5 ms·

I'm not an expert but I've probably read a whole lot more Near East literature than, considered over a population of billions, nearly everyone. In English trans

I'm not an expert but I've probably read a whole lot more Near East literature than, considered over a population of billions, nearly everyone. In English translation, but still. A half dozen volumes, I think, cover to cover? Maybe seven? Gilgamesh is the only work out of all of that, that I'd recommend to pretty much anyone who likes literature. Egypt has a couple promising, if relatively late, tales, but both are only the beginning of the story, so it's impossible to know if they live up to that promise. Most of the rest, across languages and cultures, are very much an acquired taste, if they're enjoyable at all. Gilgamesh is simply good. Next best would probably be the Old Testament, but the older tales there are mostly worse-told than Gilgamesh, and the best writing is relatively recent.

emodendroket 5y ago
The Ramayana sounded like fun though it's hard to figure out which version you're supposed to read.
- handrous 5y ago
  Yeah, that's why I specified "Near East". I know there's supposed to be some really good, very early material from India, but I've not gotten to it yet, so I can't say whether Gilgamesh stands up to the best of that. There is, for sure, an intimidating amount of it, so it has that going for it.
  - gremloni 5y ago
    India has good material all the way into the Middle Ages and a little pat that as well.
- nindalf 5y ago
  Ive read, listened and watched many versions of both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Of the two, the latter is the superior story in every way. Most importantly for me, the characters. I hope I won’t offend anyone’s religious sensibilities when I say the main character of the Ramayana is a bit dull, one dimensional and treats his wife terribly. The Mahabharata has its share of misogyny, but it has a couple of fantastic characters - Karna and Bheeshma. It’s worth reading for these two alone. “The only thing worth reading about is the human heart in conflict with itself”. These two exemplify that principle, whereas I found it absent in the Ramayana.
  - randoglando 5y ago
    > when I say the main character of the Ramayana is a bit dull, one dimensional and treats his wife terribly. On the mark there. What about the character of Krishna (an amalgamation of 3 tribal gods)? Especially the little child Krishna? From the perspective of the story Mahabharata is superior, but the Ramayana has some great characters (Hanuman, Lakshmana, Sita, Ravana). The Mahabharata's heroes are weaker characters, except for Krishna IMO.
    - awa 5y ago
      Personally, I feel the characters in Mahabharata are more shades of grey (rather than just Good or Bad) unlike Ramayana which is portrayed as a fight between Good vs Bad. Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side.
      - drieddust 5y ago
        > Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side. My apologies but both statements doesn't stand if you read the original work of Ved Vyasa or a faithful translation of it. One single incident disproves both the statement. I am not a Mahabharata expert but this proves how false legends have spread around texts like Mahabharata and Ramayana. Krishna went as diplomat to settle the dispute without war. As a final proposal, he offered to settle the dispute just for 5 villages. Duryodhana under influence of Karna said "I will not give land worth a needle's tip." and that was the end of all negotiations. Edit: Please refer to my other comment for details about Karna's Character.
    - nindalf 5y ago
      What conflict did any of the characters in the Ramayana face? Hanuman for example, decides to do Rama’s bidding and then does it. The only major dilemma he faces is whether he should bring the cure for Lakshmana or the entire mountain containing the cure. He goes with the latter. Same with Lakshmana. Only conflict I can recall is when he is told to abandon Sita in the woods. He is torn, but decides to anyway. Compare these two to Bheeshma and Karna, who spend their entire lives torn by conflicting loyalties. I don’t much care for Krishna as a character. Since he’s a god, a lot of what he does makes no sense and doesn’t need to either. He is supposed to be inscrutable. Such a character isn’t that interesting IMO.
- snambi 5y ago
  There is only one Ramayana written by Valmiki Ramayana. All others are based on "Valmiki's Ramayana".
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    I meant more in the sense that there a lot of purported translations of wildly varying length.
- winnit 5y ago
  As English versions go, I found Ralph Griffith's translation enchanting; his feeling for rhythm is wonderful.
- screye 5y ago
  Figuring out what Ramayana and Mahabharata versions to read is irritatingly difficult. The popular English translation written by white people are often a bastardization of the classics from a Woke lens. Others are outright further-fictionalizing accounts to suit a narrative flow as if this was a Steve Jobs biography. The more faithful english translations are written by scholars who won't consider English to be their first language. So the quality of prose is lacking and epics reads more like textbooks. Hindi and other native language works are pretty good, but my proficiency in them is restricted to speech. I am still on a search for a book that strikes the right balance. A few hindu historians & intellectuals have started writing incredible English language books. I would count Sanjeev Sanyal, Vikram Sampath and Tharoor as institutionally important writers who want to tell the story of India & Indic traditions by looking past the Delhi-focused view of our rather shoddy academic institutions. I hope to read more works that conduct primary research instead of regurgitating a few 200 yr. works by british historians that can often veer on outright propaganda. It is the age of much needed revisionism in Indian scholarship. I am glad to see it be rooted in evidence, and not counter propaganda. That being said, I hope they get to continue contributing before the academic establishment decides to fully sideline them for being counter narrative.
  - pempem 5y ago
    Sincere question...what does it mean that the translation is written from a Woke lens? What should I be looking out for as different/hallmarks of propaganda or a viewpoint? Also is anyone else influencing interpretations outside of the british that would be notable?
