هناك أعمال أدبية، مهما بلغَتْ شهرتها، ومهما بلغ احتفاء القراء بها، تظل لغزًا مُحيرًا بالنسبةلي، ودائمًا أجد بيني وبينها حاجزًا خفيًا يمنعني من خوض تجربتي الشخصية معها، وفي الغالب لا أفكر في اختراق هذا الحاجز وحدي، إنما أنتظر من يأخذ بيدي ويشجعني على ذلك بمشاركتي التجربة، وهذا ما حدث معي في هذه الرحلة، مع الإلياذة.

بدايةً، هناك سبب آخر - بجانب الحاجز الخفي - كان يدفعني دائمًا لتأجيل قراءة الإلياذة، وهو أنني لم أفهم يومًا تصنيف هذا العمل، تارة أجد من يقول أن الإلياذة هي ملحمة يونانية أسطورية، وتارة أجد من ينقدها بكوْنها من أشهر الأعمال الشعرية لهوميروس، وتارة أخرى أقرأ مراجعات لأصدقاء تمتدح بالأساس ترجمة دريني خشبة التي صبغت العمل بصبغة أسلوبية عذبة جعلت له مذاقًا مختلفًا وأكثر جمالًا؛ وبعد انتهائي من رحلتي مع عالم الإلياذة أقول: كل هذا غير مهم، الأهم من هذا كله أن تخوض تجربتك مع هذا العمل بنفسك، وتراه كما تشاء، ففي كل الأحوال، ومهما كانت رؤيتك للعمل، سواء كان شعرًا أو روايةً أو كتاب تاريخ حتى!، ستستمتع، وستندمج مع الحكاية.

وأنا في منتصف رحلتي مع الإلياذة كتبتُ هنا أنني لا أعلم تصنيف ما أقرأ، ولكن ما أعلمه ومتأكدًا منه أنني مستمتع، الأمر شبيه باحساسي عندما يدعوني أحد أقاربي على عزومة، فأجد على منضدة الطعام طبقًا لا أعلم ما به، فأتذوقه، فيعجبني وأظل أتناول منه حتى أكاد أنفجر من الامتلاء،حسنًا، أعلم أنه تشبيه غريب نوعًا، ولكنه بالفعل يصف تجربتي مع الإلياذة بدقة.

لستُ من عاشقي الأساطير اليونانية، وبالتالي فإن القصة ذاتها لم تبهرني، إنما أبهرتني الترجمة العظيمة لدريني خشبة كمعظم من قرأوا الإلياذة بترجمته، تلك الترجمةالتي جعلت للحكاية روحًا مختلفة، وهذا التناغم المبهر بين القصة الأسطورية لهوميروس والتعبيرات الشعرية الرنانة لدريني خشبة مع التأثر بالقرآن الكريم، هذا المزيج كان كفيلًا بصُنع إلياذة أخرى، إلياذة يتقاسم فيها كلًا من المؤلف والمترجم مواطن الابداع والجمال.

تجربة ممتعة، ولغز جديد لم يعد لغزًا بالنسبة لي بعد الآن.
كل الشكر للصديقة العزيزة للغاية/ رضوى عبد الباسط، التي رشحتْ العمل لنقرأه سويًا، كانت خير رفيقة لاختراق الحاجز الخفي بيني وبين الإلياذة، وكانت السبب في خوض هذه التجربة الجميلة.

