Statistics! Top 5 Viewed Posts

I've been around on this blog since 2004, which feels like such a long time ago.  I could go through all that was happening in the world at that time (which seems customary), but I just don't have the stamina for it.  After all these years, I don't think I have ever posted any blogger stats - so I'm going to periodically throw a few of them out there.  Instead of giving you a list of a zillion numbers in one go, I figured that I would just take a few minutes and share with you the top five viewed posts.  When I look at them, it's hard for me to justify why these are at the top... with the exception of maybe number five as tons of internet searches occur on greatest book lists (I now have this listed as a tab at the top of the blog).  Anyway, without further ado, here is the list:

1. Book Beginnings - Tortilla Flat [Nov 26, 2010, 8 comments, 1,509 Pageviews]
2. Review: Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe [Apr 24, 2011, 6 comments, 845 Pageviews]
3. Movie Review: Watership Down [Nov 16, 2010, 3 comments, 660 Pageviews]
4. The House of Mirth - Edith Wharton [Sep 12, 2010, 3 comments, 543 Pageviews]
5. 100 Greatest Books Ever Written (Easton Press) [Aug 19, 2010, 3 comments, 527 Pageviews]

Upon some further reflection, it seems logical that American literature would top the list, as many of the people that read the site are from North America.  Other than that, though, I can't quite link all these together.  Perhaps it has something to do with where in the interwebs these links have been posted.  For some reason, Tortilla Flat as a opening line is destroying the next best post by a wide margin, and has tripled the pageviews of the number 5 post.  Of course, the review for Tortilla Flat is nowhere to be found on the list.  And to be quite honest, if I would guess which Steinbeck review would be at the top it would not be that one.

What do you think?  Do you enjoy hearing about random stats?  What is your favourite post?

Review: The Odyssey by Homer

I learned in school the timing of the disintegration of information learned – to put another way, the flaws of memory. It is one reason why I began this blog – there was something tangible that I could go back on when my memory started failing. As such, I tried to write my reviews right after finishing the work or after a brief time while I waited for my thoughts to congeal (this is such an ugly word, but I like it). All that said, this review is occurring more than a month since reading the Iliad and I’m doing so without my notes, so please bear with me.


Now that the disclaimer is completed, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about my translation. Chris at Prose has a nice post on Iliad translations for those interested, and I believe most have translated the Odyssey as well. They seem to be a natural tandem for translators – and I appreciate the continuity. Anyway, I read the Robert Fitzgerald translation from 1974. Again, I can only tell you what I like – and I really enjoyed this translation. Christopher at Prose is a bit of a connoisseur and he prefers the Fagles translation, and everyone I have talked to enjoys this translation best – so if you have yet to buy a copy, I suggest you start there. The Fitzgerald translation was fairly fluid, but not as simple as reading Thomson’s translation of The Oresteia.  It was extremely poetic and had a similar feel to the Iliad translation.

The Odyssey chronicles Odysseus’ 10 year journey home after the 10 year Trojan War. As a child in middle school, I remember reading an excerpt on the Sirens in one of our literature compilations (the only other works there I remember was the Hobbit chapter ‘Riddles in the Dark’ and Lewis Carol’s nonsensical poem ‘Jabberwocky’). Literature was my worst class in grade 7 (93%), which I find very comical now.

Due to this experience with Homer, I expected similar action scenes to the book on the Sirens. Reading the work, the events with interesting mythical creatures were less in magnitude than I thought they would be. As an adult, I appreciated having my earlier misconceptions shattered and learning about the history of certain characters, words and gods. I had no idea that my concept of ‘Cyclops’ was incorrect. I assumed it was the name of a one-eyed creature, when really it refers to the species. The name of the particular Cyclops in The Odyssey was Polyphemus. I also had no idea that Helen somehow goes back to Menelaus, and I’m still unsure exactly how this happened (Parenthetically, Menelaus seems like a much nicer person in Homer’s work than he is made out to be in Hollywood). I had no idea that Agamemnon died at all on his return home by his wife, and this event is further explained in The Oresteia.

While I believe the Iliad’s main function was to chronicle the feelings and mental tribulations (I would argue this is not just rage) of Akhillieus, I can’t tell you exactly what The Odyssey is about from a literary standpoint. What I can say, is that the novel showed just how vengeful the Greeks were. Odysseus’ “heroic” standoff with his wife’s suitors at the end of the novel showed just how strong honor was in those days – ahead of morality. Some suitors were refused sanctuary, women lovers were hung and even one suitor was dismembered. One of my members of bookclub put it very succinctly when he said this about The Odyssey: “It is a reminder that ancient Greek’s enjoyed eroticism, cannibalism, believed in capricious and blood thirsty gods, war, genocide, plundering, and destruction...”

I’ve touched on the role the Gods play in my post on the Iliad, so I won’t rehash it. While most of the members of my bookclub enjoyed “The Odyssey” more due to the fluidity of the prose and the journey aspect of the work, I much preferred “The Iliad”, which was something I was not at all expected. While the latter was a more difficult read, I felt like I could really get inside of Akhilleus’ head, while Odysseus you saw more through actions. He let his men go first into Ceres’ house when they did not want to go, he let his men be devoured by Skylla, he practiced infidelity (not that most Greeks didn’t), he tortured men and his brash actions lead many men to die at the hands of Polyphemus, the Cyclops. All these events seemed in stark contrast to all other accounts of Odysseus, especially in that of The Odyssey. The one thing most people enjoyed about this work is that he was presented with all his flaws and it was left to the reader to form a judgement. I felt this was the case in both works by Homer; a welcome contrast to the portrayal by Hollywood.

