Home > The Odyssey Summary & Study Guide > The Odyssey Group > Discussion Board

I have asked this question before but am still confused. Here is what I have gathered so far:

I know that the entire story is told by Odysseus himself and can't tell exactly how objective he is being. In Book 9, he does have a motive to make himself look good: to win the help of King Alcinous to get home. He has a reputation for being clever and presents information to his audience in a sneaky way -- by telling us what to think about people and events before even describing what happened. Is he reporting facts or putting a spin on the details to make himself sound even more heroic? On the other hand, he doesn't hide the fact that he's not always wise in the course of actions he takes. We see very obviously both his strengthes and weaknesses. You would think if he was unreliable, the story would have been overly exaggerated and he would not have included his mistakes.

I'm having a hard time deciding on one or the other, reliable or unreliable! Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I suspect you won't like this answer, but I'd have to argue that those terms don't fully apply to Odysseus. It's applying contemporary standards of narration to an ancient text—and asking someone who is fundamentally a self-aggrandizing trickster to be judged as if he were a realistic and mundane character.

However, if you have to decide between the two—reliable or unreliable—go with unreliable. You're only going to get the literal truth from Odysseus when it serves his purpose. He himself says something similar here: "I am Odysseus son of Laertes, renowned among mankind for all manner of subtlety, so that my fame ascends to heaven."

His reputation is built on being subtle (tricky); that's how even the gods know him.