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.

The beginning....

Rage — Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles,
murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses,
hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls,
great fighters’ souls, but made their bodies carrion,
feasts for the dogs and birds, and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end. Begin, Muse, when the two first broke and clashed, Agamemnon lord of men and brilliant Achilles. . .

From the Introduction...

The most marvelous lines in the Iliad owe their unearthly, poignant beauty to the presence of violence, held momentarily in reserve but brooding over the landscape. They are the lines that end Book 8 and describe the Trojans camped on the plain, awaiting the next dawn, which will launch them on their attack on the Greek fortification.

"And so their spirits soared
as they took positions down the passageways of battle
all night long, and the watchfires blazed among them.
Hundreds strong, as stars in the night sky glittering
round the moon’s brilliance blaze in all their glory
when the air falls to a sudden, windless calm ...
all the lookout peaks stand out and the jutting cliffs
and the steep ravines and down from the high heaven bursts
the boundless bright air and all the stars shine clear
and the shepherd’s heart exults— so many fires burned
between the ships and the Xanthus’ whirling rapids
set by the men of Troy, bright against their walls."
(8.636-49)

These are surely the clearest hills, the most brilliant stars and the brightest fires in all poetry, and everyone who has waited to go into battle knows how true the lines are, how clear and memorable and lovely is every detail of the landscape the soldier fears he may be seeing for the last time.

===========

The synopsis....

Chryses, a priest of Apollo, whose daughter has been carried off by the Achaeans in one of their raids, comes to the camp to ransom her. But she has been assigned, in the division of the booty, to the king who commands the Achaean army, Agamemnon, and he refuses to give her up. Her father prays for help to Apollo, who sends a plague that devastates the Achaean camp. Achilles, leader of the Myrmidons, one of the largest contingents of the Achaean army, summons the chieftains to an assembly. There they are told by the prophet Calchas that the girl must be returned to her father. Agamemnon has to give her up, but demands compensation for his loss. Achilles objects: let Agamemnon wait until more booty is taken. A violent quarrel breaks out between the two men, and Agamemnon finally announces that he will take recompense for his loss from Achilles, in the form of the girl Briseis, Achilles’ share of the booty. Achilles represses an urge to kill Agamemnon and withdraws from the assembly, threatening to leave for home, with all his troops, the next day. The priest’s daughter is restored to him, Apollo puts an end to the plague, and Briseis is taken away from Achilles’ tent by Agamemnon’s heralds.

Zeus turns the tide of battle against the Achaeans. The Trojan leader Hector, son of Troy’s old King Priam, drives the Achaeans back on their beached ships, round which they are forced to build a wall and ditch. Achilles withdraws his threat to leave the next day; he will stay until Hector and the Trojans reach his own ships.

Patroclus goes into battle with Achilles’ troops, wearing Achilles’ armor. This is enough: the Trojans in their turn are thrown back. But Patroclus is killed by the god Apollo, Troy’s protector, and by Hector, who strips off Achilles’ armor and puts it on himself.

Achilles’ rage is now directed against Hector, the killer of his dearest friend. He is reconciled with Agamemnon, and as soon as his mother brings him a splendid suit of armor, made by the smith-god Hephaestus, he returns to the battle, and after slaughtering many Trojans, meets and kills Hector. He lashes Hector’s corpse to his chariot and drags it to his own tent; he intends to throw it to the dogs and birds of prey.

But the body has been preserved from corruption by divine intervention, and the gods now decide (not unanimously, for Hera and Athena object) to send a message to Achilles through his mother: he is to release Hector’s body for ransom paid by King Priam of Troy. Achilles agrees. his mother has told him, that his death is to come soon after Hector’s. He sends Priam safely back with Hector’s body to Troy and so, runs the last line of the poem, “the Trojans buried Hector breaker of horses” (24.944 in the translation). We know already that the death of Troy’s main defender seals the fate of the city and that, as Thetis told Achilles: “hard on the heels of Hector’s death your death / must come at once”

===========

The Illiad is about human flaws that lead to disaster---ego, violence and bloodshed, that we know only too well. And the gods do their best to make things worse. However, Achilles is depicted as the ideal aristocratic male hero.

==========

Simone Weil essay on the Illiad....

http://biblio3.url.edu.gt/SinParedes/...