    - screye 5y ago
      The thing with the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, is that they exist in 100s of different translations, each with different levels of geographic uptake and historic validity. There has been a lot of discourse around these over the centuries, that is captured in various Indian language texts and spoken traditions. **Philosophical incompatibility:** Most modern writer is trained in western philosophy and often derives their understanding of philosophical building blocks from western classics and sometimes even more incompatible, contemporary philosophy. This leads to conclusions such as "Eunuchs were the original transgenders", when it is historically well known that these were forcible conversions. Contemporary politics & a urge to push progressive ideas through their works muddies the academic rigor of their work. **Indians as a 2nd language/class:** This is a huge problem in many western communities studying other cultures. When written documents are given much higher important, a lot that is captured by the native people in oral traditions (Often ones that are just as or more rigorous) is discarded. Similarly, the works of Indian theologists is rejected in favor or either Colonial era British Orientalists or those who would consider English to be their first language. This intersects with the Indian left taking a more western/atheist/marxist stance that leads to an inherent alienation of scholars who derive from a more traditional/religious/'native' set of sources. Lasly, these people often only understand Sanskrit in a literal sense and treat it as some sort of holy grail. Reality is that there exist just as definitive sources in other languages, and that Sanskrit itself needs a strong cultural understanding to decode metaphors that sound odd when interpreted literally. The criticism usually comes from scholar with centuries long traditions of studying the Mahabharat/Ramayana complaining about how certain interpretations have been discussed to death and the discourse is well documented. The refusal of western/english-speaking scholar with excellent funding to even do this kind of basic due diligence leads to insinuations of Hindu-phobia from said scholars. Can you imagine a christian theologian who rejects any scholarly work by the Church, it's libraries or its priests? That's what you have here. **(Pardon my french) They bad:** Now this part is clearly opinion but hear me out. Think about how someone ends up in theology. They are either deeply interested in these works from the POV of devotion or some kind of dislike. The western and indian academic community actively ostracizes anyone who comes across as too hindu. You will struggle to find a single hindu in a hindu-theology program anywhere. There are no jobs for you unless you are on the far end of liberal. If you are a competent Hindu with a strongly sourced native POV, you are shit out of luck. Hell, you will be actively chased off Twitter and be on the top of the 'get cancelled' list. This means that there is an inherent dislike for hinduism (I do not mean hindutva, I want to be specific here) in Academia in India and the West. Growing up in India, Science was for the smart kids , Commerce was for those who could get by and Arts was for those for whom you had no hope. I don't endorse this by any means, but it is hard for me convey just how deeply this is embedded in the nation's psyche. I do not know a single person with half-decent grades/ who was considered bright who decided to pursue an undergrad in the liberal-arts in India. Even the best artists go into Architecture or Design, because you need money. This is the reality of an underdeveloped scarcity based society. This leaves Liberal Arts Academia to the rich (often ones who practice western ideas with the zeal of a convert and have a deeply rooted disdain towards non-english speaking Indians) or the not-so-bright. So you can guess what the quality of work coming out of there looks like. **Modi:** India is in the midst of a Trump-like hysteria around the cult of personality that is Modi. Either side has been taken in by this. This means that anything positive about Hindus is expected to be used by Modi to strengthen his case. I will let you guess if the academics like Modi or not. > Also is anyone else influencing interpretations outside of the british that would be notable? Western Academia & the political left of India. (Most of India's marxist agitation begins in the elite liberal arts schools of the country. Yes, India has real communists, not the milquetoast types you find in the US.) I'm a now liberal-leaning Atheist in the US (pretty standard for someone on HN), so I have no interest in those claiming blasphemy, hurt feelings or disrespect towards their gods. However, the undue influence of the incredibly low quality liberal-arts Academia elite of India is something I have real issues with. Also, watching our literature get butchered by those who are either incompetent or malicious is just not nice to look at.
- gremloni 5y ago
  He said near East. The Mahabharata be ramayanan are only the best know stories out of India. There are hundreds of prominent works and millions of stories.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    I've been laboring under the incorrect impression that India was part of the "Near East" since it's excluded from the "Far East." Whoops.
- lappet 5y ago
  That is a very interesting observation because there is no one definitive version. For the modern reader in English, you could try Devdutt Pattanaik's versions - I really liked his Mahabharata, but haven't read his version of Ramayana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_Ramayanas:_Five_Examples_and_Three_Thoughts_on_Translation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_Ramayanas:_Five_... can give you some insight into why there are so many different versions of these epics.
soco 5y ago
It depends a lot on the translation I suppose, because my experience with the old testament was rather unpleasant - reading it in centuries-old language brought me no joy at all.
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  on the contrary reading it in Latin actually make it an enjoyable read, the English is downright dreadful.
- shusaku 5y ago
  If you want to read the Old Testament as literature, Robert Alter’s translation is really good. I thought his notes (which are not about theology) really help you tap in to what the authors are doing.
