Scan barcode
A review by mafiabadgers
Gilgamesh: A New English Version by Unknown
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
First read 12/2024
My point of comparison here is the Benjamin R. Foster translation (second Norton critical edition, which I read in August 2023). The major difference is that Mitchell has taken liberties with the text, removing or altering points that contradict each other, dividing the story in a way that only mostly corresponds to the tablets, and at points omitting whole sections that are deemed to be repetitive or not sufficiently interesting. The result is something with much more flow, but without the lacunae and the repetition of Foster, the shape of the narrative has become more conventional. I loved the feeling that came with Foster's translation, the possibilities lurking in the gaps, the repeated lines that you'd never, ever see in a modern work. It gave it an alien feel that pairs wonderfully with this four-and-a-half thousand year old culture. Much of what makes the epic so compelling to me is this combination of achingly familiar emotions paired with a wildly different view of the world, so I'm a little sorry to see it in this form. I'm tempted to say it's best for first-time readers, but I managed just fine with Foster; I suppose it depends on how determined those readers are.
This approach informs Mitchell's omissions. He leaves out, for example, Enkidu's speech to a door at the start of tablet VIII, on the grounds that it is "long" and "rather silly": this is clearly the act of a moron. Everyone wants to read about him ranting at that door. He also removes tablet XII, which is understandable, but he should have tacked it on as an appendix.
I do feel in some ways I'm doing Mitchell a disservice by constantly comparing him to the best of Foster, but there really are times when he simply doesn't compete. "When Shamhat had finished speaking, Enkidu turned to her, and again they made love" is not nearly so good as "Even while he was having his dreams, Shamhat was telling the dreams of Gilgamesh to Enkidu, as the pair of them were making love together." Given that Mitchell is the one taking liberties and Foster is the scrupulous one, I would have expected it to be the other way around. Why water it down? All the same, Gilgamesh remains an absolutely cracking read, and I concede that it is easier to get into the flow of the story without all those repetitions (though Mitchell does leave a lot of it in book IV, which makes it particularly jarring).
There are quite extensive notes in the back of the book, which I very much appreciate, offering in places either literal translations of the text, or references to other scholars' versions. Likely of more interest to readers is the introduction, which runs to a cracking 64 pages. The focus is almost exclusively on the epic as a piece of fiction: Mitchell talks us through the plot and offers his reading of the characters and their (re)actions. It feels as though he's trying to jump the gun somewhat and tell us how to read his translation, as though his own enthusiasm could be pre-emptively instilled in the reader. Well, he's not entirely wrong. In contrast, Foster's intro gives us more history and notably has some very interesting stuff about the wordplay (which Mitchell ignores completely) and numerology (which Mitchell omits).
Look, it's the epic of Gilgamesh. Of course it's great.
My point of comparison here is the Benjamin R. Foster translation (second Norton critical edition, which I read in August 2023). The major difference is that Mitchell has taken liberties with the text, removing or altering points that contradict each other, dividing the story in a way that only mostly corresponds to the tablets, and at points omitting whole sections that are deemed to be repetitive or not sufficiently interesting. The result is something with much more flow, but without the lacunae and the repetition of Foster, the shape of the narrative has become more conventional. I loved the feeling that came with Foster's translation, the possibilities lurking in the gaps, the repeated lines that you'd never, ever see in a modern work. It gave it an alien feel that pairs wonderfully with this four-and-a-half thousand year old culture. Much of what makes the epic so compelling to me is this combination of achingly familiar emotions paired with a wildly different view of the world, so I'm a little sorry to see it in this form. I'm tempted to say it's best for first-time readers, but I managed just fine with Foster; I suppose it depends on how determined those readers are.
This approach informs Mitchell's omissions. He leaves out, for example, Enkidu's speech to a door at the start of tablet VIII, on the grounds that it is "long" and "rather silly": this is clearly the act of a moron. Everyone wants to read about him ranting at that door. He also removes tablet XII, which is understandable, but he should have tacked it on as an appendix.
I do feel in some ways I'm doing Mitchell a disservice by constantly comparing him to the best of Foster, but there really are times when he simply doesn't compete. "When Shamhat had finished speaking, Enkidu turned to her, and again they made love" is not nearly so good as "Even while he was having his dreams, Shamhat was telling the dreams of Gilgamesh to Enkidu, as the pair of them were making love together." Given that Mitchell is the one taking liberties and Foster is the scrupulous one, I would have expected it to be the other way around. Why water it down? All the same, Gilgamesh remains an absolutely cracking read, and I concede that it is easier to get into the flow of the story without all those repetitions (though Mitchell does leave a lot of it in book IV, which makes it particularly jarring).
There are quite extensive notes in the back of the book, which I very much appreciate, offering in places either literal translations of the text, or references to other scholars' versions. Likely of more interest to readers is the introduction, which runs to a cracking 64 pages. The focus is almost exclusively on the epic as a piece of fiction: Mitchell talks us through the plot and offers his reading of the characters and their (re)actions. It feels as though he's trying to jump the gun somewhat and tell us how to read his translation, as though his own enthusiasm could be pre-emptively instilled in the reader. Well, he's not entirely wrong. In contrast, Foster's intro gives us more history and notably has some very interesting stuff about the wordplay (which Mitchell ignores completely) and numerology (which Mitchell omits).
Look, it's the epic of Gilgamesh. Of course it's great.