I think it’s worth it to read ‘The Odyssey’, as you’ll be better able to sort through fact and fiction and pick up references that you never knew existed before in the world around you. As I have stated, this read was more fluid than The Iliad, so if you feel like you couldn’t give any more Homer a try after that work, hopefully this post will allow you to reconsider. Also, mix it up between poetry and prose as well as translators to find something you can really relate to.

Have you read ‘The Odyssey’? What did you think?

Review: The Oresteia by Aeschylus

I’m a little behind in my reviewing at the moment. I finished ‘The Odyssey’ over a month ago, and due to general busyness I have not made it to reviewing it. In this case, it works out okay because the plays in “The Oresteia” occur between Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey from a chronological standpoint.


Many have not heard of “The Oresteia” by Aeschylus, and I must confess to not having known about the work until two events – a mention of the book by a friend when I encountered the plays at a used bookstore I frequent (resulting in purchase) and the reading of Christopher’s many blog posts on the work at Prose.

For those of you whom have never come across these works and are looking for a quick synopsis without spoilers, this is from Wikipedia:

“The Oresteia is a trilogy of Greek tragedies written by Aeschylus which concerns the end of the curse on the House of Atreus. When originally performed it was accompanied by Proteus, a satyr play that would have been performed following the trilogy; it has not survived. The term "Oresteia" originally probably referred to all four plays, but today is generally used to designate only the surviving trilogy.”

Before I get into the core of the review, I wanted to mention that it’s important to look into information about the translator prior to picking up a book. If you don’t have time or energy to do this and have not come across anything, like myself in this case, pick a publisher you trust. I read a lot of books published by The Folio Society and Everyman’s Library (Knopf), and I have had some really great results. Just because a book is expensive (I have a love for some of the old Franklin Library/Easton Press editions), doesn’t mean the translator is the best one. Since Franklin Library stopped publishing some time in the 80’s, the translations which have been published after this decade won’t be accessible in these editions. I find though, that some of the older translations are more true to the original text, as there is not as much of a tendency to dumb things down for readers who don’t want to read ‘tough’ works. My edition of The Oresteia was translated by George Thomson in 1965.

While I’m still on the subject, I want to say that I have no idea how to compare translations, but I know what I enjoy. This translation was very poetic and I found myself marveling at how beautiful the language was. There were times where I re-read or stopped and actually said ‘wow’, before I continued. The plays had a fluidity that was refreshing, and I didn’t get the feeling that I slogged through the work, as is sometimes custom with ancient Greek works.

Before I continue, I should mention that the titles of each of the plays in my edition are as follows: Agamemnon, Choephoroe, Eumenides. I have seen other editions title the second play as “The Libation Bearers”, which I believe is an English translation of the Greek word “Choēphoroi”.

****SMALL SPOILERS FROM HERE****

The first play, Agamemnon, is based on the time period after the Invasion of Troy, but before the Odyssey of Odysseus. King Agamemnon comes home to fan fare after being away for ten years. His wife, Clytemnestra, welcomes him with open arms but is secretly brooding over the fact that he had some part in their daughter’s (Iphigenia) death. Also, he’s obviously been cheating on her over the course of the war with his concubines. Clytemnestra has been unfaithful too, and she solicits help from her lover Aegisthus in planning the death of Agamemnon.

The second play, Choephoroe, deals with Orestes (Agamemnon’s son) and Elektra (Agamemnon’s daughter) planned revenge on their mother (Clytemnestra) and her lover (Aegisthus) for the murder of their husband. They are the ‘Libation Bearers’. Dictionary.com defines libation as “a pouring out of wine or other liquid in honor of a deity”, so perhaps this deals with the fact that both Clytemnestra and Aegisthus are murdered by wish of Apollo.

The third play, Eumenides, deals with the trial of Orestes for the murder of his mother. Pallas (Athena) is the judge and the jury is made up of deceased Greeks and the Erinyes, deites of vengeance. The Erinyes state that if Orestes is not made to die for his crimes, they will bring down pestilence upon all the Greeks, regardless of the wishes of Zeus. After the trial ends in the favor of Orestes (Apollo has spoken on his behalf and the result of the jury is a tied vote), the Erinyes are set upon vengeance but Athena manages to convince them that violence is not the answer and offers them a position with the Gods. At this point there is a little kumbaya moment, which maybe I’ll post later when I get around to uploading the quotes.

The thing that stood out for me about the writing, other than the beautiful poetic nature, was the way thoughts and actions were described. Aeschylus went to great lengths to explain the history through the dialogue of his characters, and their emotions and motives for why they would be committing heinous acts. Then there would be a fade out, and a new scene would begin with dead bodies everywhere. This is very different from the Shakespearean plays like Hamlet and Macbeth that show you the action scenes. I can’t honestly say which I prefer, but the way the action is glossed over is counter to Homer’s stance – which was to show the audience all the gore directly.

I’m very glad I was able to get around to reading these plays, and I suggest that anyone who is into the ancient Greeks, gives these plays a read. They were extremely poetic (for those of you daunted by the Greeks: short and easy to read too) and filled in one of the gaps between the Trojan war and Odysseus’ journey home. I hope to read the Aenid by Virgil as well, to read firsthand the manufacture and unraveling of the infamous Trojan horse in the city of Troy.