As per "Homer never wrote this..." Well ,to be fair, Homer never wrote anything. And like everything of its time both the Iliad and the Odyssey were subject to multiple changes across time. Let's allow Mr. Nolan some latitude in his retelling. New time, new audience, new medium.
Sorry Liza, usually I very much enjoy your content on Pens & Poison. But I must mostly disagree with your review. You are 100% right that Nolan using Emily Wilson’s awful translation hurt the film. But I can’t agree it is a good movie. Christopher Nolan made so many mistakes with casting, dialogue, how he promoted the film, and how he took criticism of his decisions that the film was dead on arrival I’m sorry to say.
Frustrating that Liza often appeals to an idea of an ‘original Greek’ reading, and her fluency in such a reading. Now I don’t know, maybe Liza is more fluent in Greek than Emily Wilson, who translated both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Maybe she knows the truest meaning of Greek words that were used 3000 years ago and assembled by the disparate voices across a century that we know as Homer. It is strange, however, that Liza brings her own modern ideas to the text.
Liza speaks of ‘national distinction’ as an important aspect of Polyphemus cursing Odysseus. Why not mention Ithaca, Liza argues? Is it possible that nationalism as a social concept is itself an anachronism? I’ll let the scholars decide.
Second, Liza argues that Wilson’s translation informed Nolan’s adaptation. Liza will not mention that Wilson’s translation did not force Odysseus into compromising his nostos by eating lotus flowers. That is a divergence that Nolan alone chose.
Liza engages in motivated reasoning when she discusses Wilson’s translation, seeing exactly what she wants to see in spite of contradictory evidence.
Not only is the word “nation” an anachronism but the word “tribe” which the author of this post uses—as in “pride in his tribe”—a solecism of another sort. The Homeric stories are of royal households (Atreus, Odysseus, etc) and not of units of kinship. The word tribe belongs to the Hebrews and to a Semitic tradition. It would have been alien to the Mycenaeans for whom oikos was the identity that mattered.
Was going to take the whole family. Thanks for saving me $100. I wouldn't have made a fuss about the Polyphemus; just a bit weaker language, drama moves basically the same and its all in character. But he eats the lotus????? WTF!!!! That is like leaving out being tied to the mast. That is not the hardened, daring, cunning warrior, nor the man who turns down immortality for his deep connection to being human - returning home to his loving wife (and dog) triumphant. To any others who point to - everybody makes mistakes, and translation is hard - I offer my line - but betraying the character of the hero and confusing the point of the whole story is NOT! Apologists abound, but I offer no quarter.
Of course, I could blame you as I have to find something else to do next weekend.
Saw it. Enjoyed it. It’s a fricken movie, not a documentary. Wow! Some folks just need to get over themselves. Hopefully the movie will encourage people of all ages to want to learn more about a story that has been around for almost 3000 year.
The issue is that it took what is one of THE classics in the Western Canon, and instead of using a tried and true version he, Nolan, went with the PC, feminist, anti-male version of the book. The author herself has stated openly she hates the main character, to me that is kind of an important part of the retelling of a story like this. If people are inspired to read her version of this then they are getting the wrong message. Does that make more sense as to why some people, to include myself, are not happy with this?
Yes, that makes sense and does explain why some people are so annoyed by the interpretation of characters and themes from this revered classic. I appreciate and thank you for sharing your thoughts. This movie is far from perfect. But I liked it for other reasons. It reminds me of the big budget sword & sandal biblical epics from the 50's starring handsome blue eyed Hollywood celebrities and filmed in CinemaScope. There was plenty of scholarly criticism of the loose & liberal interpretation of characters and themes lifted from sacred literature. But these movies were generally well made and hugely entertaining even if they were inaccurate.
I get it, especially with so much of the junk that is produced that passes a big time movie today, but I think if it gets people to read Emily Wilson's version of Homer they will lose a lot of the story and also not understand the times, the culture, etc..as well.
I am so glad I lucked into Fagles the first time I read it. Everything about that edition, from the deckled-edge paper to the glossary, not to mention the feels-good-to-say-it-out-loud poetry, is terrific.
