Part 2- Chapters 6 - 9

Caroline French, Chris Ilenstine, Ishaan Narang, Laura Panzone, CJ Sjulin.

Summary:

In part two of Achilles in Vietnam, Jonathan Shay continues to highlight the similarities and differences between warriors in the Iliad and the Vietnam War. He begins by contrasting the ways in which each culture views their enemy. Although many aspects of war are similar between the Iliad and combat in Vietnam, viewing of the enemy is one aspect that is dramatically different. Shay claims that the dehumanizing image of the Vietnamese enemy plays a role in the high number of PTSD cases among Vietnam veterans. After briefly describing the similarities with which the warriors treat those who die in combat, Shay then shifts his focus onto aspects of the Vietnam war that are not accounted for in Homer’s Iliad. Examples include friendly fire, fragging, civilian suffering, and deprivation. Although it is unknown whether these events did not happen or were simply left out, Shay makes his point that these aspects of combat morally traumatized the Vietnam veterans. At the end of this section in the novel, Jonathan Shay incorporates religious views and customs into how the warriors attributed the blame for various atrocities and viewed events as either luck or God’s will.

Main Passages:

“In Vietnam, when Americans witnessed the determination and self-sacrifice of enemy soldiers, they were taught that enemy soldiers placed no value on their own lives. They were called madmen and animals and were said to lack any emotions. In addition to being dirty and smelling bad, the enemy were puny and ugly, perhaps an outward sign that they were enemies of God. Homer’s warriors kept a respectful image of the enemy, which directly contradicts what we think of as natural in soldiers. At Troy, fighters on both sides viewed their opponents as men much like themselves, as competently armed, formidable fighters. They were worthy of honor and capable of imparting honor even if one suffered defeat at their hands” (106).

“This barely considered remark struck the patient like an illumination. ‘Yeah, he was dead but he got up anyway to get at me.’ I commented that he himself had become such a determined soldier and would have probably done the same thing even when mortally wounded; and that this Vietnamese soldier was a worthy adversary, deserving of the honor that the veteran showed him. Over the months that followed the patient reported that the hallucinated visits were less frequent and were no longer terrifying as they had been in the past” (117).

“‘It was to check this killing rage I came
from heaven….
Enough: break off this combat, stay your hand
upon the sword hilt. Let him have a lashing
with words, instead….’ (1:243ff)” (126).

“Homeric warriors saw equipment failure and other incidents of battlefield luck as the gods’ meddling. Clearly, the poet can extend the finger of God wherever he pleases. Sometimes the Iliad’s combatants recognize divine intervention when Homer has shown it to us, and sometimes when Homer has all the gods resting in their dressing rooms the soldiers on stage attribute their bad luck to a god anyway” (143).

“Our own expectations of what may be said about God are molded by the comprehensive victory of Judeo-Christian teachings. As a result, the Olympians’ heartless cruelty, their faithlessness, negligence, and frivolous aims simply don’t register with many modern Western readers” (149).