How to Write a Literary Essay That Analyses the Poem, Not Just the Plot
The Odyssey is not simply a story about a hero’s journey home. It is a poem that is persistently, self-consciously about the act of storytelling itself — how stories are performed, who controls them, who benefits from them, and what it costs the people who appear in them. Most student essays on storytelling in the Odyssey identify Odysseus as a clever narrator and note that the poem contains stories within stories. That is where the analysis needs to start, not end. This guide maps the structural and thematic dimensions of storytelling the poem offers, the questions a strong essay must answer, and exactly where most submissions fall short.
📖 Need expert help with your Odyssey essay or classical literature analysis?
Get Expert Help →What This Essay Is Actually Testing — and Why Knowing the Plot Is Not Enough
An essay on storytelling in the Odyssey is not an invitation to retell the poem’s plot with observations about deception attached. The analytical demand is more specific: you are being asked to identify how the poem constructs storytelling as a thematic and structural concern — through its embedded narratives, its bard figures, its unreliable protagonist-narrator, its manipulation of chronology, and its persistent interrogation of who controls a story and to what end. A strong essay argues a precise claim about what the Odyssey says about narrative — not that stories are important, not that Odysseus is clever, but what the poem’s formal and thematic choices argue about the relationship between storytelling, identity, power, and truth. That argument must be supported by close reading of specific passages, not by plot summary with commentary.
The topic of storytelling is deceptively broad. Essays that treat it as a theme to be illustrated — gathering examples of characters telling stories and concluding that narrative is significant — are not doing literary analysis. They are compiling evidence for a claim that requires no argument. The thesis you need is one that takes a specific position on what the Odyssey argues about storytelling: whether it presents narrative as an instrument of self-construction, as a form of social and political control, as fundamentally unreliable, or as the mechanism through which identity under pressure survives or fails.
A second demand is engagement with the poem’s formal situation: the Odyssey is an oral epic, composed within and for a performance tradition, and its structural features — the in medias res opening, the extended flashback in Books 9–12, the Telemachy, the ring composition, the formulaic epithets — are not decorative. They are the formal tools of a genre with specific conventions, and your essay needs a working account of what those conventions do before it can argue about what the poem does with them.
Use a Scholarly Translation and Read the Critical Introduction
The translation you use matters for this essay. Emily Wilson’s 2017 Norton translation (the first English translation of the Odyssey by a woman) includes a substantial introduction addressing narrative voice, the poem’s oral-traditional context, and the politics of translation that directly informs any essay on storytelling. Robert Fagles’s Penguin Classics translation includes an introduction by Bernard Knox with comparable scholarly apparatus. For the Greek text and scholarly commentary, the standard reference is Alfred Heubeck et al., A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey (Oxford University Press, 3 vols.). For secondary reading on oral tradition and Homeric composition, the foundational study is Albert Lord’s The Singer of Tales (Harvard University Press), which established the Parry-Lord theory of oral-formulaic composition and remains essential context for any essay on how the Odyssey constructs its narrative. Access it through your university library.
Oral Tradition and the Poem’s Form — Why Genre Knowledge Changes What You Can Argue
Before you can write a strong essay on storytelling in the Odyssey, you need a precise account of what oral epic is and what its formal conventions do — because the poem’s narrative choices only make full sense against that background. The Odyssey was not written to be read silently by an individual. It was composed within a tradition of oral performance before an audience, and its formal features are tools of that tradition: functional, not decorative.
The Formal Features of Oral Epic — and What Each One Means for Your Essay
Each formal feature creates a specific analytical question. Identify which ones are relevant to your argument before you draft.