Ironically people who see the film might acquire the original and read it but which translation would they choose? Liza has an excellent point about how the Emily Wilson translation somewhat trashes the original by her "modern" mistaken mistranslation. Any awesome traditional literary original best book is under attack by progressives who undervalue and all but completely dismiss the best books of all time that Liza recommends. Most progressive readers are looking for the quick, fast very "easy" read that won't mentally tax their minds too much. If you ask Google what's the best translation, you would probably want to take the third one or seemingly their least favorite suggestion as seen here:
For a fast, modern read, Emily Wilson’s version is excellent. For sweeping, traditional grandeur, choose Robert Fagles. For literary beauty, select Robert Fitzgerald.
Progressives book influencers are on a tear going on an all out crusade to consign all the best traditional original classics that exhibit awesome beauty to literary oblivion or the trash bin.
I'm curious if you've ever watched The Return (2024). It takes similar modern liberties by emphasizing the psychological damage to Odysseus, but in doing so struck me as an excellent film. Euripides also altered the characterizations of myths.
Long tradition of reinterpreting character dynamics in myths, no?
That said, I would prefer the name of the film to be "Odysseus", as when you use the actual title of the work, I believe you should strive for maximal fidelity. Of course, this is tilting at windmills as Hollywood never really honors my wishes there...
I haven't seen Nolan's Odyssey yet, but it will be hard to beat The Return.
Appreciate your perspectives on this, but isn't "never read" a little harsh? Each translator is forced into taking liberties by nature of the craft, and is subject to inbuilt cultural biases.
There are always tradeoffs in translation. Wilson's choice to match the lines of the original Greek while using iambic pentameter is a sound option to take, as that migrates the cadence and flow into the English epic form. But, of course, with one thing gained, another is lost -- in this case syllable count is drastically reduced. That leaves less room for poetic word choice.
A choice like "complicated" is probably the best option within those constraints.
As some words in Homeric Greek take multiple words to capture as much of the connotation and nuance as possible, but with few syllables to spend Wilson has to leave some connotations on the table.
That said, these kinds of choices are made by all translators. For example, Fagles adds words like "slut" in "You sluts—the suitors’ whores!" that aren't present in the original at all, but the choice is clearly made to preserve the sense of shame and betrayal that would have been implicit in the original, which was more like "slept beside the suitors".
And this is a very good criticism -- perhaps the best of Wilson.
The question is whether or not the changes are "in bounds" or "out of bounds". As I noted, Fagles also added words to create an impression that he thought was implicit.
Wilson's choice of words with Polyphemus leave an impression that is mixed. With Fagles (probably my favorite, BTW) he ratchets up the introduction to the cyclops to make him more monstrous.
Wilson sees evidence in the poem that Odysseus is of mixed character given Homeric values, and that there is a tendency to present him as overly heroic considering the actual Greek.
Now, Fagles likely did that because he believes the unbridled heroism is implicit. Wilson goes the opposite direction.
Because Fagles' perspective is in line with English translations historically, we don't notice it, but as Wilson's is the exception we do.
I don't think either is "right" -- at least with each line I've tried to explore.
Mark, she did not translate, she opnely despised the characters, is not exactly what I would call a misandrist, but she is pretty close to it. Have you watched any of her interviews on why she wrote this book and/or her feelings about it? How she wrote it and what motivated her? This is not a translation, this is revisionism through the lens of anti-male feminism.
I’ve read numerous translations of The Odyssey, including Wilson’s. I’ll also add that I’ve studied translation as a specific literary skill and, while I don’t know much Greek, I once helped translate The Aeneid from Latin. I’ve also read several interviews with Wilson, and plenty of arguments about her choices as a translator.
I must respectfully disagree that Wilson “didn’t translate.”
Everyone who translates ancient texts is forced to interpret them. There’s no choice if you want it to even be intelligible to contemporary readers. Yes, she went into this with ideas and goals that many dislike. But she was quite transparent about them, which makes it far easier to evaluate her choices. And that transparency itself is vital, even all-important. We don’t have the luxury of such self-disclosure for many of the older renditions and cannot interrogate their creators.
