5 comments about Iliad.

1. I liked this version of the Epic but I do still prefer the antiquated versions. I had a hard time imagining Homer using the same kinds of language that Lombardo used. He takes some liberties but if you are reading it for the first time, or if you can't comprehend Shakespeare, then this is a good starting place. If you don't mind older English, then I would recommend an older translation - the language seems more fitting, more poetic.
   
   Aside from the content, the introduction is really long and it summarizes the entire story. Don't bother with it unless you have to. Just read the story and skip it. There is nothing in there that you cannot read in the content of the story. The introduction seems to read as an essay that tells you the plot, what the best parts are supposed to be, and what you should think of them. It is tedious and really serves no purpose unless the book is an assigned reading and you just don't have time to finish it.



2. You would think that The Iliad is about the war against Troy because Paris abducted Helen, wife of Menelaos - one of the greek commanders.
   And yet Homerus begins his epos by asking the Muses to support him - not in telling the Trojan war, as one might expect - but to tell about the quarrel between Agamemnon - the chief in command - and Achilles, one of the Greek commanders. The quarrel is about
   a girl. Her name is Briseis, one of the slaves. Agamemnon took her away from Achilles.
   
   In doing so, Homerus creates a parallel with Menelaos - one of the greek commanders- who lost his wife because Paris took her to Troy.
   
   Instead of a war poem Homerus tells us the coming of age of Achilles.
   
   In the beginning he's like a whining child making a quarrel with Agamemnon over a girl. He refuses to send his troops into the battle. But when things are going bad for the Greeks, some of the warlords go to the tent of Achilles and implore him to participate in the battle.He refuses but agrees that his friend Patroclus leads his troops to battle. ( It's noteworthy that Agamemnon plays second fiddle to Achilles from start to finish.)
   
   When Hector - a Trojan commander - kills Patroclus, Achilles grieves for a long time and he finally understands that in a war there are no victors only losers. He becomes a man with understanding and compassion for the grief of others, even for his enemy. He has come a long way since his childish whining for Briseis.



3. Having just read The Iliad for a Greek Civilization class in the spring of 2009, I owned a copy of the Robert Fagels translation. However, for my Troy and the Trojan War class in the fall of the same year, we had to buy the Stanley Lombardo translation. We also had to read the Introduction by Sheila Murnaghan. The translation is certainly not terrible, but I came to the conclusion that Fagels' was the superior version. The Fagels translation is beautifully poetic and impossible to put down. The Lombardo version takes a timeless, fascinating story and merely takes it down slightly. It is really not a bad translation, but if you want to take the most from The Iliad, get the Robert Fagels version. Also, while I'm sure the Introduction supplemented the reading decently, I thought it was pedantic and pretentious. Overall: By no means the worst you could do, but also not the best.



4. I understand many of the comments of the lowest-rated reviews here: this retelling of the story is much shorter than any of the translations, and does feel self-consciously "contemporary". However, the reviews do not note one extremely important fact of Lombardo's work: it was based on notes the author made when he performed parts of the Iliad in English. I do not consider this to be a TRANSLATION of Homer's Iliad, any more than the marks a musician makes on her sheets, or the notes an actor makes in the margins of a script as he scans the verse.
   
   This project began as a guide to a performer looking to find a rhythm, a language in a text that he could perform to a living audience, to communicate an experience to them. A modern reader, not used to verse or the English of older translations, can read Lombardo's work and get many of the dramatic turning points of the original poem. Homer's Iliad began as a cycle of stories, probably sung by professionals for religious festivals or entertainment. It is very interesting (and personally satisfying) to see someone attempt to solve the problems of performing this ancient poem to a contemporary audience, and that is how this book should be read. It is not a complete rendering of the story into English, in the way that Fitzgerald, Fagles, and Lattimore accomplished.



5. Lomadardo's translation is amazing. I last tackled Homer's Iliad a quarter of a century ago during my undergraduate studies. This time through, I read for my personal pleasure and Homer as translated by this author, did not disappoint. I would highly recommend to all, but especially to the war fighters I have served with in the last 23 years as this work will touch all who have been in the business for a while. The dust jacket: perfect.

5 comments about The Trojan Horse: How the Greeks Won the War (Step-Into-Reading, Step 5).

1. This is about King Spartas and his wife, Helena. Helena runs off with a Trojan man and she falls in love with him. This angers the king so he gathers an army of Greek troops too to go retrieve his wife. The Greeks made a plan to get into the city of troy and take Helena from the Trojans. They built a huge wooden horse and they set it outside the shores of troy. Once it was inside the city, the Greek troops that were hiding inside came out and attacked the city of Troy. They ended up winning the battle and getting the girl back.
   I think this book did a really good job at describing the events that took place in the battle to get Helena back. I think it is a good book for children to read cause it can tell them about the story while keeping their attention. I think a lot of books that are about mythology do not good a good job in that aspect but this one did. I think the author was trying to write a book about the Trojan wars that would really grab a child's attention and this one does.



2. Although it is written in a more no-nonsense, simplistic,and factual style than many other books on the topic, my kids (ages 6-12) were enthralled. They talked about it constantly for many days after.



3. This book was good enough, or at least better than nothing, but considering the excitement of the topic it could have been written in a MUCH more engaging manner. The sentences are short and choppy and the whole narrative is just a bit blah. It didn't even mention that Helen was "the face that launched a thousand ships." How can you tell the story of the Trojan war without mentioning that?
   
   Overall, though, it was a good way to tell the story to my first grader. I'll still keep my eyes open for a more exciting version.



4. I read several 'Trojan War' books while trying to decide which to use for my 7-year-olds. I liked this one the best. It had nice illustrations and the story flowed fairly well. The author cut out A LOT, but I felt it appropriate for this age group. No blood and guts here!
   
   This is not the definitive story of the Iliad. But it works as a gentle introduction for 1st through 3rd graders. Even my 3-year-old listened in. I found them re-enacting the story for days afterward and it was a constant topic at dinner.
   
   The next time around (5th grade) I'll use Rosemary Sutcliff's Black Ships Before Troy and The Wanderings of Odysseus. I think they're fantastic retellings of the story, just a bit much for my little ones right now.