In Medias Res Opening
- The poem begins not at the start of Odysseus’s journey but ten years in — Odysseus is stranded on Calypso’s island, Telemachus is at home surrounded by suitors, Troy has fallen long since
- The audience already knows the broad outline of the story; the poem’s structural interest is not in what happened but in how the return is achieved and narrated
- This opening position means the poem is from its first line concerned with the problem of catching up — of filling narrative time with story — which is itself an argument about how epic functions: not as revelation but as re-telling
The Extended Flashback (Books 9–12)
- Odysseus narrates his own wanderings to the Phaeacians in Books 9–12 — this section, the Apologoi, is the most famous part of the poem but occupies only four of its twenty-four books
- It is narrated in the first person by a character the poem has already established as a skilled deceiver; the audience at the Phaeacian court cannot verify what he tells them, and neither can the reader
- Your essay must decide what to do with this structural fact — it is the most important formal feature for any essay on storytelling in the poem
Formulaic Language and Epithets
- The Homeric epithets — “wine-dark sea,” “grey-eyed Athena,” “much-enduring Odysseus,” “rosy-fingered Dawn” — are not stylistic flourishes; they are the metrical and compositional units of oral-formulaic poetry
- The epithet “polytropos” applied to Odysseus in the first line — “of many turns” or “much-travelled” or “the man of many ways” — is itself a compressed argument about the kind of narrator the poem is dealing with
- Analysing the epithet as a narrative framing device, rather than simply noting it as a description, is the kind of close reading that earns marks in this essay
The Embedded Bard Figures
- The poem contains two named bards — Demodocus at the Phaeacian court and Phemius on Ithaca — who perform within the poem and make the poem’s own activity visible and available for analysis
- Demodocus sings about the Trojan War before an audience that includes Odysseus; Phemius sings about the Trojan heroes’ homecomings before an audience that includes Penelope, whose husband has not yet come home
- These figures are the poem’s reflexive instrument — through them, the poem argues about what singing epic does to its audiences and what obligations attach to the bardic function
Ring Composition
- Ring composition — the structural pattern in which a narrative returns to its opening elements after a digression — is characteristic of oral-traditional poetry and operates at multiple scales in the Odyssey
- The poem begins and ends with Odysseus in a domestic space (Calypso’s island / his own hall); the narrative returns repeatedly to the frame it temporarily leaves
- For an essay on storytelling, ring composition is relevant because it enacts at the structural level the poem’s thematic argument about return — the story, like Odysseus, always comes back
The Muse Invocation
- The poem opens with an invocation to the Muse — “Tell me, O Muse, of that ingenious hero” — which immediately raises the question of narrative authority: who is actually telling this story?
- The Muse invocation is a convention that frames the narrative as divinely sanctioned, not individually authored; this is the poet’s claim to truth-telling authority, distinct from Odysseus’s claim in Books 9–12
- Your essay should address the difference between the poem’s narrator (who invokes the Muse) and Odysseus as internal narrator — they are not the same, and treating them as equivalent produces analytic errors
The Parry-Lord Framework — Why It Matters for Your Essay
Milman Parry and Albert Lord’s research on oral-formulaic composition established that Homeric epic was produced within a tradition of oral improvisation using fixed metrical formulas — not composed by a single author writing in isolation. This matters for an essay on storytelling because it changes the questions you can legitimately ask. You cannot ask what “Homer intended” as though recovering a single authorial mind; you can ask what the poem does with the tradition it inherits, how it uses and varies conventional formulas, and what its structural choices argue about the relationship between individual performance and inherited story. The distinction between “what the poet meant” and “what the poem does” is important, and using the Parry-Lord framework correctly demonstrates graduate-level familiarity with how Homeric scholarship is conducted. Albert Lord’s The Singer of Tales is the foundational text; your university library will have it.
Odysseus as Narrator — The Unreliability Question and How to Take a Position
The most frequently mishandled element of student essays on storytelling in the Odyssey is the question of Odysseus’s narrative reliability in Books 9–12. The poem has already established, before Odysseus begins his first-person account, that he is “polytropos” — a man of many turns, many tricks, many deceptions. When this figure then delivers a four-book, first-person account of his own wanderings to an audience that cannot verify it, the poem is not simply providing backstory. It is raising a structural question about the relationship between narrator and truth that your essay needs to address directly.
Odysseus is the only witness to most of his own adventures. The poem gives him the tools of deception and then gives him the narrative.
