There Is Good and Evil. Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ Isn’t Afraid to Say So. ⁠94%

By Spencer Klavan⁠100%

7/17/2026, 12:20:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Halo Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 705 faulty-reasoning hits from 161 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 90.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,328 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.90% of the article peer group.

The best parts of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey are the parts in which he simply tells the story of Homer’s original poem. 
This may seem like a low bar. 
It’s not. 
Over the years, it has proven oddly difficult for contemporary filmmakers to adapt this thrilling epic without distorting it, emptying it of its charm, or offering a modern “take.” 
The legend of Odysseus’s 10-year journey home from the Trojan War is so well-beloved and oft-retold, so unabashedly heroic in its proportions, that modern directors have sometimes seemed embarrassed to give The Odyssey its full due without undercutting it or putting an ironic spin on it. 
Nolan doesn’t do that. 
He takes plenty of departures from the source material, but he stays pretty true to its overarching structure and spirit. 
To his great credit, his blockbuster film adaptation—released in theaters worldwide on Friday—largely lets Homer be Homer. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.1%Spencer Klavan: 23.6%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Spencer Klavan: 6.0%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic18.0%This article: 28.6%Spencer Klavan: 9.5%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic28.6%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Spencer Klavan: 0.4%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias1.2%This article: 3.1%Spencer Klavan: 2.1%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Spencer Klavan: 1.4%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 57.1%Spencer Klavan: 25.1%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias57.1%This article: 2.5%Spencer Klavan: 0.8%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias2.5%This article: 28.6%Spencer Klavan: 19.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error28.6%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 9.5%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 6.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 36.6%Spencer Klavan: 20.3%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect36.6%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.6%Spencer Klavan: 3.5%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias10.6%This article: 4.3%Spencer Klavan: 1.4%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.6%Spencer Klavan: 1.9%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 18.0%Spencer Klavan: 7.0%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma18.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 49.1%Spencer Klavan: 37.9%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization49.1%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.6%Spencer Klavan: 3.5%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion10.6%This article: 1.2%Spencer Klavan: 0.4%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question1.2%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 13.7%Spencer Klavan: 4.6%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature13.7%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 28.6%Spencer Klavan: 9.5%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)28.6%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%Spencer Klavan: 63.4%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Spencer Klavan: 0.0%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

161 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker20%attributed speech128writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Nolan • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Nolan • 4 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Nolan • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Christopher Nolan

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+0.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Christopher Nolan: 100.0%100.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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