- handrous 5y ago
  AFAIK there's no reason to favor English translations of the Old Testament (or anything else) that use now-archaic English, except maybe for passages which are themselves written, in the original, in a kind of archaic or very formal mode, relative to the rest. It can be accurate enough (for whatever purpose—poetic, literal accuracy, et c.) without being stuffy or outdated. Another factor in my naming it the probably #2, after Gilgamesh, though, is that everything else is just that bad to a modern reader, so the OT looks pretty damn good compared to all that, even if you're stuck with the King James Version. My favorite story from ancient Egypt[0], I wouldn't recommend to many readers, because damn, it's a slog, and it's still an easier read than some of the others, or than anything I've seen in Sumerian or Akkadian (Gilgamesh excepted). It probably tells better, as a joke (it's a comedic story), than it reads, if you had someone really talented telling it. That's typical for other Near Eastern literatures, too. Lots and lots of repetition, is the main problem for a modern reader, as far as the prose goes. Much of it also doesn't really relate a story, exactly, and the cultural and religious references are obscure at best. You don't even get mythology, really, for the most part. Prayers or incantations, sure, but there's no Hesiod or Ovid of Sumerian religion. There's a little of that, sure, but it's very fragmentary and you have to bring a lot of context from outside of it to make much sense of what you're reading. For the millennia(!) of texts we have from Egypt, for instance, there are only a few short (and often fragmentary) works that we'd recognize as stories. You have to settle for reading a variety of non-fiction or semi-fictional genres to get much more out of it—"mirrors for princes" and scribal didactic texts, which are probably the most interesting of the lot, plus endless formulaic and not-especially-illuminating funerary texts, and a good deal of historical propaganda about military victories, mostly from monumental inscriptions, almost all of which are intensely boring even if you're really into military history. And that's probably the richest literature we have from that region in the pre-classical period, at least as far as what's available in English translation. [0] The Eloquent Peasant
basch 5y ago
What are the promising Egyptian tales?
- wl 5y ago
  It's probably not what GP was thinking of because it's not relatively late and reasonably complete, but Sinuhe is probably the greatest surviving work of Middle Egyptian fiction.
- handrous 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Wenamun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Wenamun Looks like some people think it is complete, in which case, it's just not particularly good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tale_of_the_Doomed_Prince https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tale_of_the_Doomed_Prince There are a few complete ones that are OK, relatively speaking. They're all pretty short and there aren't that many stories from pre-classical Egypt, so if you're interested, I'd say track them down and give them a try, but don't expect easy reads. I guess part of why I favor those two, especially the latter, is that I can imagine they might become great, when whole.
jedimastert 5y ago
I don't know anything about it, is there a single canonical translation? If not, which one would you recommend to someone who, lets say, wants to read for enjoyment more but is woefully out of practice
- handrous 5y ago
  I dunno about "canonical", but, as others have mentioned, Stephen Mitchell's version is good. It reads very easily without, as I understand it, taking too many liberties with the text. I'm sure there are retellings that are even smoother, but I doubt you can do much better for casual reading with anything else that's at least fairly faithful to the original. Mitchell's careful to (accurately) frame his as a new version, not a new translation, though, because he does not read the original language and is leaning on several existing translations to assemble his version. You probably don't want it for, say, deep scholarly purposes. My copy of Mitchel's version has what's effectively a 60 page retelling at the beginning—which I've not read, so maybe it sucks, I dunno—as the Introduction, then a brief author's note about the book (in which he explains that it is not a new translation, among other things), and ~140 pages of Gilgamesh itself, in largish type. It's very long for a (mostly) surviving pre-classical near eastern story, but it's still pretty short. The rest of the volume is notes.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > It reads very easily without, as I understand it, taking too many liberties with the text. I'm sure there are retellings that are even smoother, but I doubt you can do much better for casual reading with anything else that's at least fairly faithful to the original. For something much closer to the other extreme, I have a version by Stephanie Dalley which seems to prioritize being faithful to the original over basically everything else. Here's a (particularly unsmooth) extract: [Shamash] heard the words of Gilgamesh, Scion of Uruk, [and said], 'As soon as a loud voice from the sky calls down to him, Rush, stand up to him, let him not [enter the forest (?)], Let him not go down to the wood, nor [ ]. [Humbaba] will [not] be clothed in seven cloaks, He will be wearing [only one]; six are taken off (?). Like a charging wild bull which pierces [ ] He shouts only once, but fills one with terror. The guardian of the forests will shout [ ] [ ] Humbaba like [ ] will shout. (gap of uncertain length) As soon as the swords [ ] [ ] from the sheaths [ ] Streaked with verdigris (?) [ ] Dagger, sword, [ ] One [ ] They wore [ ] Humbaba [made his voice heard and spoke (?)] 'He will not go (?) [ ] He will not go (?) [ ] (7 lines illegible) May Ellil [ ].' It's not the easiest thing to read, but I like being so close to the actual text. If it's in this translation, it's there on a cuneiform tablet somewhere. (Or guessed in a very conservative way, like guessing that "Humbaba [______________]" should be filled in as "Humbaba made his voice heard" when that line is immediately followed by quoted speech.)
gremloni 5y ago
Stray into the south and Far East. They have incredible stories.