5. This is a very competent introduction to The Iliad and The Aeneid for children (the story really conflates elements of the two epics, e.g., there is no Trojan Horse in the Iliad). The book presents a plausible political back drop for the conflict (that does not appear in either epic but makes sense), as well as Helen's betrothal to Paris, as the catalysts for the conflict. There are battle scenes. The construction of the horse, Sinon's deception, and the ultimate fall of Troy are well dramatized in language easily undertood by children. There are maps to orient the reader to the locations of Greece, Asia Minor, and the Aegean and Black Seas. No, it's not eloquent but it's written in language easily understood by my seven year old boy and even enthralling to my near four year old boy (in combination with the pictures). That's quite an achievement given the relative complexity of the story that's told, I'd say. My boys love it, and nearly have it memorized. They are already enthralled by a seminal element of Western literature and for that I am in debt to this little book.

5 comments about Lord of the Silver Bow (Troy Trilogy, Book 1).

1. One of the main factors I consider when rating a book is that the book is not laborious to read.
   
   It must 'flow' and be easily transformed from text to visual, in order to be viewed in the private cinema of my imagination. If the words clunk along or the dialogue is empty and superficial, the book will no doubt find itself on the firewood pile and I will seek a more thrilling investment for my reading pleasure. After all, one MUST be selective since there are so many books and only a certain amount of days in life to chew threw as many as possible.
   
   Having said that - Gemmell is one of those writes who does more than paint a picture for his readers.
   This man CARVES it out so well he makes it multi-dimensional. It's well written, interesting, funny, adventurous, captivating, and enjoyable.
   
   I loved it and I will definitely be reading more of Gemmell's work.
   This series (all 3 books) was a wonderful introduction to this author and I look forward to many more of his rides in the future.



2. Its a real shame that David Gemmell died so young and we won't be getting any more books from him. This is a retelling of the Troy story, and probably due to this it takes 50 pages or so to get rolling, but once it does you can't put it down. Its convenient that the whole series is published so when you finish part one you can just roll on to part 2 and 3!



3. A interesting re-imagining of the lead-up to the Trojan War, almost a complete alternate universe at points. I wish it had been labeled as such rather than "Historical Fiction" because Gemmell deviated from commonly-held "facts" quite often, sometimes seemingly for its own sake (i.e., Paris' & Helen's physical descriptions.) I eventually came to terms with my initial disappointment, but in the end I didn't find it an absorbing read. It had way more potential than it actually delivered.
   
   The main character is the uninteresting Helikaon, sort of a mash-up between Aeneas & Achilles in valor and temperament. He's a driven man of contradictions, vengeful one moment and spouting mission statements of diversity/gender equity workshops the next. Such sentiments were clunky and phrased with too modern a tone.
   
   Andromache here is a beautiful swan who thinks she's an ugly duck, accomplished in seducing women and handing advanced archery weaponry. She speaks her mind to powerful kings and is a walking anachronism. There was little in her characterization that was surprising once I got a sense of the author's sentiment and aims. For all her powers, mental and physical, she wasn't interesting at all and seemed to be more of a fantasy heroine than anything rooted in the ancient world. Her and Helikaon's immediate attraction had no depth, but simply was a device that yarned the gods into it and seemed to make it a matter of destiny that required no discussion or attention. Things happen, people are. Let's move on to the next scene.
   
   Which seemed to be the problem for most of the book. The characters, with the exception of Odysseus (a fail-proof character), and Laodike and Argurios, were flat and dull. They appeared a lot and even said a lot, but I only saw them as names who spoke words and moved. There was no engaging internal activity, no brain- and soul-digging, no spark that made me care about them.
   
   What "insight" there was consisted of the repetitious -- and eventually boring -- device of flashbacks within scenes whenever a character saw or said something that prompted a memory. It didn't even have to be important for Gemmell to slip into another paragraph or 3 of pluperfect. For example, the Mykene mercenary Argurios polishes his armor for a feast, sees the missing discs on it, and recalls the battle where the damage occurred. There is no new information to be gained by this past perfect trot down memory lane. The reader has already been informed often and at great length by a dozen characters what a great and fearless warrior he is. The only reason we're told is that later he's wounded due to the absence of those discs. Quite important detail, and I think it might have been more memorable, but Gemmell's style is to line up the mechanical pieces and plow through them with pedestrian prose. It's like moving chess pieces with a checkers brain.
   
   I'd say 95% of the book has a style that's simplistic like woah. Only a couple passages with Laodike & Queen Halysia prompted me to re-read them because they were so evocative of their inner turmoil (a rare occurrence elsewhere with other characters). Both women weren't the fantastically gifted warrior priestess/princess that Andromache was, and hence seemed more realistic and accessible.
   
   There are several flagged "Aha!" moments of dual identities revealed where we discover that two different characters are actually one and the same, but after the first (Helikaon's assassin/stalker), the second (the Egyptian fugitive) and the third (Trojan prince traitor) seem like a dull repeat of the same ploy and further plot twists could be seen miles in advance.
   
   In the end, there was too much I found impossible to ignore and "just enjoy it" for what it was - alternate history/fantasy marketed as historical fiction. Gemmell seemed too intent on reinventing some characters for newness's sake, going to the extent of having Paris be stoop-shouldered (!), bookish (!!) and balding (!!!), as well has having Helen be thickset, plain and unremarkable. Come on! If an author is going to reinvent the wheel in terms of Paris and Helen, then utilize them sensibly since so much of the action took place in Troy anyway. By dropping these new images for a brief glimpse but no commitment, it came across as a cheap trick.
   
   After all this, why still 3 stars? Well, Gemmell's Odysseus is very in-character with the new twist of The Odyssey being an anthology of his fireside tales, although having so many parts of The Odyssey referred to in this manner got as repetitive as the pluperfect flashbacks. I enjoyed the meshing of Hector's battle exploits with the Hittite-Egyptian Battle of Kadesh, along with the political and martial relationship between Troy and the Hittite empire. (The utter absence of Hector until the very end (where he rides to the sudden rescue in blah fantasy genre style) was disappointing, however.
   
   Overall, I've read far far better novels about the ancient world, and probably don't have "suitable" appreciation for his style because I'm not that into the fantasy genre, but at least I know what to expect and am prepared to be underwhelmed by the next two books. I've already started Shield of Thunder and guessed immediately that "Piria" is actually Kalliope, Andromache's ex-lover, and The Odyssey tale-dropping has shown up again on a few occasions. So the repetition continues.....



4. This is the first book I've read from David Gemmell, who wrote a lot of fantasy and historical fiction--mostly the latter from what I understand--and the Troy trilogy was his swansong. Lord of the Silver Bow is the first in that trilogy.
   