تمت

Desde que descubrí que la Ilíada tenía una frase que me iba a servir para mi trabajo de grado fijé como meta leerme el libro. Antes había tenido muchas ganas de leermelo, pero esta vez era diferente porque estaba de por medio mi salud mental, siento que si yo no me leo un libro que me tiene obsesionada no voy a poder seguir bien. Sé que puede sonar extraño, pero los libros son gran parte de mi vida, ellos dirigen cada uno de mis pasos, mis decisiones, mis pensamientos. Yo no sé qué haría en un mundo sin libros, probablemente no existiría.
La frase que me ayudó para mi tesis es la siguiente: "Nadie, pues, se dé prisa por volver a su casa hasta haber dormido con la esposa de un troyano y haber vengado la huida y los gemidos de Helena". Esta frase la relacino en mi tesis con la violación sexual utilizada como arma de guerra y otras frases que encuentro en el libro fueron igual de fructíferas cómo está. Tengo mucho que agradecer a la iliada y la Odisea porque son unos libros que me han inspirado profundamente y yo se lo recomendaría a cualquier persona con los ojos cerrados, eso sí a una persona que sea paciente y que quiera desarrollar un gusto por la mitología grecorromana. Además me han inspirado en mis escritos, resulta que los verbos encliticos son mi debilidad, los amo.
Recomiendo que primero te leas la Ilíada, luego la Odisea y después La Divina Comedia si quieres leerte específicamente estos tres libros.
En resumen: ¿Que tal es la Iliada?
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Excelente libro

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed reading The Iliad. Many parts of it are bizarre and horrifying to the modern reader, but it can certainly be enjoyed within its context. A study guide that offers historical, cultural, and literary context to the ancient epic can significantly enhance the reading experience.
I listened to Elizabeth Vandiver's Iliad of Homer Lecture Series while reading the book and I am so happy that I took the time to do so. I simply would not have enjoyed The Iliad if it weren't for the insight and information she offers about the historical, cultural, and literary nuances of the book.

Plot Summary for the Modern Reader:
On the surface, the story is pointless and simple: Achilles gets too angry and it doesn't do anyone any good. Everyone, Trojans and Greeks alike suffer the consequences of this grotesque manchild's unreasonable anger, including himself. Lots of men die in gory bloodshed. Throw a fair amount of plotting and scheming by a bunch of ridiculous gods and a lot of misogyny in the mix and there you have it.
To sum up the whole book in one phrase: toxic masculinity in full force.

Themes, Differences and Similarities with our world:
But. The thing is that this story, wild and distant as it sounds to our times, has striking similarities to the modern world. War, bloodlust, and misogyny have been inseparable from humankind for all of history. This book has survived millennia because it continues to resonate with generations of humans. And it's not all bad, there are lots of amazing things about this book: beautiful poetry, gorgeous language and similes, a lot of relatable humanity throughout, touching moments, vivid characters who are relatable and nuanced, brilliant narrative that's exciting and full of suspense, and all the fun of Greek mythology.

Misogyny and the Situation of Women
Entering this world, I had to come to terms with the fact that Homeric society functions very differently from what I would consider agreeable. The most disturbing difference is that no one, ever, questions the validity of slavery and the inferiority of women. Women are treated as prizes won by warriors, quite literally:

n  “As for the loser, in their midst Akhilleus
placed a woman versatile at crafts,
whose value was four oxen.”n

And they are not only prized for their handicraft skills, but they are sex slaves, plain and simple. The whole book starts because Achilles is angry that Agamemnon took Briseis (a woman, Achilles' sex slave) for his own and dishonored him in doing so. Not to mention that the war itself started just because Paris abducted Helen (or they ran off together, depending on whom you ask), and Helen is usually blamed for all of it. She even calls herself "whore that I am", more than once, while accusing herself of having started the war. (Which is ridiculous, stop calling yourself a slut, Helen!)
This amount of sexism is infuriating, and it's precisely why I'm not rating the book 5. but I have come to terms with the fact that world literature (and world history, for that matter) has been sexist since the beginning of time until fairly recently. If I wanted to denounce every book that mistreats women, I'd have to denounce almost the entirety of literature from all cultures. I've decided that in order to approach ancient texts, I'll accept them as they are, read them within their context and I won't let myself get enraged over every single act of misogyny.

Gore and Violence:
The descriptions of the book are extremely brutal. The battles are described in gory, vivid, almost cinematic detail as warriors slaughter each other by chopping each others' heads off or stabbing the weirdest body parts imaginable (with "beside the nipple of the right breast" being a repeated favorite). I confess that it is not, in any way, enjoyable to read hundreds of verses on such disgustingly gory imagery. There are long descriptions of armor and warriors putting on armor as well, which aren't that interesting, and they're almost always the same. I did not enjoy reading those parts in the slightest. Not at all.