While it’s not my favorite edition, I think the controversy over Wilson is overblown. I prefer the Fitzgerald translation myself, possibly because it was the one that made me fall in love with Homer to begin with, but I kind of enjoyed Wilson’s rendition. I found it creative and fresh, and it doesn’t appear to diverge all that far from the others. I mean, we can get into a bitter argument over word choices, but I find that kind of exchange tired and pointless. She didn’t mangle it, in my opinion, and I could usually understand why she made the decisions she did.
If you want to see how a lot of texts differ from Homer, I’d suggest Richard Lattimore’s version. It’s (arguably) the closest to the original Greek. I don’t think it’s all that accessible or enjoyable, but it’s a useful exercise to contrast it with other versions.
If there are specific sections that offend you in the Wilson translation, would you care to explain what you found objectionable? I’m genuinely curious as to what bothers you so much. It’s entirely possible I’m in the wrong here, that I’m overlooking something or perhaps not being critical enough.
I have, and she certainly has a perspective on the characters that they are less heroic, which she believes is grounded in the Homeric text.
But don't you think it is possible that other translators have, due to their own preconceived notions, portrayed Odysseus as "overly heroic" than the Greek words suggest? I think a compelling case can be made for that.
I wouldn't call using a different lens 'revisionism' in the sense. I think it is still a good-faith translation.
Note: I vastly prefer Fitzgerald's and Fagles' treatments to Wilson's.
As per "Homer never wrote this..." Well ,to be fair, Homer never wrote anything. And like everything of its time both the Iliad and the Odyssey were subject to multiple changes across time. Let's allow Mr. Nolan some latitude in his retelling. New time, new audience, new medium.
Sorry Liza, usually I very much enjoy your content on Pens & Poison. But I must mostly disagree with your review. You are 100% right that Nolan using Emily Wilson’s awful translation hurt the film. But I can’t agree it is a good movie. Christopher Nolan made so many mistakes with casting, dialogue, how he promoted the film, and how he took criticism of his decisions that the film was dead on arrival I’m sorry to say.
Some dead on arrival, right? 🤔😂
Frustrating that Liza often appeals to an idea of an ‘original Greek’ reading, and her fluency in such a reading. Now I don’t know, maybe Liza is more fluent in Greek than Emily Wilson, who translated both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Maybe she knows the truest meaning of Greek words that were used 3000 years ago and assembled by the disparate voices across a century that we know as Homer. It is strange, however, that Liza brings her own modern ideas to the text.
Liza speaks of ‘national distinction’ as an important aspect of Polyphemus cursing Odysseus. Why not mention Ithaca, Liza argues? Is it possible that nationalism as a social concept is itself an anachronism? I’ll let the scholars decide.
Second, Liza argues that Wilson’s translation informed Nolan’s adaptation. Liza will not mention that Wilson’s translation did not force Odysseus into compromising his nostos by eating lotus flowers. That is a divergence that Nolan alone chose.
Liza engages in motivated reasoning when she discusses Wilson’s translation, seeing exactly what she wants to see in spite of contradictory evidence.
Not only is the word “nation” an anachronism but the word “tribe” which the author of this post uses—as in “pride in his tribe”—a solecism of another sort. The Homeric stories are of royal households (Atreus, Odysseus, etc) and not of units of kinship. The word tribe belongs to the Hebrews and to a Semitic tradition. It would have been alien to the Mycenaeans for whom oikos was the identity that mattered.
There are so many copies of Fagles and Fitzgerald out in the wild, how blind and foolish to go with the flavor of the month.
Was going to take the whole family. Thanks for saving me $100. I wouldn't have made a fuss about the Polyphemus; just a bit weaker language, drama moves basically the same and its all in character. But he eats the lotus????? WTF!!!! That is like leaving out being tied to the mast. That is not the hardened, daring, cunning warrior, nor the man who turns down immortality for his deep connection to being human - returning home to his loving wife (and dog) triumphant. To any others who point to - everybody makes mistakes, and translation is hard - I offer my line - but betraying the character of the hero and confusing the point of the whole story is NOT! Apologists abound, but I offer no quarter.
