Republic: Lingering thoughts on Democracy and a Reflection on BK X

I want to begin by noting a few thoughts that I have had about Plato's/Socrates's discussion of democracy in BK VIII. I confess that most of my previous thoughts about this involved the US. You can see this in my previous post. Yet over the past four days or so I have tried to do more to put the discussion in its historic context. Ancient Athens, at least around the time of Socrates and Plato, was a democracy. I utterly failed to recall this as I read BK VIII. So I now think that I am beginning to appreciate just how radical Socrates's statements were. Indeed, I wonder if they might not be more radical than his comments about philosopher kings. To call out democracy like he does, it seems to me, is far more confrontational than saying that the best solution for a feverish city is to have philosopher kings rule it. I do not mean to down play just how radical that idea is/was. Still, for Socrates and Adeimantus to say what they do about democracy is radical and remarkable in a significant part because they are a direct, explicit rejection of Athenian democracy. This brings me to a lingering question. What is the significance of the fact that Adeimantus rather than Glaucon interacts with Socrates in his discussion of democracy? Is Adeimantus more prepared to discuss this and receive what Socrates has to teach than Glaucon? I honestly do not recall any textual clues that would support this. For that matter, I am not sure if there are any clues that address my question. If we can, I would like to talk about this in class. Final question about BK VIII. Do we have any records about the reception of Socrates's discussion of democracy? Such a condemnation of democracy, I can imagine, could have sparked an anger that rivals that that we read about in the Apology. Turning my attention to BK X, I find myself struck by the end. Socrates finally moves in for an all out attack of poetry, particularly the Homeric tradition. This attack, if I understand the text correctly, is not just addressed at the "ideal city." Instead, it seems to be a practical application based on what Socrates et. al. have learned about the nature of justice and injustice. This discussion may be the most radical claim of the Republic. For a Greek person to argue for and truly desire the end of Homer's influence on Greek society is astonishing. Could he argue for a more radical proposal? Either way, we certainly need to appreciate just how revolutionary Plato is. Indeed, I am now beginning to understand why Southern conservatives (from 1860-~1950) often spoke passionately against the revolutionary methods of the French Jacobins and Plato! Final thought. Does anyone else feel like the Republic ends on a rather unexpected and disappointing note? I honestly cannot tell how seriously we are supposed to take the myth of Er. Is it an instance of a "noble lie?" Why does Plato end his discussion of justice, particularly his discussion of the most important reasons to be just, with a myth? I truly am interested in what you all think. I for one am not sure.