21st century translations

>>8401501
>Wouldn't their translations be more accurate and have better notes?

How so?

The more accurate translations of Dante are the older ones

>>8401538
They can look at whatever problems and criticism the 20th century translations had and fix them or maybe they learned something new from anthropology or other fields.

>>8401501
No.

>>8401559
Indeed, but translation is not a science: that is to say, a newer translation does not necessarily trumps all the past ones. It is a new interpretation, it presents a new reading, but not a definite one.

Translations are sometimes the result of their era, so that they may have an agrnda behind them. Then a translation may change something that could offend the sensibilities of the public in a specific time and place.

File: 41gphe9PopL.jpg (32KB, 317x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 317x500px

nah cuz its all about the 17th century translations

I finally got over the lame-o cover art (D-day, Moon, Nam wall) and started reading Lombardo's Iliad. It almost got me hard it was so good. I read and liked Lattimore's and read bits of Chapman's Homer, but I'll definitely be getting all up in Lombardo's real soon.

If I've never read The Odyssey or the Illiad which edition should I look for? The issue of century specific translation is interesting, but what's a good stand-by edition/translation to look for?

>>8402368

desu there's no definitive answer. Fagles is the one most like modern English. Lattimore is the most literal, people say (I wouldn't know) but reads kind of clunky desu. Fitzgerald is nice and poetic. People on /lit/ tend to favor Merrill.

>>8402379
Hmm, Fitzgerald and Fagle sound like the best candidates. I'm not the brightest person, so I'll admit that poetic prose confuses me sometimes and I may go with Fagle's translation over Fitzgerald as I'm worried I'd get lost, unless you think it's not that obscure seeming.

I'm decently read, so I can parse it out but I don't know if it'd be worth it for my first go at the story.

>>8402399

I don't think Fitz is terrible obscure. You can read an online preview and see for yourself.

>>8402407
Ah good idea. Thanks for the suggestions :)

>>8402368
Look at the Fitzgerald, Lattimore, and Fagles translations and figure out which one you like best. Those are the "stand-by"s but they have some significant differences. Personally I like the Fitzgerald so I'm gonna pick them up.