تقریبا سه هزار سال پیش فرد یا گروهی کتابی نوشتن تا فرهنگ خودشون رو حفظ و به نسل بعدی منتقل کنن. اون کتاب به پایه‌گذاری یه تمدن بزرگ کمک کرد و تاثیرش اونقدر زیاد بود که از تراژدی‌نویس‌های یونان باستان تا نویسنده‌های معاصر رو زیرِ سایه‌ی خودش برد. ایلیاد این اثر جاودانه و یکی از ریشه‌های غنی ادبیات، اثری که میشه اون رو اولین اثری دونست که به صورت کامل حفظ شده، بعد این همه سال، هنوزم مهم و خوندنیه.

خلاصه گفتن برای اثری مثل ایلیاد شاید مسخره به‌نظر بیاد با این حال احتمالش رو میدم که شاید کسی مثل خود من هیچی از این کتاب ندونه و این شاید کمکش کنه. داستان ایلیاد با محاصره نه ساله شهر تروا شروع میشه. پاریس، شاهزاده تروا، هلن همسر منلاس که زیباترین زن میرا در جهان بود را ربوده و با خود به شهر تروا آورده. منلاس به همراه برادر خود آگاممنون، که هر دو از پادشاهان یونان بودن، یونانیان رو متحد و برای حمله و بازپس‌گیری هلن به تروا لشکرکشی می‌کنن و نه سال این شهر رو محاصره می‌کنن. داستان ایلیاد از روزهای آخر این محاصره شروع میشه و تا مرگ هکتور(شاهزاده دلیر تروا) و بازپس‌گیری جنازه‌ش ادامه پیدا می‌کنه(اسپویل توی چنین اثری معنا نداره و جدا از این، خود جناب هومر هم به کرات به این موضوع اشاره می‌کنه).

ایلیاد، هم کتاب کاملیه هم نیاز به پیش‌نیاز و ادامه داره. از این جهت کتاب کاملیه که آنچه که باید رو به خوبی منتقل کرده. یه روایت حماسی از جنگ تروا، معرفی پهلوانان و قهرمانان برای جامعه یونان، پرداختن به خدایان و رسم و رسومات کهن که باعث شدن این منظومه توی هدف خودش کامل باشه. با این حال از این جهت میگم نیاز به پیش‌نیاز و ادامه داره چون یه سری چیزا مثل مسئله داوری پاریس، معرفی و جناح‌بندی خدایان در این جنگ و سرنوشت شهر تروا و شخصیت آشیل توی کتاب نیومده و باید برای مطلع شدن این جریانات به منابع و کتاب‌های دیگه مراجع کنید. که خب این موضوع به‌خاطر اینه که ما توی اون فرهنگ و جامعه نیستیم وگرنه چنین چیزایی برای فردی که توی اون جامعه یونانی زمان هومر یا بعدترش زندگی می‌کنه، اصلا مسئله‌ای نبوده و به قول معروف همه اینا رو حفظ بوده.

یه چیز هم در مورد نوع روایت ایلیاد بگم که اگه هنوز نرفتید سراغ این اثر بدونید با چه چیزی طرف هستید. نوع روایت ایلیاد نه خطی، شاید میشه گفت شاخه‌ایه. اینطوریه که یه نقطه شروع و خط داستانی اصلی داریم اما به مرور هی شاخ و برگ داستان اضافه میشه و به چیزای مختلفی سرک می‌کشه. گاهی یه شخصیت جدیدی معرفی میشه و هومر شروع می‌کنه از اون میگه یا مثلا وسط جنگ میریم به المپ و ماجراهای خدایان رو می‌خونیم. حس می‌کنم اگه چنین چیزی رو بدونید شاید بهتر بخونید کتاب رو و کمتر براتون خسته‌کننده بشه.

اما چرا باید ایلیاد رو بخونیم؟ دو تا دلیل عمده میشه برای جواب چنین سوالی آورد. اول این که همون‌طور که گفتم ایلیاد یه اثر به‌شدت تأثیرگذار روی ادبیات جهان به‌خصوص غرب بوده. اگه به دنبال کردن ریشه‌ها و آثار تأثیرگذار علاقه‌مندید باید ایلیاد رو بخونید. اما دلیل دوم اینه که ایلیاد یه درعه برای آشنایی با مردم اون زمان. نوع نگاهشون به مسائل. ارزش‌ها، عقاید و رسوم و...