Of course, I could blame you as I have to find something else to do next weekend.
Saw it. Enjoyed it. It’s a fricken movie, not a documentary. Wow! Some folks just need to get over themselves. Hopefully the movie will encourage people of all ages to want to learn more about a story that has been around for almost 3000 year.
The issue is that it took what is one of THE classics in the Western Canon, and instead of using a tried and true version he, Nolan, went with the PC, feminist, anti-male version of the book. The author herself has stated openly she hates the main character, to me that is kind of an important part of the retelling of a story like this. If people are inspired to read her version of this then they are getting the wrong message. Does that make more sense as to why some people, to include myself, are not happy with this?
Yes, that makes sense and does explain why some people are so annoyed by the interpretation of characters and themes from this revered classic. I appreciate and thank you for sharing your thoughts. This movie is far from perfect. But I liked it for other reasons. It reminds me of the big budget sword & sandal biblical epics from the 50's starring handsome blue eyed Hollywood celebrities and filmed in CinemaScope. There was plenty of scholarly criticism of the loose & liberal interpretation of characters and themes lifted from sacred literature. But these movies were generally well made and hugely entertaining even if they were inaccurate.
I get it, especially with so much of the junk that is produced that passes a big time movie today, but I think if it gets people to read Emily Wilson's version of Homer they will lose a lot of the story and also not understand the times, the culture, etc..as well.
https://lithub.com/enduring-epics-emily-wilson-and-madeline-miller-on-breathing-new-life-into-ancient-classics/
Is it that it doesn't have Batman in?
That's spoiled a lot of Christopher Nolan's recent films for me.
Batman? It's the lack of the main character for me. He was played by a guy named Heath Ledger if I recall.
I am so glad I lucked into Fagles the first time I read it. Everything about that edition, from the deckled-edge paper to the glossary, not to mention the feels-good-to-say-it-out-loud poetry, is terrific.
https://theclearview.substack.com/p/the-homer-oracle
Brilliant close-viewing of film and close-reading of a flawed translation at the root of the hubris-light adaptation. Math fhèin.
A good translation makes all the difference in the world. A bad translation can destroy an excellent book or film of the book and if the book has a sailing ship and the sailing ship is not quite right for what the actual sailing ship should have been, that's worse as one can read about is this Substack article by a sailing ship expert: https://loosecannon.substack.com/p/odyssey-movie-anachronism-that-viking?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1nv21u
Ironically people who see the film might acquire the original and read it but which translation would they choose? Liza has an excellent point about how the Emily Wilson translation somewhat trashes the original by her "modern" mistaken mistranslation. Any awesome traditional literary original best book is under attack by progressives who undervalue and all but completely dismiss the best books of all time that Liza recommends. Most progressive readers are looking for the quick, fast very "easy" read that won't mentally tax their minds too much. If you ask Google what's the best translation, you would probably want to take the third one or seemingly their least favorite suggestion as seen here:
For a fast, modern read, Emily Wilson’s version is excellent. For sweeping, traditional grandeur, choose Robert Fagles. For literary beauty, select Robert Fitzgerald.
Progressives book influencers are on a tear going on an all out crusade to consign all the best traditional original classics that exhibit awesome beauty to literary oblivion or the trash bin.
I'm curious if you've ever watched The Return (2024). It takes similar modern liberties by emphasizing the psychological damage to Odysseus, but in doing so struck me as an excellent film. Euripides also altered the characterizations of myths.
Long tradition of reinterpreting character dynamics in myths, no?
That said, I would prefer the name of the film to be "Odysseus", as when you use the actual title of the work, I believe you should strive for maximal fidelity. Of course, this is tilting at windmills as Hollywood never really honors my wishes there...
I haven't seen Nolan's Odyssey yet, but it will be hard to beat The Return.
Appreciate your perspectives on this, but isn't "never read" a little harsh? Each translator is forced into taking liberties by nature of the craft, and is subject to inbuilt cultural biases.
There is interpretation, and then there is making mistakes. The translator has a duty to represent the source material accurately.