emodendroket 5y ago

The Ramayana sounded like fun though it's hard to figure out which version you're supposed to read.

handrous 5y ago
Yeah, that's why I specified "Near East". I know there's supposed to be some really good, very early material from India, but I've not gotten to it yet, so I can't say whether Gilgamesh stands up to the best of that. There is, for sure, an intimidating amount of it, so it has that going for it.
- gremloni 5y ago
  India has good material all the way into the Middle Ages and a little pat that as well.
nindalf 5y ago
Ive read, listened and watched many versions of both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Of the two, the latter is the superior story in every way. Most importantly for me, the characters. I hope I won’t offend anyone’s religious sensibilities when I say the main character of the Ramayana is a bit dull, one dimensional and treats his wife terribly. The Mahabharata has its share of misogyny, but it has a couple of fantastic characters - Karna and Bheeshma. It’s worth reading for these two alone. “The only thing worth reading about is the human heart in conflict with itself”. These two exemplify that principle, whereas I found it absent in the Ramayana.
- randoglando 5y ago
  > when I say the main character of the Ramayana is a bit dull, one dimensional and treats his wife terribly. On the mark there. What about the character of Krishna (an amalgamation of 3 tribal gods)? Especially the little child Krishna? From the perspective of the story Mahabharata is superior, but the Ramayana has some great characters (Hanuman, Lakshmana, Sita, Ravana). The Mahabharata's heroes are weaker characters, except for Krishna IMO.
  - awa 5y ago
    Personally, I feel the characters in Mahabharata are more shades of grey (rather than just Good or Bad) unlike Ramayana which is portrayed as a fight between Good vs Bad. Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side.
    - drieddust 5y ago
      > Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side. My apologies but both statements doesn't stand if you read the original work of Ved Vyasa or a faithful translation of it. One single incident disproves both the statement. I am not a Mahabharata expert but this proves how false legends have spread around texts like Mahabharata and Ramayana. Krishna went as diplomat to settle the dispute without war. As a final proposal, he offered to settle the dispute just for 5 villages. Duryodhana under influence of Karna said "I will not give land worth a needle's tip." and that was the end of all negotiations. Edit: Please refer to my other comment for details about Karna's Character.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    What conflict did any of the characters in the Ramayana face? Hanuman for example, decides to do Rama’s bidding and then does it. The only major dilemma he faces is whether he should bring the cure for Lakshmana or the entire mountain containing the cure. He goes with the latter. Same with Lakshmana. Only conflict I can recall is when he is told to abandon Sita in the woods. He is torn, but decides to anyway. Compare these two to Bheeshma and Karna, who spend their entire lives torn by conflicting loyalties. I don’t much care for Krishna as a character. Since he’s a god, a lot of what he does makes no sense and doesn’t need to either. He is supposed to be inscrutable. Such a character isn’t that interesting IMO.
snambi 5y ago
There is only one Ramayana written by Valmiki Ramayana. All others are based on "Valmiki's Ramayana".
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I meant more in the sense that there a lot of purported translations of wildly varying length.
winnit 5y ago
As English versions go, I found Ralph Griffith's translation enchanting; his feeling for rhythm is wonderful.
screye 5y ago
Figuring out what Ramayana and Mahabharata versions to read is irritatingly difficult. The popular English translation written by white people are often a bastardization of the classics from a Woke lens. Others are outright further-fictionalizing accounts to suit a narrative flow as if this was a Steve Jobs biography. The more faithful english translations are written by scholars who won't consider English to be their first language. So the quality of prose is lacking and epics reads more like textbooks. Hindi and other native language works are pretty good, but my proficiency in them is restricted to speech. I am still on a search for a book that strikes the right balance. A few hindu historians & intellectuals have started writing incredible English language books. I would count Sanjeev Sanyal, Vikram Sampath and Tharoor as institutionally important writers who want to tell the story of India & Indic traditions by looking past the Delhi-focused view of our rather shoddy academic institutions. I hope to read more works that conduct primary research instead of regurgitating a few 200 yr. works by british historians that can often veer on outright propaganda. It is the age of much needed revisionism in Indian scholarship. I am glad to see it be rooted in evidence, and not counter propaganda. That being said, I hope they get to continue contributing before the academic establishment decides to fully sideline them for being counter narrative.
- pempem 5y ago
  Sincere question...what does it mean that the translation is written from a Woke lens? What should I be looking out for as different/hallmarks of propaganda or a viewpoint? Also is anyone else influencing interpretations outside of the british that would be notable?
  - screye 5y ago