— The tension your thesis needs to resolve| Position | Core Claim | Strongest Supporting Evidence | Counterevidence Your Essay Must Address |
|---|---|---|---|
| Odysseus is a fundamentally unreliable narrator and the poem foregrounds this | The poem deliberately positions the Apologoi as a first-person account by a character it has already established as a skilled liar and self-presenter, with no external corroboration available. The Phaeacian audience’s uncritical reception of his story is itself part of the argument — they are the ideal audience for a performer who shapes his narrative to his needs. The fantastic elements of Books 9–12 (Cyclops, Circe, the Underworld) are unverifiable precisely because they occur in spaces where Odysseus is the sole surviving witness. | Odysseus’s known deceptiveness elsewhere in the poem — his lying tales on Ithaca, his disguises, his explicit statement that he knows how to tell lies that resemble truth; the Phaeacians’ extraordinary credulity as an audience; the fact that the Cyclops adventure, which establishes Odysseus’s pride and its consequences, serves his narrative purposes perfectly; the way his self-portrait in the Apologoi emphasises suffering and endurance in ways that maximise Phaeacian sympathy. | The poem’s primary narrator — who invokes the Muse — is distinct from Odysseus and is not presented as unreliable; the divine apparatus (Athena, Zeus, Hermes) visible throughout the poem corroborates elements of Odysseus’s situation even when he is not narrating; Alcinous and the Phaeacians are presented as perceptive and honourable, not as dupes; the poem does not signal scepticism toward the Apologoi through narrative irony in the surrounding books. |
| The poem presents Odysseus as a reliable narrator precisely because skilled storytelling is a heroic virtue | In the heroic world the Odyssey constructs, the ability to narrate one’s own experience persuasively is not a mark of untrustworthiness but of competence — a form of the intelligence the poem values in Odysseus above physical strength. The Apologoi’s fantastic elements are not markers of fabrication but of the poem’s genre, which accommodates divine and supernatural action as narrative fact. Odysseus’s storytelling is evaluated positively by the poem’s standards throughout. | Alcinous explicitly praises Odysseus’s narration and distinguishes him from the wandering liars who fabricate stories of distant lands; the adventures Odysseus narrates are consistent with the divine framework the poem’s primary narrator establishes; Odysseus’s skill with words (muthos) is consistently presented as a positive heroic attribute alongside his physical courage; the audience’s admiration produces the gifts and passage home that Odysseus needs — the narrative works. | The poem also explicitly identifies Odysseus as someone who “knows how to tell lies that resemble truth” (Od. 19.203); his lying tales on Ithaca demonstrate that he uses narrative instrumentally as a survival tool; the question of what distinguishes a “true” narrative from a lying tale that resembles truth is never settled within the poem, and the essay should not settle it by fiat. |
| The poem is not primarily interested in reliability but in what storytelling does — its social and performative function | The distinction between “reliable” and “unreliable” narration is a modern narratological category that the poem’s oral-traditional context does not primarily support. What the Odyssey is interested in is what stories do in the world: how they produce grief (Penelope), win hospitality (the Phaeacians), establish identity (Telemachus), and reconstitute authority (Odysseus on Ithaca). Whether the Apologoi are literally true is less important to the poem than what Odysseus’s telling of them achieves. Your essay’s thesis, on this reading, is about the performative function of narrative. | Every embedded storytelling scene in the poem is organised around the effect on the audience — not the accuracy of the account; the bard figures Demodocus and Phemius are evaluated by what their singing does to their listeners, not by factual verification; Odysseus’s multiple lying tales on Ithaca are functionally successful even when false, which the poem presents without condemnation; Penelope’s weaving-as-narrative is about the effects of postponement, not truth. | The poem does maintain a distinction between true and false speech — Odysseus explicitly acknowledges he is lying in his false tales, which implies the poem has a concept of truth-telling against which the lies are measured; Athena’s approval of Odysseus’s intelligence includes approval of his honesty with her; the final recognition scenes, in which Odysseus’s identity is verified through shared knowledge (the scar, the bed), rely on truth-claims that the poem treats as non-negotiable. |
Do Not Treat “Odysseus Is a Good Storyteller” as a Thesis
The observation that Odysseus is skilled with words and uses narrative to his advantage is not an argument — it is a description that every reader of the poem already holds. What distinguishes a strong essay is the next move: specifying exactly what claim about narrative the poem makes through Odysseus’s storytelling. Does it argue that skilled narrative is inseparable from deception? That storytelling is the primary instrument through which identity is constituted and contested? That the distinction between heroic performance and lying is unstable, and that this instability is itself the poem’s argument? If your thesis reads “Odysseus uses storytelling as a tool for survival,” you have not written a thesis — you have written a statement that requires no evidence from the poem to support. Revise it to specify what the poem claims about the relationship between storytelling, truth, and identity.
Key Thematic Frameworks — How to Use Themes Without Listing Them
Most essay prompts on the Odyssey and storytelling are organised around themes — identity, deception, memory, nostos (homecoming), recognition — and most student essays respond by identifying the theme, providing examples, and concluding it is important. That is not thematic analysis. Thematic analysis requires you to argue what the poem says about the theme — what position it takes, how that position develops across the poem’s structure, and what the treatment of the theme reveals about the poem’s broader argument about narrative.
Nostos — Return as the Structural and Thematic Spine
Nostos — the homecoming — is not simply the poem’s plot goal; it is the structural argument that gives every embedded narrative its meaning. Every story in the poem is organised around departure and return, and what gets lost, changed, or preserved in the interval. Your essay should identify what the poem claims must survive the journey for return to be possible — is it Odysseus’s identity, his recognition by others, his household’s coherence, his own memory? The answer determines what storytelling’s function is, since narrative in this poem is consistently the means by which what might be lost is preserved.
