With the recent discourse, on twitter I’ll occasionally see someone say that everyone read the Odyssey in middle/high school. I didn’t though, I only read the Epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Macbeth. How common is reading the Odyssey in middle/high school?

For everyone who has problems with the thematic changes Nolan made for his film, were you all expecting a 1:1 Adaptation? As much as I would have loved to see the Phaeacians, Further interaction between Odysseus and Circe, The Shade of Achilles… etc. these elements being left out shouldn’t be what’s preventing you from enjoying a movie. Many adaptations of texts from antiquity have been made, not in just film. Greek tragedies being interpolated to connect with contemporary issues are written every year. Nolan, adapting the odyssey with his own themes and characteristic choices, is just as valid as the writers of said modern tragic adaptations. Odysseus is a different character, more angsty and guilt ridden, which is not true to how he is represent in Homer. So what. Clearly most people in this sub are extremely attached to the Homeric epics, as am I, but how hard is it to step outside your own bubble and view his narrative for what he is trying to display. Unless you are disagreeing with his themes of anti-war , guilt, repressing memories, that’s an entirely different issue. I personally think Nolan did an exceptional job with this film. No it was not a perfect adaptation of Homers Odyssey. The Character of Odysseus in Homer is one of the most entertaining and stimulating characters to read on, and if another director in the future were to portray him more like Homers, I would be ecstatic. However it is unfair to treat Nolan’s Film as trash simply because he is not providing an exact Copy of Homer, from text to IMAX film.

If you're fascinated by the ancient world, this publication is for you.

On my Substack, you'll find essays on Ancient History, the Hellenistic world, Alexander the Great, inscriptions, papyri, coins, archaeology, and the philosophy of history. Every article is grounded in primary sources and modern scholarship while remaining accessible to anyone curious about the past.

I regularly share original research, historical insights, and overlooked stories that reveal how ancient societies thought, ruled, remembered, and shaped the world we know today.

If you're looking for thoughtful history beyond the textbook, I'd be delighted to have you join the community.

Subscribe and explore the ancient world with me.

An exploration of how Nolan’s Odyssey interacts with historical ideas about the end of the Bronze Age and ancient narratives about the Sack of Troy.

Obviously this question stems from the recent movie. There are a lot of discussions about the movie some in good faith and some not.

But one of the topics that keeps interesting me is the themes of the movie and specifically how they relate to the “original” version of the story.

I’m not asking about a discussion of the movie itself but at the surface level it seems the movie makes changes that adapts the characters and themes to be that more so through a modern western lens.

My question is this: my understanding is that the earliest complete texts of the Odyssey we have are from the Byzantine empire, around the years 800-1000 CE. Modern translations of the story use these and a compilation of other sources in order to craft a modern translations.

When people talk about the “original” version of the story- regarding story beats, character arcs, themes etc. what are they actually referring to? The Byzantine version? Surely there would have been changes to the story, however little, from the time period the story is attributed to- to 2000 years later when the Byzantine complete texts were created.

Do we have any basis for how the story’s interpretation changed over the years? Or do we have a pretty good understanding of what the actual Original Greek version was?

I love Greek mythology and legend and I love retellings. I love Madeline Miller and both her books. I really enjoyed Sweetbitter Song as well about Penelope. I love feminist reworkings of myths. But I absolutely hated The Penelopiad. I am seeing so many people praise this book as a retelling ever since The Odyssey film came out and I truly don’t understand why it’s at the top of so many lists of retellings. It is not remotely feminist at all in its characterization of any female character even with Penelope narrating, and she herself is portrayed in probably the most unlikable version of her I’ve ever seen. The way Helen and Penelope’s maids are treated is so awful and Penelope endorses this! It’s so blatant there’s no way it can even be read as satire. Everyone else I’ve seen talk about this book though seemed to really like it a lot.

There's of course the cop-out answer of "I haven't read all three" (and I believe this will skew the votes), but I'm very curious what draws people to each of the epics. Nostalgia? Language? How much the themes of each poem move you?

There are many proposed routes of the Odyssey that dart all over the Mediterranean without clear reason so I've created this corrected map with textual descriptions and journey times.

Saw an interview of hers on x where she gave this take. I don't see how any fan of the poem can really enjoy Nolan's version of Odysseus. I would describe him as neutered.

I‘ve known about The Odyssey at least since junior high, but truthfully I didn’t know a thing about Homer‘s other work, The Iliad, until I was well into adulthood. I often hear that classicists and literature nerds prefer The Iliad, but it’s The Odyssey that won in the popular conscience. Why is that?

Hello guys

I only have a prose translation of Metamorphoses and I would like to add a verse translation to my collection. Since I have a very minor knowledge in Latin I would like to learn your opinions regarding this translation. Is it any good? Do you find it loyal to the text or very free in its translation?

“Ridicule,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” More than 1,600 years ago, Lucian of Samosata made a career out of it.

In dozens of surviving works, Lucian adapted the Socratic dialogue into a comic form, using conversations among gods, philosophers, tyrants, and ordinary people to expose their contradictions and absurdities. In doing so, he forged a powerful weapon for skepticism: mockery. 