There are always tradeoffs in translation. Wilson's choice to match the lines of the original Greek while using iambic pentameter is a sound option to take, as that migrates the cadence and flow into the English epic form. But, of course, with one thing gained, another is lost -- in this case syllable count is drastically reduced. That leaves less room for poetic word choice.
A choice like "complicated" is probably the best option within those constraints.
As some words in Homeric Greek take multiple words to capture as much of the connotation and nuance as possible, but with few syllables to spend Wilson has to leave some connotations on the table.
That said, these kinds of choices are made by all translators. For example, Fagles adds words like "slut" in "You sluts—the suitors’ whores!" that aren't present in the original at all, but the choice is clearly made to preserve the sense of shame and betrayal that would have been implicit in the original, which was more like "slept beside the suitors".
Are any specific mistakes that you had in mind?
I refer to this review: https://casa-kvsa.org.za/legacy/AC63-Whitaker-18DEC2019.pdf
And this is a very good criticism -- perhaps the best of Wilson.
The question is whether or not the changes are "in bounds" or "out of bounds". As I noted, Fagles also added words to create an impression that he thought was implicit.
Wilson's choice of words with Polyphemus leave an impression that is mixed. With Fagles (probably my favorite, BTW) he ratchets up the introduction to the cyclops to make him more monstrous.
Wilson sees evidence in the poem that Odysseus is of mixed character given Homeric values, and that there is a tendency to present him as overly heroic considering the actual Greek.
Now, Fagles likely did that because he believes the unbridled heroism is implicit. Wilson goes the opposite direction.
Because Fagles' perspective is in line with English translations historically, we don't notice it, but as Wilson's is the exception we do.
I don't think either is "right" -- at least with each line I've tried to explore.
Mark, she did not translate, she opnely despised the characters, is not exactly what I would call a misandrist, but she is pretty close to it. Have you watched any of her interviews on why she wrote this book and/or her feelings about it? How she wrote it and what motivated her? This is not a translation, this is revisionism through the lens of anti-male feminism.
I’ve read numerous translations of The Odyssey, including Wilson’s. I’ll also add that I’ve studied translation as a specific literary skill and, while I don’t know much Greek, I once helped translate The Aeneid from Latin. I’ve also read several interviews with Wilson, and plenty of arguments about her choices as a translator.
I must respectfully disagree that Wilson “didn’t translate.”
Everyone who translates ancient texts is forced to interpret them. There’s no choice if you want it to even be intelligible to contemporary readers. Yes, she went into this with ideas and goals that many dislike. But she was quite transparent about them, which makes it far easier to evaluate her choices. And that transparency itself is vital, even all-important. We don’t have the luxury of such self-disclosure for many of the older renditions and cannot interrogate their creators.
While it’s not my favorite edition, I think the controversy over Wilson is overblown. I prefer the Fitzgerald translation myself, possibly because it was the one that made me fall in love with Homer to begin with, but I kind of enjoyed Wilson’s rendition. I found it creative and fresh, and it doesn’t appear to diverge all that far from the others. I mean, we can get into a bitter argument over word choices, but I find that kind of exchange tired and pointless. She didn’t mangle it, in my opinion, and I could usually understand why she made the decisions she did.
If you want to see how a lot of texts differ from Homer, I’d suggest Richard Lattimore’s version. It’s (arguably) the closest to the original Greek. I don’t think it’s all that accessible or enjoyable, but it’s a useful exercise to contrast it with other versions.
If there are specific sections that offend you in the Wilson translation, would you care to explain what you found objectionable? I’m genuinely curious as to what bothers you so much. It’s entirely possible I’m in the wrong here, that I’m overlooking something or perhaps not being critical enough.
I have, and she certainly has a perspective on the characters that they are less heroic, which she believes is grounded in the Homeric text.
But don't you think it is possible that other translators have, due to their own preconceived notions, portrayed Odysseus as "overly heroic" than the Greek words suggest? I think a compelling case can be made for that.
I wouldn't call using a different lens 'revisionism' in the sense. I think it is still a good-faith translation.
Note: I vastly prefer Fitzgerald's and Fagles' treatments to Wilson's.