| |
|
Hmmmm... I think "grouchy and old" is romanticising it. You're being rude...let's go back to the outside of each other's heads and talk about the film, eh?
I think we can confidently say that there are many reasons why somebody might not have heard about the story of the Trojan Horse. They may be from a culture that places less weight on the Classical tradition, they may not have encountered it. However, it is not unreasonable to be surprised by something that, as toksik points out, has been immortalised in hacker lingo as a *successful* stratagem for getting what one wants to get through defences before unloading its payload on the other sid of the (fire)wall... for example, it's not known as an "Evnissien's cauldron", or similar.
Annnnyway - that makes for quite an interesting squeezy squeezy thing. As I said, there is no "original" per se here, just a collection of stories. So, some people will, as Wembley is my witness, have no accurate knowledge of the story, others will have memories and views of other representations, others will have read secondary sources (compendiums of stories, Tony Robinson etc), others will have read some or all fo the source texts, some will have read some or all of the source texts in the original... rather delightfully, there is a point where the headroom just gets chopped of - for example, the cyclic epics have not survived; all we know about them is from summaries or references. So Troy the movie is another layer of accretion. So, whether it is true to the original is a slippery and Protean question - what we maybe can ask is is it as good a representation of those bits of the original sources that we know and love as we could hope for, bearing in mind that it is in a very different medium... |
|
|
