There are a lot of unfair reviews of this book here, in my opinion. It’s one thing not to personally like something, and another entirely to infer that it’s inherently bad. Personally, I think there’s a value in considering the approach the translator takes as an art form, guided by artistic decisions. In this case, Boyd takes as a guiding principle that it would be advantageous for modern readers to not face as many barriers to entry in recognizing some qualities of the text. Take names: the point isn’t to dumb them down, but to place the reader in the same kind of place as the originally intended audience, who would have immediately recognized what the names of characters meant. If someone finds that heavy-handed, it’s an issue to take up with the original Welsh author, because anyone who reads the language well knows that’s exactly the experience of reading the original. The choice Boyd makes (and that personally, I find creative and bold) is to remove that barrier to entry for a modern audience because no such barrier existed when the text was living and thriving. At some point we have to ask ourselves: how enslaved are we to the norms of early, stilted, translations that are leading to a massive decline in reading these works? There’s not just something inherently interesting and daring and bold and useful about encountering the text on its own terms—it’s also necessary for it to live and breathe. Reviews here miss this point entirely, based on taste, not the scholarly merit of the translation or its artistic value. I’m weighing in after having read the whole thing—not a mandatory fourth that was assigned to me. (That comment in and of itself tells me all I need to know about snap judgments.) If you want a reliable translation that invites you to experience the ancient text in a way that’s closer to how it was received by audiences in its own day, this is very much worth the read.