    The thing with the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, is that they exist in 100s of different translations, each with different levels of geographic uptake and historic validity. There has been a lot of discourse around these over the centuries, that is captured in various Indian language texts and spoken traditions. **Philosophical incompatibility:** Most modern writer is trained in western philosophy and often derives their understanding of philosophical building blocks from western classics and sometimes even more incompatible, contemporary philosophy. This leads to conclusions such as "Eunuchs were the original transgenders", when it is historically well known that these were forcible conversions. Contemporary politics & a urge to push progressive ideas through their works muddies the academic rigor of their work. **Indians as a 2nd language/class:** This is a huge problem in many western communities studying other cultures. When written documents are given much higher important, a lot that is captured by the native people in oral traditions (Often ones that are just as or more rigorous) is discarded. Similarly, the works of Indian theologists is rejected in favor or either Colonial era British Orientalists or those who would consider English to be their first language. This intersects with the Indian left taking a more western/atheist/marxist stance that leads to an inherent alienation of scholars who derive from a more traditional/religious/'native' set of sources. Lasly, these people often only understand Sanskrit in a literal sense and treat it as some sort of holy grail. Reality is that there exist just as definitive sources in other languages, and that Sanskrit itself needs a strong cultural understanding to decode metaphors that sound odd when interpreted literally. The criticism usually comes from scholar with centuries long traditions of studying the Mahabharat/Ramayana complaining about how certain interpretations have been discussed to death and the discourse is well documented. The refusal of western/english-speaking scholar with excellent funding to even do this kind of basic due diligence leads to insinuations of Hindu-phobia from said scholars. Can you imagine a christian theologian who rejects any scholarly work by the Church, it's libraries or its priests? That's what you have here. **(Pardon my french) They bad:** Now this part is clearly opinion but hear me out. Think about how someone ends up in theology. They are either deeply interested in these works from the POV of devotion or some kind of dislike. The western and indian academic community actively ostracizes anyone who comes across as too hindu. You will struggle to find a single hindu in a hindu-theology program anywhere. There are no jobs for you unless you are on the far end of liberal. If you are a competent Hindu with a strongly sourced native POV, you are shit out of luck. Hell, you will be actively chased off Twitter and be on the top of the 'get cancelled' list. This means that there is an inherent dislike for hinduism (I do not mean hindutva, I want to be specific here) in Academia in India and the West. Growing up in India, Science was for the smart kids , Commerce was for those who could get by and Arts was for those for whom you had no hope. I don't endorse this by any means, but it is hard for me convey just how deeply this is embedded in the nation's psyche. I do not know a single person with half-decent grades/ who was considered bright who decided to pursue an undergrad in the liberal-arts in India. Even the best artists go into Architecture or Design, because you need money. This is the reality of an underdeveloped scarcity based society. This leaves Liberal Arts Academia to the rich (often ones who practice western ideas with the zeal of a convert and have a deeply rooted disdain towards non-english speaking Indians) or the not-so-bright. So you can guess what the quality of work coming out of there looks like. **Modi:** India is in the midst of a Trump-like hysteria around the cult of personality that is Modi. Either side has been taken in by this. This means that anything positive about Hindus is expected to be used by Modi to strengthen his case. I will let you guess if the academics like Modi or not. > Also is anyone else influencing interpretations outside of the british that would be notable? Western Academia & the political left of India. (Most of India's marxist agitation begins in the elite liberal arts schools of the country. Yes, India has real communists, not the milquetoast types you find in the US.) I'm a now liberal-leaning Atheist in the US (pretty standard for someone on HN), so I have no interest in those claiming blasphemy, hurt feelings or disrespect towards their gods. However, the undue influence of the incredibly low quality liberal-arts Academia elite of India is something I have real issues with. Also, watching our literature get butchered by those who are either incompetent or malicious is just not nice to look at.
gremloni 5y ago
He said near East. The Mahabharata be ramayanan are only the best know stories out of India. There are hundreds of prominent works and millions of stories.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I've been laboring under the incorrect impression that India was part of the "Near East" since it's excluded from the "Far East." Whoops.
lappet 5y ago
That is a very interesting observation because there is no one definitive version. For the modern reader in English, you could try Devdutt Pattanaik's versions - I really liked his Mahabharata, but haven't read his version of Ramayana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_Ramayanas:_Five_Examples_and_Three_Thoughts_on_Translation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_Ramayanas:_Five_... can give you some insight into why there are so many different versions of these epics.

