On Translating Homer: Emily Wilson Speaks at Providence College

On September 6, 2019, Providence College invited Emily Wilson, the first woman to translate Homer’s Odyssey into English, to speak on campus about her experience as a translator. She began her talk by telling the story of how she was inspired to study Ancient Greek by participating in an elementary school play adaptation of the Odyssey and also by reading Greek myths as a child. She then went on to take Ancient Greek and Latin classes in high school before studying classics in college. During her education, she read many different English translations of the Odyssey alongside the original Ancient Greek version. When she was approached by a publisher to write her own translation, she looked back upon these others and read them closely, searching for gaps, holes, and words choices with which she disagreed. She then began writing, and during the five years that it took her to complete her work, she kept only the Ancient Greek version by her side and avoided reading any others. 

She also described how there have been more translations of the Odyssey recently than ever before, and she went into detail of the specific line lengths, rhyme scheme, and meter used by many of these writers. Homer used dactylic hexameter—six units of rhythm per line—but most contemporary translations, she said, use free verse. She decided to use iambic pentameter in order to pay homage to the rhythmic, musical quality of the source material. She also stuck to the same exact number of lines as the original work, and this kept her writing concise, avoiding unnecessary flowery language and excessive detail. Homer’s work, she claimed, should be thought of as entertaining and fun and have simple syntax—translators should not need to include footnotes in order for their readers to understand it.

Wilson used the Ship of Theseus paradox as a metaphor for translating ancient texts. If Theseus were to replace every element of his ship over the course of his journey, will he come home in the same ship or a different one? If a translator replaces every single word of a piece of literature with a new one in a different language, is it still the same piece of literature? While she did not answer this question, she made it clear that “staying true” to an original work is a difficult task. I was fascinated by the intricacies she described, including the many different ways a single word or phrase could be translated. For example, many previous translations used the words “house girl” or “servant” where Wilson used “slave.” I thought it was daring of her to do so—it makes a powerful statement to write something so radically different from those who came before you. 

I also enjoyed her points about avoiding frilly, labyrinthine language. I agree with her argument that the Odyssey and other ancient texts can and should be made more accessible and enjoyable for students. We should be able to read these works without having to consult a dictionary every five words. I adored Wilson’s translation—I loved how she was able to combine colloquial language with Homer’s famous epithets and also gorgeous similes and metaphors of her own. Though it was clear upon reading the first line—“Tell me about a complicated man”—that this version of the Odyssey is something special, her talk provided even more insight into the artistry she put into this translation.

My High School Graduation Speech

As I prepare to make the transition from living—and learning—at home to studying at Providence College, I have been reminiscing on all of the incredible opportunities I have been granted over the course of these past ten years. Before I embark on this next step in my personal journey, I would like to share with you all the speech that I wrote and presented at my high school graduation. I was so honored to speak side-by-side with my friends and classmates on that day, basking in the love and support of my family, former teachers, and fellow homeschoolers, and I hope that perhaps my story can inspire others who are struggling to take the reigns of their own (or their children's) educations.

Thank you to everyone who has walked with me every step of the way. Without further ado, here is the speech!

* * * * *

My dad once told me that the most important skill to learn is how to think critically.

I don’t remember how I responded when he said that, but, being a fourteen-year-old, I can imagine that I sighed, didn’t look up from my phone, and rolled my eyes when he turned away. That was all just for show, though, of course, because those words stuck with me and have maintained their position at the forefront of my mind for years now.

Every day, I try to live by that sentiment. Every time I read something, I’ll read it again when I remember what he said. How can I look at this from a different angle? Is anything missing? Does it all add up?

We live in a fast-paced world that unfortunately doesn’t allow for a whole lot of this. For example, if you take out your phone, open Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook, and scroll for a minute, you’re going to see a hundred little tidbits of information. How much of it’s useful? How much of it’s true? How much of it are you even going to remember for longer than a few minutes?

