hi, i haven't read the iliad and the odyssey but want to - do u have a specific translation you recommend? the emily wilson one has been going around bc, y'know, first female translator of the iliad and odyssey into english, but i was wondering on if you had Thoughts
Hi anon! Sorry for the somewhat late response and I'm glad you trust me with recommendations! Full, disclosure, I am somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to translations of the source text of the Iliad + Odyssey combo wombo, which means I tend to prefer closeness in literal verbiage over interpretation of the poetic form of these epics - for that reason, my personal preferred versions of the Odyssey and Iliad both are Robert Fitzgerald's. Because both of these translations (and his Aeneid!) were done some 50+ years ago (63 for his original Odyssey tl, 50 flat for his Iliad and 40 for his Aeneid) the English itself can be a bit difficult to read and the syntax can get confusing in a lot of places, so despite my personal preferences, I wouldn't recommend it for someone who is looking to experience the Iliad + Odyssey for the very first time.
For an absolute beginner, someone who has tried to read one or both of these epics but couldn't get into it or someone who has a lot of difficulty with concentrating on poetry or long, winding bits of prose, I fully and wholeheartedly recommend Wilson's translation! See, the genius of Emily Wilson's Iliad + Odyssey isn't that she's a woman who's translated these classics, it's that she's a poet who's adapted the greek traditional poetic form of dactylic hexameter into the english traditional poetic form of iambic pentameter. That alone goes a very very long way to making these poems feel more digestible and approachable - iambic pentameter is simply extremely comfortable and natural for native english speakers' brains and the general briskness of her verbiage helps a lot in getting through a lot of the problem books that people usually drop the Iliad or Odyssey in like Book 2 of the Iliad or Book 4 of the Odyssey. I think it's a wonderful starting point that allows people to familiarise themselves with the source text before deciding if they want to dig deeper - personally, researching Wilson's translation choices alone is a massive rabbit hole that is worth getting into LOL.
The happy medium between Fitzgerald's somewhat archaic but precise syntax and Wilson's comfortable meter but occasionally less detailled account is Robert Fagles' Iliad + Odyssey. Now, full disclosure, I detest how Fagles handles epithets in both of his versions, I think they're far too subtle which is something he himself has talked at length about in his translation notes, but for everything else - I'd consider his translations the most well rounded of english adaptations of this text in recent memory. They're accurate but written in plain English, they're descriptive and detailled without sacrificing a comfortable meter and, perhaps most importantly, they're very accessible for native english speaking audiences to approach and interact with. I've annotated my Fagles' volumes of these books to heaven and back because I'm deeply interested in a lot of the translation decisions made, but I also have to specifically compliment his ability to capture nuance in the characters' of these poems in a way I don't often see. He managed to adapt the ambivalence of ancient greek morality in a way I scarcely see and that probably has a hand in why I keep coming back to his translations.
Now, I know this wasn't much of a direct recommendation but as I do not know you personally, dear anon, I can't much make a direct recommendation to a version that would best appeal to your style of reading. Ideally, I'd recommend that you read and enjoy all three! But, presuming that you are a normal person, I suggest picking which one is most applicable for you. I hope this helps! 🥰
27 notes
·
View notes
This probably seems like a minor detail, but I really appreciate that they had Frances McDormand, NOT Derek Jacobi, deliver the monologue to Job. Making it totally unambiguous that God is doing this, that it’s not some underling gone rogue.
As An Ex-Evangelical™️, one of the most common, most annoying ideas I run into re: Christianity is “oh Christianity is such a good philosophy! 😊 People are just interpreting it wrong! 😊 They’re corrupting Jesus’ true teachings! 😊”
To borrow a concept from UI design, if a lot of your users are “doing it wrong”, it’s actually the design that’s wrong (see also: the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does).
Yes, you’ve written the word “push” on the door, but you gave it a vertical handle — something that’s more naturally shaped for a pulling hand than a pushing hip. Of course people will grab the handle and pull. Yes, you’ve carefully marked safe crosswalks, but they’re so far apart that they’d double the walking distance. Of course people will take their chances with jaywalking, and sometimes get hit.
Yes, you’ve told people to be generous, but you’ve also told them “the poor you will always have”. Of course they’ll assume that anti-poverty legislation will fail, and vote against it. Yes, you’ve told people to be stewards of the earth, but you’ve also told them that God will end the world. Of course they’ll be skeptical of human-caused climate change. Yes, you’ve told people to love their neighbors, but you’ve also told them that anyone who doesn’t repent gets tortured forever. Of course they’re going to try to turn as many people away from hell as possible, even if that requires “tough love” in the here and now.