soco 5y ago

It depends a lot on the translation I suppose, because my experience with the old testament was rather unpleasant - reading it in centuries-old language brought me no joy at all.

fidesomnes 5y ago
on the contrary reading it in Latin actually make it an enjoyable read, the English is downright dreadful.
shusaku 5y ago
If you want to read the Old Testament as literature, Robert Alter’s translation is really good. I thought his notes (which are not about theology) really help you tap in to what the authors are doing.
handrous 5y ago
AFAIK there's no reason to favor English translations of the Old Testament (or anything else) that use now-archaic English, except maybe for passages which are themselves written, in the original, in a kind of archaic or very formal mode, relative to the rest. It can be accurate enough (for whatever purpose—poetic, literal accuracy, et c.) without being stuffy or outdated. Another factor in my naming it the probably #2, after Gilgamesh, though, is that everything else is just that bad to a modern reader, so the OT looks pretty damn good compared to all that, even if you're stuck with the King James Version. My favorite story from ancient Egypt[0], I wouldn't recommend to many readers, because damn, it's a slog, and it's still an easier read than some of the others, or than anything I've seen in Sumerian or Akkadian (Gilgamesh excepted). It probably tells better, as a joke (it's a comedic story), than it reads, if you had someone really talented telling it. That's typical for other Near Eastern literatures, too. Lots and lots of repetition, is the main problem for a modern reader, as far as the prose goes. Much of it also doesn't really relate a story, exactly, and the cultural and religious references are obscure at best. You don't even get mythology, really, for the most part. Prayers or incantations, sure, but there's no Hesiod or Ovid of Sumerian religion. There's a little of that, sure, but it's very fragmentary and you have to bring a lot of context from outside of it to make much sense of what you're reading. For the millennia(!) of texts we have from Egypt, for instance, there are only a few short (and often fragmentary) works that we'd recognize as stories. You have to settle for reading a variety of non-fiction or semi-fictional genres to get much more out of it—"mirrors for princes" and scribal didactic texts, which are probably the most interesting of the lot, plus endless formulaic and not-especially-illuminating funerary texts, and a good deal of historical propaganda about military victories, mostly from monumental inscriptions, almost all of which are intensely boring even if you're really into military history. And that's probably the richest literature we have from that region in the pre-classical period, at least as far as what's available in English translation. [0] The Eloquent Peasant

