4 ms·

Her introduction and notes on her own translation alone are worth the price of the book. It would be a really interesting short monograph on Homer's world and o

Her introduction and notes on her own translation alone are worth the price of the book. It would be a really interesting short monograph on Homer's world and on the discipline of translation, if published independently. I loved her take on the Odyssey, and am in the middle of her Iliad translation now (was reading chapter 10 just a few minutes ago in fact). My emotional favorite is still Fagles, for the bombast, and I like Fitzgerald as much as this one, but her Iliad is really really admirable, and would be many people's favorite for its readability and perceptiveness about the text. Modern in approach to language, but not revisionist, and she totally understands the flavor the story should have while making it smoother and less intimidating than other translators have done.

Amorymeltzer 3y ago
>Her introduction and notes on her own translation alone are worth the price of the book. I felt this way about Maria Dahvana Headley's Beowulf as well. A masterful work but the introduction taught me so much more than any English class ever did.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Her Beowulf is a work of genius. It captures the thrill of listening to a great storyteller. I've performed parts of it and it's like doing Shakespeare.
fastball 3y ago
What was in the introduction that made you like it so?
- watwut 3y ago
  She explains historical and cultural context of the poem. What do we know about social expectations placed on characters in the poem, how they used the poem in practice and differences against our culture, etc. She also explains a bit about translation process - the decisions she had to make and reasons why she picked up this or that thing.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  The other reply basically summarizes it. I'll give an example that stood out: she explains why, instead of calling Agamemnon's side Achaeans, the historically accurate term, she's going to call them Greeks, because even though that's anachronistic, it's more meaningful to the reader. That's the kind of thing some people will absolutely hate, and I think I would hate that kind of thing too, in other circumstances, but she made a good case. She also talks about the difficulty of solving for words that ancient Greek has a lot of synonyms for, and Homer uses a lot of synonyms for, but English only has one wod for: how do you do that and not have it sound repetitive? That part made me appreciate the intense labor that must have gone into every line, because I struggle with the same problem, even on the microscopic scale of an email or a hacker news comment.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    I found terms like Achaeans very confusing too when I first read the Iliad (E.V. Rieu's translation). But going out of my comfort zone and learning some new context broadened my horizons.
    - watwut 3y ago
      It is one of many decisions like that. The other were the decision to match up original poem length - the translation was supposed to be line for line. And also have each line to have consistent rhythm (iambic pentameter) so that poem sounds. The argument was both of these decisions was that the original poem sounded well too and people were repeated it to each other because it sounded well and they liked it. This has consequences - the translation is shorter then some other translations, because she cant just pile multiple adjectives in a long sentence to describe one word in the original. It also sounds good, because long descriptions of something that was short in original do change how passages come across to the reader. What was originally quick and fun becomes descriptive and slow. Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing? Personally, I found it interesting to read about these dilemmas and about thought process itself. You may agree or disagree with the choices, but the intro made the choices more transparent.
sherr 3y ago
I have the Fagels translations and found the Bernard Knox introductions excellent as well. Especially the ruminations on the possible "deep history" of the story and events depicted in the books. Overall though, The Illiad is so relentless I find it hard to read to completion.
wolverine876 3y ago
In Wilson's Odyssey (I haven't seen the new Iliad yet), the notes on translation will transform your understanding of every translation you read, and the notes on xenia (~ hospitality, but much beyond that) will transform your understanding of ancient Greek culture, including both works - I don't think you can understand the works without that knowledge.
atombender 3y ago
I'm curious how Wilson's version of book 13's "the waves" [1] compares with earlier translations. There's a lot of "sound" words (both onomatopoeia and more subtle use of alliteration, patterns, or stresses) in the original Greek that translations either struggle to convey, or choose to ignore. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/englishing-the-iliad-grading-four-rival-translations https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/englishing-the-i...

Amorymeltzer 3y ago

>Her introduction and notes on her own translation alone are worth the price of the book. I felt this way about Maria Dahvana Headley's Beowulf as well. A masterful work but the introduction taught me so much more than any English class ever did.

jfengel 3y ago
Her Beowulf is a work of genius. It captures the thrill of listening to a great storyteller. I've performed parts of it and it's like doing Shakespeare.

fastball 3y ago

What was in the introduction that made you like it so?

watwut 3y ago
She explains historical and cultural context of the poem. What do we know about social expectations placed on characters in the poem, how they used the poem in practice and differences against our culture, etc. She also explains a bit about translation process - the decisions she had to make and reasons why she picked up this or that thing.
karaterobot 3y ago
The other reply basically summarizes it. I'll give an example that stood out: she explains why, instead of calling Agamemnon's side Achaeans, the historically accurate term, she's going to call them Greeks, because even though that's anachronistic, it's more meaningful to the reader. That's the kind of thing some people will absolutely hate, and I think I would hate that kind of thing too, in other circumstances, but she made a good case. She also talks about the difficulty of solving for words that ancient Greek has a lot of synonyms for, and Homer uses a lot of synonyms for, but English only has one wod for: how do you do that and not have it sound repetitive? That part made me appreciate the intense labor that must have gone into every line, because I struggle with the same problem, even on the microscopic scale of an email or a hacker news comment.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I found terms like Achaeans very confusing too when I first read the Iliad (E.V. Rieu's translation). But going out of my comfort zone and learning some new context broadened my horizons.
  - watwut 3y ago
    It is one of many decisions like that. The other were the decision to match up original poem length - the translation was supposed to be line for line. And also have each line to have consistent rhythm (iambic pentameter) so that poem sounds. The argument was both of these decisions was that the original poem sounded well too and people were repeated it to each other because it sounded well and they liked it. This has consequences - the translation is shorter then some other translations, because she cant just pile multiple adjectives in a long sentence to describe one word in the original. It also sounds good, because long descriptions of something that was short in original do change how passages come across to the reader. What was originally quick and fun becomes descriptive and slow. Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing? Personally, I found it interesting to read about these dilemmas and about thought process itself. You may agree or disagree with the choices, but the intro made the choices more transparent.

sherr 3y ago

I have the Fagels translations and found the Bernard Knox introductions excellent as well. Especially the ruminations on the possible "deep history" of the story and events depicted in the books. Overall though, The Illiad is so relentless I find it hard to read to completion.

wolverine876 3y ago

In Wilson's Odyssey (I haven't seen the new Iliad yet), the notes on translation will transform your understanding of every translation you read, and the notes on xenia (~ hospitality, but much beyond that) will transform your understanding of ancient Greek culture, including both works - I don't think you can understand the works without that knowledge.

atombender 3y ago

I'm curious how Wilson's version of book 13's "the waves" [1] compares with earlier translations. There's a lot of "sound" words (both onomatopoeia and more subtle use of alliteration, patterns, or stresses) in the original Greek that translations either struggle to convey, or choose to ignore. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/englishing-the-iliad-grading-four-rival-translations https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/englishing-the-i...