Identity and Self-Narration
Odysseus withholds his name, assumes disguises, and tells lying tales for most of the poem. He only discloses his identity at moments of strategic advantage — most dramatically when he shouts his name at the blinded Cyclops, an act the poem presents as heroically satisfying and catastrophically imprudent simultaneously. Your essay should argue what the poem claims about the relationship between identity and narrative: whether the self exists independently of how it is narrated, whether Odysseus’s multiplicity of false identities undermines or confirms his true one, and what the recognition scenes (the scar, the bed) argue about the relationship between the body and the story told about it.
Deception and the Ethics of Narrative
The poem does not treat Odysseus’s deception simply as morally problematic — it frequently endorses it, through Athena’s approval and through the structural logic of plots that succeed. But it also stages the costs: the Cyclops blinding produces Poseidon’s enmity; the lying tales on Ithaca require sustained performance that the poem watches with some irony. Your essay should take a specific position on what the poem claims about the ethics of deceptive narrative — whether it distinguishes legitimate narrative performance from dishonest storytelling, and if so, by what criterion that distinction is drawn.
Memory — What Must Be Preserved for Homecoming to Work
The threat to memory is one of the poem’s sustained concerns: the Lotus Eaters erase the desire to return home; Circe and Calypso offer a seductive stasis that is the oblivion of the journey’s purpose; the Sirens offer the knowledge of all things at the cost of death. These are not simply dangers on a voyage — they are figured as narrative threats: forgetting the story of who you are and where you are going. Your essay should analyse what the poem presents as the mechanism by which memory is preserved, and connect that to what storytelling specifically does in that preservation. Is narrative memory in this poem reliable? What does Odysseus remember accurately, and what does he misremember or reshape?
Audience and the Power of the Listener
The Odyssey is unusually attentive to the audiences of its embedded stories — how they respond, what the story costs them, what power they exercise over the teller. Penelope weeps and withdraws when Phemius sings of the homecomings. The Phaeacians are captivated and rewarded. Odysseus weeps when Demodocus sings about Troy. The recognition scene with Laertes depends on the old man’s willingness to believe a story about himself. Your essay should argue what the poem claims about the relationship between storyteller and audience — whether the listener has the power to validate, resist, or transform the narrative they receive, and what that means for the poem’s argument about how stories function in a social world.
Connect Theme to Structure — The Move Most Essays Miss
The strongest thematic analyses connect theme to the poem’s structural and formal choices, not just its content. If your essay addresses the theme of identity and self-narration, analyse a specific passage where Odysseus constructs a false identity — not just what he says, but how the poem renders his performance in the surrounding narrative, what details it selects, and what effect the false tale has on its audience. If your essay addresses memory, analyse a specific scene where remembering or forgetting is at stake — such as the Circe episode or the Sirens passage — and work through what the poem’s language does at the moment of threat and recovery. Connecting theme to a specific formal or linguistic observation is what converts thematic commentary into literary analysis.
Character Analysis — Storytellers, Audiences, and the Poem’s Reflexive Figures
Character analysis in an essay on storytelling in the Odyssey is not a matter of describing personality traits or evaluating decisions. It is a matter of analysing what each character’s function in the poem’s narrative architecture contributes to the argument the poem is making about storytelling. Odysseus, Penelope, Telemachus, Demodocus, and Phemius are not simply characters with individual psychologies — they are positions in the poem’s argument about who narrates, who listens, who controls story, and what it costs.
Odysseus — Not Just a Clever Talker
The most common failure in character analysis of Odysseus is treating his narrative skill as a simple attribute — he is clever with words — without analysing what the poem does with that skill structurally. Odysseus’s relationship to storytelling in the poem is more complex than simple competence. He is the only witness to his own most famous adventures and the only narrator of them. He tells more lies than any other character in the poem. He is explicitly described as knowing how to tell lies that resemble truth. He names himself in a moment of narrative excess that has catastrophic consequences. He conceals his name so persistently that when he finally discloses it to the Cyclops — breaking the narrative discipline that has kept him alive — the scene is both heroically satisfying and structurally disastrous. Your essay should track what the poem does at those specific moments when Odysseus’s narrative control breaks down or is deliberately exceeded, not just the moments when it succeeds.
