<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Don't believe the hype
Review: Although this version has some interesting imagery (mostly from the modern poet's mind,) the shallowness of the adaptation and orientation on poetry (as opposed to drama,) made it completely ineffective. (I have to say, I have a similarly low opinion of the Seamus Heaney's Philocetes (Cure at Troy,) which won the Nobel prize for a message put far more eloquently and to a
far broader audience in Star Trek II & III.)Fagles on the other hand, aside from bringing a clear, no-nonsense poetic style that affords ultimate readability, has the crucial scholar's depth of understanding that makes these plays breath with life and meaning. If you really want the effect of these important plays, don't waste your time on this and get the Fagles. ONLY get this version if your desire is to read Ted. (Sorry Ted!) Recommended Further Reading: "Orestes" by Charles L. Mee (available in his "History Plays".)
Rating: 
Summary: The Good and the Bad of Translations...
Review: Let's get one thing straight: Hughes' translation is not a literal one of the Oresteia. He takes many liberties - although not as many as he's been berated for - and, in some ways, remakes Aeschylus in the image of Ted Hughes. BUT - his poetry is beautiful without being cumbersome and he clarifies some of the issues that get lost in some other, more literal translations. For example, compare this passage in Hughes with the same passage in Fagles' translation: "This was life. The luckiest hours/ Like scribbles in chalk/ On a slate in a classroom. We stare/ And try to understand them. Then luck turns its back - And everything's wiped out. Joy was not less pathetic/ Than the worst grief." That's Hughes. Here's the same speech (the speech Cassandra makes just before she goes to her death in the Agamemnon): "Oh men, your destiny. When all is well a shadow can overturn it. When trouble comes a stroke of the wet sponge, and the picture's blotted out. And that, I think that breaks the heart." (line 1350) So you can see the difference - the Hughes translation is very Hughes-esque and the Fagles attempts to stay closer with the original. There's something to be said for both views. I reccomend getting a literal translation (Lattimore is probably the best, Fagles is good too) and then reading Hughes and seing what he does with the plays. He puts a very interesting spin on some passages - and his poetry really can't be beat. If you're a Hughes fan, be sure to pick this up.
Rating:
Summary: The Good and the Bad of Translations...
Review: Let's get one thing straight: Hughes' translation is not a literal one of the Oresteia. He takes many liberties - although not as many as he's been berated for - and, in some ways, remakes Aeschylus in the image of Ted Hughes. BUT - his poetry is beautiful without being cumbersome and he clarifies some of the issues that get lost in some other, more literal translations. For example, compare this passage in Hughes with the same passage in Fagles' translation: "This was life. The luckiest hours/ Like scribbles in chalk/ On a slate in a classroom. We stare/ And try to understand them. Then luck turns its back - And everything's wiped out. Joy was not less pathetic/ Than the worst grief." That's Hughes. Here's the same speech (the speech Cassandra makes just before she goes to her death in the Agamemnon): "Oh men, your destiny. When all is well a shadow can overturn it. When trouble comes a stroke of the wet sponge, and the picture's blotted out. And that, I think that breaks the heart." (line 1350) So you can see the difference - the Hughes translation is very Hughes-esque and the Fagles attempts to stay closer with the original. There's something to be said for both views. I reccomend getting a literal translation (Lattimore is probably the best, Fagles is good too) and then reading Hughes and seing what he does with the plays. He puts a very interesting spin on some passages - and his poetry really can't be beat. If you're a Hughes fan, be sure to pick this up.
Rating:
Summary: An Interpretation, Not a Translation
Review: No, the translation is not literal. If you want a literal translation, buy something written by a professor of Greek. Hughes has a different goal. He¡¦s a poet who wants to interpret this ancient literature into an idiom that modern audiences can understand and appreciate. I wouldn¡¦t even call this a translation. Let¡¦s call it an interpretation and skip over the problem of accuracy. That being said, his interpretation is extremely good. The free verse is both powerful and extremely readable. By putting these stories into a more familiar medium, Hughes recaptures the horror of these plays. By modern standards, the latter plays (Choephori and Eumenides) aren¡¦t very dramatic. The main point is to watch the cycle of revenge play out to a conclusion. But the first play in the trilogy (Agamemnon) is close enough to modern taste to have a huge impact. I was very moved.
Rating:
Summary: An Interpretation, Not a Translation
Review: No, the translation is not literal. If you want a literal translation, buy something written by a professor of Greek. Hughes has a different goal. He¡¦s a poet who wants to interpret this ancient literature into an idiom that modern audiences can understand and appreciate. I wouldn¡¦t even call this a translation. Let¡¦s call it an interpretation and skip over the problem of accuracy. That being said, his interpretation is extremely good. The free verse is both powerful and extremely readable. By putting these stories into a more familiar medium, Hughes recaptures the horror of these plays. By modern standards, the latter plays (Choephori and Eumenides) aren¡¦t very dramatic. The main point is to watch the cycle of revenge play out to a conclusion. But the first play in the trilogy (Agamemnon) is close enough to modern taste to have a huge impact. I was very moved.
<< 1 >>
| 
