Has anyone else read this translation?I picked it up because I liked the cover, but

>>7807280
lombardo is shit. OP goofed

It depends on what you're looking for in a translation. If you want something loose and very readable, it's the tops, with Rodney Merrill being on other side of the spectrum of being as faithful as possible to rhythm and literalness. Fagles probably falls in the middle.

File: 1374690823662.jpg (22KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

22KB, 300x300px

>>7807280
> picked it up because I liked the cover

>>7807280
>>7807289
>tfw when this translation is what my textbook uses.
I knew I was reading sub-par work!!!

>>7807280
>translation seems pretty terrible

of course, it's a translation

File: 1410218203000.gif (2MB, 250x249px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

2MB, 250x249px

>>7807280
>that cover

>>7807280

>I picked it up because I liked the cover

Yikes. You are so pleb that it'd be unfair to shit on you.

Homer didn't write in "old-timey" language. He spoke the language of his contemporaries. Translations that seek to imbue the work with some sort of fake "ancient" feel are bullshit. Lombardo is great.

>>7807280
that's a dumb cover

>>7808848
Glad I have read the original then

>>7809173
Yeah, but some of the colloquial phrases he uses just feels so out of place, it takes you out of the story.

>>7808483
>>7808858
>>7808897
>>7809205
I just want to be seen reading it, and people will be like, "wow he is cool"