In Zeus Cross-Examined, Lucian exposes Zeus as powerless, naïve, and unjust. More importantly, he reveals the contradiction at the heart of ancient Greek and Roman religion: if Fate governs all events, what purpose can sacrifice and prayer possibly serve?

Zeus could not survive the court of reason and evidence. But other gods have taken his place. Lucian's legacy is to remind us that every god must answer to the tribunal of reason. This article demonstrates the technique of cross-examination Lucian used. 

What the title says. Any help is appreciated.

https://www.sfponline.org/Uploads/372/Aeschyluss%20Agamemnon.pdf

I always thought that the "Clytemnestra did nothing wrong" takes were largely a modern invention and that the ancient Greeks would probably view her more as a villainess. However, in this play it seems to me that she's written to be a somewhat sympathetic character.

She's allowed to make a long speech to justify what she did and even the male Chorus agrees that Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter was a crime, even though they condemn her own actions too. On the other hand, Agamemnon barely speaks at all before he's murdered and he comes across as a douchebag, like he hasn't seen his wife in 10 years and the first thing he does when he sees her is order her around and scold her for using the fancy cloths and foot mats.

Cassandra is also portrayed as sympathetic even though she's a foreigner and a slave and the Chorus members express pity for her.

Aegisthus is portrayed negatively for allowing a woman to do the job instead of killing Agamemnon himself and his general demeanor seems arrogant, threatening to torture and kill the Chorus members before Clytemnestra stops him.

How did the very patriarchal Greeks portray a woman killing her husband with so much nuance? I'm always amazed with how complicated these characters are.

So, Christopher Nolan has completely omitted the Phaeacian episode, including Nausicaa, King Alcinous, Queen Arete, and the Phaeacians as a people. Instead, after Odysseus leaves Calypso, the story moves directly toward his return to Ithaca, bypassing Books 6–8 and the framing device in which Odysseus recounts his adventures at the Phaeacian court.

To me this is a horrible mistake. I had a “pact” with Nolan in my mind, that if he somehow gets Books 6-8 close to Homeric spirit, then I would watch the movie. Now he has no chance. Surely he won’t feel sorry for my decision.

Hey everyone! I went to watch the Odyssey without having read the poem. I wanted to read it before the movie but only managed to read the introduction part and few pages of book one of Emily Wilson's translation, which really helped tbh. After watching the movie, I watched a few videos summarizing the poem and none of them talk Odysseus's guilt for burning Troy and effectively destroying Zeus's Law, bringing about a dark age in Greece. It was a major part of the movie. Odysseus and his men being the sea-faring people who were being rumored about was like a big twist in the movie. I'm curious if that part was added by Nolan since this idea is kind of explored in his other movies like Oppenheimer as well.

Homer I have been reading for years. No problem there. I've read Livy's History of Rome (up until the reign of Numa), at least 20 essays on various topics, Ovid, books on the myths just to brush up, Stoic literature, etc.

What more can possibly be required? Again, this is only a first reading of the epic. I can't see what more is needed, here.

Should I find a Hesiod source, too? Or can I finally pry into my book? The Fitzgerald translation will be the translation I am reading.

Thank you for any help.

Hello all! I am more a of fairy tale retelling reader in general but recently I have been wanting to get more into Greek mythology retellings as well. So if anyone has any recommendations for ones that truly capture the spirit of the myths I would love some!

Not that I'm calling it strictly a work of classical scholarship, which it definitely is not, but I don't think I've ever read anything that so profoundly conveys the feeling of having a close relationship and deep love with mythology. Frankly I will say though I have trouble recalling large parts of it, he seems to move at whim through webs of connections and loose associations, but some of the comparisons/echoes he draws between myths are astoundingly fascinating. He really draws the aching beauty out of myth and created an achingly beautiful book; I'm curious what classicists who have devoted their lives to these works feel about the book? It's surprising how early in Calasso's ouvre it comes as it really has the feel of a retrospective, of one who has spent their lives in a deep commitment and love.

Salve! I’m a philologist specialising in Classical and Celtic studies.

I’m looking for people who would like to do regular online study sessions together. I’m preparing for my Master’s entrance exams and feel like a mess when it comes to organising my studies. The idea is simple: we meet for 1-2 hours, work on our own texts/tasks, occasionally discuss progress and keep each other accountable.

Everyone is welcome: students, self-learners, beginners or advanced learners. I speak Russian and English. Unfortunately, my Latin and Ancient Greek are not yet at a conversational level.

If you are interested, feel free to comment or DM me!

P.S.
I tend to complain about irregular verbs and send memes or random thoughts at 3 AM.

The Hellenistic colonization of Asia Minor is usually told through the stories of kings, battles, and the founding of new cities. Yet behind these political events lay a much deeper transformation that reshaped the lives of millions. Land changed hands, new urban centers emerged, languages shifted, local gods found new identities, and everyday life became a meeting point between Hellenic settlers and indigenous communities.

This essay explores colonization not simply as an act of conquest, but as a long process of cultural negotiation. Drawing on archaeological, epigraphic, and historical evidence, it examines how local societies adapted to the new political order while preserving elements of their own traditions. Rather than a story of one culture replacing another, Hellenistic Asia Minor reveals a far more complex world shaped by interaction, resilience, and continuous transformation.