در مورد ترجمه هم من خودم با ترجمه سعید نفیسی خوندم. ترجمه خیلی خوبیه منتها اگه این قضیه سر و کله زدن با متون خاص ادبی رو می‌‌پسندید و دوست دارید تجربه‌تون از ایلیاد و اودیسه‌خوانی خاص‌تر باشه، ترجمه جناب کزازی رو بهتون پیشنهاد می‌کنم. هر چند که هر دو متن ترجمه با وجود اینکه عالی هستن اما انتقادات کوچکی هم بهشون وارد هست.

من این اثر رو با یه گروه فوق‌العاده خوندم. المپی‌های نازنین که هم‌خوان‌های عالی‌ای بودن و با دانش فوق‌العاده‌شون باعث شدن بهتر این اثر رو تجربه و درک کنم و در کنارش با بحث‌های مختلفی که توی گروه می‌کردن باعث شدن کلی چیز یاد بگیرم. دوست دارم از همه‌شون تشکر کنم. و منتظرم که اواخر فروردین بریم سراغ اودیسه و امیدوارم اون همه تجربه بی‌نظیری بشه.

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

"Did you really LIKE the Iliad, mum?"

My son has just finished reading it, and his question is valid. Do you really LIKE to read line after line of gory murder, repeated endlessly from song to song?

I evaded the question, speaking of fantastic opening lines, of classic art and immense influence on other authors. And then I capitulated - a little:

"The Odyssey is much more interesting as a story!" I said.

"So you didn't like it then?"

"I liked reading it!"

And we agreed that some books just ARE. As a reader, you will want to tackle them at some point, and the rules you apply to more recent works of fiction don't count. You award yourself 5 stars for finishing, for knowing more than you did before starting. But then my son killed the Iliad with a spear as sharp as those of Homeric warriors. He compared it to Greek tragedy. And that is where I stumbled: those ARE too - but I also LIKE reading them. They are thought-provoking, exciting, and classic. Troy's fall from the perspective of Philoctetes is pure literary bliss. The Iliad is not. But it remains...

When I was just 2 years old, my grandmother sent me (from Utah to Central Canada), an LP of Prokofiev - against a storytime backdrop of The Trojan Horse - from the Iliad.

The Trojan Horse comes at the conclusion of Homer's epic.

Everyone knows the Iliad. And everyone talks about it here. But here, I only want to discuss one forgotten element of it. An element ESSENTIAL to constructing a valid modern worldview - for EACH of us.

I always avoided applying this element to my daily life. But I was wrong - so wrong.

Rei Pasa! Those two words sum it all up.

They were written by a Greek gentleman who was roughly the contemporary of Homer - Heraclitus, the ancient pre-Socratic philosopher.

Rei pasa - everything changes.

Inevitably.

As Heraclitus explains elsewhere, “You can’t step into the same river twice!” EVERYTHING is in movement.

So it is with Homer. In this epic, everything takes place In Medias Res - right, smack dab in the middle of the chaos of everyday life.

That’s where we all start in our OWN lives. And finish.

And that’s the ONLY place we’ll ever find Peace.

Now, that seems odd, doesn’t it?

And it seemed that way for me, too...

Back in 1985 I was harried to the Max by my new furiously high-powered career. I couldn’t find any place of peace in my life. That’s the year I started to find solace in Eastern philosophy and New Age Music.

Hey, with this stuff you could get blissed-out in no time! So I weakly thought.

But then the frenetic pace of the workplace sped up. And kept accelerating - all the way to retirement. I felt trapped.

By 1999 I was burning out. I was frazzled. Fried. But on an April day exactly twenty years ago I realized I had no choice but to let it all go - and give it to God.

That was Lev Chestov's response to the aporia of all Milennials, too: the impossible Leap of Faith.

So THAT was when I really knew what In Medias Res REALLY meant.

It’s not OUR world. It’s His! Let Him do what He wants for a change - and sit back for the RIDE OF YOUR LIFE.

You’ll never experience the eternal mutability of life until you get to that point.

There’s just NO WAY - because otherwise YOU, solid, ‘unchanging’ you, are always center stage!

You have to let it go - and give it away.

Just like Achilles loses it - and becomes his Fate.

And that’s why Homer is so colossal.

There’s just no other way to peace -

At the Eye of the Storm!

So: the siege of Ilium of Troy has been going on for nearly ten years, when Agamemnon angers Achilles - enough to make him not participate in the war - with the result that following battles are often dominated by the Trojans, with Hector particularly playing the hero's part. But at a certain point, something happens that may change Achilles's mind...

