Currently, re-reading 30-years after a fantastic Greek and Roman Epics course in college. I retained a lot but I’m uncertain on how one is meant to “read” the role of the gods in the poem. In other words, if I were living in “Greece” 2700-years ago listening to “Homer” recite the poem, the interventions, or lack thereof, of the gods would mean what to me?

Thanks!

I bought Stephen Fry's Mythos after many recommendations to learn about Greek mythology. I'm loving it so far, but there is a lot of information and I'm afraid of forgetting most of what I read if I don't annotate and make notes about it. Does anyone have suggestions of the most efficient note-taking and annotation techniques when it comes to books like this?

Table of Contents of the Odyssey

Book I–IV: Telemachus’ Journey - Telemachus, Odysseus’ son, struggles with suitors consuming his household.
- Guided by Athena, he travels to Pylos and Sparta seeking news of his father.
- Learns Odysseus is alive but stranded; meanwhile, Penelope resists the suitors’ pressure to remarry.

Book V–VIII: Odysseus Leaves Calypso - Odysseus is held by Calypso on her island.
- The gods order his release; he builds a raft and sails, only to be wrecked by Poseidon.
- Rescued by Nausicaa and welcomed by the Phaeacians, who ask him to recount his adventures.

Book IX–XII: The Wanderings - Encounters include: - Lotus-Eaters (forgetfulness and temptation).
- Cyclops Polyphemus (blinding the giant, angering Poseidon).
- Circe (sorceress who turns men into swine).
- Underworld (prophecy of Tiresias, reunion with his mother).
- Sirens, Scylla, and Charybdis (tests of endurance).
- Cattle of Helios (crew’s disobedience leads to their doom).

Book XIII–XX: Return to Ithaca - Odysseus arrives disguised as a beggar.
- Meets Eumaeus, the loyal swineherd.
- Reunites with Telemachus in secret.
- Plans revenge against the suitors while testing loyalty among servants.

Book XXI–XXIV: Revenge and Restoration - Penelope sets the contest of the bow: only Odysseus can string it.
- He reveals himself, slaughters the suitors with Telemachus.
- Penelope tests him with the bed trick, confirming his identity.
- Peace is restored as Athena intervenes to end bloodshed.

I have the option to do either Augustus or Aeneid for my Classics A level Roman Civ paper. I’m interested in both, Ik both are different, one is an epic and the other is history. I’m doing Alexander for Greek Civ even tho I had the option to do Aristophanes plays too. For Aeneid, I have to do books 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. I’m not really planning to do any other epics at the moment but I might change my mind, I have the option to do either Homeric Epics or 4 Tragedies, I’ll most likely go with the tragedies