The Gods (Or Comic Relief):
Then there are the gods. The Greek gods are so grotesque that they're almost comic. The reason why I like Greek mythology to begin with is that I can laugh at these gods and their childish actions the whole time. They can be terrifying, but even that's somehow comic. They call each other names, they bicker, they scheme, they're vain, but they're fun to read about.

Glory, Honor, Death
The other cultural-historical difference that I perceive as a striking similarity is the concept of Kleos. Kleos [κλέος] can roughly be translated as "Glory", the glory that Greek warriors fight for, but that's not all of it. As Vandiver explains in her lectures, Kleos is also "reputation", as in "what is said about you, by other people, especially after you die". She stresses that in the pre-literate society that Homer depicts, this concept of Kleos is the only form of immortality available to warriors (and men in general). In a society where there can be no written record of who you were and what you did, the only chance you have at being remembered and live on in the collective memories of the society is to win glory, Kleos. If you die with Kleos, people will talk about you with honor and respect, thus immortalizing you through tales and epic stories they will tell about you long after you're dead. That is strikingly similar to the way we live today. Maybe our way of gaining a good and lasting reputation is not by raiding cities, war and manslaughter anymore, but the concept hasn't changed much: We die, we are inevitably bound to die, so we desperately try to do good, do something to live on in the collective memory of future generations after we've died. (Some people can claim they don't live like that, but that's a fairly modern idea and you get my point).

The warriors themselves don't even want to fight. They don't enjoy it, and they wish they could have just gone back and lived their lives in peace. Both sides feel that way. This unwillingness and futility is stressed many times throughout the book. Agamemnon, leader of the Greeks, no fewer than three times says "we should pack up and go back to Greece, this is pointless". Most major characters at some point contemplate giving up the fight because it's just ridiculous to fight over nothing. The example that all introductions and teachers give is this one, where Sarpedon and Glaucus, two Trojan warriors are talking:

n  “Ah, cousin, could we but survive this war
to live forever deathless, without age,
I would not ever go again to battle,
nor would I send you there for honor’s sake.
But now a thousand shapes of death surround us,
and no man can escape them, or be safe.
Let us attack—whether to give some fellow
glory or to win it from him.”n

Their attitude is mostly along the lines of "I wish we could live forever, but now that we can't, let's just do this and at least die with honor and glory". Which is very sad. If you think about this statement for a moment, you'll realize how desperate, how unfortunate, how pitiable this situation is that these warriors are stuck in. They don't want to fight, but they can't bring themselves not do. Both sides are human. The war is pointless. That's a very realistic depiction of war, and it's a sad reality. You can't help but feel sad for all of them.
I didn't like all of the characters, but I could sympathize with them and pity them in their futile attempt to immortalize their memory.
This concept of mortality, the inevitability of death, the desperate urge to make a name for oneself during their short life is the main theme of The Iliad and what it has in common with human life through the centuries. This concept, this meditation on the mortality of humans is (alongside the favorite marketing tools of violent fights and sex) what, I think, has kept The Iliad alive through the centuries. It's fascinating.

Hating and Liking the Characters:
On a less stuffy note, I want to add that a lot of characters in The Iliad are likable, even though almost all of them are misogynist vicious warriors. Patroclus is gentle and kind-hearted and he weeps for the dead the warriors and the ugliness of war. The Ajaxes (there's two of them for some reason) are brave and they never give up, they rush to help their fellow warriors. Odysseus, Aeneas, Priam, even Diomedes all have some deeply human moments.
Homer doesn't villainize and alienate the Trojans at all, either. They're supposed to be the enemy, but the Trojans are very human, most of them are more sensible and gentler than the Greeks. I really like the fact that they're not treated as "the savage, filthy, less-than-human enemy" at all. To me, they seemed like the actual "good people" in the whole story, especially since they're fighting to defend their city not to attack the Greeks.
The hero of the Trojans (and in my opinion, the hero of the whole book), crown prince Hector, is by far the most human, most relatable, most responsible, and best character among all warriors. He sounds like any normal modern man that's been forced to go to war and does so merely out of responsibility, not bloodlust. He rushes to battle even though he most certainly would rather stay home with his wife Andromache and their infant son.
On the other side, Achilles, the man who's supposed to be the hero of all heroes, is despicable. I mean that's just the way I read the story, but Achilles is horrible, insufferable, disgusting. He's impulsive, irresponsible, he has serious anger management problems (!) and he can't react to events proportionately. Even though he has some profoundly human issues, I can't forgive him for what he did to Hector. As a person who takes fictional characters rather seriously, I just had to mention this. I hate Achilles. :D
Ranting aside, I want to mention a few things about translations as well.