So for Good Omens to say, no, God is 100% involved in the story of Job, this has nothing to do with the Metatron. I love it. This isn’t a case of “things would be so much better if only people didn’t corrupt God’s true intentions! 😊”
Nah. She’s just Like That.
(also the biblically accurate/“wrestling with God” reading is just… way more fun than the boring, sanded-off Christian version where Everything Happens For A Reason. Let God be weird and petty and chaotic! Let God rant about the whales!)
49 notes
·
View notes
The Hellflire Club Foreshadows Mike's Monologue (and More Than You Think...)
Several fans have noticed already that there are direct parallels between Mike's monologue in The Piggyback, with Eddie's monologue in The Hellfire Club.
While we've been grappling with all sorts of supernatural creatures over the course of Stranger Things' entire run, here Eddie is warning us about forced conformity and how that is the real monster.
This has also led fans to joke painfully about the fact that Max 'died' because forced conforming; that's what's killing the kids, aka Mike's whole speech to El wouldn't have happened the way it did in the first place, had him, Will and El not been trying so hard to be who they think they're supposed to be, instead of who they truly want to be.
However, what I want to add to this discourse, because I haven't seen anyone else acknowledge it (correct me if i'm wrong!?), is that this scene at lunch has two extras with whom Mike sits between, which are very likely meant to represent Will and El.
We've seen a lot of (love) triangle blocking used with these three before, often with Mike between the two. This screen-cap below has gotta be one of the most iconic and so I feel the need to mention it briefly:
What also makes this shot relevant as an example for this post, is the costume choice for Will and El here: the same shade of dark blue (hints of gray), and the fact that this doesn’t align with the colors/style they usually wear as individual characters. However, this was presumably one of the few times Will and El have genuinely interacted beyond supernatural happenings. And so now, with both of them standing on either side of Mike, after two seasons of him having only one of them beside him, and while the other was out of reach, what we're seeing is that these two are more or less two sides of the same coin. Whether Will and El are actually blood related (I'm like 75% sure they could be) remains to be seen. However Mike's bond between both of them individually is causing him to sort of be at war with himself (and his identity).
Now bear with me, because I know so many of you see theories/analysis involving set design/blocking/costumes and you just instantly check out and stop taking it seriously. But I can assure you, this is the real deal.
What follows, is so outrageously easy to overlook. And yet upon thinking about what it actually requires to film a scene, especially a scene like this with dozens of background extras, along with how this scene actually turned out, I'm going to explain why there are several factors which make me feel fairly confident about what these two specific extras represent.
To start things off, we know how this scene begins, with Eddie dramatically reading a Newsweek magazine:
"The Devil has come to America. Dungeons and Dragons, at first regarded as a harmless game of make-believe, now has both parents and psychologists concerned. Studies have linked violent behavior to the game, saying it promotes satanic worship, ritual sacrifice, sodomy, suicide, and even... Murder."
After they give us a short introduction to some of the faces of the Hellfire Club (notably Eddie), they cut to this point of view shot from Mike:
Here we are instantly introduced to the two extras that are going to dominate a majority of this scene outside of the main characters themselves, aka Willel...
note: interesting they don't include Mike in the shot for that specific sound bite below... almost as if he considers himself a freak for a different reason...
Yes, on the surface this scene is establishing that Mike and Dustin are finding a place in High School, as the freaks and geeks, but a place nonetheless.
Though, is that really all there is to it?
You'll see what I mean.
note: there's no meaning behind the circles touching here. i just wanted to acknowledge here that the El extra is visible at first, only for her to become hidden the moment that the Will extra becomes visible.
Now, this shot right here below is kind of iconic, because it's what made me realize that this girl extra here in the scarf represents El.
To provide a little more context, the Will extra next to Mike has already been picked up on by a decent amount of fans. I've even posted about it at least once. This guy definitely resembles Will at certain angles, to the point where he could arguably be a stand in/stunt double for scenes that don't require a close-up of him.
Also keeping in mind, this is a scene of the party in high school, in a D&D club. Assuming Will could have stayed in Hawkins and went to high school with the party, he would've more than likely been right here beside them. So that's what I initially got out of this scene and still partially do get out of it, regardless of these other observations I'm discussing here.