Demodocus and Phemius — The Poem’s Embedded Argument About Epic
These two bard figures are among the poem’s most analytically significant characters and among the most underused in student essays. Demodocus performs at the Phaeacian court in Books 8 and 13 — he is blind, divinely gifted, and presented with explicit honour as a figure whose art the Muse loves. His three songs are: the quarrel of Odysseus and Achilles, the adultery of Ares and Aphrodite, and the Trojan Horse. The third song, performed at Odysseus’s request, is about Odysseus himself. When Odysseus weeps at it, Alcinous notices and uses the response to draw out Odysseus’s identity.
What Demodocus’s Function Argues
- The blind singer who sees truth: Demodocus’s blindness in an oral tradition associated with Homer’s own legendary blindness is not incidental — it positions him as a figure whose knowledge comes from the Muse, not from personal experience. He sings about events he did not witness. Odysseus did. The poem stages these two modes of narrative knowledge — divine transmission and personal testimony — in deliberate proximity
- The effect of song on its subjects: Odysseus weeps at Demodocus’s account of the Trojan War. The poem describes his tears through a simile comparing him to a captured woman watching her husband killed — a striking choice that deserves close reading. What does this simile argue about the relationship between narrative and the grief of those who appear in it?
- Story as social occasion: Demodocus performs at a feast; his songs are part of the social fabric of Phaeacian hospitality. The poem is making an argument about the institutional function of epic narrative — it is not private meditation but public performance with social stakes
- The request economy: When Odysseus requests the Trojan Horse story from Demodocus, he is directing the narrative toward himself. This is the poem’s sharpest argument about the relationship between a story’s subject and the story’s control — Odysseus can request but cannot control what Demodocus’s singing reveals
What Penelope and Telemachus Argue as Audiences
- Penelope’s withdrawal from Phemius: When Penelope descends to the hall and asks Phemius to stop singing about the homecomings, Telemachus intervenes and sends her back upstairs, asserting his authority over the household’s narrative. This scene is the poem’s argument about gendered control of story — who has the right to silence a narrative they find painful, and who can override that request
- Telemachy as narrative education: Books 1–4 are sometimes described as Telemachus’s education — he travels to gather stories about his father from Nestor and Menelaus. His identity as Odysseus’s son must be narrated to him by others; he cannot remember his father. The Telemachy argues that identity can be constituted through other people’s stories, not just one’s own
- Penelope’s weaving as counter-narrative: Penelope’s weaving of the shroud and its nightly unravelling is a form of storytelling — a narrative that deliberately refuses completion, maintaining a plot in permanent suspension. Analyse it as a narrative strategy, not just a clever trick: what does the unravelling argue about the relationship between narrative completion and irreversible outcome?
- The test of the bow as narrative verification: The contest of the bow, which only Odysseus can complete, is a form of identity narrative through action — the body telling the story the disguise conceals. Analyse how the poem uses physical performance to verify identity claims that speech alone cannot establish
Pre-Writing Checklist — Before You Draft the Essay
- You have read the complete poem — all 24 books — in a scholarly translation with an introduction that addresses narrative structure and oral tradition
- You have a thesis that specifies what the poem argues about storytelling — not just that storytelling is present or important, but what specific claim the poem makes about its function, ethics, or relationship to identity and truth
- You have identified the Apologoi (Books 9–12) as the poem’s primary first-person narrative and taken a position on Odysseus’s reliability as a narrator of his own adventures
- You have analysed at least one scene involving Demodocus or Phemius as a reflexive argument about epic performance, not merely noted their presence
- You have identified three or four specific passages you will read closely — at the level of language, simile, or structural positioning — not just use as illustrations
- You have read the opening invocation of the Muse and taken a position on what it argues about narrative authority in relation to Odysseus’s first-person narration
- You can explain what “polytropos” means and why it appears in the first line, and connect that epithet to your essay’s argument about the poem’s treatment of its narrator
- You have engaged with at least one scholarly source — Lord’s Singer of Tales, Wilson’s or Fagles’s introduction, or a peer-reviewed article — and can connect its argument to yours
Narrative Structure and Homer’s Technique — Where the Real Analysis Lives
The most important analytical work in any essay on storytelling in the Odyssey happens at the level of structure and specific language. The poem’s meaning is not simply in its story — it is in the structural choices that determine what is told when, who tells it, and what is withheld. Essays that paraphrase what the narrative conveys, or that use quotations without analysing their specific language or structural position, are not doing literary analysis. Every passage you cite should be followed by analysis of what the poem does at that specific moment that advances your argument.