A Note on Translations:
I act a bit obsessively about translations. I am never content with the one I'm reading, I always have the uneasy feeling of "what if there's a better translation out there", so I just have to check every translation I can get my hands on to see which one I like best. For reading The Iliad, I raided the library and all sources available to collect as many translations as I could and read them alongside each other for comparison. I must give a disclaimer that I am not a translator, not a classicist, and I do not know Greek. This is by no means an expert's opinion, but merely my personal impressions based on reading and consulting four English translations alongside each other.

●  The Robert Fitzgerald Translation is my favorite by far. It's beautiful, but the language isn't too outdated. It has tried to keep the poetic (segmented lines) format. It's very readable and I liked it much more than other translations. It also has a foreword which is informative and I enjoyed reading it. The excerpts I quoted in this review are from this translation.

●  The Richmond Lattimore Translation is the most literary and with the richest vocabulary among all of these. The language is beautiful and more heavy-handed than the rest, it attempts to keep the poetic structure as much as possible, and it's simply beautiful. But for me, it took a bit longer to read from it because of the rather dated language. I would normally read from the Fitzgerald, mark the beautiful similes and passages and check them in the Lattimore translation afterward. The foreword, again, is very good.

● The E. V. Rieu Translation: This one is in prose (The line numbers are marked). It's readable, it's easy, and it's the most humorous one by far. I don't know if Rieu intended to make it comical, but he's phrased the bizarre dialogues in a way that came across as funny to me. Whenever I arrived at a phrase that I found hilarious (when the gods were calling each other names, for example) I'd look at the Rieu translation and I wouldn't be disappointed (Hera calling Zeus an arch-deceiver and Hector calling Paris Paris, you parody were two of my favorites). It also has a short plot summary (with line numbers) before each book (chapter) starts which is very useful. The introduction is really good, too. If you want to read a prose version, this is the one for you.

●The Robert Fagles Translation is the one I didn't particularly like. It has a very good and informative foreword. It's fairly readable and has attempted to keep the poetic format. I don't have anything against it, but it just doesn't stand out compared to Fitzgerald or Lattimore.
I read the first two books from it and then I gave it up, occasionally consulting it on interesting sections.

You can choose whichever translation you like. If you're more comfortable with prose, go with Rieu. If you like the "poetic" format, I'd say try Fitzgerald. It is worth mentioning that none of the "poetic" translations are actual poems in English. Translation inevitably sacrifices the true poetic quality of the original. None of these translations have a noticeable rhyme and rhythm, let alone a standard meter. But that's just something we have to accept whenever reading something in translation. Whichever edition you choose is fine, they're all by experienced scholars. But please read the introduction because they are all very well-written, informative, and insightful.


Alright. I've been rambling long enough. I just want to conclude by saying that The Iliad is well worth reading. It's interesting and exciting and bizarre and stupid and beautiful all at the same time, and I definitely enjoyed it and learned a lot from it.

I don't know why I read this. It isn't on The List (I guess because it's technically a poem, not a novel), and it wasn't assigned reading or anything. But for whatever reason, reading The Iliad has been on my mental to-do list for a while now, and last week I finally picked it up.