School, in my opinion, is similar to Twitter in a lot of ways. Kids sit in classrooms for six hours a day, and they’re fed all this information in big dumps, then asked to recite it back a couple weeks later, and after that they’ll probably never think about it again. They listen to the same couple of voices over and over again, every day, just like how we choose a small circle of accounts to follow on social media. Sometimes, if they speak out of line, or say something a teacher doesn’t like, they’ll get sent to the principals office—muted, blocked, banned from the platform.

Questioning authority, critical thinking—it’s almost entirely unheard of in our education system. You can’t freeze time in a classroom and spend extra time looking at something from different perspectives when the goal is to cram as much information into your head as possible.

This is, obviously, why I’m so glad my parents pulled me out of school in third grade. Over these past ten years, homeschooling has allowed me to thrive as a critical thinker. I get to spend time taking the classes I’m interested in taking, reading books I’m interested in reading, and writing papers I’m interested in writing. I’ve been given the time and opportunity to explore and research topics that I might not have ever been able to if I had stayed in public or private school. Most importantly, I have been able to be exposed to so many different people with a vast array of worldviews and perspectives—people I never would have met if I were stuck in school all day. 

People from whom I’ve been able to learn include college professors, homeschool parents and teachers who come from all over the area and carry all sorts of different experiences, and both older and younger homeschool students who have served as role models, mentors, friends, and people to whom I can serve as a role model and mentor. Being able to listen to and converse with these different types of people on a daily basis has provided me with knowledge of so many different backgrounds, careers, and points of view. My favorite part of it all is that we don’t always have to agree on everything or share the same ideas—and we can still get along, and we can learn and grow as a result of our interactions with each other.

This, to me, is what critical thinking is all about—looking at a topic or an issue from as many perspectives as you can, listening to others, and starting dialogue. I am so incredibly grateful to my teachers, my peers, and my family for allowing me to experience such a unique, extraordinary, and unforgettable education.

Thank you!

Drop Shipping: The Future of the Online Economy

Episode #724 of the “Planet Money” podcast tells the story of Fred and Natasha Ruckel, a couple who invented the Ripple Rug, a toy for cats, and began selling it on the Amazon Prime marketplace. After their business experienced rapid growth and success, they began to notice that their product was frequently being listed and sold on eBay—for twenty dollars more than the original price. Though Fred sent cease and desist letters to these resellers, nothing came of them because this practice, known as drop-shipping, is not illegal (Smith). Drop-shipping is the rapidly-growing business of seeking out products online, listing them on resale sites such as eBay for a higher price, marketing the products, taking orders from consumers, and shipping them the products directly from the sources (Cheong et al.; “Drop Shipping System”). The podcast also includes an interview with professional drop-shippers Nicki and Parish Witherspoon, who have made millions from their online store. According to Michael Monger, economist at Duke University, drop-shipping is “the most competitive industry the world has ever known” (Smith). Though it is profitable and hugely successful, drop-shipping has raised serious ethical questions and has created issues for manufacturers.

To drop-shippers, the best part of their industry is that there is virtually no risk. They can test consumer reactions to products simply by listing them online, and they will not lose any money even if the products never sell (“4 Reasons”). There is no investment or stock purchasing required—all of the work is in the marketing and customer service (“4 Reasons”). Drop-shipping can also benefit manufacturers, because these middle men advertise their products and help them reach a wider audience (Smith). Some businesses have even decided to partner with drop-shippers, delegating certain tasks to them in order to focus more on other aspects of their companies (“Namaste Signs”). This relationship can be symbiotic—profitable for both the manufacturer and drop-shipper.

