Gilgamesh - Stephen Mitchell

[Melanti]

Has anybody read (or know much about) Stephen Mitchell's version of Gilgamesh?

I could have sworn it was a retelling/adaptation, not a straight translation, but here on Goodreads, it's combined. I tried looking for info elsewhere but everyone's being annoyingly vague, calling it a "new version" without actually explaining whether it's a translation or adaptation.

Since Mitchell's name comes first in many of the editions, it looks like it might have been mistakenly combined, but I hesitate to separate it again without knowing for sure.

(Obviously, there's other issues with Gilgamesh as a whole - such as the default description being for one particular translation, but I figure the Stephen Mitchell editions ought to be straightened out first.)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

The descriptions on both Amazon and WorldCat make it clear it is a translation, not an adaptation.

[Melanti]

They call it a "version" which could mean either.

The tiny bit you can see in "Look Inside" doesn't sound like a translation in comparison to either of the translations I own. If it's a translation, it's a very loose one. Unfortunately, it doesn't let you read the intro, which might answer the question, and I don't own a copy.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Scroll down farther. Both are quite clear that it is a translation.

Also, I am having no trouble accessing the intro on Look Inside, and again, he is talking about word choices of his translation. While he does use the word "adapt", it is in reference to some choices regarding not-100%-literal translation. A translator's choice to use expressions rather than word-for-word translations does not make a work an adaptation in the way we use that term here on Goodreads.

[P]

rivka wrote: "Scroll down farther. Both are quite clear that it is a translation.

Also, I am having no trouble accessing the intro on Look Inside, and again, he is talking about word choices of his translation...."

He is not simply talking about non-literal word choices when he himself called it an adaptation in the introduction. He says: "I have supplemented it with passages from the Sumerian Gilgamesh poems. I have also added lines or short passages to bridge the gaps or to clarify the story." It is not just paraphrasing. Even though the fragmented nature of Gilgamesh means most translations will have to bridge the gap somehow, Mitchell definitely took that further.

I've only seen this discussion after separating Mitchell editions, because Anonymous is very hard to open I did not see the message. I'll revert the change if the decision is still to keep them combined.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

They should be combined.

[P]

Done.