My first reaction: dude, this epic is epic. (thank you, I'll be here all week) It's full of dudes getting killed in really exquisite detail, dudes talking about killing or not killing dudes, dudes mourning dead dudes in a totally-not-homoerotic way, and dudes yelling at each other about the chicks who ruin everything. The battle sequences are long and action-packed, everybody is Zeus's kid or nephew, the men are men and the women are decoration. It's pretty awesome, is what I'm saying.

Second big reaction: I was surprised at how small the scope of this poem actually is. At the beginning, the Trojan War has already been going on for ten years, and the poem really only covers the last month or so. It's really interesting, because the poem seems to be about how the stupid actions of a few powerful people can have far-reaching and horrible consequences. The whole driving force in The Iliad is this: Menelaus takes Achilles's favorite chick Briseis (who, thanks to Movies in Fifteen Minutes, will always be known as Temple Babe in my head) for his own, and Achilles throws a massive snit fit and refuses to fight in the Trojan War until the king stops raping Achilles's girlfriend and lets Achilles go back to raping her instead. Because of this, loads and loads of people die, and the gods are no help whatsoever because they're all on different sides and keep messing things up.

That's the whole story: a bunch of guys who are fighting a war because of some guy stealing somebody's girlfriend all die horrible deaths because some other guys are having a fight over somebody's girlfriend. The lesson, of course, is that women ruin everything.

Normally this would be cause for me to get out my Feminist Rage Hat, except for the fact that the goddesses in this story kick so much ass I can't even get that angry about how lame Helen and Briseis are. (even Andromache isn't too bad, because she gets some really lovely scenes with Hector)

All in all, a pretty awesome, fast-paced action story with enough gore and bromance to keep everybody happy. I'm glad I took the time to read it.

(also if anyone's curious, I read the Richard Lattimore translation and found it very readable and well-done)

La Ilíada nos sitúa en medio de un panorama hostil, el famoso combate entre aqueos y troyanos que da lugar a la tan conocida Guerra de Troya. Con elementos y temáticas como la mitología griega, las pérdidas que deja la guerra, el honor, la gloria, el destino, los héroes y sus viajes, la vulnerabilidad y el dolor, la ira, la piedad y la compasión; sentimientos que afloran. El conflicto bélico, la traición, la venganza, pero sobretodo con la muy marcada humanidad en las decisiones y los actos de todos ellos, desde los humanos comunes y corrientes, llegando hasta los semidioses y finalizando con los dioses.

Sin embargo, subjetivamente se me ha hecho aburrida a ratos y entretenida por momentos. Me ha gustado pero a secas. Y claro, solo es una historia recomendada para lectores que ya llevan un buen trecho recorrido porque tiene una lectura pesada, con demasiadas figuras literarias (epítetos, metáforas, analogías, hipérboles, etc) que llegan a cansar al hacerse repetitivas.

No tengo más por aportar, solo que esta es una obra que dentro de la literatura, la historia y culturalmente ha significado muchísimo para occidente. Como eso, tiene un cuantioso e indudable valor que no se le niega. Así que más que asegurado que se pueden encontrar las influencias posteriores sacadas de este escrito.

Listening to the Iliad I realized just how much I vacillate. If I lived then would I have been a Greek or a Trojan? I can see both sides: obviously Helen was abducted, but Menalaeus saw her as a prize, not as a wife, and, therefore, was probably not his only one. Greece was known to invade and vanquish territories surrounding them. This just gave them an excuse. Troy defended themselves valiantly. Their army was not the same size as Greece, but they had a mighty walk that could not be breeched without trickery.
This debate then leads me to think about who was the mightiest warrior. Obviously the choices narrow to Achilles and Hector, but what made Achilles so powerful was his mother's intervention, his staff from Chiron, his five-layered god blessed armor. Hector was mighty because he was a true determined hero.
I see a reflection of Greece's ancient domination in Russia's dominance in Eastern Europe during WWII. It was a constant taking of territory and turning the people to a new way of life, destroying whatever is in the way or defies control.
Lessons can still be learned from the Iliad. Lessons of honor, trust, loyalty, respect, determination
For an alternative perspective check out The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller or Helen by Margaret George.