Unfortunately, when drop-shipping occurs unbeknownst to a business, it can negatively affect their profits and demand. One major issue is that consumers are often unaware that they are not purchasing directly from the manufacturer; they are deceived and scammed out of a better price. When their package arrives, they may notice that the box has come from Amazon when they have actually ordered from eBay. This can prompt them to search for and find the product on Amazon for the lower price, return the eBay purchase, and re-order from Amazon. The manufacturers are the ones who bear the cost of return, delivery, and other fees, and this type of incident can result in huge losses. Just two months after Fred Ruckel began to notice his product on eBay, he received over two hundred returns—in many cases, returns of already used or damaged products—which cost him over ten thousand dollars (Smith). Many argue that drop-shipping is a scam, since it does not add any value to a product. Former drop-shipper Thomas Despin agrees, saying that he “basically marked up a product anyone could find…[and] called it a business” (Despin). Drop-shippers themselves can face issues with inventory data mismatch and inaccuracies, which can upset customers and ultimately affect public perception of the manufacturer (Cheong et al.). Many drop-shippers also add logos of well-regarded or popular companies to the products they resell in order to artificially add value, out of which brand infringement issues can arise. Mark Bearfoot, Brand Protection Manager at Harley-Davidson, explained that on any one resale site, ten to fifteen different brands could be facing blatant infringement (“Spring Conference”). All of these issues not only impact the manufacturers, but the drop-shippers, too, resulting in a scenario in which both sides lose profits.

“The internet,” the podcast hosts argued, “was supposed to get riddle of the middle man” (Smith). However, online resale platforms have only increased the popularity of arbitrage. How is it successful—why are consumers purchasing products for a much higher price than they need to, especially when the information is readily available with a quick Google search? Economists have always based theories and hypotheses on the idea that humans are rational and frugal, never willing to spend more money than absolutely necessary. Consumers can be flawed, however, and choose convenience over lower prices. If something appears in an advertisement on their Facebook homepage, they may choose to purchase it without researching other options. Drop-shipping has taken advantage of this fact, and it has the potential to take over our future economy.

* * * * *

Works Cited:

“#724: Cat Scam.” Planet Money. NPR, 13 Mar. 2019.

“4 Reasons to Consider Using Drop-Shipping for Your E-Commerce Store.” Bizcommunity.com,12 Sept. 2018. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/ doc/A553962498/ITOF? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=ITOF&xid=1bdfc303.

Cheong, Taesu, et al. “Effect of Inventory Information Discrepancy in a Drop-Shipping Supply Chain.” Decision Sciences, vol. 46, no. 1, Decision Sciences Institute, 26 Feb. 2015.

Despin, Thomas. “11 Months and $750k Later, I Closed My Drop Shipping Business. Here’s Why.” Tech In Asia, Tech In Asia, 12 Oct. 2017. https://www.techinasia.com/talk/11-
months-750k-closed-drop-shipping-business.

“‘Drop Shipping System System’ in Patent Application Approval Process (USPTO
20190057349).” Politics & Government Week, 14 Mar. 2019, p. 1682. Academic OneFile,http://link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A577827347/AONE? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=AONE&xid=e95fc1b3.

“Namaste Signs Exclusive Drop-Shipping Agreement with Ample Organics Enabling Ample’s Licensed Producer Customers to Sell Vaporizers and Accessories.” Plus Company Updates, 11 May 2018. General OneFile, http:// link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A538212167/ITOF? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=ITOF&xid=46c42af0.

“Spring Conference: Drop Shipping.” European Union News, 28 Mar. 2018. General OneFile,http://link.galegroup.com.massasoit.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A532617292/ITOF? u=mlin_s_masscomm&sid=ITOF&xid=1dc25d7c.

Are Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter Publishers or Platforms?

Many social media websites have identified themselves as both “platforms” and “publishers” simultaneously, which has resulted in lawsuits, rule-bending, unfair treatment of their users, and general confusion. These issues could be resolved by requiring social media websites to label themselves as either a “publisher” or a “platform,” not both at once. This distinction is necessary because websites have a history of demonstrating unfair bias when banning users and deleting content alongside a record of unaccountability when it comes to libel, direct calls to violence, and other illegal activity occurring online.

