantel says in Adaptation: you might use a modern language but a character can’t express what is illogical to themselves or what they don’t believe. A trap that might lead us to historical incongruency. So long the reader knows a a bit of History. When we don’t we swallow it whole. As I did with Hannibal, the origin of evil.
Thinking it well, when was it that Shakeaspere wrote Otelo? I’m sure it was way before Wordsworth and Dickens, even if I can’t precise the year or century. Obviously Otelo wasn’t a common man or a common housewife. You see, jeaulousy was already in the air.
Thereafter, Sancho Panza is there; he whom is not a main character but isn’t a king or knight —I’m sorry but I can’t remind what is it that he does (I’ll confess the most terrible of all confessions and this might be connected to my inability to finish a novel; I must be the first writer in the Spanish speaking America who doesn’t like and hasn’t read whole The Quixote and for the way things are, I might never do. I never found the pleasure of it) — and who is portrayed by Cervantes with his own worries and likes in spite of it.
Maybe, just this quality to be in sync with both imagination and the top notch ideas, writers used to have and that starts to influence the important guys of the ideas. Whom in free time must read novels. Or collect ukiyo-e.
Who knows!? And you, do you think feelings is a human quality from centuries ago or a literary subterfuge which started with humanism?
Comments, comments, comment!
I certainly can’t own universal truth and if you think I’m being offensive or my arguments can’t convince you, confrontation is good to sparkle more ideas. Otherwise, comment so I don’t feel lonely…
Sniff, sniff. Crocodile tears. So, to finish and promote my drama, like, subscribe and comment!
 Hamm, the piggy bank would say: but, but and buts.