What's so fascinating about the Will extra though specifically, is that they avoid showing his face as much as possible, which is a unique choice that we're just not seeing be applied to the other extras in the frame. They even let us see the face of the guy across from the Will extra (blue/yellow striped shirt guy) multiple times, but apparently they really wanted to avoid showing this guys face (there are a few notable, but fleeting side profiles from an outside POV), almost to keep up this guise that we could imagine this is Will and hell, it could be him, bc it's pretty damn close.
However, upon recently rewatching this scene, I remember looking for other points when this Will extra might have been prominent, to see if I could find anything else.
And that's when I realized this girl in the scarf, directly blocks the Will extra at the most convenient time.
And that's when it hit me...
FORCED CONFORMING!!!!!!!
The following images below is when it really starts to get obvious that there was an intended direction going on here with the blocking of these two extras, in accordance with Mike's placement in the frame.
What sealed the deal for me, was noticing how the other extras surrounding them (excluding Willel), do not seem to be granted much importance in the continuity of this scene.
Continuity between shots is pretty essential to filmmaking. It's gotta be the main thing about film that just bugs me, which is that you can tell very visibly when a shot is followed by another shot, but from a separate take (has the capacity to ruin the illusion that this is real and not all fabricated).
For example, what I gather from the beginning of this following conversation, is that there were at the very least 2-3 takes done for these reaction shots of Dustin and Mike, and it's because the extras in the background give it away. Sometimes they're in the frame, sometimes they're not.
The Will and El extras provide a contrast to all the other extras, in that the continuity for their blocking in the frame is fairly spot on each time, equal to the standards of the main cast arguably. Meaning they had a mark and they had to stick with it.
Check this out:
side note: star wars reference (luke & leia??)
The most obvious thing that gives away the importance of these two extras, besides the blocking, is them both sporting an almost identical color in their costume. While the Will extra wears a maroon shirt, the El extra wears a scarf in that same color.
This is so simple yet sort of genius, because again, from what I understand, no one has noticed this, and so it's pretty epic once you finally do pick up on it.
The Will extra is almost always in the frame on Mike's right? The El extra is facing the the opposite direction as them (not on the same page), and wearing a scarf, which is there to represent the tentacle choking her during Mike's monologue...
This theory does take a turn for the hilarious, when at a later point Eddie starts monologuing again, while Dustin and Mike look at him fondly (w/ Mike in focus), the Willel extras are now nowhere to be found...
I think this choice was made to indicate that Mike's attraction to Eddie is based on the most basic type of attraction, while what he shares for Will and El is so much more complicated (and deep). When you're just experiencing everyday attraction, you're not thinking about your significant other or your hearts desire in that moment, because this moment is just a blip encounter that isn't going anywhere, it's attraction and that's all there is to it. Whereas what he feels truly for Will is true love, while what he feels truly for El is familial love. This tiny moment isn't about his conflict over his romantic feelings, it's about the fact that Mike is attracted to men.
And then what follows directly after this, is that little snippet of Eddie's monologue, which echoes Mike's monologue to El at the end of the season...
Oh and look who it is?! The El extra has made a reappearance, just in time!
This is one of the few times they made a point to have the El extra in the frame while the Will extra wasn't, which I also think is intentional because it could be a hint to how Mike's speech about falling in love with El the moment he saw her is a fabrication (copyright to be exact), and it also doesn't resemble the love that Mike has for Will, hence why he was almost entirely left out of those shots. (Also similar to Mike's monologue at the end of the season, where Will was in certain shots but not others, because the words did/didn't match Mike's feelings for Will at those points).
Lastly, we get a Gap (gay and proud) reference for Mike. And low and behold, the Will extra is making a reappearance, just in time!
I think what makes this scene easier to understand on a basic level, without making it too complicated for yourself, is comparing the implications that come with it, to the implications that came with Mike's monologue.
The choice to put Will in most of the shots, directly behind Mike as he professes his love to El, who is lying before him unable to look in his eyes or even respond, leads those truly paying attention, to the conclusion that this is not how you shoot a satisfying love confession. Therefore it can't be a genuine love confession.
Instead what this scene more so depicts is a character having a confession practically wrenched out of him. And because of all the other details happening over the course of this season and just the series overall, we can gather that Mike feels pressured to go through with this because he thinks he has no other choice.
They didn't beat the big bad this time, instead they lost. Because forced conforming, that's the real monster.
With only one season left, they're going to have to face the truth if they want to make it out alive this time (and happy!).
134 notes
·
View notes