Can We Trust Darl?

One issue that having so many different narrators creates is the conflicting points of view.  We as readers must decide which narrator is more trustworthy in each situation.  However, this is even more complicated when Darl narrates, as he seems to have some kind of omniscience or ESP.  How he knows about events happening while he is not present is not explained at this point in the novel, and probably won't be.  Therefore, as readers we must decide whether or not these seemingly clairvoyant sections are reliable or not.

The way that these sections are written it does not seem that he is retelling what he was told by someone else, someone who was present.  Instead, he seems to be observing the scene much the same as a third person omniscient narrator would.  The only difference is that his narration of what is happening far away is interspersed with bits of what his happening to himself, Jewel and the wagon.  I think that if we can trust what we hear from narrator in this book, we can trust Darl as well.  He seems to be Faulkner's way of putting an omniscient narrator into this book without disrupting the structure of narration by all the characters.  If this is true, then perhaps these clairvoyant passages are in fact Faulkner speaking directly to the reader without the intermediary step of a character narrator.

Regardless of whether or not this is Faulkner's direct narration, there is little reason to distrust Darl.  He seems to be one of the most objective of the narrators, and nothing he says about events when he is not present is incorrect, as far as we know.  He is certainly less opinionated than Cora, who narrates everything against Anse.  He and seems to be more reliable than Vardaman, who tells us his mother is a fish.  Which narrator do you trust most?  Is Darl's long-distance narration reliable?

Odysseus's Pride

It seems to me that if Odysseus had simply walked in to the city of Ithaca and announced his return to the suitors there would have been very little resistance.  The majority of the suitors lack the will or bravery to openly challenge such a renowned hero.   Even if the most ambitious suitors chose to fight against him, they would not be able to defeat Odysseus, for most of the city would be happy to see their hero and back him.   He could still punish the suitors as he saw fit, probably killing the ones who "deserved" it.  With this in mind, why then does Odysseus pursue this roundabout plan of disguising himself as a beggar in his own home?

He chooses this scheme partly because Athena wants him to take revenge in an aesthetically pleasing (and bloody) way.  But, I think that the main reason that he chooses this roundabout path is that he wants the suitors to have the "oh crap" moment as he reveals himself to be the beggar who they mistreated, and the suitors realize that they are about to die.  It is this feeling of absolutely dominating the suitors physically and psychologically that Odysseus craves, that his pride demands.  As a hero who is mostly praised for his tactics and wiliness, he cannot be satisfied by just driving the suitors away by revealing himself or taking them unawares and killing them in their sleep.   He seems quite vain at some points in this story, especially when he asks a bard to sing about his own deeds, so it makes sense that he wants this plot to be impressive and clever enough to be sung about by bards alongside his other exploits.

The idea that a person is only great if others recognize them as great seems to plague Odysseus throughout the epic.  It gets him into trouble with Polyphemus, first when he demands gifts after already taking many of the cyclops's possessions, then later when he cannot resist telling Polyphemus his real name and revealing how he tricked the cyclops.   Both of these actions have serious consequences for Odysseus and his men.  If he had followed his mens' advice, they could have taken what they wanted from the cyclops's home and left without trouble.  However, because of Odysseus's greed and need for glory, many of his men are eaten, and Odysseus barely escapes with his life.  However, he obviously does not learn from this since as soon as he is back on his ship and away from shore he taunts Polyphemus.  He needs the cyclops to know that it wasn't "nobody" who blinded him, it was the great hero Odysseus.  Because of his pride,  Polyphemus is able to throw boulders at the sound of his voice, narrowly missing their ship.   Furthermore, this whole encounter with Polyphemus angers Poseidon and is therefore the reason that Odysseus takes so long to reach home, which is why there is this issue with the suitors in the first place.

Is it right for Odysseus to kill all the suitors because of his pride?  Does he deserve respect for his exploits, or is his overdeveloped sense of pride the source of all the conflict in the Odyssey?

Xenia

The greek word "Xenia" does not translate perfectly.  Host to guest hospitality is part of the concept, but the ancient greeks placed an equal emphasis on how the guest treated the host.  Xenia is the concept of the proper host-guest relationship, characterized by respect, courtesy, and gift giving on both sides. Obviously, the host will usually have more to offer the guest, such as food, drink, a bath, and a place to sleep.  In return, it is considered very important that the guest do their best not to be a burden and to reciprocate in any way they can.  One reason the greeks placed such a high importance on Xenia is that they believed gods walked among them in disguise, and to mistreat such a guest could incur divine wrath and potentially vengeance.  This idea was deeply set in ancient greek culture, and thus we must read the Odyssey with the knowledge that Homer's audience would have been familiar with the concept of Xenia.

I think that with this background information in mind, Telemachus deserves more respect for his own actions that are not prompted by Athena.  He is beset by suitors who throw the idea of Xenia out the window, however when he sees a newly arrived stranger, who happens to be Athena, Telemachus immediately attends to the stranger's every need.  I think that the ancient greek audience would have responded very positively to his actions, especially in contrast to the actions of the suitors.  The suitors are a perfect example of bad Xenia.  They are a huge burden on the household of Odysseus, in fact it seems that they try to be a burden.  This direct clash with the concept of Xenia would be horrifying to ancient greek audiences, and certainly would make Telemachus seem better in contrast.

He also demonstrates this in the role of a guest when he visits King Nestor and King Menelaus in their homes.  He is very courteous to them, and fits into the role of a visiting prince surprisingly well, considering that he has never been prepared for this role.  He certainly demonstrates that he is deserving of respect for his Xenia, regardless of whether or not he should be respected for what he does carrying out Athena's plan.  Although Telemachus's journey is micromanaged by Athena, his exemplary Xenia is his own.