4 ms·

Apparently there's a new translation of the Iliad coming out. A thread on it came up on twitter. The thread author strongly dislikes the new translation - be th

• davidivadavid 3y ago
  "Completely ignorant of the topic" is more accurate than "a bit biased." Most of those threads are partisan BS with absolutely no knowledge of (or real interest in) Ancient Greek, Homer, poetry or translation in general. Abysmal idiocy.
  • Torkel 3y ago
    Yeah - I should probably have pointed out more clearly that the author there seems to be a bit of a partisan jerk... I did see it, and I did try to point it out, but obviously not well enough. The point I was trying to make was that there are such large differences in between the translations, and the thread does contain the same passage from multiple translations. But, again - poor choice of link to illustrate it with.
    • watwut 3y ago
      I actually like the Wilsons threads for that purpose better. Here is rather lengthy thread of many choices you can make as translator: https://twitter.com/EmilyRCWilson/status/1027194889803587585 https://twitter.com/EmilyRCWilson/status/1027194889803587585 And comparative thread of other translations: https://twitter.com/EmilyRCWilson/status/1093157738857811968 https://twitter.com/EmilyRCWilson/status/1093157738857811968 One big reason is that her threads are rather emotionless, difference in translation is something to analyze rather then get outraged about. While they show different choices and compare them to original text, she is not insulting other translators nor getting offended over nor calls their existence a crime. She even praises other translators in various threads, there is actually no war between her and them. Even when she criticizes the other translations for inaccuracy, from the more of feminist point of view, she argues more by text, reading of original poem and meaning then by feeling outraged (unlike the original thread listed here): https://twitter.com/EmilyRCWilson/status/971823043512360960 https://twitter.com/EmilyRCWilson/status/971823043512360960
  • christudor 3y ago
    I don’t agree with the Twitter thread, but I do think there are fair criticisms to be made of Wilson’s translation, one of which is that she stretches the meaning of the Greek – up to and including just ignoring certain lines – in order to present a particular view of Odysseus. Richard Whitaker‘s review (published in Acta Classica 63 (2020), pp. 1-15) is quite good on this (as well as on other problems with Wilson’s translation): https://casa-kvsa.org.za/legacy/AC63-Whitaker-18DEC2019.pdf https://casa-kvsa.org.za/legacy/AC63-Whitaker-18DEC2019.pdf
    • davidivadavid 3y ago
      There's fair criticism to be made of most translations. The fallacy begins when one assumes that there is some kind of perfect ideal translation that exists somewhere, that translations can be compared to. Translation, especially literary translation, always involves some amount of arbitrary, artistic parti pris. Wilson's translation involves a lot of formal (preservation of the number of lines, iambic pentameter) and rhetorical (modernization of the vocabulary) constraints that require sometimes wide deviation from the original. That's inevitable. What's interesting however is to look at those deviations as an opportunity for conversation, not as an opportunity for correction, which is just nonsensical in the context of a translation that doesn't aim primarily at accuracy. Except for clear mistakes, most of the choices Wilson made were made in complete awareness of the trade-offs they involve. The Twitter discussion fantasizes about a translation where no such trade-offs exist, which tells you enough about how much translation experience the authors have (none). Whitaker's review is a good academic review that doesn't at least fall for those beginner misconceptions and recognizes trade-offs explicitly: "Both Green and Verity use a long, six-beat line. This has the advantage for them that they can translate almost every word of the Greek original. But it also, sometimes, leads to a wordiness, a certain turgidity in their versions that makes one sigh for the concision of Wilson."
      • YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
        According to the review linked above (the one by Whitaker) Wilson's text is not so much a translation as a reinterpretation of the Odyssey, as far as I can tell intended to influence modern political debate: >> The two great novelties of Wilson’s Odyssey are the way she represents a group of characters that we might term ‘underdogs’ – notably the Cyclops, and the suitors and their allies – in a sympathetic light,6 while representing Odysseus as, on balance, reprehensible. The big problem, however, with Wilson’s heterodox approach to the characters of the Odyssey is that she can sustain it only by distorting and misrepresenting what the Greek text says. "Distorting and misrepresenting" an original text to make it sound like its author was saying what the translator wishes to say is not the result of a trade-off like the one you describe and there's no excuse to be found in the absence of a "perfect translation", when nobody ever claimed that absence is a surprise.
• ethanklitz 3y ago
  If you like the comparisons to Emily Wilson's translations, I think you'd also enjoy her insights into the process https://www.emilyrcwilson.com/emilyrcwilson-scholia https://www.emilyrcwilson.com/emilyrcwilson-scholia
• watwut 3y ago
  Thread author finds the word "complicated" offensive. Which is pretty weird thing to take offense about. The rest of it seems to be taking offense on quite random translation choices ... while not understanding what the original says.
  • bigbillheck 3y ago
    > while not understanding what the original says. Thread author claims to have had one full year of ancient Greek at Stanford.
    • watwut 3y ago
      Which amounts to what I wrote. He also claims his criticism do not require any knowledge of the Greek ... despite complaining about words selection in translation. Also, the author of the thread has pretty odd reading of texts in English.