Some social media websites claim to be neutral platforms while also making obviously biased censorship decisions. YouTube, for example, has had an infamous history of restricting and sometimes deleting videos its users upload. Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian, uploaded a video in November 2017 during which he went undercover at an event and filmed himself speaking with others (Crowder). This video was deleted from the website within hours; YouTube claimed it violated their terms of service due to the fact that he videotaped others without their permission (Crowder). However, Vermont, the location of the filming, is a single-party consent state, so YouTube’s terms do not coincide with the law. Since they could not have been held legally liable for anything in the video, there was no reason for YouTube to take it down other than a political agenda. This incident stands out even more sorely when compared with the Logan Paul “suicide forest” scandal. On December 31, 2017, YouTube celebrity Logan Paul uploaded a video to his channel that involved him visiting a Japanese forest and filming a man who had hanged himself on a tree—under the guise of raising suicide awareness (Palladino). An image of the dead body was featured in the thumbnail of the video, which was unrestricted (visible to all users) and sat atop the “trending” page for hours. YouTube itself did not delete the video; the removal in this case was performed by Paul himself after he faced online backlash. Surely Paul’s is a worse offense, so why did YouTube only feel a need to censor in Crowder’s case? If YouTube is to be regarded as a publisher, it must be held responsible and legally liable for all of its content—not just the content with which its higher-ups do not agree. On the other hand, if it wants to yield this responsibility, it must step back and allow free expression from every one of its users.

In a similar instance, on August 7, 2018, YouTube—along with Facebook, Apple, and Spotify—removed all the content of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his company, Infowars, and barred him from further uploading to their websites (Madrigal). Twitter, the only prominent website used by Jones that did not participate in this ban, stated that “the public conversation” is best served when “journalists document, validate, and refute” wild claims and conspiracies—not when media platforms strictly regulate them (Jarvis). However, Twitter has been accused of the censorship of other prominent political commentators, such as the permanent ban of Breitbart reporter Milo Yiannopoulos in 2016 (Moreno).

Facebook has received heavy criticism on this front, and the question of whether it is a publisher or platform has come up in both its congressional hearings and current lawsuits. Sonal Mehta, one of Facebook’s attorneys, claimed that “publisher” is the correct identification, and that it is “a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used” (Breland; Levin). Its other lawyers have also argued that it is “a company that makes editorial decisions…about ‘what not to publish’” (Levin). 

There is nothing inherently wrong with removing content from a website that is a clear violation of the law or its own terms of service—but if the website has the power to remove content, it must take on the responsibility of removing all such content, and when that responsibility is acquired, the website becomes responsible for ensuring that each and every post uploaded by each and every user follows the rules. It becomes a publisher, like Scholastic or The New York Times. The problem lies in the fact that many social media companies believe they can cherry-pick which pieces of the “publisher” outfit they wear and escape liability. In previous court filings, Facebook claimed to be simply a “computer service” that should not be “treated as the publisher” of users’ content (Levin). Eric Goldman, law professor at Santa Clara University, stated that it is “politically expedient [for Facebook] to deflect responsibility for making editorial judgements by claiming to be a platform…But it makes editorial decisions all the time” (Levin). Researchers have uncovered that Facebook “is actively campaigning to promote ‘better speech’ over hate speech in a coordinated international campaign…to combat the rhetoric of the far right,” proving likely that they are trying to push a political agenda while claiming neutrality (Bell). Weeks before the Alex Jones ban, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that his website will allow users to upload any content they wish, “even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive,” as long as they are “not trying to organize harm against someone” (Madrigal). This statement directly contradicts both his company’s attorneys and his own actions against Jones.

One of the reasons these companies believe they can escape repercussions is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a piece of legislation that asserted that online platforms cannot be held responsible for content uploaded by users, even that which is “defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful” (Candeub and Epstein; Levin). Senator Ted Cruz, among others, reasoned in Zuckerberg’s congressional hearing that “in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be ‘neutral public forums,’” and if they choose to censor or delete content, they should be identified as a “publisher or speaker” (Candeub and Epstein). While the legislation did state that social media platforms could remove content they determined to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,” it also clarifies that said content “‘must, at a minimum, involve or be similar’ to obscenity, violence, or harassment” (Candeub and Epstein). Unfortunately, this aspect has been abused and used to “justify censorship” (Candeub and Epstein). Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota law professor, articulated this when she said that these websites are arguing they are “publisher[s] making editorial judgements,” only to later “turn around and claim that they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers” (Levin). Section 230 cannot be used to protect free speech while also being weaponized as a justification for controlling and censoring the speech of social media users.