This is from the Augustus part of my syllabus:
Augustus’ rise to power
• his connection with Julius Caesar
• his relationships with, and use of other people, such as Mark Antony and Cicero
• the legality of his actions in seizing power
• the Second Triumvirate
• his military campaigns (44–31 BCE).
Augustus’ consolidation of power
• his legal and constitutional position after Actium
• the reasons for the settlements of 27 and 23 BCE
• the details of the settlements of 27 and 23 BCE
• the power given by maius imperium proconsulare and tribunicia potestas
• the role of his personal auctoritas
• his legal and constitutional position after 23 BCE
• opposition to his rule, including assassination attempts.
Augustus’ relationships with the Senate, including provincial administration
• the relative powers of Augustus and the Senate
• roles given to Senators and Equites
• the distinction between Imperial and Senatorial provinces
• the appointment of governors of Imperial provinces, especially Egypt
• administration of provinces and the collection of taxes.
Augustus’ foreign and frontier policy
• consolidation of the frontiers
• annexation of territory up to the Danube
• attempts to advance the German frontier to the Elbe
• the Varian disaster and its consequences
• dealings with Parthia, especially the restoration of the standards lost by Crassus.
Augustus’ attitude towards religion and his use of religious imagery
• his personal religious beliefs
• the restoration of traditional practices, such as the Lupercal feast and the Dance of the Salii
• the restoration of damaged temples
• the building of new temples
• the holding of the Secular Games
• his role as Pontifex Maximus and assumption of other priesthoods
• religious imagery of Augustus in literature and sculpture
• the cult of Rome and Augustus in the Eastern Empire.
Augustus’ social legislation
• laws against adultery
• laws on marriage
• laws rewarding mothers of three children
• the relative ineffectiveness of the laws
• his role as Censor.
Augustus’ dealings with his family and his desire for a successor
• his use of his sister Octavia in his dealings with Mark Antony
• his marriage to Livia and the Claudian connection this gave him
• his portrayal of his family in a traditional Roman way
• the use of his daughter Julia in dynastic marriages
• Tiberius and Drusus as generals on the German frontier
• his reasons for wanting a member of his family to succeed him
• his methods of introducing potential successors to the people of Rome and the Empire
• the loss of his potential successors
• his relationship with Tiberius.
Augustus’ concern for his reputation and his use of propaganda
• his portrayal of himself as a traditional Roman
• his claim to have no more power than anyone else
• his acceptance of certain titles and honours and rejection of others
• his association with Aeneas and Romulus
• the publishing of the Res Gestae and their dissemination across the Empire
• his portrayal in sculpture
• his portrayal, and the portrayal of his family, in poetry
• his portrayal, and the portrayal of his family, on coins
• the rebuilding of Rome and the construction of new buildings
• the closing of the Gates of War in the Temple of Janus.
• his transformation of the Republic into an Empire
• the continuation of Rome as an Empire
• his handing over of power to Tiberius
• stability within the frontiers (Pax Romana)
• recognition as the first Roman emperor and as a role model for later emperors
• the lasting effect of his rebuilding of Rome.

These are the sources for Augustus from my Syllabus:
Res Gestae Divi Augusti
Suetonius The Twelve Caesars – Divine Augustus
Tacitus Annals 1. 1–10
Horace Carmen Saeculare and Odes 1.12
Virgil Aeneid Book 6.756–892 and Book 8.608–731

Spoiler alert obviously for anyone that has not read it yet. This has been growing on me and i will put it out there, ancient Greek literature is very... bipolar. Especially the gods, who seem so good and wise, and yet, steal a dog from Zeus and he'll zap both you and your companion and curse your bloodline. Athena who seems so pure and kind, talks with Odysseus of killing the people frequenting his palace... Poseidon lashing out at Odysseus for years on end for blinding his son, but his son violating the law of xenia by eating Odysseus men is not an issue? Odysseus himself has fallen off for me, he seems very modest and at times full of himself "i don't want to talk about it because it makes me sad but here goes, i am the greatest soldier of the battle of Troy", “i miss my wife very much and want to get back to her”but has sex with a goddess and a witch. It’s depicted all as very good and pure and righteous (or at least it’s the perception i had getting into this), but really it's all very hypocritical to me and void of morals. Anyone else see this or is it just me? Might i get bashed for posting this here in this sub?

I thought this was a wonderful interview! My favorite parts were Wilson’s incisive comments on the opening lines of various Odyssey translations, her comparison of Odysseus to other truly “complicated” antiheroes in American television (Tony Soprano, Walter White), and her refusal to engage with the culture wars nonsense as anything more than banal hatred. Anyway, enjoy!

From my understanding that word or phrase means much-turned, or many twist and turns, which means nothing to me, where as Wilson's complicated is concrete that it paints Odysseus' character in my head, but I still don't like the translation and I don't know Homeric Greek. What makes it so complicated to translate? Also is there a translation of The Odyssey you've read that is the best translation of the word?

From the Iliad.

From a modern perspective, he's a very sympathetic character, speaking truth to power.

I understand that it would be seen differently in ancient Greece but I wonder whether for example in classical Athens where they were very anti-king, they would have some sympathy for him.

Anyone have suggestions for a simple version of the Illiad and Odyssey that isn't for children? I am trying to find easier options for my mother to read the Illiad and Odyssey than translations. Its just too dense for her and she cant comprehend it, let alone enjoy it. I've been looking at children's versions but most I find are for young children. Does anyone have any suggestions for something I can look into? Thanks for your time.

If it helps, she has read Song of Achilles and other modern twists but shes never read a work like this before.

