Comment by mariodiana | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mariodiana | Hacker News Reader

The author did a bit of "reimagining" with her translation of "The Odyssey" as well, which I own and was very excited about at the time I acquired it. In fact, I bought the book, walked a few blocks, and attended a lecture she gave at Vassar College. I was on board with her lecture, but disappointed once I began to delve into her translation.

She has a wonderful ear, and her translation of "The Odyssey" is a pleasure to read. Unfortunately though, in my opinion, she had a bit of an agenda. Part of it she detailed at the lecture, and I found that part admirable. She said that previous (male) translators had interpolated their own editorializing: specifically, adding little misogynistic characterizations that are not found in the homeric text. She, unsurprisingly, steered clear of all that, and to hear her tell it restored Homer.

But when I began to read her translation, and then compared passages to the ancient Greek, I found that she gave her own characterizations to both Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, which were neither in Homer nor particularly flattering.

Disclosure: I don't read ancient Greek. But her translation is a line-by-line translation, so it is possible to find the exact line, use scholarly online translators of Homer, and see how a particular passage, or adjective (or whatever) translates literally.

In taking a close look, I saw that she availed herself to diminishing both Odysseus and Telemachus. I'm not the only one to notice this. Moreover, she interpolated sympathy for "victims" where there really isn't any in Homer: to wit, the servant women strung up at the end.

It made me very sad to see this, because she was an intelligent and compelling lecturer; and, as I said, her verse reads beautifully. But, she's not exactly a reliable translator.

> Disclosure: I don't read ancient Greek. But her translation is a line-by-line translation, so it is possible to find the exact line, use scholarly online translators of Homer, and see how a particular passage, or adjective (or whatever) translates literally.

Is that a reliable way to establish the original meaning of the text, though? Literal translations of idiomatic texts are often less "true" than a subjective interpretation. The translator's job is insanely difficult, likely impossible.

I appreciate you asking. I'm going by memory from several years ago, but if the Greek word used to describe Telemachus means something like "presence of mind," to hint at the boy growing up to be a man worthy of such a father, and then the translated words chosen are things like "whined" and so forth, you tell me.

---

Edit: Here is an essay in the "Bryn Mawr Classical Review," which touches on the issue of the slave girls killed at the end. Look for the paragraph that begins:

"This brings me to the episode often discussed by Wilson, the killing of the slaves in Odyssey 22."

This particular essay doesn't touch on what I've said about Odysseus and Telemachus, but it does touch on the fact that her own opinion of things influences the translation.

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.10.58

---

Edit: And here is a review in the "London Review of Books," which touches on what I said:

"This makes him sound more of a brat and much less of a would-be hero than he does in the Greek."

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n08/colin-burrow/light-t...

>but if the Greek word used to describe Telemachus means something like "presence of mind," to hint at the boy growing up to be a man worthy of such a father, and then the translated words chosen are things like "whined" and so forth, you tell me.

The word used for Telemachus could be translated as "prudent" and "judicious". In the way it was perceived for what a kid should be growing up in the times, we could also call it "well rounded".

That's a dealbreaker for me.

regardless of how we feel about "victims," in the ancient world they had no sympathy at all. The thought didn't even occur to them.

in the ancient world they had no sympathy at all

You can disabuse yourself of this misconception by reading some of the works in any translation.

and you can disabuse yourself of your arrogance by reading anything from the ancient world.

They were human beings, essentially biologically identical to us, and felt compassion - a universal human emotion and an evolutionary advantage and necessity.

What basis is there for the idea that they were sociopaths? Plenty of ancient literature is concerned with these things. Plenty of modern literature overlooks it - play most computer games, for example.

One of the most striking things about ancient Greek and Roman literature is how dehumanising it is about slaves, especially when slaves were regarded en masse, as a class, and not as individual human beings. In those societies, slaves could and were regularly beaten, raped, or killed with impunity. Compassion is indeed a perennial human emotion, and it must have existed because some slaves were set free (though even here this could have been due to a master’s fondness for a slave that arose out of e.g. sexual exploitation of the latter). Yet at the same time, mass killings of slaves in ancient literature – and this is something depicted on a number of occasions – do not feature the same poignancy as modern Western readers would expect.

Modern Western literature and cinema are full of compassion-less killings. And mass Murders or torture and rape.

> In those societies, slaves could and were regularly beaten, raped, or killed with impunity

What is the basis for that? I read it as the imagination of the contemporary reactionary movement - the idea that a sort of sociopathology is a normal human condition, and compassion about others and a belief in their rights is a fake contrivance (of liberalism). But the evidence points strongly the other way. Still, there is plenty I don't know about the ancient Greek and Roman literature.

See, for example, Kyle Harper’s Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425, Cambridge University Press, 2011. In spite of the title, it contains much detail on Roman slavery in previous eras, and is one of the most accessible (to an educated readership) presentations of the phenomenon.

Thank you! A commenter who actually knows a bit of what they are saying! I will take a look at it.

From my knowledge of other such situations, enslaved people have many fewer rights, customary and legal, but not none. Humans will still be sickened by seeing other humans do bad things; there are limits. Also, they want the enslaved people to be pacified and cooperative, not murderous and angry.

"they" : we're talking about the literature that's survived. Where killing all the men and selling the women & children into slavery after capturing a city was standard practice.

Please cite some of the "Plenty of ancient literature is concerned with these things."

The word "sociopath" gives you away. Nearly every ancient hero could be thus described.

Of different ways to evaluate translation, whether or not the translator had an agenda against the protagonist of the work they’re translating is a strange criticism. Personally, I became a fan of Wilson after reading her Euripides, I think it was Trojan women or something. I didn’t know why, but I just really enjoyed reading it. I think her popularity is that she makes the poetry come alive. I don’t know if style is the right word but something like that. Translation is always a set of compromises. Better to have more translations, and for translations to be varied in their goals and methods. Her translations make reading enjoyable for me. She wouldn’t be the translation I would choose for other purposes, but to sit down and enjoy the reading, I like her a lot.

I don't think it's a strange criticism. As a reader, I shouldn't have to worry about the translator having some kind of weird resentment towards characters in the text.

My observation is that when it comes to this particular translation, people come out of their way to get offended on behalf of main characters over completely minor decisions.

For the record, overall they come across very well. They are interesting. They make sense. They act consistent with situations they are in. They do not get criticized or insulted, nothing like that. But there is this weird assumption from some people that if they do not come like totally perfect alpha heroes in every single subtle situation, it is an ideological agenda against the guys.

Actually, I'm offended on behalf of Western civilization.

Well, if it’s not good then who cares. If it is good, but subversive for lack of a better term, then that strikes me as worthy. Most work done in that spirit is bad because it’s low quality, not just because it’s agenda driven. I’m all for quality over purity, if it gets more people to read and enjoy.

It is not subversive and I did not said it is subversive.

I said people go out of their way to act offended. And very often worh fascinating caveats like "I did not read it" or with "I don't understand original but Google translator of characters name is something nice therefore every single word must be super flattering." And then get offended over passages that are flattering, but I guess not enough.

I recommend this review by Richard Whitaker, an ancient greek scholar from University of Cape Town. It's pretty scathing.

https://casa-kvsa.org.za/legacy/AC63-Whitaker-18DEC2019.pdf

Thank you for that. It's thorough, and obviously well-versed in the subject.

As she says on the first page of her translation, "Now goddess, child of Zeus, tell the old story for our modern times."

O tempora, o mores!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com