It is not surprising that Facebook wants to take on a “publisher” role considering that its forums are riddled with propaganda, fake news, and illegal content (Levin). Retaining the label of “platform,” however, has allowed this website and many others to get away with unfair treatment of users. Zuckerberg himself believes that “holocaust deniers, for example, shouldn’t be kicked off the platform” because it’s not “Facebook’s job to moderate their comments,” (Wood) but he has also stated that Facebook “feel[s] responsibility for the content on [its] platform” (Kelly). This blatant hypocrisy cannot be allowed to continue any longer. Social media companies are arguably the “world’s largest distributer[s] of news” and should, therefore, be held to the same standards as CNN or FOX (Kelly). If these websites truly do wish to remain neutral platforms, they will not be “subject to any laws requiring that they monitor illegal activity,” but they must not regulate the content of their users (Kelly). If they are not going to take responsibility for illegal activity, they cannot claim to be responsible for taking down so-called “hate speech” and unfavorable ideas—they cannot take the best of both worlds and ignore the consequences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

Bell, Emily. “Facebook Is Being Taken Somewhere It Never Wanted to Go.” Columbia 

Journalism Review, Columbia Journalism Review, 26 Sept. 2016, www.cjr.org/

tow_center/facebook_zuckerberg_napalm_video_palestine.php.

Breland, Ali. “Facebook Claims It Is ‘Publisher’ In Court Case.” The Hill, Capitol Hill 

Publishing Corp., 3 July 2018, https://thehill.com/policy/technology/395424-facebook-

claims-it-is-a-publisher-in-court-case

Candeub, Adam and Mark Epstein. “Platform, Or Publisher?” City Journal, Manhattan Institute 

for Policy Research, Inc., 7 May 2018, https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-

publisher-15888.html

Crowder, Steven. “Undercover: Transgenders Actively Targeting Children and 

Medicaid!” YouTube, 21 Nov. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJLGZMsCipk.

Jarvis, Jeff. “Platforms Are Not Publishers.” The Atlantic, The Atlantic Monthly Group, 10 Aug. 

2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-messy-democratizing-

beauty-of-the-internet/567194/

Kelly, Mary Louise. “Media Or Tech Company? Facebook’s Profile Is Blurry.” NPR, NPR, 11 

April 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/04/11/601560213/media-or-tech-company-

facebooks-profile-is-blurry

Levin, Sam. “Is Facebook A Publisher? In Public It Says No, But In Court It Says Yes.” The 

Guardian, Guardian News and Media Limited, 3 July 2018, https://

www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-

publisher-lawsuit

Madrigal, Alexis C. “What Does It Mean To Ban Alex Jones?” The Atlantic, The Atlantic 

Monthly Group, 7 Aug. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/

what-does-it-mean-to-ban-alex-jones/566960/

Moreno, Matt. “Breitbart Reporter Milo Yiannopoulos Is Banned From Twitter Forever.” Fox 47 

News, The E.W. Scripps Co., https://www.fox47news.com/newsy/breitbart-reporter-milo-

yiannopoulos-is-banned-from-twitter-forever

Palladino, Valentina. “YouTube Finally Hands Down Punishment To Creator For Posting Dead 

Body Video.” Ars Technica, Condé Nast, 11 Jan. 2018, https://arstechnica.com/gaming/

2018/01/youtube-waits-a-little-too-long-to-punish-logan-paul-for-dead-body-video/

Wood, Molly. “Facebook, It Might Be Time To Face Facts. You’re A Publisher.” Marketplace, 

Minnesota Public Radio, 20 July 2018, https://www.marketplace.org/2018/07/19/tech/

facebook-it-might-be-time-face-facts-youre-publisher