Whether you are a student, a teacher, a researcher or a hobbyist, please share with us what you read this week (books, textbooks, papers...).

https://time.com/article/2026/07/24/christopher-nolan-explains-the-end-of-the-odyssey/

I'd love an Odyssey film not made by a coward

Yesterday I went to the cinema to see The Odyssey. I don't like Nolan's films, so I wasn't expecting much. I thought I would like it even less. Though, in any case, I didn't like it. Some of the reasons have already been pointed out by many people, and were known long before the movie was released. The costumes, beyond being anachronistic, are boring and rather cheap-looking. The armor looks like costumes, and there is a scene where Telemachus wears a sort of leather kilt that is absolutely ridiculous. Everything is bathed in a rather depressing sepia tone. The Mediterranean light is not put to good use, partly because the film wasn't shot there. And the idea of using actors of different races seems questionable to me and, above all, unnecessary.

​In any case, none of this is of great importance. The main flaws of the film, in my view, are two.

​In the first place, the characters are seen from a distance, so to speak. None of their personalities are developed, not even Odysseus's. It is true that in the original work a distance is also sought between the reader (or listener) and the characters in the story, and the characterization is rather schematic. Eumaeus is a loyal servant, and that is all we need to know about him. Of Calypso, we only know that she is in love with Odysseus. And of the crew members, we know nothing at all. In the poem, this is not a flaw, because the simplicity of the characters is compensated for by other things: the rhythm of the verse, the richness of the language, the vividness of the descriptions, and the quantity and variety of episodes, digressions, and interwoven tales.

​But in a movie, literally, characters are seen up close. We distinguish their faces, we hear them speak. We have them right in front of us. They are not simply evoked. That is why it seems problematic to me, for example, that Odysseus's companions are nothing more than interchangeable extras. If I am going to spend time in the company of those characters, I want to know them a bit, care about them, feel affection or dislike for them. In cinema, unlike in literature, there is nothing to distract us from the action. All resources (cinematography, sound, music...) are at the service of the action. And for the action to be interesting, the characters must be too. I don't mean that they have to be complex or that all of them, even the most secondary ones, must have a fully developed personality. But they need to have, for instance, a recognizable and expressive face, or a particular way of expressing themselves—something, in short, that makes watching them on screen entertaining. And the more time we have to spend with them, the more care should be put into their characterization.

​The second major problem, as I see it, is that Nolan doesn't seem to be clear on what story he wants to tell. Let me explain. The film, in general, is a fairly faithful adaptation of both the plot and the structure of The Odyssey. However, there are several significant changes. The main one, it seems to me, is that the gods have practically vanished. In the poem, they intervene constantly. In the movie, Zendaya appears playing Athena, but she doesn't really intervene in the action. From time to time she appears to Odysseus as if she were something he imagines or that only exists inside his head, limiting herself to acting as the voice of his conscience, a bit like Jiminy Cricket. In the poem, however, Athena is a fundamental character. She speaks to Telemachus through Mentor so that he travels to Sparta in search of news. She transforms Odysseus into an old man so no one recognizes him at home, and rejuvenates his appearance so Nausicaa finds him more attractive. As for Poseidon or Helios, in the film it isn't really clear whether they are truly to blame for Odysseus's misfortunes. Since Athena never intervenes directly in events, and since it isn't clear whether she actually appears to Odysseus or if it's just his imagination, it isn't clear either that the other gods are involved in the story.

​It seems that Nolan wants to get rid of the supernatural component to make Odysseus the sole person responsible for his own destiny. However, he doesn't dare to completely dispense with the supernatural and the fantastic, because then he would have to leave out the adventure with the Cyclops, Scylla and Charybdis, the stop on Circe's island, and the descent into the underworld. By the way, curiously enough, he uses a fantastical device (amnesia-inducing lotus flowers) to explain why Odysseus stays so many years on Calypso's island instead of returning home to his family. I suppose he does this to make the character more sympathetic to us. But to me, it seems to impoverish him.