The Three-Part Narrative Structure and What It Argues
The Odyssey‘s structure is more complex than a simple A-to-B journey narrative. It opens with the Telemachy (Books 1–4), in which Telemachus searches for news of his father — establishing the absence at the poem’s centre and the stories other people tell to fill it. The middle section (Books 5–12) traces Odysseus’s journey from Calypso’s island to the Phaeacian court, culminating in the Apologoi in which he narrates his own wanderings. The final section (Books 13–24) is the return to Ithaca in disguise, the recognition scenes, and the slaughter of the suitors.
This structure is itself an argument about narrative: the poem withholds Odysseus’s account of his adventures until Book 9, after the audience has heard other people’s accounts of his absence and his reputation. By the time Odysseus narrates himself, the poem has already established a context in which his self-presentation will be measured against other versions of who he is. The structural delay is not suspense management — it is an argument about the relationship between self-narration and the narratives others construct about you in your absence.
| Narrative Feature | What It Does in the Poem | Key Passages for Analysis | What It Contributes to Your Argument |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Opening Epithet: Polytropos | The first word after “Tell me, O Muse” is “aner” (man); the second substantive descriptor is “polytropos” — of many turns. This immediately positions the poem’s subject as someone characterised by multiplicity: multiple journeys, multiple tactics, multiple ways of presenting himself. The word is ambiguous in Greek, encompassing both resourcefulness and the capacity for deception. The poem’s narrative choice to lead with this epithet is the opening move of its argument about the kind of storytelling it will contain. | Book 1, lines 1–10 (the invocation); compare with the description of Odysseus in the Apologoi opening; compare with Athena’s explicit admiration of his deceptiveness in Book 13 when she says she and he are both skilled in cunning | If your essay argues that the poem is self-conscious about its narrator’s duplicity from its first line, the opening epithet is your first piece of evidence. Analyse it as a narrative frame, not a description. The poem is telling you who you are dealing with before Odysseus opens his mouth. |
| The Simile of the Weeping Woman (Book 8) | When Odysseus weeps at Demodocus’s third song — about the Trojan Horse, which Odysseus designed — the poem describes his tears through an extended simile comparing him to a Trojan woman watching her husband die in battle and being led into slavery. This simile requires close analysis: Odysseus is positioned as victim of the very conquest he engineered. The simile crosses the victor-victim boundary in a way that is either an argument about narrative’s capacity to produce identification across positions of power, or an argument about the cost to Odysseus of hearing his own story performed by another. | Book 8, lines 521–534 (the simile); compare with Odysseus’s choice not to weep during Demodocus’s first two songs and his decision to pull his cloak over his face | If your essay argues about what epic narrative does to its subjects — what it costs those whose stories it tells — this simile is your central evidence. Analyse the specific terms of the comparison: why a captive woman? What does the simile do to Odysseus’s heroic self-presentation? How does it position the reader’s identification? |
| The Lying Tales on Ithaca (Books 13–17) | Odysseus tells at least four distinct false identities on Ithaca, including elaborate backstories about a Cretan origin. These lying tales are notable for their consistency — he uses the same fictional framework repeatedly — and for the care with which they mix false circumstances with psychologically accurate self-description. Athena explicitly praises him for them. The lying tales are the poem’s practical demonstration of the narrative skill the Apologoi establish theoretically: Odysseus can construct a false self so convincingly that it produces trust. | Book 13 (Odysseus’s first lying tale to Athena, which she immediately sees through and admires); Books 14 and 17 (the lying tales to Eumaeus and Penelope); compare the self-portrait in the lying tales with the self-portrait in the Apologoi | If your essay argues that the poem explores the ethics of deceptive narrative — whether it sanctions, condemns, or simply describes narrative instrumentality — the lying tales are your primary evidence. Note what the poem rewards and what it withholds. Athena endorses the deception; the poem does not present it as morally neutral, but the endorsement comes from the poem’s most authoritative divine figure. |
| The Recognition Scene with Penelope (Book 23) | The recognition of Odysseus by Penelope is the poem’s most structurally delayed and psychologically complex recognition scene. Penelope tests Odysseus with the secret of the unmovable bed — knowledge that only the real Odysseus could have — before committing to recognition. This scene is the poem’s argument about the epistemology of narrative verification: speech and appearance can be faked, but shared knowledge of a private narrative (the bed Odysseus built himself, rooted in an olive tree) cannot be faked by someone who does not already possess it. Recognition in this poem requires narrative proof. | Book 23, lines 173–206 (the bed test); compare with the earlier recognition by Eurycleia through the scar (Book 19) — a physical mark rather than a narrative — and what the different modes of recognition argue about where identity is ultimately located | If your essay argues that the poem presents identity as fundamentally constituted through shared narrative — that who Odysseus is depends on whether others can verify the stories told about him — the bed scene is your final piece of evidence. The bed is a story; it is also an object. Analyse what the poem does by making the proof of identity both narrative and physical simultaneously. |
How to Write a Close Reading Paragraph on the Odyssey
The analytical sequence for any close reading paragraph is: identify the specific feature (a simile, an epithet, a structural position, a speech act), explain what that feature does in its immediate context, then connect it to your essay’s broader argument. “Homer uses a simile” is identification. “The simile comparing Odysseus’s weeping to a captive Trojan woman positions him simultaneously as conqueror and victim — the figure who organised the event and the figure who suffers it — creating an identification across the victor-victim divide that is the poem’s argument about what epic narrative does to those whose stories it tells” is analysis of function. “This identification is the poem’s formal counter to the heroic self-presentation Odysseus maintains in the Apologoi: even as he narrates himself as the triumphant hero of Troy, Demodocus’s song reveals that the experience of Troy cannot be contained within the heroic frame” is the connection to argument. Your paragraph needs all three moves in that sequence.
