Daniel Mendelsohn: The Immortal Appeal of ‘The Odyssey’ ⁠72%

By Daniel Mendelsohn⁠0%

7/10/2026, 7:57:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Primacy Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 38.3% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 1,072 faulty-reasoning hits from 290 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (6,216 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.60% of the article peer group.

“The songs are all we have to remember.” 
With these words, the hero Odysseus brings Christopher Nolan’s new, three-hour-long, star-studded, all-IMAX blockbuster adaptation of Homer’s Odyssey to an end. 
Given its own epic scale, this closing nod to Homer, whose twin epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey —or “songs,” as the ancients called them—are the foundation on which Western literature rests, is all the more touching. 
It’s as if Nolan is saying that, however “epic” his or anyone else’s work may be, and whatever new media or technologies we may deploy to retell those old tales, in the end, we owe it all to Homer and his poems. 
As indeed we do. 
To be sure, the frenzy over Nolan’s new movie—which began at the end of 2023 when he announced the project, and has been mounting steadily ever since, as each tantalizing trailer has been released—owes something to the director’s own popularity. 
(His Dark Knight Batman trilogy alone has earned nearly two and a half billion dollars worldwide.) 
But Nolan’s film is, in fact, the second Odyssey movie to appear in the space of just a few years ( The Return , with Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, came out just weeks after Nolan announced his version). 
And those are just two of nearly 30 new adaptations and translations of the epic, including my own , that have appeared since 2000 alone. 
That, together with the centuries-long list of literary adaptations, from James Joyce’s Ulysses to Derek Walcott’s Afro-Caribbean riff Omeros to Margaret Atwood’s feminist Penelopiad , reminds you that, perhaps more than any other work of antiquity, the story of Odysseus has never stopped speaking to us. 
Why? 
Read more 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.9%Daniel Mendelsohn: 7.9%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 38.3%Daniel Mendelsohn: 13.0%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic38.3%This article: 29.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 7.2%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic29.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.7%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 21.7%Daniel Mendelsohn: 7.2%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect21.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Daniel Mendelsohn: 4.3%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%Daniel Mendelsohn: 11.3%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect25.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 27.2%Daniel Mendelsohn: 10.2%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias27.2%This article: 29.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 7.2%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect29.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.6%Daniel Mendelsohn: 7.9%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority18.6%This article: 14.5%Daniel Mendelsohn: 3.6%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma14.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.4%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.3%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.4%This article: 24.5%Daniel Mendelsohn: 24.6%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization24.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.2%Daniel Mendelsohn: 5.1%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 14.5%Daniel Mendelsohn: 4.0%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question14.5%This article: 13.8%Daniel Mendelsohn: 3.4%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 29.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 7.2%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)29.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.7%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 2.8%Daniel Mendelsohn: 1.4%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 24.5%Daniel Mendelsohn: 18.0%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice24.5%This article: 18.6%Daniel Mendelsohn: 9.0%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination18.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.2%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.7%

290 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.8%attributed speech282writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Daniel Mendelsohn • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daniel Mendelsohn

100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+77.7 ptsWriter: 22.3%Daniel Mendelsohn: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.7 ptsWriter: 0.7%Daniel Mendelsohn: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.