She considers it a low art because she knows

that stories can be altered through the

change of point of view. It’s an art of
gossiping, a revised story-telling . It is
mainly because in the Odyssey, only
Odysseus’ point of view is being presented.
His version of events was the only one being
portrayed in the story. Meanwhile in the
Penelopiad, Penelope has told her side of
the story, and she said that Odysseus was
tricky and a liar.
In The Odyssey, though stubborn and boastful, Odysseus
otherwise exhibits courage, cunning, sharp intellect and
concern for his men. Homer illustrates that, despite all of his
human frailties, he is ultimately a heroic character due to his
bravery and sharp intellect. Furthermore, Odysseus shows
himself to be a cerebral, cognitive character when he
overcomes any lustful or manly urges to leave Calypso; he lets
rational thought prevail in eventually extricating himself from
her lair. However, A Low Art, through Penelope’s perspective
discussed how Odysseus, her husband, made a fool out of her
by the versions of narrations about their relationship. Penelope
narrates how great Odysseus in making fools for making people
believe with his versions of events. Odysseus was deceitful and
conniving for he made the people believe that his version of
events was the right one. He was tricky and a liar. I think
Odysseus is a cunning man because he showed a skill in
achieving one’s ends by deceit.
Homer portrays Penelope as loyal, patient, and the
ideal wife, as he contrasts her to Clytemnestra who
killed Agamemnon upon his return from Troy.
Penelope emerges as a virtuous, yet complex and
powerful character who is regarded by later Greek
tradition as the epitome of a respectable and faithful
wife. In her perspective, she had found out that
people’s view on her is way too different from the
epic’s. People mocked her and made scandalous
gossips. I think Penelope is the epitome of
faithfulness because she waited for many years for
Odysseus to come back to her. Penelope’s agony and
pain was shown by her version of story— keeping a
blind eye to achieve her happy ending. And her little
Penelope feels that the official version of
events flattened her character into a
means of controlling other women. The
official version is making her an ideal of
blind faithfulness and fidelity toward her
husband, to a standard to which other
women were then held.
I agree that she is “ a stick to beat other
women with” because Penelope was always
considered as the faithful wife. She waited for
years for her husband’s return and did not even
mind all her suitors since she wants to be loyal
to Odysseus. She also doesn’t want him to be
with other girls as well. Penelope knew that
Odysseus was tricky, but she pretended not to
see that side of him. Instead, she kept her
doubts to herself because she wanted happy
endings.
Penelope said that she sounds like an owl
when she tried to warn other women
because nobody wants to listen to her.
She felt that she is like an owl in the
woods that scares people every time it
hoots. She was being ignored by many,
and no one even trusted her side.
I think ancient history has both fact and a little
bit of gossip or exaggeration. We could tell
that it is based on history since the story is
about Penelope and her husband, Odysseus and
how their relationship goes. It has a little bit of
exaggeration since the excerpt is obviously
expressed with some opinions of the storyteller
since the story has a resemblance or similarity
with reality or what’s happening with the
modern world. But we could never really tell
that history is based on facts unless there are
evidences being shown. Some people would
exaggerate things in order to add excitement
A story is colored by the biases of the
storyteller because he/she is the one
narrating the story. There would be a part
of the story in which the storyteller may
express his or her opinion that may give
or hold biases on another. The storyteller
can never express his or her opinion that
doesn’t bear a resemblance to reality
unless it is a lie.
 Yes and no. Yes, because I believe that
historian makes a big impact, and he/she can
affect what truly history is. It’s also a no since
Historians base history on two sources: the
primary source in which there is is a testimony
of an eyewitness or an account of someone
who has firsthand information on the subject,
and secondary source that uses primary
materials as the source of information such as
hieroglyphs and cuneiform.
 This story changed the way I look at literature
and history. It made me wonder if what was
written in every historical book is correct. I
have realized that anyone could make their
own version of what happened and what would
happen in the future. This made me doubt
about those books that I’ve read about history.
For all I know, history could be as misleading as
gossip. It can be more difficult—often
impossible—to verify.