Strong vs. Weak Analytical Responses — What the Difference Looks Like on the Page
The gap between these paragraphs is where most marks are won or lost. The strong paragraph traces a specific formal choice — the opening epithet — through its semantic range, its structural position, and its implications for how the poem’s narrative authority is established. The weak paragraph identifies a theme’s presence and gestures at significance. Every paragraph in your essay should be the first kind. If you find yourself writing that Homer “shows” or “reveals” or “illustrates” without specifying exactly which words or formal choices produce that showing, that is where the analysis needs to begin.
The Most Common Essay Errors on This Topic — and What Each One Costs You
| # | The Error | Why It Costs Marks | The Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Treating the Odyssey as a straightforward hero narrative about a clever man getting home | Essays that treat the poem as a plot-driven adventure story and then add observations about Odysseus’s storytelling skill as a character attribute are not engaging with the poem’s structural and formal choices. The Odyssey is not a simple narrative about competent heroism — it is a poem structured around questions of narrative authority, the reliability of self-presentation, and the relationship between story and identity. Treating it as adventure-with-theme produces essays that cannot distinguish between what happens in the poem and what the poem argues. | Reframe your reading: the poem is structured so that we receive conflicting accounts of Odysseus from different sources before he narrates himself. Start your analysis from that structural choice — what does it mean that we hear about Odysseus from Athena, Menelaus, Nestor, and the suitors before we hear from him? What does it mean that his most famous self-narrative cannot be corroborated? Your argument should come from that structural observation, not from the plot. |
| 2 | Ignoring Demodocus and Phemius | An essay on storytelling in the Odyssey that does not engage with the poem’s embedded bard figures has missed the poem’s most explicit and reflexive argument about what narrative does. Demodocus and Phemius are not background details — they are the poem’s argument about its own function. Omitting them produces an essay on how Odysseus tells stories, which is a much narrower claim than what the poem actually argues about storytelling’s social, ethical, and emotional dimensions. | Include at least one analytical paragraph on either Demodocus or Phemius — and not just as an example that storytelling exists in the poem. Argue what the scene involving the bard does: what the bard’s performance produces in its audience, what the poem claims about the relationship between the singer and those who appear in the song, and how the scene’s specific details (the weeping simile, Penelope’s request to Phemius) carry the poem’s argument about narrative’s costs and powers. |
| 3 | Conflating the poem’s narrator with Odysseus | The primary narrator of the Odyssey — the voice that invokes the Muse, describes the divine apparatus, and frames the entire poem — is not Odysseus. Odysseus narrates only in Books 9–12, and the framing of those books is provided by the primary narrator, who establishes that Odysseus is performing for an audience. Treating “Homer says” and “Odysseus says” as equivalent, or assuming that what Odysseus narrates is endorsed by the poem’s primary narrative authority, is a category error that collapses the poem’s most important structural distinction. | Maintain the distinction throughout your essay. The primary narrator, Odysseus as internal narrator, and the characters Odysseus speaks to are three different levels of narrative. Tracking which level you are analysing at any given moment — and what the relationship between those levels argues — is one of the marks of a strong essay on this topic. When Odysseus tells a lying tale, the primary narrator frames it as a lying tale. When Demodocus sings, the primary narrator describes the effect on Odysseus. These framing choices are the primary narrator’s argument about the stories embedded within the poem. |
| 4 | Treating the Apologoi as straightforwardly true | Essays that accept Odysseus’s account of his wanderings as unproblematic fact and then analyse it as though its narrative construction is not in question have not engaged with the poem’s most significant structural problem. The Apologoi are narrated by a figure the poem has already defined as someone who knows how to tell lies that resemble truth, to an audience that is ideally positioned to be deceived. Taking the narrative at face value is a reading position — not the only reading position — and it needs to be defended, not assumed. | Take a position on the Apologoi’s reliability and defend it with textual evidence, not by default. If you argue they are reliable, identify the evidence within the poem that supports that reading. If you argue they are unreliable or strategically shaped, identify what specific elements of the narrative serve Odysseus’s self-interest. The strongest essays acknowledge the interpretive difficulty and argue from it — the fact that the poem does not resolve the reliability question is itself part of its argument about the relationship between storytelling and truth. |