Read this 1946 Rieu translation, revised and updated in 2003 by Jones and another Rieu. At the start are the lists of the main characters in groups (some god-names are in English form, fe. Strife, not Eris), plus 5 maps; at the end is glossary and a list of omitted fathers' names. The introduction is spoilery; each chapter of the story itself comes with short plot description, and smaller side-titles are used within the chapter itself, which can be helpful if you're searching for a particular point in the chapter.

This story was composed c.700 BC, from oral tradition stories.
Only part of the whole 'Greeks go against Trojan's to get back one leader's wife' is given in this book, so it may feel a bit strange to see where it ends, before the whole story is truly finished, and before the war can be over. Achilles doesn't die yet, though he knows he will; Ilium is not yet conquered, nor has Aeneas yet barely escaped to be part of his own story that is Virgil's "Aenid". 4/5ths of the story happens in 4 days.

During the story one might find oneself changing one's mind about which sides deserves to be favored more more than once. And you may also find taking sides about which god(s) deserve reader's admiration and who doesn't. The gods in some ways act like humans (and can be wounded like them though they can't die), and in other times acting according to some god-logic and you may hate or like that. The humans in the stories may or may not realise they're being influenced by them, or they may notice gods putting pressure on them to act certain ways. How much of the story is true history is not certain, but there might be some memories of Mycenian/Minoan world in there.

The battles follow a certain battle when it comes to killings, and there's some good variety in what type of battles they are. People make wise or foolish moves during it (like the wealthy but foolish Dolon). Quite a lot of death are graphic and dark - eyeballs and innards and brains (o my) - and sometimes even the horses in the chariots do die (they also show their mourning, and on one occasion are able to talk). Sacrifices to gods are made and often, though they don't always work. I was also a bit surprised that there would be funeral games after the cremation of Patroclus, but I guess it was the thing to do at that time.
(I do think that there are two words I don't like in this translation - the use of 'bitch' and 'slut' - was this something chosen, something that was thought to be ok to translate like this during the time the original translation was done? What would Emily Wilson, who recently translated the Odyssey, say about this?)

Pasts are recalled, there is some flash-forward in telling what will happen in the future all of a sudden; and the POV sometimes switches from "he" to "you", which is interesting. The storyteller also calls certain people fools or innocents for believing things will go certain ways during the battle or elsewhere; during some people's deaths he might also tell of consequences of this for their families.
I was a bit surprised yet glad that among the place names that briefly appear is Athos in chapter 14 (just one of my areas of religious interest I read books about elsewhere).

I also had to check about lions in Greece, since they were used as an example for some actions and behaviors so many times, if they were common in the country back at the time of the composition of this book's story; (as quoted from Wiki): "In Greece, [the lions were] common as reported by Herodotus in 480 BC; it was considered rare by 300 BC and extirpated (eradicated) by AD 100."

So though the story itself is somewhat simple (Achilles' refusal and its consequences), it's far from boring, but perhaps that's because I've been reading it at the right time of my life. It's not an anti-war story, but it does show you all the moods that flow during battles, what deaths can be like, how exhausting, confusing, and frightening it can be, and how who's dominating the battle can change so fast. The story might end before the war is completely over, but what happens here has consequences, for both Achilles and Ilium... beautiful, horrifying and interesting, all the details and behaviors and actions and consequences - it's easy for me to see why this is such a good story and a classic. Now on to reading Odyssey...

as a native english speaker, im not exposed to translated books very often; so this reread is the first time where i have truly comprehended the significance of a translation and how it can either make or break a story.

i first read parts of ‘the iliad’ back when i was in school and i just remember the text being very stiff and formal. it did not hold my attention at all because i couldnt understand it. but as i have come to love this story over the years (through retellings and other media), i decided to give this another try. after a lot of research, i chose this edition and translation, and i cannot stress enough how it has made all the difference.

the epic of ‘the iliad’ has its roots in oral storytelling and i am so impressed at how the flow of the language in this feels like someone is sitting next to me, personally telling me a tale about the best of greeks and their plight against the trojans. its a really neat feeling to experience such an authentic nod to homer and how he told this story, almost to the point where i feel as if i have been a part of this epics great history.