basch 5y ago

What are the promising Egyptian tales?

wl 5y ago
It's probably not what GP was thinking of because it's not relatively late and reasonably complete, but Sinuhe is probably the greatest surviving work of Middle Egyptian fiction.
handrous 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Wenamun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Wenamun Looks like some people think it is complete, in which case, it's just not particularly good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tale_of_the_Doomed_Prince https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tale_of_the_Doomed_Prince There are a few complete ones that are OK, relatively speaking. They're all pretty short and there aren't that many stories from pre-classical Egypt, so if you're interested, I'd say track them down and give them a try, but don't expect easy reads. I guess part of why I favor those two, especially the latter, is that I can imagine they might become great, when whole.

jedimastert 5y ago

I don't know anything about it, is there a single canonical translation? If not, which one would you recommend to someone who, lets say, wants to read for enjoyment more but is woefully out of practice

handrous 5y ago
I dunno about "canonical", but, as others have mentioned, Stephen Mitchell's version is good. It reads very easily without, as I understand it, taking too many liberties with the text. I'm sure there are retellings that are even smoother, but I doubt you can do much better for casual reading with anything else that's at least fairly faithful to the original. Mitchell's careful to (accurately) frame his as a new version, not a new translation, though, because he does not read the original language and is leaning on several existing translations to assemble his version. You probably don't want it for, say, deep scholarly purposes. My copy of Mitchel's version has what's effectively a 60 page retelling at the beginning—which I've not read, so maybe it sucks, I dunno—as the Introduction, then a brief author's note about the book (in which he explains that it is not a new translation, among other things), and ~140 pages of Gilgamesh itself, in largish type. It's very long for a (mostly) surviving pre-classical near eastern story, but it's still pretty short. The rest of the volume is notes.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > It reads very easily without, as I understand it, taking too many liberties with the text. I'm sure there are retellings that are even smoother, but I doubt you can do much better for casual reading with anything else that's at least fairly faithful to the original. For something much closer to the other extreme, I have a version by Stephanie Dalley which seems to prioritize being faithful to the original over basically everything else. Here's a (particularly unsmooth) extract: [Shamash] heard the words of Gilgamesh, Scion of Uruk, [and said], 'As soon as a loud voice from the sky calls down to him, Rush, stand up to him, let him not [enter the forest (?)], Let him not go down to the wood, nor [ ]. [Humbaba] will [not] be clothed in seven cloaks, He will be wearing [only one]; six are taken off (?). Like a charging wild bull which pierces [ ] He shouts only once, but fills one with terror. The guardian of the forests will shout [ ] [ ] Humbaba like [ ] will shout. (gap of uncertain length) As soon as the swords [ ] [ ] from the sheaths [ ] Streaked with verdigris (?) [ ] Dagger, sword, [ ] One [ ] They wore [ ] Humbaba [made his voice heard and spoke (?)] 'He will not go (?) [ ] He will not go (?) [ ] (7 lines illegible) May Ellil [ ].' It's not the easiest thing to read, but I like being so close to the actual text. If it's in this translation, it's there on a cuneiform tablet somewhere. (Or guessed in a very conservative way, like guessing that "Humbaba [______________]" should be filled in as "Humbaba made his voice heard" when that line is immediately followed by quoted speech.)

gremloni 5y ago

Stray into the south and Far East. They have incredible stories.