   Basically Gemmell takes the tale of Homer's Odyssey and makes a smashing good novel out of it. He knows his history very well, and it shows in the quality of the story he tells, what with knowing the background of Greece and the Mediterranean area several thousand years ago. There's probably some making-stuff-uppery in it, and if you have questions about that, ask Porter. He's the history buff. (I'm just buff.) But I digress.
   
   The story starts with Gershom, survivor of a shipwreck, hanging out in the middle of the sea during a storm. Next chapter you meet Agamemnon, the Mykene king; he hears a prophecy from his holy men saying "beware of the horse." Since the black horse is the symbol of the warrior prince Helikaon, Agamemnon puts out a HUGE bounty on him. Next chapter you meet Helikaon, and he's pretty much a pimp. I don't think he wears a shirt more than twice in the whole story, and never when he's kicking someone's ace. Which is often. Like, a lot often.
   
   From there the onslaught of new and wonderful characters never ceases: Argurios, the honor-bound Mykene warrior; Odysseus, the tale-spinning ugly man and friend of Helikaon; Andromache, goddess-princess betrothed the Hektor but in love with Helikaon; Hektor, who's dead; I mean the list goes on and on. Helikaon spends the whole book saving himself while trying to come to terms with the fact that he's falling in love with Andromache--an emotion he never thought he'd feel after seeing his mother dead when he was younger.
   
   Despite it's being 500 pages long, it's a real barn-burner and a great start to a trilogy.



5. "Troy: Lord of the Silver Bow" is a must read, even though it is by no means Gemmell's best, or even the best in his Troy trilogy. I say this as a Gemmell fan. The man introduced me to fantasy. He showed me that it's much more than dragons and wizards and witches and magic. He showed me that fantasy is legitimate literature that can be very entertaining and insightful with his tapestry of characters in the Drenai saga.
   
   So, as great a fantasy writer as Gemmell was, I had my doubts as to whether he could pull off this Troy series and pushed it aside while I went on to other things. I mean, Homer already covered Troy in The Illiad right? What more could you possibly have to add? Especially when your niche is writing about make believe worlds.
   
   I picked up "Silver Bow" in December just for a change of pace, and, started reading. The first third of the book validated everything I believed about Gemmell being a fish out of water in a field other than pure fantasy.
   
   The story started off promising, but quickly bogged down. I got the sense Gemmell was sort of feeling his way through, and didn't really feel that familiar magic when I read a Gemmell book. Still, I kept with it. The characters were interesting. Helikaon, Ox, Odysseus, Argurios kept me going even though I had my doubts.
   
   I'm glad I did. As the story unfolded, I found myself wrapped up in these people's lives, especially once we get off the Xanthos and into Troy itself. That's where the action picked up -- both the swordplay and the court intrigue. Argurios and Laodike, Kassandra, Helikaon, Priam, they were suddenly real. And the climax was unbelievable.
   
   I do think Gemmell could've paced the book better and that it suffered as a result. It's a good tale, and absolutely worth reading, but it is hard to get into at first.

5 comments about Troy: Shield of Thunder.

1. One of the main factors I consider when rating a book is that the book is not laborious to read.
   
   It must 'flow' and be easily transformed from text to visual, in order to be viewed in the private cinema of my imagination. If the words clunk along or the dialogue is empty and superficial, the book will no doubt find itself on the firewood pile and I will seek a more thrilling investment for my reading pleasure. After all, one MUST be selective since there are so many books and only a certain amount of days in life to chew threw as many as possible.
   
   Having said that - Gemmell is one of those writes who does more than paint a picture for his readers.
   This man CARVES it out so well he makes it multi-dimensional.
   
   It's well written, interesting, funny, adventurous, captivating, and enjoyable.
   
   I loved it and I will definitely be reading more of Gemmell's work.
   This series (all 3 books) was a wonderful introduction to this author and I look forward to many more of his rides in the future.



2. The first half of the book is better than the second, as Gemmell does a good job of writing Odysseus while sticking to his canonical attributes. The book takes a downturn, however, in the second half as Gemmell's stable of characters go from dire circumstances to mandatory last-minutes rescues to sudden deaths, all without much emotional involvement. So much of what makes these people tick is told, not shown, in pluperfect flashbacks (as was the case in the first book) and it was a worn-out device by this middle-child entry. The "hidden identity" ploy was used yet again and the true name of "Piria" was easily guessed within the first few pages. There were few surprises in this book.
   
   Considering how Gemmell has toyed with Homer's characters in their physical features, personalities, etc, I wish he had decided to rename them because some are either unrecognizable or ill-served by stupid cliches like the "war wound" and "healing sex." Maybe Gemmell fancied himself an iconoclast, like taking heroic Hector and turning him into a milquetoast man and reluctant warrior beaten down by father & country, but it's too much all in one place. In fact, Gemmell's one-trick pony show is the "clever" switcheroo of taking heroic Hector and making him pathetic, turning the devoted mate Andromache into part of a Fantasy-R-Us prophecy and a fantastic warrior and poisoner, warping Priam into some crazy power-mad lech, Paris into a bookish nobody, Helen into a dumpy hausfrau. The good is made bad, the extraordinary made mundane, the heroic made reluctant. Too cute by half.
   
   Apart from Odysseus, I liked the references to regional politics and warring tribes and how Troy found itself squared against most of them. Unfortunately, Gemmell's inability to make the characters as interesting as their times brings it down.
   
   At any rate, while it was a fast read, it wasn't all that memorable. 3 stars for Odysseus. Otherwise it was a solid 2 overall.



3. One of my favorite types of novels are historical fictions, and I must say that I really enjoyed this series, and in particular, this book. I think this is probably the best book out of the three that comprise the series. Extremely well written, a lot of action, a great plot, love triangles...what can I say, I loved it! I would recommend this book to anyone fascinated in the Trojan War/Greek mythology/civilization. This book gives a very different view into the Trojan War (the idea of Helen of Troy is not beaten to death again in this book), and also provides a cross-cultural link into different civilizations (Ahmose). These novels are more realistic than the common story that most people learn in school.



4. I can't say enough about this series of books. I couldn't recommend any books higher than the Troy series by David Gemmell. Gemmell created characters that I actually cared about, he write in such a way that you can't help but be emotionally attached to his work. Where "Lord of the Silver Bow" was still action packed, it still serves as just a set up for "Shield of Thunder." This is where Gemmell shows off his action packed writing style. It is a thrill of a ride. Many people use the cliche "I couldn't put this book down." But I, quite literally, could not stop reading this series. There is so much going on, and you care about it so much, there really isn't ever a good stopping place! Do yourself a favor and continue this great series, you won't be disappointed!



