Richardson's arguments also tend to be cyclical in a way that, while academic, makes this article not for the faint of heart. The repetitiveness and general dryness of the article make it almost tiring to read it and try to understand it. Ultimately, Richardson's argument also succeeded, when speaking to modern readers with little knowledge of classical ancient Greek myths. Richardson provides many examples of Homer leaving things out or interpreting things in a way that gives readers some sort of taste of how those in contact with Odysseus would have felt after learning of all the deceptions forced upon them. Of course, this argument only works for modern readers with less knowledge of the classical myths on which Homer based his writings. Those of long ago would have seen many of the things Richardson writes about coming, almost to the point that it would be like reading a Boxcar Children book, if only for the fact that having in-depth knowledge of ancient Greek myths allows the ancients to understand as Homer writes and understands how the gods work. Foreknowledge is actually the basis of Richardson's arguments, and his most important point is misdirection,