↠ 5 stars

Read as part of my degree and as part of my love of classics, however it didn't compare to The Odyssey which I adored - possibly due to the lack of mythological creatures and rather more battles and lists of ships and names, which made it that much harder to struggle through. Still a great read as one of the original classics but I would choose The Odyssey over the Iliad anytime.

''Let me not then die ingloriously and without a struggle, but first, let me do some great thing that shall be told among men hereafter."
Hektor of Troy

Imagine a cold winter evening, a glass of wine, and the voice of famous Shakespearean actor Derek Jacobi, reading from Robert Fagles's finely crafted translation of the Iliad aloud in your living room. For half an hour or more each night, you can forget about omicron and escape into the poetry of a grand epic.

It's been over ten years since I last read the Iliad in the original; however, I enjoyed it more this time. Although my husband and I followed along, book in hands, we realized that Homer needed to be heard. The Iliad is an oral performance, and at times I would close my eyes and listen. A lecture series that we took simultaneously enhanced our enjoyment.

The Iliad is an epic classic. But, unfortunately, I can't do it justice in a summary or critique. However, I found listening to an outstanding performance profoundly moving. The poetry, characters, and conflicts have a timeless quality that goes to the heart of what it means to be human.

This was a terribly hard read for me. I struggled to finish it, but finish it I did.

The Iliad is an ancient Greek epic poem by Homer, which presents his interpretation of the events that took place during a few weeks of the tenth and final year of the Trojan War. Homer's tale of the Trojan War runs from the time of Achilles's falling out with the Greek King, Lord Agamemnon, and shunning from the war to the time when he re-enters it and kills the Trojan hero, Hector, to avenge the death of his friend and companion, Patroclus.

After my reading of The Odyssey, I felt I need to revisit The Iliad. The thought that I might not have fully appreciated it kept on nagging me. I first read a prose version, but this time I resorted to the poetic translation done by Alexander Pope. And I have to confess that the result was surprising. Not only I understood it well, but I also came to fully appreciate the extent of Homer's artistry. In this new light, I'm obliged to amend my former review to express my truest thoughts on this amazing classic.

In my first read, I've misunderstood the role of Gods. I thought that they dictated and interfered unjustly in the men's war and hindered their valor. But after my reread, I now understand it was fate that governed it all, and that the Gods' role was to facilitate the course of fate. Of course, the Gods supported their chosen camp, some siding with the Greeks, who they believed to have been injured by the treachery of Paris of Troy, and others siding with the Trojans, for their faithful reverence of mighty Olympian Gods. But not any of them, not even the all-powerful Zeus could alter what the fate decreed on the mortal men. When I understood fully the role of God, men, and fate, I was able to view the whole thing through new eyes and appreciate and enjoy the tale for its true worth.

The Iliad is a tragedy. The main themes of this tragic tale are honour, loyalty, glory, and revenge. It was not the pleasantest read. Too much importance is given to the descriptions of gruesome details of war. The dramatic quality with which Homer has knitted his poem made so vivid a portrayal of battle scenes and horrific deaths that I found many passages hard to stomach. At the same time, I couldn't help admiring the ability of Homer to draw such realistic pictures through his finesse writing. And even more, I could sense the fury of men of both camps as they lunged at each other with their weapons drawn; I could hear their war cries. I could also hear the sound of the wheels of the chariots taking the warriors to the battle, the clanging of the weapons, and the groans and moans of the dead. It was truly more than a reading experience.

The narrator of the tale, while taking us through the present events, also fills in the gaps of the past and makes predictions for the future. This method of recounting the story gives a complete picture of the tale, although in the strictest sense the poem only describes a few weeks of the final year of the Trojan War. The writing is quite descriptive. Whether it is a battle scene, weapons, the general setting, or characters (both men and God), nothing has escaped Homer's minutest scrutiny. Even the pedigree of each of the characters is described! Although these details are quite overwhelming at times, they nevertheless are helpful to understand the story better.

It is amazing that how this epic poem, which is said to have written in the 7th or 8th centuries BC (or BCE), has fascinated and keeps on fascinating generations of readers. That in itself is proof of the true mastery of its author. When all things are considered, it is a little wonder that Homer is regarded as the pioneer of the Western Classic.

A word must be said about the translation. Personally, I think it is one of the best. As the translator himself has said, the essence of a translation is to capture the true spirit of the work which he translates without being too much burdened with the strict accuracy of the meaning. When compared with the first translation I've read and my respective response with my present perception, I quite see the wisdom of Pope. It is the spirit that matters.