5. David Gemmell's "Shield of Thunder" is a solid follow up to the author's "Lord of the Silver Bow", but, like it's predecessor has a few flaws that keep it from being 5 star material.
   
   The Good:
   
   Gemmell populates his 2nd Troy title with complex characters that make you want to keep reading. Kalliades, Banokles, the further development of Odysseus, Penelope, Kassandra, Helikaon, I could list the entire cast, to be honest, because Gemmmell is a master of character development.
   
   Another hallmark of Gemmell's writing is his ability to craft gripping action scenes. Without giving anything away, the last few chapters of "Shield of Thunder" are nothing short of spectacular. Gemmell's version of Carpea was also a high point, as were the scenes at Hektor's farm when Kalliope/Piria arrives.
   
   The Bad:
   
   As with the first Troy novel, Gemmell is a bit slow to get into things. Truthfully, the first quarter of the book was tough to get through. Gemmell is at his best when things are moving. IMO, there really wasn't much going on early on. And it's a shame, because if there had been, I'd have given the book five stars without question.
   
   As an example, Gemmell really wasted a lot of space on Odysseus pig Ganny. I love animals, but just felt like those scenes with the pigs could've been left out and the story would've marched on just fine.
   
   The only other fault I have with Shield of Thunder is that Helen and Paris really aren't major characters. In fact, they're barely mentioned at all. And I sort of expected that after being introduced to them in the first book. When you consider that Helen is given as the "cause" of the war between Troy and Mykene, you sort of epect to see a lot more about them -- even if two sides would've gone to war regardless.
   
   All in all though, I'm very happy with this book. Once you get into it, the action really flows, and the characters are truly compelling, which is all I can ask for out of any book.

5 comments about The Children's Homer: The Adventures of Odysseus and the Tale of Troy.

1. Although the language in this book is rather challenging, we still found it accessible and enjoyable. These classic stories can get too "watered-down" in the easier versions, which takes away the richness and depth that has made them classics in the first place. My 12 year old homeschooled son looked at these and Rosemary Sutcliff's Black Ships Before Troy and Wanderings of Odysseus and ultimately chose this one, but the Sutcliff books are a good alternative if the advanced language proves to be too much of a barrier. She has several good classic retellings. Either way, these stories should be a part of every child's education--they're wonderful!



2. This beautifully written book by the famous Irish poet should be read by, or to, every child to give them an introduction to the most important work (Not including Religion) ever composed.The story here told has inspired people of all civilisations for nearly 3,000 years. No person should be allowed reach adulthood without having experienced some aspects of Greek classical civilisation and these action-packed tales of heroism, humanity, weakness, tragedy and joy are a great starting-point. A sampling of the stories of the Iliad, Odyssey and of other Greek myths and heroes can be the start of a lifetime of fascination.



3. I can't imagine a better narrator for The Children's Homer than Robert Whitfield. His voice is so smooth, articulate, and warm. Colum's retelling of Homer is great for kids; this is my 5yo's favorite audiobook. Highly recommended as a stepping stone to more advanced retellings and eventually to Homer himself.



4. Our mom just finished reading The Children's Homer to us. It was interesting. The story is about people and adventures. We liked the part when someone sings a song about Odysseus building the horse. It's the children's homer and we think you should learn more about the journey of Odysseus. You will also learn about Achilles and some of the battles of Troy. We like that Odysseus was most wanting to get home to his family.
   Ages 10, 8, and 7.



5. My second grade son, who is very into all things "Star Wars the Clone Wars" and Legos (like most 8 year olds his age!) is really getting immersed in the tale of Telemachus and his search for information about what happened to his dad Odysseus. The narrative is beautifully written and engaging. It is not too literary for him but also does not over simplify the story. I also apprieciate the illustrations, they are a good intoduction to classical greek line work! I am reading it aloud and it has been a joy to share with him.

5 comments about The Iliad (Penguin Classics).

1. (Before I start, let me presume you know the story).If people want you to read Homer they say things like: he's the father of western literature or: he stood at the cradle of our civilization. They probably are right but let me give you another reason to read the Iliad: the humour of Homer.
   
   I give two examples. When things turn sour for the Greeks and the Trojan soldiers almost destroyed their camp, Nestor - the military advisor for he's to old to fight - calls the young Greek soldiers at his side and tells them how brave and invincible he was when hé was young. You can imagine the Greeks listening politely but impatiently to Nestor's sermon. What Nestor means is that the youth of today is worthless. I've heard this before. What makes you smile is the bragging of Nestor and the fact that apparently the youngsters are worthless since three thousand years.
   
   Later on, when some of the gods reproach Zeus with not helping the Trojans, Zeus answers: 'You know my wife! If she finds out I'm helping Troy she will be mad at me!' If Homer was the father of literature then Zeus was the father of the henpecked husbands. If you are reluctant to read Homer, try to discover
   some other examples of Homer's humour



2. In the introduction it is claimed THE ODYSSEY is romance, THE ILIAD is tragedy. A simple plot yields the points that King Agamemnon, with his brother, Menelaus of Sparta, induced the princes to join forces with him against King Priam of Troy whose son, Paris, has run away with Menelaus's wife, Helen of Argos. The action covers fifty days in a war of ten years. The translator believed THE ODYSSEY and THE ILIAD were composed by a single author for reason of parallels in the construction of the epics and evidence of consistency in characterization. When Achilles is deprived of his concubine by Agamemnon, he asks his mother Thetis to intervene with Zeus to right the wrong. It had been prophesied that in the tenth year the Achaeans would take Troy.
   
   Patroclus came to wear the armor of Achilles when Nestor encouraged him to urge Achilles to re-enter the fray and Achilles refused, but permitted Patroclus to wear his armor. Sarpedon called on Glaucus to go forward, leading the Lycian force. They sought to breach the Aachaean ramparts. In the end, Hector handled it alone, he broke down the gate. Hector and the Trojans were brought up to the Argive ships by Zeus. Poseidon pitied the Achaeans and was enraged with Zeus. Here devised a plan to entice Zeus into her arms and distract him from following the battle waged near the ships. From Aphrodite Here received love and desire. Sleep advised Poseidon of Zeus's state. Zeus awaking recounts the end of the fighting. Patroclus, killing among others Sarpedon, will fall to Hector's spear, and Hector will be killed by Achilles. The spirit of Patroclus sought cremation by Achilles after Achilles killed Hector. Achilles held funeral games. The gods arranged for Priam to go to the ships to ransom Hecor's body from Achilles. Achilles granted an eleven day hiatus from fighting for the funeral of Hector.
   
