In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

shrug. imo, the truly remarkable thing about shakespeare (for example) is
that it never loses currency (or hasn't so far, anyway). most of his
contemporaries clearly didn't have what he had - they've lost currency. it
happens. not to make excuses, but i've tried & tried to read some stuff (the
iliad, for e.g.) & just find the style so inadequate compared to people who
came later. the bible is another good example - some bits are just tops, &
others so very, very ordinary (all right, let's be frank - badly written,
outlandish and silly) that they just don't pass muster & simply wouldn't be
published in modern, more discerning times.

The two books you're complaining about are translations, and a lot depends on
the skill of the translator. AFAIK most modern translations of the Bible have
not set beauty as an objective, unlike the translators of the KJV. Most set a
great deal of store on accuracy of translation (resulting in an
academically-useful but wooden text) or accuracy of vibe (where a lot of the
'foreign' bits are made less foreign -- my favourite example is a Yank
translation where King Saul "went to the bathroom" in the cave!) No doubt
translators of the Iliad have the same problems.

Me, I love poetry. But it has to be something that *sounds* good. Most hip
new poetry is too hip to last imo.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/