Opinions on Hammond's translation? My favourite Iliad translation of Homer is Ev. Rieu's, but ever since his son revised it with awful notes that protrude into the text, *that summarises what you have just read* I cannot stand it. It also has summaries at the start of the chapter of what happens within said chapter, which I also don't like but I can just ignore them. The notes are way more intrusive.

Strangely enough though, they didn't do this for his Odyssey. His Iliad was perfect -and they ruined it.

Now the main (prose) option is Hammond's, but I find his prose to feel a bit dull and flat compared to Rieu's, but it's supposedly more faithful. What does /lit/ think of it?

hammond you blithering idiot

>>24495116 (OP)
Do you really reread the same book written by different people?