   A helpful glossary appears at the end of the volune to enable the reader to identify the Greeks and distinguish them from the Trojans and their allies. The brilliant prose translation is colorful and compact.



3. Book was exactly what I ordered, great book good gift.
   
   Only gripe was that they didn't package it well for shipping, and it arrived with a bend corner. Receiver still liked it.



4. I picked up a free copy of this book at a Goodwill type free store. I had heard about this book but never read it--it wasn't required reading at my high school. Even so, I enjoyed it more knowing more about history today than when I was young. Two things make this book interesting, to me at least--one is the courage and fortitude it would take to drive a sword or spear through another human being (face it--it's not like firing a gun); the other is the sincerity they placed in their gods, which was quite comical. Perhaps someday another civilization will laugh at the religions of today as well. Another thought that kept popping into my mind is how could a blind poet keep a story so complex in his head, and equally amazing, how did this story survive down thru the ages. I thought, as incredible as that fact is alone, it's worth reading just on that basis. And I'm glad I did.



5. The Iliad by Homer was written about 1500 years ago. It is the story of a long ago war between the Greeks and the Trojans. Unfortunately a lot of attention has always been given to the heroes and battles, while important details of the story are generally ignored. The reasons for the war and the results still affect societies today. When you strip away all the drama and get down to the bones of the story you'll discover some interesting historical details. Helen was not just another beautiful woman; she was also rich, powerful, and independent. According to the story she was heir to the throne of Sparta. She married Menelaus, brother to the king of nearby Mycenae. Menelaus was king of Sparta ONLY because he was married to Helen. Much of his brother's power was based on his alliances with Sparta. When Helen ran off with Paris, prince of Troy, Menelaus had no real claim to the throne, so he had to get Helen back in order to hold political power over Sparta and his brother had to help him for the same reason. By calling her Helen of Troy, the Trojans were actually saying the queen of Sparta was a princess of Troy and therefore Sparta was now a part of their empire.
   Troy lost the war and the men were killed. The babies were thrown from the walls of the city and the women and children were taken as slaves. It was the descendants of those who escaped that created Rome. The most tantalizing and untold part of the story is what affect did the Trojan slaves have on the cultural development of ancient Greece? When examining the ruins of Troy today it seems obvious that the Trojans had already advanced greatly in architecture and art and I can't help wondering if the Trojans were part of the great flowering of ancient Greece, just as Romans were a part of the flowering of western civilization. Losing that war caused the Trojan cultural ideals and DNA to be sprinkled across the landscape of our ancestors and that may be one of the things Homer was telling us in this ancient tale.

5 comments about Black Ships Before Troy: The Story of 'The Iliad'.

1. A children's book perhaps, but not childish. This introduction to Homer's masterpiece retains much of the grim battle-violence, the female captives, and the complex supernatural interventions found in the original. It's certainly appropriate for children 9 and older, and teens and adults should enjoy it too. I certainly did.
   
   Miss Sutcliff's book retains the epic tone of the original, that Indo-European bronze-age feel that distinguishes it from the Odyssey. She seems sympathetic toward the Trojans, and portrays Hector as the epic's true hero, perhaps, rather than the immature, divine-protected Achilles.
   
   I bought the un-illustrated paperback as a Christmas present for my son, who is enjoying it as a bed-time story. I'm sure the illustrations in other versions are very fine, but the Iliad does not require illustration any more than flowers require gilding, so I am content with my choice. Highly recommended - will expand your child's horizons in a way that the Wimpy Kid books cannot.



2. I checked this out from the library to see if it might be something my young son would enjoy, as he's become very interested in the Trojan War after brief exposure in a history timeline. I became so engrossed in it, I haven't wanted to put it down. Sutcliffe's writing is engaging and Lee's illustrations are beautiful. We'll definitely be purchasing this for our family library and then maybe my son will get a chance to look at it! I plan to buy Sutcliffe and Lee's edition of the Odyssey as well. This isn't just for children; this is definitely a book reader's of all ages can enjoy.



3. 
   
   
   
   Black Ships Before Troy written by Rosemary Sutcliff brings together the ancient epic tale of the Iliad in a language that someone today can understand and enjoy. Sutcliff wrote it in 1993 while in Great Britain.
   
   At the beginning, Prince Paris of Troy takes Helen of Sparta as his wife though she is already married to King Menulas. They run away while King Menulas is out on a hunting trip. When King Menalus discovers that Paris took Helen to Troy, he calls his brother Agamemnon and all the allies of Greece to help him restore his wife. They set sail for Troy. Though Paris showing up to Troy with Helen surprised his parents the King and Queen of Troy, they were not surprised to find that King Menalus was right behind them with a huge fleet of ships. Thus began the Trojan War. There were many battles, in fact each chapter seem to have a battle. The battles were not really because of Helen being taken but over the issue of the dishonor of taking the wife of a King. The coolest battle was between Achilles and Hector. Achilles won the battle but that battle didn't bring an end to the war. The war ended instead by tricking the Trojans with a wooden horse filled with Greek soldiers. The Trojans thought that the Greeks had left the wooden horse as a gift to the Goddess Athena. They took it inside the city walls and celebrated. When they were asleep, the Greeks got out of the horse and opened the city gates so the other soldiers could get in. The Greek soldiers destroyed the city and all that was within and Helen was returned to King Menulas
   
   This book is funny because all these people and city were destroyed over a wanting of a woman. Paris was willing to put his family and his people in jeopardy because he liked Helen. Some of the battles were described so that they were exciting. I recommend this book especially if you are learning about the Trojan War.



4. I enjoyed reading this retelling of the Iliad and I guess my only disappointment was that it recreated an end for the war, which is not included in the Iliad; plus there were a few other episodes that were "debatable." However, for a young reader who is not already familiar with the legends surrounding the Trojan War, this is a good introduction.



5. Retelling the story of the Iliad has to be one of the most daunting challanges any children's author could ever undertake. Not only is it one of the fundamental texts of Western Literature but there are also numerous parent enthusiasts who are really committed to the story. Beware to the reteller who deletes key scenes or who does not give proper weight to an important speech. Fortunately, Rosemary Sutcliff is the perfect children's author to navigate this potential minefield. She spent her long career producing young adult novels set in the Ancient World and Dark Ages. It is the rare parental enthusiast who did not read "Eagle of the Ninth" while growing up. "Black Ships Before Troy" succeeds because Sutcliff has a great understanding of scale. She includes all the key scenes and speeches and does not get bogged down in too much detail. Sutcliff spent a long career geared towards the young adult market and she knows how to shape a story for this age group.
   