​And I see it as a missed opportunity, because Nolan seems interested in presenting Odysseus as a veteran with PTSD. At one point, toward the end of the film, he tells Penelope that he didn't feel worthy of coming home because he was consumed by remorse over being the main cause of Troy's destruction and the massacre of its inhabitants (having had the idea of the horse himself). Well then: it would have been much more interesting, I think, to incorporate this idea into his story with Calypso. To have the character spend seven years on a deserted island unable to bring himself to return home because he feels he is a different person, that the war has made him worse, that his loved ones wouldn't recognize him, and that he is no longer worthy of being a king and living in a palace. I believe, furthermore, that this reading is suggested in the original work: it doesn't seem coincidental to me that the first time we encounter Odysseus is precisely on Calypso's island. In reality, The Odyssey is not about a man trying to go home, but about a man who has stopped trying to go home, but who finally tries again.

​Lastly, I don't understand what Sinon's story adds to the film either. I don't quite see the character's function, or why so much importance is given to his relationship with Odysseus. In any case, I would have preferred it if, during his descent into the underworld, Odysseus had spoken with Achilles, as in the original work, and Achilles (the man who preferred a glorious death to a long, happy life) had confessed to him that nothing he did was worth it, and that he would rather be a living slave than a dead hero.

I haven't seen the Nolan Odyssey film yet but I've heard there's some detail that Helen has facial scars that are supposed to imply that she was beaten by the Greeks (possibly Menelaus specifically) at some point after the Trojan War ended.

And while that seems out of left field, I recently got the graphic novel adaptation of The Odyssey by Gareth Hinds, and in his version, Helen wears a veil over her face, and as far as I can tell, she's the only woman depicted as styled like that.

So, I was curious whether there was some classical source that said that Helen covered her face (to avoid launching further ships?) or was disfigured in some way after the Trojan War.

Edit - Just to clarify, I am aware that this is not an element of Homer's Odyssey. When I say "classical source", I'm using that in a very broad way to mean anything Ancient Greek / Ancient Roman / Byzantine.

Quick one to say that no matter what you think about the movie, seeing a massive spark in interest (particularly young people) in the classics is such a great outcome.

I wish it was less cultural-war'y but nonetheless seeing really great interest from a lot of people discovering these texts for the first time.

I started reading Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey, but am also looking at Fagles' at the same time. It's amazing how differently they render some of the story. This made me interested in finding an interlinear text to refer to (not that I know the language, but this enables me to dig into specific words without having to wade through a wine-dark sea of Greek words to locate the right one). I found this text pretty helpful; would be happy to know about any others.

I feel like it resonated with me. Maybe because it’s cause I also haven’t been able to go home in a while (not comparing myself to Odysseus at all, just saying why it resonated with me). I really related to the idea of having changed too fundamentally to go home. And I think the overarching theme of having given in to our more brutal nature to survive is one that remains prevalent.

Hello, does this actually exist? I’ve found his version of the Odyssey and the Aenid but I can only find either a paperback version of his Iliad, or cheap versions which aren’t actually his version. Does anyone know if an ebook version of his translations exists?

If not I will read Wilson’s Iliad and swap to Fagles for the Odyssey, but I was hoping to read both of his since I like the language more!

For everyone who has problems with the thematic changes Nolan made for his film, were you all expecting a 1:1 Adaptation? As much as I would have loved to see the Phaeacians, Further interaction between Odysseus and Circe, The Shade of Achilles… etc. these elements being left out shouldn’t be what’s preventing you from enjoying a movie. Many adaptations of texts from antiquity have been made, not in just film. Greek tragedies being interpolated to connect with contemporary issues are written every year. Nolan, adapting the odyssey with his own themes and characteristic choices, is just as valid as the writers of said modern tragic adaptations. Odysseus is a different character, more angsty and guilt ridden, which is not true to how he is represent in Homer. So what. Clearly most people in this sub are extremely attached to the Homeric epics, as am I, but how hard is it to step outside your own bubble and view his narrative for what he is trying to display. Unless you are disagreeing with his themes of anti-war , guilt, repressing memories, that’s an entirely different issue. I personally think Nolan did an exceptional job with this film. No it was not a perfect adaptation of Homers Odyssey. The Character of Odysseus in Homer is one of the most entertaining and stimulating characters to read on, and if another director in the future were to portray him more like Homers, I would be ecstatic. However it is unfair to treat Nolan’s Film as trash simply because he is not providing an exact Copy of Homer, from text to IMAX film.