12/15/18 audiobook #252 reread

I enjoyed this very much. This story is one of those ubiquitous works of art that are commonly known before they've even been read. The story of this war has been adapted in many films, referenced for centuries in other works and spawned retellings as well, so that by the time I came to read it I already had certain ideas (true and false) about the book.

It's a story of two warring factions and one of the preconceived ideas I had about this book was that it's mostly glorification of war, and while there is some glorifying of certain heros and passages of war, it mostly deplores the murder and slaughtering and loss caused by war. The humanizing of both warring parties (Achaians and Trojans, and their supporters among them gods) was incredible to read and unexpected on my part. For instance in a certain passage Hektor goes back to his city and meets his wife and child to bid them farewell, the child, still a baby, doesn't recognize his father because of the war gear and begins to cry while his father laughs. Such touching passages between all that murder and killing gave a deeper effect to the story.

Also, as mentioned there's lots of warring. The meticulous descriptions of the weapons of the age this story happens in was fascinating and the people here kill each other with arrows, spears and stones in ways I never thought possible. Think of any way a person might die of these weapons and they most likely did in the story. And in all this the exploration of the human experience, and the contradictions that occur in life, the stories of adventure and courage, and no wonder this story has endured and enthralled readers for centuries as it has.

I would love to write like a blast of a sudden squall
whose strong five-beat rhythm can with light and thunder, churning
the dark page into a fury, and countless words
surge and toss on its pages, high-arched and white-capped,
and crash down onto the Internets in endless ranks:
just so did the translators charge in their ranks, each simile
packed close together.

What a story! I feel as if this has influenced nearly every book out there, there is so much between the pages of The Iliad. Amazing.

شاید کمتر کسی باشه که با جنگ تروآ آشنا نباشه و یا در گوشه کناره ها درباره این اثر (ایلیاد) نشنیده باشه.
ایلیاد داستان سال آخر جنگ تروآ یعنی سال نهم و آخرین سال جنگ، برای کسانی که نمیدونند این داستان چی هست و یا کلیت کتاب چی هست خلاصه کوتاهی از داستان رو در پایین مینویسم:

در پی جشن عروسی برگزار شده توسط خدای آسمان ها زئوس، اریس الهه کشمکش و یا نفاق به این جشن دعوت نشد که خب فکر میکنم بتوند حدس بزنید چرت دعوت نشده، پس از این موضوع این الهه سیبی طلایی رو به داخل مهمانی پرتاب میکنه که روی اون نوشته شده برای زیباترین زن، و سه اله با نام های: هرا ، آتنه و آفرودیت هر سه ادعای مالکیت بر سیب میکنند و از اونجایی که به نتیجه نمیرسند از زئوس درخواست میکنند تا بین این سه داوری کند و از اونجایی که زئوس حال و حوصله سر و کله زدن با این سه الهه رو نداره این داوری رو به پاریس زاده تروآ واگذار میکنه و طی صحبت هایی هرمس این سیب رو به دست پاریس میده و داوری بین این سه الهه رو روی دوش این مرد بینوا میذاره. سه الهه بعد از شنیدن این موضوع برهنه شدند و به سوی پارس رفتند و از او خواستند تا بهترین رو انتخاب کنه و هرکدوم رشوه ای به پاریس پیشنهاد دادند، هرا پادشاهی اروپا و آسیا ، آتنا به او جنگاوری و خرد و آفرودیت زیباترین زن اسپارت یعنی هلن رو پیشنهاد داد و از اونجایی که پاریس ما سست بوده پیشنهاد آفرودیت رو قبول میکنه و این همه تراژدی و غم و خوشی را در به نام جنگ تروآ رغم میزنه، چرا که پاریس پس از دادن سیب به آفرودیت در مهمانیی هلن رو از دست همسرش منالئوس میدزده.