   One of the strengths of Sutcliff's retelling is that does not avoid the intense violence which is at the core of the Iliad. All the savagery is there from the murder of the prisoner Dolon to Ajax's slaughter of the sheep. While I am happy that she did not sugarcoat the Iliad, I also had to question myself as to why I was reading this book to a six year old. By far, this is the most violent book I have ever read to my son. I am glad that we read the book but there is hopefully a good trade off. He was exposed to a lot of violence but hopefully I have been able to plant a seed that will one day bloom into an adult's love of Homer and the classics.

5 comments about The Iliad (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition).

1. I have several points to make in this review. The first is to explain why I recommend the Fagles translation over that of Lombardo. The choice of translation is at one and the same time easy, personal and fraught with consequence.
   It is easy because all the translations that I am familiar with (Fitzgerald, Fagles and Lombardo) are excellent and have their own excellencies. It is personal because because I believe it is largely a matter of individual aesthetic. But it is fraught with consequence.
   Let me explain that last part. In Homeric Moments, Eva Braan points out the passage in Book 18 when Achilles first talks to Thetis after hearing that Patrocles has been killed by Hector. Fagles (p. 470, Line 96) translates the line as "I've lost him". Lombardo parses the line as "And I killed him" (Lombardo, p. 357, Line 86). Braan suggests that the alternate to lost should be "destroyed" (Braan, p. 11). This crux epitomizes my loss at not knowing Greek and having to read translations. I lose out on those moments, those flashes of shifting insight that knowing that the word I am reading can imply loss, guilt and transgression all at the same time.
   Knowing that there are trade-offs of insight to win or lose on the choice of a translation, I recommend you read several. Pick a main translation. And at the moments of consequence in the story, consult the others. Lombardo is flat out better at making Book 2(the catalogue of ships) not only readable but purposeful. Homer in that one chapter is giving all the islands, all the kingdoms and cities of Greece a place in the national epic of the country. He is giving everyone in Greece a hero to look back on as their own.
   But in general I find Lombardo to be, for lack of a better term, coarser. And, I think it has a lot to do with his methodology. I read his intro as saying that he works his translation out over the coarse of time by performing it (fair enough since we are reading Homer, the singer of epics). But, as a result of those readings perhaps, his translation has passages that are real clunkers.
   For example, I laughed out loud when I read this:
   "Well let me tell you something. I guarantee
   That if I ever catch you running on at the mouth again
   As you were just now, my name isn't Odysseus..." (Lombardo, p.28, Line 279-281)
   I read those line and what I see is young Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones not Odysseus.
   Compare Fagles:
   "I tell you this, so help me it's the truth:
   If I catch you again, blithering on this way,
   let Odysseus' head be wrenched off his shoulders" (Fagles, p. 108, Line 301-303).
   That line count is also an issue- Lombardo's methodology leads him to leave out words, phrases
   and lines because they are unneccessary to performance. I can't go with that.
   I could go on but I think you see my argument. To sum up: I don't read/speak a bit of Greek. My ear when reading aloud leads me to prefer the Fagles translation but the Lombardo is a valuable adjunct to that reading. Since both translations are also interpretations, to read them both is to probably get a little closer to Homer.
   And, by the way, both contain useful introductions although I think Knox's intro to Fagles' translation is better than Murnaghan's to Lombardo's translation.
   Finally, why should you care? I have hinted at it in my review title and my remark on the catalogue of ships. Homer's poetic style reveals so much more than an epic on force or whatever the critical summation de jour is. He creates a world. Not just a world at war but through his similes a world of crafts, work, weddings, births, murders, kinships, friendships, of gods, of monsters, of countries and of history. Toward the end of the book, the God Hephaestus creates for Achilles a new shield. Homer describes in detail the working on the shield, the two cities, one at war, one at peace and the whole universe that surrounds them. It is the perfect simile for the effect of Homer's poem as a whole.
   The other reason you should read this book is the central conflict between Hector and Achilles. Both men are doomed and know it. Both are aware that the success of their side is dependent on them.
   Achilles is the more god-like but Hector is the better man, the more humane human being. You should care about reading about these two because in their conflict, they are tracing out what is was for the men of ancient Greece to live and to die. And their story continues to carry the weight of the ways that they faced their fate down to our own time.
   Which brings me to my final reason for preferring Fagles over Lombardo. Brando in The Wild Ones was a marvel. There is nothing wrong at all with Brando from The Wild Ones. Brando from On the Waterfront was even better. But Brando is not Hector, he is not Achilles, he is not Odysseus or Diomedes or Great Ajax. To my ears, all too often Lombardo give us Brando. Fagles gives us the Greeks. At least, to my ears and my soul. Try the two of them out and let me know how you feel. And if anyone wants to argue the merits of different translations in the comments, have at me.



2. Amazon has cobbled together every review of every translation of the Iliad in their posession, and the book being reviewed is not even a translation at all, but is in the original greek (one must suppose - they never do come right out and say so, but glancing at the first page such appears to be the case).



3. The Iliad proves that some things don't sour with age. Though more than 2,500 years old the story, its archetypal characters and its poignant depiction of the flings of fortune can still mesmerize the modern attention span with its less than nanosecond tolerance. This long poem floods with violence, glory, agony, victory, sorrow and even wrenching gore. Some battle scenes are outright repulsive. What more could a modern sensibility want? Sex? Well, the Iliad has some of that too, but nothing explicit (Hera's rather amusing seduction of Zeus in Book 14 stands out). All in all, this ancient epic tale reads, for the most part, like a thriller, accessible to the age of video games and YouTube. It's no stuffy pedantic tale wheedling out platitudes, it paints a rather brutal picture of life's travails. The scheming and power hungry Gods of Olympus oversee it all. They cause just as much trouble for each other as for the humans who bow to them (with some exceptions; Aphrodite gets lashed at by a bold mortal). In their world, fickle senseless fate strikes people down with savagery. A tension between free will and determinism also lingers. Do the Gods predestine all? Or do humans act from pure willing? No one knows the answer to such questions even today, but the Iliad showcases how the ancient Greek's framed such dilemmas. And then there's Achilles, the blustering hero of the entire work. For twenty books this seething and legendary mass broods over Agamemnon's taking of his favorite woman, Briseis. This single affront provides the soil for almost intolerable tension. When Achilles finally takes to the battlefield the tension explodes into a furious bloodbath. He even takes on the river Xanthus. As a superhero, he's closer to the all too human Batman than to the inhuman Superman. Achilles sulks (in fact, he sulks more than he fights), he wails, he mourns. Most importantly, he forgives and repents (admittedly with some immortal urging). He's more than your average slashing berserker. He's multidimensional, complex, admirable and sometimes repugnant. He embodies the Achean ethos as well as the moral framework for the entire poem. As with most complex heroes, morality remains somewhat ambiguous. And honor and love of homeland above all rules the day. This rings true for the entire piece. Harsh reality, with some immortal magic mixed in, permeates the ancient, but still very modern, Iliad.
   