| 5 | Writing about “Homer’s intention” rather than what the poem does | Given the oral-traditional context of the Odyssey and the scholarly uncertainty about its composition, claims about Homer’s personal intention — “Homer wanted to show,” “Homer intended to argue” — are both methodologically unsound and demonstrably less productive than claims about what the poem does. The poem is a text that makes formal choices; those choices produce effects; those effects are what your essay analyses. Framing your analysis as recovery of authorial intention imports assumptions about individual authorship that Homeric scholarship has complicated substantially since the Parry-Lord research. | Replace “Homer shows” with “the poem argues” or “the passage enacts.” Replace “Homer wanted to convey” with “the structural choice of doing X before Y produces the effect of.” The shift is not merely stylistic — it changes what kind of evidence you need. Claims about authorial intention need biographical and historical evidence. Claims about what the text does need textual evidence. Your essay has access to the latter, and it is the stronger analytical approach. |
| 6 | Concluding that the poem remains relevant because “we still tell stories today” | Concluding paragraphs that assert the poem’s contemporary relevance — “We still use stories to construct our identities today” — are the literary analysis equivalent of stating that water is wet. They do not advance the argument the essay has made; they abandon it. A literary analysis essay concludes by consolidating the specific claim it has argued and specifying its implications for how the poem should be read — not by connecting the poem to a universal human truth that requires no textual evidence. | Your conclusion should return to the specific argument your essay has made and consolidate what that argument reveals about the poem’s design and its position in the critical debate you have engaged with. If you have argued that the poem presents Odysseus’s self-narration as strategically shaped rather than transparent, your conclusion specifies what that argument means for how the poem constructs heroism, or for how the recognition scenes work, or for what the Newspeak appendix — wait, wrong poem. What it means for how the poem’s narrative authority should be understood overall. |
FAQs: The Odyssey and Storytelling Essay
What a Strong Submission Looks Like When It Is Done
A strong essay on storytelling in the Odyssey does four things across every section. It commits to a precise argument about what the poem claims about narrative — about the relationship between storytelling and identity, about who controls a story and at what cost, about the structural implications of a first-person narrator the poem has already established as someone who “knows how to tell lies that resembles truth” — and states that argument in a thesis that requires evidence to defend. It supports the argument with close reading of specific passages — specific epithets, specific similes, specific structural positions — not with plot summary or generalisations about Greek culture. It engages with the counterevidence that the strongest opposing reading would present, and addresses it through textual analysis rather than dismissing it. And it situates the argument within the critical conversation the poem has generated — the Parry-Lord debate, the narratological work on embedded narrators, the debate over Odysseus’s reliability — demonstrating that the essay knows how scholars have read this poem and why the argument being made advances or complicates that conversation.
The poem’s cultural familiarity — the Cyclops, the Sirens, the Lotus Eaters — is the main obstacle, for the same reason that 1984’s cultural shorthand is. The Odyssey‘s adventure episodes have been so thoroughly absorbed into general narrative culture that it is easy to write an essay about those famous episodes rather than about the poem’s actual formal and structural choices. The structural complexity that makes the Odyssey analytically interesting — the three-way tension between the primary narrator, Odysseus as internal narrator, and the poem’s embedded bard figures — is precisely the dimension most students flatten into a straightforward story about a clever hero. The essays that score highest are the ones that find that structural complexity and argue about it precisely.
If you need professional support developing your essay on the Odyssey — working through your thesis, building close reading evidence, structuring your argument, or integrating secondary sources — the team at Smart Academic Writing works with students on literary analysis essays, research papers, and academic writing at every level. Visit our literary analysis essay service, our research paper writing service, our editing and proofreading service, or our citation help service. You can also read how our service works or contact us directly with your assignment brief and deadline.