خب داستان و علت جنگ تروآ اینطوری شروع شد، حالا بریم سراغ داستان اصلی که در این منظومه روایت میشه:

برای شخص من یکی از جذابترین تجربه ها خوندن این کتاب و یا منظومه بود، درگیری بین خدایان، انسان ها و دخالت هاشون در امور همدیگه بسیار جذاب بود، حقیقتا قبل شروع حس میکردم با توجه به اینکه این منظومه بالای 2500 سال پیش سروده شده، نتونم باهاش ارتباط بگیرم و خوندنش حوصله سر بر باشه و در وهله اول این شک و ابهام من راجع این اثر رفع شد.

شخصا در ادبیات و کتابخوانی با کتاب های داستانی که نبرد در اونها و توصیفات نبرد نقش بسزایی داره و یا تمرکز روشون هست برای من چنان جذاب نخواهد بود ولی در این منظومه برعکس بود، بطوری که از خط به خط این نبردها بین قهرمانان و یا لشگریان و حتی دخالت خدایان در این جنگ و در پی هدفی که بودند برای من به شدت زیبا بود و لذت میبردم، رجز‌خوانی ها حرکت سربازان و آماده شدن آنها برای رزم.

درباره شخصیت های مورد علاقم باید به هکتور، آژاکس، دیومد اشاره کنم.
هر یک از شخصیت های داستان نمادین هستند، به طور مثال شخصیت آگاممنون شخصیتی متکبر و خودبین که بخاطر منافع شخصی دل قهرمان خود را میکشند و همین باعث میشود که لشگرش تلفات زیادی تحمیل بشه و تفرقه بین فرماندهانش افتد.
به جرات میتوان گفت در آثار غربی یکی از حماسی ترین کتاب ها بود، یعنی وقتی این منظومه رو مطالعه میکنیم معنای کلی حماسه رو در میابیم.
و خب لازم به ذکر هست که این منظومه بی نقص هم نیست، بار ها شاید رفتار های کودکانه و قهر و آشتی ها و گریه های کودکی که اسباب بازیش رو ازش گرفتند نیز هستیم که گاها باعث میشد به این رفتار شخصیت ها بخندم ...

تراژدی .... در مورد تراژدی باید بگم که یکی از زیباترین ها برای من بود، دوستی عزیز از دست رفته و بار ها و بارها باعث غم و اندوهی جانکاه همراه با اشک هایی برای کسی چون برادر از دست رفته رو در این داستان میبینیم که واقعا خوندنش برام احساسات را کما بیش برانگیخته میکرد و اون حس غم رو خوب القا میکرد.

سخت بود برای همچین کتابی چیزی بنویسم و سعی کردم اون حسی که از کتاب گرفتم رو در اینجا بنویسم، و برای نقد این کتاب اشخاص بسیار بزرگرتری هستند که با دانش بار ها و بار ها این اثر رو از جنبه های مختلف بررسی کردند.

ممنون که این ریویو رو خوندید

الإلياذة ملحمة شعرية تدور أحداثها في الفترة الأخيرة من حرب طروادة
حرب طروادة استمرت 10 سنين وبدأت بسبب قيام باريس ابن الملك بريام
بخطف هيلين زوجة مينلاوس ملك إسبرطة وعودته بصحبتها لطروادة
جهز أجاممنون جيش لحصار طروادة ومن بين قادة الجيش البطل أخيليوس

في البداية يعتزل أخيليوس الحرب بسبب خلافه مع أجاممنون
لكنه يعود بقوة بعد مقتل أحد أصدقاؤه ويتمكن من قتل هيكتور أمير طروادة

الملحمة مزدحمة بالشخصيات وتجمع بين عالم الآلهة وعالم البشر
وتعرض كل تفاصيل المعارك والقتال بين الإغريق والطرواديين
وتَدخُل الآلهة بأساليب مختلفة لمساندة المحاربين من كلا الطرفين

For first-time readers of Homer or those wanting to check out or simply immerse themselves in the Classics canon, Robert Fagles is your man. An immensely readable and bloody account of treacherous mortals and Gods, with a fine introduction by Bernard Knox and plenty of helpful support (cast list, orientation and pronunciation).

Fagles really makes this fabulous epic sing and his translation is a marvel of scholarship and beauty. A magnificent achievement.