   Robert Fagles' facile translation makes for beyond brisk reading. One can stop to appreciate the poetry and meter or simply read it straight through and follow the tumultuous narrative. Neither method will disappoint. Of course other exegetical perspectives exist. Apart from serving up an amazing tale, the Iliad also serves as history, in it being one of the oldest extant tales. Bernard Knox's comprehensive introduction covers some of the debate about the story's historicity. The mystery only adds to the experience. Did Troy exist? Did the Trojan war occur? And were the Iliad's characters real people writ large? What did Helen of Troy, assuming she existed, look like and did she regret her abandonment of Menelaus as she claims throughout the tale? Had this story occurred in our current age of information we would have all of the answers but none of the beguiling mystery that permeates the stories of our distant ancestors. And that mood of mystery, struggle and fate surrounding the story and its wispy author, Homer, help keep the Iliad on numerous reading lists. But what will always keep it coming back are the same thing that keeps all great books in print: a great story with unforgettable characters. The Iliad has both in droves.



4. I read the Robert Fagles edition of the Iliad. I read it after reading the Robert Fitzgerald translation of "The Odyssey". This book is very important. It was Alexander the Great's favorite book. The subject of the book is the Trojan War. The book has various gruesome descriptions of battles. The book ends with the death of Hector. Unfortunately the story behind the fall of Troy is not given. The sequel, "The Odyssey", gives brief references to the Trojan Horse and also references the death of Achilles (Odysseus meets him in the Underworld).
   
   The Iliad is really long and at times gets dull with the endless descriptions of infantrymen killing each other. It is still well written and is essential reading for a knowledge of ancient Greek mythology. The book addresses the sadness behind war.



5. a beautiful translation with a driving pace that pulls the reader forward from beginning to the end of the epic tale.

5 comments about The Iliad of Homer.

1. I re-read the Iliad recently after an abortive attempt at the book many years ago that almost deterred me from ever touching it again. That earlier failure has always nagged at me. Why did I find impossible a book that is one of the canonical works of Western literature? What did I miss that others have admired?
   
   The Iliad has entered our language in many ways. We all have our "Achilles heels." "Trojans" can sneak into our computers and wreak havoc later. Sometimes we go on "odysseys." The beauty of Helen of Troy is widely known. So obviously the Iliad has not been just an esoteric work of interest only to classicists of earlier times.
   
   What follows are my personal views, without the benefit of reading even a part of the vast body of critical analysis of the Iliad. I am simply presenting a few impressions in the hope that other readers might dip into the Iliad to see what it has to offer.
   
   I actually enjoyed much of the book on re-reading it - not so much for the plot and story (which are almost trivially simple), nor for love of the characters (who seem, at least superficially, to be mostly contemptible thugs); but rather for the book's deeper, timeless themes and their echoes down the ages into our own times.
   
   The story and plot had to be simple because the Iliad grew out of an even earlier oral tradition that Homer (and perhaps others) wrote down. Since it was transmitted orally at first, the plot and story had to be formulaic, with repetitions and simplicity to aid memorisation and recitation. Many of the formulaic phrases that are repeated ad nauseum seem to be mnemonic devices in the text for these purposes. The same goes for the poetic metre of the entire work. At least that is how they struck me. Homeric scholars may or may not agree.
   
   The fact that the Iliad was meant to be read aloud in public is part of the difficulty for silent readers of the text who treat it like a novel. Many of us will recall the agony of reading the plays of Shakespeare at school, but may have enjoyed performances of his plays in theatres and on TV. Perhaps that is a useful analogy to reflect upon.
   
   The major characters such as Achilles, Odysseus and Hector are mostly repugnant to modern sensibilities when we first encounter them on the page. They are violent, deceitful, braggarts who often behave like petulant children. Sometimes they are cowardly cheats. They murder foes supplicating them for mercy on the battlefield. Women are simply spoils of battle.
   
   On the other hand they are also brave and noble to an extreme degree. They fight almost hopelessly against fate in the form of the Olympian Gods. They are loyal to their friends to the bitter end. They compete honourably against one another.
   
   In reality they are just like us, but with our human strengths and weaknesses greatly exaggerated. They are complex, imperfect individuals - noble, but with equally great flaws. Perhaps this contradiction makes them so unforgettable. Their exaggerated traits cause us to reflect on timeless themes: bravery in the face of impossible odds, loyalty, endurance, duty. We may not love Achillies or Hektor, but we admire their struggles.
   
   Another difficulty for modern readers of the Iliad lies in the role of the Olympian Gods. In pre-Christian Greek times, this pantheon formed the dominant religious belief. Audiences would have had no difficulty with the idea of Gods interfering in the lives of mortals. In the Iliad they interfere with gusto. They have their favourite heroes on both sides in the Trojan War and bicker among themselves when one God's hero seems to be getting the upper hand over the hero of another God. The mortals know this, yet they battle on in the hope of victory, yet knowing that they may be undone at the last minute by some interfering God.



2. quick and easy service. arrived in perfect shape, overall experience made the purchase worth every penny.



3. When I first read this book, I enjoyed its themes and the overall story, but there were certainly time when I got lost in the sea of names of dying men. It wasn't until after I discussed this book in class that I realized how amazing and profound it really was. Free will, fate, the honor code, the power (or lack of power) of the gods, the various and often conflicting roles of women, and lots of symbolism are all waiting to be discovered inside the world's first written epic poem. You will be surprised how relatable the characters are centuries later. Enjoy!



4. Latimore's translation follows the Greek translation line by line; making this translation closest to what Homer intended. Also, Lattimore comes highly recommended by university professors who love antiquity. In addition, I would recommend Malcom M. Willcock's brilliant "A Companion to the Iliad" who explains the literary allusions found in Lattimore's "The Iliad." Between Lattimore and Wilcock, it took me three months (two to three hours a day) to read the 24 Books of "The Iliad." [Yes, I am a slow reader.] This intense immersion may not be for everyone. But, trust me, the compliment is well-deserved. I now look forward to three months of Lattimore's "Odyssey."



5. The Odyssey was a much better book. Skip this one if you can, you get a good summary of it in the Odyssey, it'll save you some time.

5 comments about The War That Killed Achilles: The True Story of Homer's Iliad and the Trojan War.

1. After Heidegger, no one can approach a Homeric epic with the conceit that our contemporary sensibilities will grasp the words on the page as they were once launched out onto the world stage.
   Such ruminations as Alexander offers on the stage of Homer and his audience are essential guides for our own entry into this other world. The time with such thoughts takes us out of our time and out of reading habits entrained to instant transparency and utility of the word, to a time where the word evoked and launched worlds, just as Helen launched ships.
   That she made this book something for us all, rather than for benighted scholars is an act of great generosity. I for one am grateful.
   If you want to take a moment away and depart to lands and peoples unknown to us, but also to people whose ways we nevertheless both esteem and fear, this book is a worthy companion.



2. It is a wonderfully rich accounting of the Iliad. But it can't decide if it is a popular history or a textbook. The early part of the book is definitely suitable as a history textbook. While it is necessary to set up the mythological and historic references for the Trojan War, it goes into greater detail than is necessary for the average reader and could have been better organized. The later sections move right along with the narrative, and she makes an excellent case for the proposition that war is a pointless exercise contrived by grumpy and self possessed old men to satisfy their egos that are fought by young men who for the most part bear no personal animosity toward the ones they are trying to kill. All in all, it is an excellent read that is diminished by less than ideal organization of the material.



3. If you have even just a passing familiarity with the Iliad, this book is a brilliant exposition of the story, the timeless themes it explores, and the various oral traditions that informed Homer's written version. If you have never read the Iliad, then I can't recommend this book to you. While it can be thought of as "Cliff's Notes" on steroids, without some sense of the original text to anchor you, it really becomes just a dry description of a story that you have never read.



4. Author Alexander's main points in this book seem to be that war is cruel, vicious and senseless, that most of those fighting in one have no personal reason to be fighting, little idea what the war is about and would rather not be risking their lives, that they are often following orders that seem to make no sense, that war leaders may be inept, that many lives (mostly young ones) will be brutally snuffed out and that there are few real winners in war. While certainly worthy of frequent repetition, these are commonplace observations.
   
   In addition, she believes that the "Iliad" is not about the epic glory of war at all but is instead a deeply ironic antiwar work that has been misunderstood for nearly thirty centuries. This is her central idea and is a far from commonplace observation, but it requires evidence and careful argument to establish. Alexander fails to provide these.
   
   Indeed Alexander does not attempt to make a systematic argument in support of her insight. She relies instead on scattered textual passages from the poem and other classical sources to support her point.
   
   Thus, for example, she looks repeatedly to a few passages in which Achilles himself states that he has no personal reason to fight the Trojans and would rather be waging peace at home than war at Troy. Two such passages are referenced more than once: One is Achilles' statement to the effect that he would advise other Greek warriors to sail home and live in peace. The other is a statement from the "Odyssey" in which Achilles' ghost in the underworld tells Odysseus that he (Achilles) would rather be alive as someone's serf than be king of the underworld. Alexander also makes much of what she sees as Achilles' supposed challenge to Agamemnon's status as leader of the Greeks.
   
   To these Alexander adds numerous references to highly realistic, pull-no-punches descriptions of pitiable death in battle, many involving characters who are sympathetic and appealing (Hektor not least among them). She also quotes occasional materials from ancient commentators and poets to the effect that both sides were ruined by the Trojan War.
   
   Such scattered and selective references do not make the case, at least for me, especially since Alexander ignores passages that do not support her. In the first place, the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon is never over policy or even generalship. It is about an insult to Achilles' honor. Moreover, not only does Achilles make no effort whatever to seize power, he does not even try to persuade anyone else to support him in his withdrawal of himself and his Myrmidons from battle. Moreover, he gets his mother to obtain Zeus' promise to let the Trojans press the Greeks nearly to destruction so that his return to battle will be desperately needed and will therefore not only repair his honor but enhance it. Achilles is concerned deeply with glory and honor and has no serious intention of abandoning the war. Nothing could stop him from sailing home, but he never attempts to do it.
   
   Nor do the awful battlefield deaths refute this picture. The Iliad is fully aware of the horrors of war and does not prettify death and destruction in the slightest. Yet only Thersites tries to provoke mutiny and no one makes any serious effort to force the leaders to make peace. Thersites is the character who clearly argues that "glory" is an empty term and that death in this war is senseless and without value. Not only does he attract no support, he seems to be universally despised in the Greek army and is beaten senseless for his pains.
   
   Alexander notes that no one dies well or happily in the Iliad. No one is rewarded for their valor and there is no heaven to receive them. But the Greeks had no heaven to receive anyone. The Greek "afterlife" consisted of a fragment of a human being with no memory and very limited awareness of any kind. No ordinary mortals received any rewards in the afterlife. I suspect that most ancient Greeks (a few philosophers aside) would find the very notion of dying well, let alone happily, inconceivable.
   
   It seems to me that the Iliad, while fully sensible of the horrors of war, is equally at ease with the idea that glory, even undying glory, may be found there.
   
   So while Alexander's favored theory must to my mind be regarded as, at best, not proven, I think the book is worth reading as an excellent introduction to the power and richness of the Iliad. Alexander is knowledgeable not only about the Iliad itself but about the works of lesser poets who wrote epic cycles of the Trojan War. She knows the works of Hesiod, of commentators and of other early Greek writers as well. Alexander writes clearly and engagingly and imparts her knowledge without condescending to less informed readers. Overall this is an informative and entertaining book that offers something to anyone even remotely interested in the Homeric epics.



5. Caroline Alexander has written a wonderful book with a fresh perspective on Homer's Iliad and the issues surrounding military command and the moral obligations of the soldiers actually fighting the war. The only disappointing aspect of this book is that it ends as the Iliad did; before the end of the Trojan war. Fortunately her scholarship does extend beyond the strict epic and does cover the other relevant tales that address teh characters lives before and after the Iliad.